The Muslim Brotherhood's Iron Hand In A Velvet Glove: Supporting People's Resistance Against The Military Rule
18 September 2014
By Osman Mirghani
Supporters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
(ISIS) have recently called on the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood on Twitter to restore "rule by the
"sword." A Twitter account under the name of Shabab
Dawlat Al-Islam (Youth of the Islamic State) posted a
photo of the leader of ISIS, the alleged Caliph Abu
Bakr Al-Baghdadi, with the caption: "This is what we
earned from jihad." The tweet also included a picture
of the ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Mursi behind
bars, with the caption: "This is what we earned from
democracy."
The Brotherhood and its supporters will say that
ISIS's remarks do not concern the organization because
it is committed to a peaceful opposition approach
which condemns violence and terror. On the other hand,
the group might argue that its arrival to power in
Egypt was through the ballot box not the "sword," and
that it has fallen victim to a military coup rather
than a popular uprising. The problem is that such
discourse is highly selective and does not reflect the
true picture. The Brotherhood has never been an
innocent victim, and its actions have been largely
responsible for the destruction of the dreams of
Egypt's January 25 revolution.
I wish the Brotherhood—and its offshoots—would commit
itself to true democracy in deeds, not just words. It
should have chosen either to be a political movement
that believed in the peaceful transfer of power, or to
be a religious group, committed to Islamic da'wa (proselytization)
activities, instead of occupying a grey position that
has brought many calamities and horrors to the region
and the group itself. The Brothers were not always
committed to a peaceful approach, as they claim.
Rather, as is well known, in the past they practiced
violence and attempted political assassinations. Even
after they announced their renunciation of violence
during the 1960s in Egypt, some of their supporters
and the radical groups that came out of the
Brotherhood returned to violence later.
Examples of the group's undemocratic approach are too
many to list. Modern history testifies that the
Islamist group only believes in democracy when it
leads to power. Once it achieves its ends through
democracy, it does not commit to the principle of
peaceful transfer of power afterwards. In some
countries, the Brotherhood plotted to undermine
democracy—as in Sudan when "Islamists" led a military
coup that toppled a democratic regime of which they
were part. At the time, the Islamist putschists
received support and aid from the Brotherhood that
claims to believe in democracy.
ISIS may not represent the Brotherhood. But its call
for the supporters of the Islamist group to restore
power come at a time when many question marks are
hanging over whether some of the Brotherhood
supporters are heading towards the use of violence in
their battle for power. The violence and attacks on
police and military bases have been escalating
recently across Egypt. Coinciding with the anniversary
of the clearing of the Rabaa Al-Adawiya sit-in, a
movement threatening to take up arms against the
so-called military rulers of Egypt has emerged.
A few days ago, pro-Brotherhood activists circulated a
video online showing masked figures calling themselves
"Helwan battalions" declaring armed resistance against
the Egyptian police and military. Before the commotion
about the identity of the group died down, another
video appeared showing the so-called People's
Resistance Movement, a group that announced it would
fight against "the military regime with all means
available"—a veiled, if not stated, threat that does
not rule out the military option.
As was expected, the Brotherhood rushed to declare
that it had nothing to do with these groups. At the
same time, it used these groups to say it had managed
to restrain its supporters ever since Mursi was
ousted. However, it said it was beginning to worry
things could get out of its hands now that armed
movements continue to emerge in the light of the
ongoing detention of the group's leadership.
This veiled rhetoric is typical of the Brotherhood and
lies at the heart of its political approach. It used
this method before the outcome of the presidential
elections that brought Mursi to power was announced.
At the time, it urged its supporters to take to public
squares, making clear they would not leave and would
rather die than see Mursi lose the elections. It
played the same tune when anti-Brotherhood protests
escalated.
The recent moves also coincided with the formation of
the so-called Egyptian Revolutionary Council following
a series of meetings in Istanbul. The council is meant
to act as an umbrella under which the Brotherhood can
cooperate with foreign powers to achieve its stated
objective of "supporting people's resistance against
the military rule." As for its veiled objective, it is
only to cause tensions in Egypt. This strategy will
not bring the Brotherhood back to power as the
Islamist group wishes but will isolate it further,
particularly if violence in Egypt escalates. This
raises the question: Has the Brotherhood learned
anything from its experience in which it circumvented
the revolution in order to assume power and maneuvered
in the name of democracy in order to monopolize power?
In fact it lost both power and the Egyptian street. Or
is it still keen to come to power at any costs— even
if the entire country pays the price?
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments