The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The Muslim Brotherhood: should we engage?

Rethinking Islamism V.

By Sholto Byrnes Published 19 December 2010 12:03

Last summer I began a series of posts entitled "Rethinking Islamism". I did this not, as some readers appeared to think, to apologise or even propagandise (!) for political Islam, but because it is a dominant ideology in many countries, and to understand it, and then decide how to engage with it, seemed important to me – not least because at that particular time a great deal of attention was being paid to Turkey, whose AKP government represents either the dangers or the possibilities of an Islamist (or at least Islamist-leaning) party coming to power, depending on your point of view.

One book published in the past few months, but overlooked by most literary sections (apart from that of the Economist), adds significantly to the subject. So what follows is a review of a title I would highly recommend, especially to those who see radical Islam, jihadism, Wahhabism, Salafism and Islamism as one huge monolith and all equally to be feared: The Muslim Brotherhood: the Burden of Tradition by Alison Pargeter (Saqi Books, £20).

As the author states at the beginning, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Ikhwan, "is one of the longest-surviving but also perhaps the most controversial of all Islamist movements to have emerged from the Middle East. The interest and controversy over the Brotherhood spring from the fact that it represents a complete conundrum to many of those trying to fathom it." Is it a social movement? A political party? A transnational organisation? Committed to democracy or to the imposition of an Islamic state?

Has it always been a fomenter of bloodshed, as the former Kuwaiti minister Ahmad al-Rabi is quoted as saying: "The founders of the violent groups were raised on the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who worked with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda went out under [their] mantle." Or is it now a moderate movement with which the west should engage, as an influential 2007 article in Foreign Affairs argued?

The difficulty is that it has been all of the above since Hassan al-Banna formed the MB in 1928. At times, more moderate voices have been in the ascendant, at others more extreme. Frequently in different countries (or even within individual countries), both tendencies have been vocal simultaneously, and the MB has had difficulty reconciling these or disowning members whose views do not help the Brotherhood present itself as progressive.

Ultimately, as Pargeter makes clear throughout her book, the MB cannot do so, because it is constantly in danger of being outflanked by the real jihadists. In order to maintain its popular support and Islamist legitimacy – primarily in Egypt, where it was founded and from where the Murshid, or Supreme Guide, has always come, but also in the Arab Middle East and North Africa, where it is also strong – the MB has to appear to imbue its slogan, "Islam is the solution", with force and fire.

Foremost in this is the problem of the legacy of Sayyid Qutb. It was Qutb, the most famous figure in the MB's history (more so, probably, than al-Banna himself), who developed a new theory of takfir, which allowed Muslims to consider nominally Muslim governments as having apostasised. It is this theory that has since given impetus to a host of extremist and confrontational groups.

In 1969 Qutb's views were rejected by the then Murshid, Hassan al-Hodeibi, in his book Preachers Not Judges. But by then the younger man had already become a martyr figure, having been executed in prison by the Egyptians. As Pargeter notes, the Brotherhood

. . . may reject the concept of fighting against the state and Qutb's more radical ideas, but it seems they cannot relinquish him as a hero. He is considered one of the most important thinkers in the contemporary Islamic movement and as such there is a strong pride in him, all the more poignant because he died for his beliefs.

This taints the MB to this day, as while the likes of al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are scornful of the Brotherhood's moderation, Qutb and his writings are one of the Brothers' main influences and justify, in their eyes, their terrorism. The more consistent view of the MB has been to make a distinction between "resistance" to occupation and "violence". Thus armed action is legitimate when carried out by Hamas, but generally the Brotherhood's line is for peaceful change – sometimes remarkably so.

Pargeter quotes Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke, authors of the Foreign Affairs article mentioned above: "Every Muslim Brotherhood leader with whom we spoke claimed a willingness to follow suit should Hamas – the Palestinian offshoot of the Brotherhood – recognise the Jewish state."

These, at any rate, are not the bogeymen of popular myth. Nor are the Brotherhood's adherents in Europe who, according to Pargeter, are so marginal in Britain and Germany (where their Arab origins leave them vastly outnumbered by Muslim groups of south Asian provenance in the former and Turkish in the latter) that they would make poor shock troups for "Eurabia", were that state envisaged by the conspiracy theorists even their aim.

In fact, the Ikhwan, as presented in Pargeter's book, come across much of the time as divided, uncoordinated, ineffective ditherers, and certainly not sufficiently dangerous to warrant being designated an international terrorist organisation, as was feared in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

Why, then, do the Brothers matter at all? Well, despite their lack of international organisation or overall programmatic coherence, they are the main representatives of moderate political Sunni Islam, and in many if not most parts of the world, the Islamist parties most likely to participate in government take a lead from or are in some way affiliated with them.

Most particularly, if Egypt ever had free and open elections, the MB would almost certainly win.

It is not at all clear what the Muslim Brotherhood meant, when its Cairo HQ declared in 2004 that it was in favour of a "democratic, constitutional, parliamentarian" regime within "the framework of Islamic principles". But when they have worked out what precisely that could be, it should be of very great interest indeed to the wider world.

As Pargeter quotes a US state department official as saying: "The region is going Islam . . . We see this in nearly every country in the Middle East. We either understand it and engage with it or find ourselves completely out of the picture."

Tags: Rethinking Islamism islamism Islam

More from Sholto Byrnes

26 comments

Mon, 2010-12-20 23:47 — mount1

Are we all in it together with the Muslim Brotherhood, or, Tony Blair.

Um, 'Jamie' aren't you missing the point.

Tue, 2010-12-21 03:11 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Oops. On further review of my previous contribution here I'd better make a correction.I hereby add the most important bit in capital letters and copy it here below, for everyones perusal;

"To explain further; even the apparently destitute position of what we Christians view as the Holy family (ie an unmarried mother who nobody could find room for -supported only by a man who may or may not have married her in the end) COULD NOT AND DID NOT put the Magi off their chosen course at that time. Bless them. But there were three of them which may be significant.Perhaps they all helped each other."

I suppose any argument is pragmatic in reality - whether it turns out to be an argument about nothing or not. Anyway, when I've reflected upon the story of the nativity and it's broader context (as in my whole lifetime learning jobby) it seems to me there's a lot of unnecessary fear associated with people who don't fit into the usual boxes or categories. Mary was essentially so low down the usual pecking order of the time - it might have seemed only God could save her- significantly and perhaps to reassure us all the angel told her to call her baby Immanuel ie god is with us - I suppose the idea is God knows where we all are and can save any of us even if we're having problems saving ourselves.(that's a belief thing).

Some Christians and others seem to think it's ok to treat people less favourably because they may not want to be saved or even be part of their particular group. Unable to take the proverbial brush off, I get the feeling over the years of a certain slash and burn effect being erroneously invented by such disappointed people - people who individually and collectively should have the common sense to know better- particularly in policy eg to meet targets.

Some rules and regulations, written or otherwise, on occasion can't seem to cope with the fact God's saving grace and mercy is actually everywhere -especially in this wonderful jungle that is the charity world.Communication is key so that we can avoid unnecessary conflict, I think, and this is why I'm going on about this here;

The story of Mary and the birth of Jesus is essential reading especially from a modern perspective. I'm concerned it's meaning is at risk of becoming fudged by people who ought to know better. In it's raw form the story of the nativity is very useful. To my mind it remains the most ancient and authentic account of what can happen to the glory of God, even in the darkest places.

One wonders if the Islamic people have the equivalent of a "miscellaneous box".

P.S Why is it that I've borrowed a childrens book from my local library which quite wrongly states that Mary and Joseph were married?

Thu, 2010-12-23 00:05 — mount1

Of course s'all good grist to the mill.

Thu, 2010-12-23 00:08 — mount1

Someone's been on Catchword

Sun, 2010-12-19 12:29 — RK (not verified)

@I did this not, as some readers appeared to think, to apologise or even propagandise (!) for political Islam, but because it is a dominant ideology in many countries and to understand it, and then decide how to engage with it,

Short Answer : Confront it. You do not defeat Nazism by engaging with it. No matter how popular or strong it gets. History.

Sun, 2010-12-19 12:42 — MatthewBlott

A few weeks ago Sholto Byrnes posted a rather spiteful piece attacking the Dalai Lama ...
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/dalai-lama-hoping...
I pointed out the hypocrisy that the left tends to give Islam the kid gloves treatment (despite being linked to far more violence than the other major religions, especially Buddhism) and thus we have an example of it here.
You can spot the cultural relativism of Byrnes in the opening paragraph with the even-handedness Turkey’s AKP government gets as it “represents either the dangers or the possibilities of an Islamist (or at least Islamist-leaning) party coming to power, according to your point of view.” According to your point of view? Let’s substitute the AKP party for any number of European far-right parties and see if the same sentence holds sway. No? Of course not, as any leftist would see a fascist party as only representing danger. And this is the case with any Islamist party, including Turkey’s AKP party which didn’t spend too long before its true colours became apparent as it tried to make infidelity a criminal offence. I’m afraid pieces like this have me thinking perhaps Melanie Phillips has a point after all.

Sun, 2010-12-19 14:08 — swatantra nandanwar

Don't. It only encourages them. They are a extremely small minority and need to be taken aside and taken to task by the more sensible Muslim majority. Leave it in their hands, its about time they stood up and be counted.

Sun, 2010-12-19 14:28 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Another John Rentoul Question To Which The Answer Is No.

Sun, 2010-12-19 15:27 — David Vinter (not verified)

All religions are batty, based on magic,delusion, dreams, hearing messages from god, praying instead of working, don't believe in Dawkins, won't explain where god comes from or goes to! Can he travel faster than light?
Most muslim countries can't feed them selves, dislike the west but are happy to travel on western technology aircraft! Just plain nonsense.

Tue, 2010-12-21 14:28 — Rob (not verified)

Sholto, you are a brave man, revisting Islam. It seems that you haven'r leanrt much from previous efforts, so I'll explain why anyone, anyone at all, on the left who thinks engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood or salafists, Wahibists, etc, etc is wrong.

Firstly, we have nothing to learn from a mindset which is stuck in the Dark Ages. Take away oil and the entire Muslim world's economies are utter basket cases. There is not a d=single functioning democracy in any Muslim country. Remind me, what's that statsitc about the number of books being tranlated into Arabic, ever, being less than translated into Spanish every year? The intellectual stagnation, the repression of women (and the two go hand in hand)...

What do we have to engage about? Sharing Best Practice of good government? In answer to one of your questions, yes, we, the West, are better, or at least we have the ability to question, debate and change.

I do not want to compromise my beielf in democracy, secularism, sexual equality or feedom of speech. If the Muslim world wishes to engage with more civilised parts of the world, the onus is on THEM to change, not us. Toodle pip

Sun, 2010-12-19 19:07 — Luddite (not verified)

Please do it. It would be the greatest gift the political-right would never have..

Sun, 2010-12-19 19:25 — historybuff

A publication that is supposed to support legal equality for all citizens of any gender, race or religion should support the right of anyone to marry the person of their choosing, equal divorce and child custody rights, an end to polygamy and the bride price/dowry system. Why does the New Statesman continue to fudge on these rights, and instead pander to readical Islamist groups that promote inequality and discrination based on religion and gender?

Sun, 2010-12-19 21:33 — Julian2

Amazing that such an august organ of the left can be so far behind the debate. Islamism is finished - the left's footsie with Islamism is finished - the debate has happened elsewhere, whilst your back was turned.

The debate happened on CiF, on Harry's Place, on Socialist Unity, on Prospect, on every non-SWP marketplace of ideas EXCEPT this one. Only the Staggers could pretend it wasn't happening.

And you wonder why your circulation is falling. Staggering indeed.

Sholto Byrnes gives the impression of having woken up after a long sleep.

Sun, 2010-12-19 22:24 — Des Demona (not verified)

In answer to your question - we should engage with them only in so far as to try to persuade them that the mythical spoutings of a bunch of beardie weirdies isn't really the way forward as far as running a country or governing a population is concerned. Most of the countries concerned are backwards in education, economies and human rights, and those with oil will be dustbowls in 20 years. We owe it to them bring them into the modern age unshackled by religious fairytales.

Mon, 2010-12-20 00:40 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Well, in keeping with the spirit of the time of course I'd say we should say yes please. Let's face it, even the Magi followed the star and went into the equivalent of no-mans land in order to see the one God tells us in the Bible is to be known as Immanuel or Jesus. Surely any kind of hospitable dialogue - even in a dirty unhygienic stable may count as some kind of engagement - perhaps an open ended one ie no expiry date? One wonders if such spontaneous goodwill showed by all concerned in this important bible story about Jesus might be a model for sensible dialogue in a positively diverse range of so-called modern organisations and occupations, bearing as it may, a capacity for the most wonderfully generous, (albeit largely unwritten) flexibility - which God-willing may treat all stakeholders with equal respect.

What's the difference between a yoke and a mantle, one wonders?

To explain further; even the apparently destitute position of what we Christians view as the Holy family (ie an unmarried mother who nobody could find room for -supported only by a man who may or may not have married her in the end) put the Magi off their chosen course at that time. Bless them. But there were three of them which may be significant.Perhaps they all helped each other.

Anyway, the Christian story of Christs entry into this world may well be worth careful consideration by modern organisations all round,I think - it goes to show to just how much more open and transparent people can occasionally be.

Tue, 2010-12-21 20:38 — josiph (not verified)

This is true because Mubarak had rigged the vote

Tue, 2010-12-21 21:42 — mount1

'Julian' what do you suggest then?

'Rob' You're right misogyny is, at best, the most f*cking stupid f*cking thing ever. But having a moral code is not. And devout Muslims I've met have that more than most, certainly most of the right wingers who spend their time baiting the NS readers. Peace out

Mon, 2010-12-20 15:04 — jingo (not verified)

Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley, have you been on the cooking sherry?

Wed, 2010-12-22 11:22 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Of course we must talk to everyone and we must listen to everyone.

Mon, 2010-12-20 16:10 — Jamie1

Rethinking Islam? Rethinking religion is pointless, because there is no thought permitted in religion, only acceptance of facts handed on a plate and humble acceptance of said facts. To think about religion is to begin to reject it.

Wed, 2010-12-22 11:39 — swatantra nandanwar

As Cliff Richad said in his interview with Fern Briton: Christianity is ok; its Christians we can't stand! or something like that, The same goes for other religions. Antedisestablishmentarianism is the answer. Get rid of all organised religion and make it personal.

Mon, 2010-12-20 21:03 — Des Demona (not verified)

'But who gave women, for instance, the greatest rights in the M East? Secular dictatorships. Who would like to take them away? Democratically elected religious governments.'

You do talk a load of bollocks sometimes Sholto.
Only in your version of events would democratically elected 'religious' governments take away women's rights.
Did Turkey? And you presuppose that religious beirdie weirdies would be voted in.
Don't confuse your own wishful thinking for an Islamic paradise with reality.

Mon, 2010-12-20 21:43 — Julian2

Thanks for the reply, Sholto.

My main point is that you are miles behind the curve,and your attempt now to launch a debate is de trop at best and at least irrelevant. However.

We have already have had the discussion. It has happened behind your back. The point now is, what do we do about islamist and communalist politics in the UK?

We already know what they want. If YOU don't you are blind.

The only debate worth having is about how we as a democratic society dedicated to human rights, free speech, all these kind of freedoms, deal with a culture which denies all of these things, and is winning, and will continue to win, not through debate but via it's vile message that anything but submissive conviction is sin?