Stop the fear mongering and misinformed commentary on the supposed rise of conservative Islamists in Egypt in the post-revolution atmosphere. This appears to be the main discourse emanating from writers and alleged “experts” on Islam and Egypt in recent weeks. It is disturbing that the Western press continues to “detail” how the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic forces in the country are attempting to usurp the secular revolution in favor of implementing a nationwide, and regional, doctrine of Sharia law. The writing can be summed up as almost outright racism at Arabs. The Washington Post published one of the most blatantly hate-filled articles on March 25, where the writer uses extremely charged language to describe conservative Muslims in an Egyptian town. “But perhaps the most obvious winners are the scowling men in long, black beards. They are the Salafists, Islamic fundamentalists who would like to see the strictest form of Islam applied to the way people live in Dubanah al-Kabirah, all of Egypt and across the Middle East,” wrote Edward Cody. He is right on one point: Salafists do want to implement Sharia law in Egypt and across the country. But, he is wrong in attempting to assert throughout the country that this small segment of society is an “obvious” winner of the revolution. His language is even more astonishing. Can we imagine if a reporter were to talk about conservative minorities in the same manner as Cody is describing Muslims in Egypt? There would be widespread outrage at the use of inherently dangerous word choices. That aside, it is clear that Cody is attempting to tote the editorial line of many in the United States that Islamic conservatism and an Iranian-style government could emerge in Egypt antagonistic towards Washington. These fears miss the reality of the Egyptian public. Although Egypt and its population have become increasingly conservative – during the years leading up to January 25 – the vast majority of the population has no desire to see a rigid interpretation of Islamic law implemented. The passing of the referendum in March is as much proof as is needed. There were no stipulations in the new Constitution that Islamic law was to be the leading decision-maker in the new Egypt. Even still, the country's most powerful political organization the Muslim Brotherhood – an Islamic group that has repeatedly called for democracy and has said it wants to support the people's will – has been targeted by Western commentators as an almost “evil” organization hell bent on establishing a new Islamic order that will not cooperate with Western leaders and its own secular establishment. Ryan Mauro, founder of WorldThreats.com, wrote in FrontPage magazine that the MB was attempting through the referendum vote to silence democracy. He said that “the results of the vote give an edge to the undemocratic and Islamist forces that seek to extinguish the democracy the voters thought they were making.” In the article, he continues to lash out at the MB, citing unsubstantiated claims that the Brotherhood is looking to make a take over of the government. This is just one of the myriad doomsday articles being published to stir fear and worry among Western diplomats and commentators. The reality is much different, one that must be carefully understood before making erroneous claims of an Islamic take over of Egypt. The Brotherhood has a public relations problem, which is continuing these articles misunderstanding of the organization and its political aspirations. It too often references “Zionists” when discussing Israel do little more than create tension in westerners who otherwise may be inclined to agree with the Brotherhood's religious tolerance and abhorrence of extremist the Salafist ideals that many attempt to paint of the group. Egypt will have democracy. Even a Brotherhood victory – which appears unlikely considering many studies and reports have indicated they would likely win only some 25 percent of the vote – would not be the end of the line for freedom and tolerance. The Brotherhood is a hardened supporter of democratic reform in Egypt and has been for many years, when the secular youth that rose and took to the streets in January were politically illiterate. In the end, commentators miss a key aspect of Egyptian political and social life. It is, in fact, the secular community that is most ardently anti-American and anti-Western. They have often praised the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; they have spoken out against American policies in the region and have, on more than one occasion been the leaders in calls to end the peace treaty with Israel and end gas supplies. The Brotherhood, on the other hand, has repeatedly told me that they would like to see a Turkish-style democracy in Egypt that allows for a real, viable political discourse to emerge. Not too bad for a group painted as the new “evil” by Western commentators. BM
