However, it would be wrong to assume that the answer has been uniform or simplistic. Rather, as Graham Fuller (quoted above) correctly reads, it is a complex dynamic phenomenon, responding to the dilemmas and crises of modern world. Islamists are trying to regain equilibrium through the principles of justice and equity for the Muslim world after encountering the painful jolts of colonialism and, recently, globalization.

Mainstream Islamism is a fundamental political reality in the Arab and Muslim world, and wherever relatively free and credible elections have been held, they emerged as the main players. This has been the case since 9/11 in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey and Egypt. This reality should by now be clearly evident to the US administration in the recently carried out elections in Iraq under its occupation, as well as in Palestine under Israeli occupation.

Demonstration by Muslim Brotherhood supporters in Cairo (AP photo)

In the recent Egyptian elections, the banned but popular Muslim Brotherhood – to avoid aggravating the government – confined itself to contest only 144 of the 454 parliamentary seats. It won 88 seats, or 20% of the current parliament, whereas previously it had only 15 seats, and emerged as the largest opposition front. Other opposition members together won 15 seats.

This happened despite the grave inadequacies of the Egyptian election process. The elections were marred by violence such as police tear-gassing, blocking polling stations, and arresting hundreds of the Brotherhood activists; or with thugs let loose with machetes, knives and guns, while police stood by. Even, observers from the Judges Club who came out to witness the elections were beaten up. And the degree of violence increased progressively in three successive phases of elections - with authorities intent on ensuring results in favor of the ruling National Democratic Party.

The Muslim Brotherhood declared that in the newly constituted parliament, it would seek cooperation with others in the opposition in forming a solid block to bring about the required changes. It stands for laying solid foundations for building a democratic, institutionalized state, built on a separation of powers. It advocates constitutional reforms that render the government accountable and transparent in all its dealings in order to root out the rampant corruption. It also declared that it would work for the abrogation of emergency laws and for the reformation of civil and political rights -freedom of assembly and speech, and freedom to form political parties. It would introduce constitutional changes to limit the term of presidency, and amend laws that govern the formation of parties. Establishing its own legal status would be a critical step.

In an interview before elections, Muhammad Habib, second in command for the Brotherhood, clarified its stance regarding enacting Sharia laws. That the Sharia is for the good of the society, but its stringent laws are applicable after the society is reformed. "We must first create a spiritual society. The citizen must be granted full rights - psychological, mental, moral, material to live as human, with his rights and honor and humanity respected."

With regard to women's rights, the Muslim Brotherhood stands for their equal partnership in voting, running for offices, determining policies, decision-making, and in monitoring of all affairs of the Ummah.

Regarding minorities, such as Christians, they should have full citizenship rights and could work themselves up in all areas without exception.

In an Islamic Egypt the legislation passed must be in accordance with the requirements of Islam. The representatives of the people, elected freely and fairly by popular vote, would govern such a state. The winning parties would be obliged to implement their specific platform and program during their term in office, and the people would have the right to vote them out if they do not meet their requirements.

"If the administration was not prepared to play hardball with the Egyptian dictator, why lay down specific conditions for him to flout?"

Successive American administrations have been particularly apprehensive of the Islamic movements – fearing they would jeopardize US regional interests – and have gone on to support the co-opted authoritarian regimes. Accordingly, the US supports Mubarak, who raises the specter of "The Other Alternative" (the epithet for Islamists) - meaning the Brotherhood would come to power whenever the question of reform is raised. While Bush has severally acknowledged it was such a support of dictators that generates Islamic radicals, yet beyond empty rhetoric, he and his administration have followed the same ruinous policy.

The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Egypt three times and outlined criteria by which the fairness and openness of elections would be judged. Stating that the presidential and parliamentary elections "must meet objective standards that define every election," she criticized Mubarak's emergency decrees, and that "international monitors must have unrestricted access to their jobs."

Mubarak did none of the above.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in a column in The Washington Post of September 4, 2005: "Of course, it is always easier to give strong speeches than to implement them… But it is not as if the United States lacks leverage - to the tune of more than a billion dollars a year in aid. If the administration was not prepared to play hardball with the Egyptian dictator, why lay down specific conditions for him to flout?"

Perhaps it is due to the concern that it "might produce a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood, the most popular opposition party" Kagan wrote. If so, "Bush officials should stop talking so much about democracy and go back to supporting the old dictatorship. It was precisely that kind of logic (that) helped produce so much radicalism.

"If the decisive moment in Egypt passes without change, many will ask what exactly, is new about the administration's approach. Arab peoples watching carefully to see whether Bush is serious about his commitment to democracy will have reason to doubt it."

Hamas and the US

Islamists are part of the future for the Arab and Muslim world.

Here we must interject on behalf of the Islamist Hamas, recently winning a landslide victory in Palestine under Israeli occupation. The US administration labels Hamas a terrorist organization. This, while Israel daily commits much more egregious acts of terrorism on Palestinians, including targeted assassinations that recently the Israeli Defense Minister threatened to extend to elected Hamas leadership. Despite this, Israel has the unwavering support of the US, and Palestinians are getting punished by cutting off all humanitarian assistance for exercising their right of democratic elections in their own land.

The Islamists fully realize and acknowledge the genuine interests of the United States and Europeans in the region. Their stand on issues of concern, such as Arab- Israeli conflict is well known, yet they aim at dialogue to reconcile all differences.

It is time for the US administration to see the writing on the wall, change its policies towards Arabs and Muslims, and adopt a course that best serves its wider interest—the friendship of more than 1 billion Muslims worldwide. What Muslims are asking for is not special favors or handouts, but justice, equity and fairness in dealing with them. Islamists are part of the future for the Arab and Muslim world, and their participation in the political process is the best hope for their societies.

---

**Siraj Islam Mufti, Ph.D. is a researcher and freelance journalist. He frequently contributes articles to the Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim American Society, and United Association for Studies and Research. 

The articles posted on this page reflect solely the opinions of the authors. Views Archive Advanced Search Views & Analyses