In Focus: In no uncertain terms The Muslim Brotherhood has exposed its true face. It is, writes Galal Nassar, far from pretty Over the past three decades the Arab political scene has fragmented in an unprecedented way. Despots and extremists have vied to engineer one disaster after another. Their actions have brought invaders, along with bloodshed and turmoil. There is another group, too, just as dangerous, who vent grievances in public but offer no solutions. And by shouting louder than any one else they have found a political niche. I refer to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), which has used the weakness of political rivals to insinuate itself at the heart of the political scene. For a while the MB pretended to be willing to compromise. Its apparently moderate figures, such as Essam El-Erian and Abdel-Moneim Abul-Fotouh, preached a more tolerant message that many bought. The MB has no meaningful political programme though El-Erian and Abul-Fotouh argued otherwise. Together with Khayrat El-Shatir, a prominent member of the MB's Guidance Bureau, the so-called moderates wooed the public. They portrayed the group as a victim of state-sponsored injustice and argued that once the Islamic current was free from persecution it would honour democracy and rid the country of injustice and corruption. Their rhetoric has been mired in double talk that addresses none of the urgent issues of the day. On questions such as the status of Copts and the ferryboat Al-Salam, the MB straddled the fence. Once everyone has become a good Muslim, the MB suggests, poverty, corruption and unemployment will simply disappear. The economy will pick up and the country live in peace. All that is necessary to achieve this panacea is to rewrite the constitution, implement Islamic Sharia and change the structure of legislative and executive institutions in a way that conforms to MB ideas. There are those, including intellectuals and some political currents, that have willed themselves into believing such nonsense. Many believed that the MB was no longer committed to the international network of which it has always been part, and that it had abandoned the idea of the caliphate, so integral to its thinking. Then the mask fell. In an interview published in the daily newspaper Rose El-Youssef, MB Supreme Guide Mohamed Mahdi Akef said Egypt could be ruled by a Malaysian or a Pakistani, or a person of any other nationality so long as that person was a Muslim. The Ottoman occupation of Egypt, he argued, was not an occupation in the exact sense of the word. Is there any difference between this and what Al-Qaeda, the Islamic Liberation Army and other extremist groups say? In questioning the nation state, the MB's supreme guide questions the wisdom of living in the modern world. Akef sees no point in democracy or political parties. His reference to the caliphate is not a slip of the tongue, regardless of what MB apologists say: he disputes the right of nations to self-determination just as he disputes the right of every individual to equal treatment irrespective of colour, creed and gender. Akef is clearly incapable of understanding basic political realities in the region and the world. The caliphate is an outdated concept that contravenes with the rights of citizenship, freedom of belief and respect for ethnic and religious minorities. On a more practical note, Islamic countries have repeatedly shown themselves unable to forge a federal union let alone a caliphate. They are too divided and weak. As for annexing land by force, this is something that international law still frowns upon. Like the Zionists Akef sees religion as a political identity, not as an individual choice. The MB and its general guide do not recognise Egypt as a nation, nor do they see Egyptians as a people entitled to the exercise of free will. The MB is the spokesman for the true faith. Akef stated in no uncertain terms that Egypt and Egyptians mean little to him. His only homeland is Islam. As a consequence national unity does not bother him much. Decades ago Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Gawish espoused similar ideas arguing that nationalism makes no sense unless it is based on Islam. The nation ignored him. A Copt, says Akef, has no right to become president. By saying so, he flouted the most basic rule of citizenry, equality before the law. Copts are citizens of this country, with equal rights and responsibilities. We cannot allow political differences to morph into religious battles, in which one sect triumphs over another. This would be a catastrophe, as the recent histories of Lebanon, Sudan and Iraq testify. For years, MB supreme guides have spoken disparagingly of Christians, suggesting they are second-class citizens who should be paying jezya (a poll tax for non-Muslims) to their Muslim rulers. Many young people are attracted to MB ideas without giving them much thought. Many simply swallow these ideas wholesale and view the MB as the custodian of Islamic doctrine. For which reason we must take MB thinking, and the threat it poses to Egypt's future, very seriously. No one can condone what the general guide has said and those who think that the MB could serve as a credible political party must now think again. In power the MB would do unspeakable damage. Akef had no reconciliatory words for "moderate" Islamists. Speaking of the Wasat Party, which claims to be both Islamist and liberal, Akef said it was his own idea. He wanted a political party that would take orders from the MB while seeming to be independent. I call on all intellectuals in this country to denounce Wasat and its chameleon leaders who have tried to delude us while opening channels of communication with the US and its embassy in Egypt. Wasat leaders have gone to Washington on shadowy missions to rally support to their cause. The MB's mode of thinking is diametrically opposed to the rights of citizenry. It is opposed to everything this country stands for. Its general guide has just said so, and in no uncertain terms.
