Travel, unfortunately, seldom broadens the mind, writes Hussein Ahmed Amin* Since it was formed in 1928 the Muslim Brotherhood has made its presence felt on the Egyptian scene though -- certainly until 1952 -- that presence was largely a result of the clamour the group was adept at producing. No member of the Muslim Brotherhood managed to win a parliamentary seat before 1952; indeed, the group's founder and general guide suffered a resounding defeat at the hands of a Wafd candidate. Prior to 1952 the Brotherhood's secret military wing participated in the Palestine war and engaged British troops stationed along the Suez Canal. It also carried out several assassinations, including that of a prime minister, and terrorised opponents, students included, with knives and sticks. Though political parties were banned following the 1952 revolution the Brotherhood was initially left to function as normal. It was only after an attempt on Abdel-Nasser's life by a member of the Brotherhood that relations soured between the revolution and the group. Thousands of suspected Muslim Brothers were detained and tortured, along with communists and other opponents of the regime. They emerged from the experience sufficiently radicalised to challenge subsequent regimes. At random intervals Brotherhood members are arrested. And yet the Brotherhood has dominated the Egyptian street for years now. This popularity is not due to efficacy, to the social services they offer the public, nor to the nation's religiosity, as some claim. The Brotherhood is popular because poverty is widespread, because the government's domestic and foreign policy is in disarray, and because the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) has no credibility in the Egyptian street. NDP members who win elections do so because of patronage ties, not because of party affiliation. The country's opposition parties, meanwhile, are confined to their offices. They cannot hold rallies and are discouraged from undertaking public work. The public does not feel that the opposition is effective or that democracy is a choice on offfer. Under these circumstances only the Brotherhood, and affiliated Islamist groups, remain popular, propagating their views in mosques and on university campuses around the country. The Brotherhood is the NDP's worst nightmare. And yet, if we were to have free elections in this country, independent candidates would probably take the majority of votes. Egyptian electoral behaviour remains hostage to tribal and clan-based patronage-client considerations, especially in the countryside. The Brotherhood may make sweeping gains in some urban centres but it has little chance in the countryside, where most constituencies are dominated by powerful clans. Since its inception the Brotherhood has meticulously avoided issues that the educated elite, the opposition parties and the nation in general expect it to address. One of these concerns the creation of a religion-based party. If we were to have an Islamic party, then we would have to have a Coptic party. This would divide the nation in a way that would only please our enemies. Another issue is the Brotherhood slogan: Islam is the solution. The Brotherhood is forever calling for Islamic sharia to be enforced. The truth is that sharia is already enforced, with the exception of hudud (specific forms of punishment). The Brotherhood and our ulema (religious scholars) must be aware that hudud were suspended in Islam's golden age whenever circumstances called for their suspension. I don't claim to be an expert in sharia and Islamic law, but I would ask if this is a good time to carry out hudud ? Is this a good time to cut off the hand of a thief who may later be proven innocent and who, in all likelihood, will be a petty criminal? Is this a good time to flog and stone fellow human beings? The Brotherhood has to have the courage to discuss this matter from an Islamic legal point of view and make it clear that it is not seeking the enforcement of hudud. The world has changed and Islam allows the suspension of hudud when circumstances change. Will the enforcement of hudud help the country emerge from its economic woes? Will it improve levels of education? Will it promote greater efficiency? Muslim countries have abolished slavery, although Islam allows it, and I am not aware of anyone having ever contested the action. This is because the man-made law accorded with the spirit of religion -- the latter discourages slavery though it does not ban it outright. Brotherhood members often speak up at the People's Assembly against a book no one has read. They want alcohol banned and certain films pulled out of the theatres. And yet we have never heard them calling for social justice, for a clamp-down on corruption, for a specific economic plan, or for better education. Is Egypt's main problem that the people disobey God by drinking alcohol? Everyone knows that a small percentage of Egyptians drink alcohol. And yet this poses neither a national nor a health problem. Illegal drugs, which are banned, constitute a far greater problem. We have introduced heavy penalties, including capital punishment, for drug dealers. And yet the problem persists. Bans and tough sentences have not saved Egypt from drugs. There are several ways to address this problem, and the toughening of penalties is just one. Tourism is an important source of income in this country. A ban on alcohol would affect the income of hundreds of thousands of people who depend on tourism. Other countries have banned alcohol yet alcohol is available in those countries, smuggled or manufactured at home. With such personal matters the best approach is to persuade people to observe religious injunctions and make them more aware of the health matters involved. Penalties have a limited effect. The Brotherhood should come up with an economic programme that addresses Egypt's real problems. Islamic banks operate just like any other bank, the only difference being that operations are given Islamic names. They call interest "profit sharing" but, apart from that, they operate just like regular banks. The Brotherhood has repeatedly renounced violence but many doubt its sincerity in this respect. If it were to turn into a political party the Brotherhood would have to use Islamic ideas in its programme, not just in its name. It would have to allow all Egyptians to join, would have to have a political programme detailing its views on the economy, freedom, women's and minority rights, education, and democracy. The ambiguity in the Brotherhood's programme has to end. It has to spell out its views in detail. Long before religion and politics became dangerously intertwined Egyptians, both Muslims and Copts, held on to their piety and remained sincere to their beliefs. They didn't need politicians to prod them along the way to God. This is how we did things in the past, and this is how we should continue to do them in the future. * The writer is a professor pf obstetrics and gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo university.
