Born in London of an English mother, and an Egyptian father who had been sent by his feudal parents to an English Public School then to study economics at Christ's College, in Cambridge, I grew up with one foot in the "North" and the other in the "South". So right from the start discrimination on the basis of religion, or race was alien to me.

Later on in my youth when I joined the left wing "Democratic Movement for National Liberation" it led me into the anti-colonialist struggle against the British occupation of Egypt, into a revolt against injustices built on class and privilege, but also to 15 years of hard labour in prisons and camps. On the 6th of November 1963 I climbed out of a filthy underground cell into the sunlight to walk amongst throngs of children on their way to school under a blue sky, and rustling trees unable to take in the reality of at last being free. Fourteen months later Nawal El Saadawi and I were married and I began to learn what patriarchy and gender discrimination against women meant, and how it was linked to class, religion, and race.

This short introduction about myself may help to explain why I have written this article on "Fundamentalism, Political Islam and Democracy" in the way I have.

(1) Religion and Politics

From an early age I studied the three monotheistic religions, read through the three Holy Books several times. Through my readings, and later on through the national and political struggles in which I became involved, like many of my generation, I came to realize that religion, all religions are in essence political ideologies, and also a way of seeing life, that they have been used by different classes, movements and groups in different ways to propagate the ideas, concepts and values which serve their interests.

The Qur'an and the words or sayings of the Prophet Mohammed called in Arabic "Ahadeeth" deal with relations between people, between men and women, with riches and poverty, with war and peace, justice and tyranny, freedom and oppression. The same applies to Judaism and Christianity, the latter perhaps to a different degree. The three religions are however ambiguous in many ways and sometimes contradictory permitting varying interpretations. All three religions propagate religious, racial, class and gender discrimination.

In the Qur'an the Muslim nation (Umma) is "the finest nation ever created by Allah". In the "Old Testament" (the Torah) the Jews are Jehovah's "chosen people" and we Arabs have come to know what that implies. In the "New Testament" those who believe in God, in Christ, in the Holy Trinity will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven but others will not.

All three religions treat women as inferior human beings, teach us that God is white and male, has created a world in which there will always be rich and poor, that classes are created by God and are here to stay.

Looked at in their historical context it is clear that they were a revolt against certain forms of oppression but at the same time they were a reflection of the societies in which they arose, and carried with them many of the negative aspects of these societies imbued with class, racial and patriarchal prejudice. They have therefore been used to defend the positions taken by progressive reformist or even revolutionary movements but much more often than not to protect the interests of the retrograde forces of oppression. Throughout history except for relatively short periods of time they have been made to serve the interests of the privileged ruling minorities against the majority of poor people in different parts of the world.

Islam and Judaism from the start were more politically oriented than Christianity. The change towards politics first took place in Christianity when Saint Paul founded the Church and when it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

The reason behind the more openly political nature of Islam, behind the linkage between matters of faith, and the organization of peoples' struggles and lives on earth probably lies in the fact that Muhammad's preachings were directed towards a cruel and chaotic as well as primitive, tribal society. In it vendettas, feuds, wars and almost daily killings kept the Arab desert dweller at the mercy of the most powerful, tyrannical chieftains. For him or her there was no security in life at all, no rules, or laws, or regulations, no system, no order except a set of primitive customs, traditions, and values which governed the life of these tribes, their feuds, and their wars, no structure of livelihood to speak of. Slavery prevailed, and newly born female children were buried alive, because the males were being killed off in the wars and there were not enough males to go round.

Muhammad whose aim was to unite this tribal society into a more cohesive whole, into an Islamic nation (umma) and to create a more stable and human society had to set up a system, a structure regulated by laws and rules whence the attention paid in the Qur’an and his sayings (Ahadith) to a form of religious jurisprudence (shariat) dealing with matters related to society and the daily life of men and women. He was not only a religious but also a political leader and even a statesman, and this explains why questions of faith linked to the hereafter were so closely interwoven with life on earth, in other words with politics.

(II) Secularism and Democracy

At an early stage in my life when I was only seventeen years old, after reading the three Holy Books, and observing what was going on around me, I became a free thinker. My up-bringing at home where religion was hardly ever mentioned helped in this development. Also Egypt at that time was a tolerant country despite the influence Islam and Coptic Christianity had on peoples values and beliefs. When I was in the School of Medicine nobody bothered much whether one was a Muslim, a Copt, or a Jew except the Muslim Brothers of course, and none of the female students were veiled. Egypt was much more of a secular state than it is now.

Secularism aims at separating between religion and the state, at making religion a purely personal matter. This separation was linked to the rise of the bourgeoisie in Britain, France, Germany and the other European countries, to capitalist development and industrialization which necessitated freeing society from domination by the Church and a feudal minority, from the alliance built up between them over the years, from the limits imposed on the free development of ideas by obscurantist metaphysical thought, so that “free enterprise” could grow and expand.

This process of secularization took place in the countries of Europe and the United States to varying degrees. But a question still remains. Is there any country even in Europe where religion does not play a role in the State and in politics, where the Church is not an active participant in political struggles? Is there such a thing as a purely secular state, for even in a country like France the separation is not complete?

Historically secularism and democracy developed at the same time and the relationship between them is close. However the experience of the Soviet Union has shown that they are not necessarily linked together. The Soviet Union was a secular and even atheist state, but the ruling bureaucracy imposed what some analysts have called “state capitalism” and with it one of the most antidemocratic and even sanguinary systems known in history, despite the undeniable social and economic achievements of the regime. Nasser’s regime in Egypt 1952-1970 is in some ways an example of this divorce between secularism and socio-economic progress on the one hand and democracy on the other. Although he did not establish a secular state, yet the influence of religion and of the religious authorities and parties was considerably weakened. At the same time his socio-economic policies made important modernizing and progressive changes within society, yet the political system during the years of his rule was extremely autocratic.

It would seem that anti-democratic trends in developing countries engaged in a modernization process, in secular changes, and socio-economic progress are linked to the establishment of a big public sector and a swollen bureaucracy. In underdeveloped countries the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class which grew up under colonialism, was not enabled to undertake the historical role which the capitalist class undertook in Europe, the United States and later in Japan. The capitalist class remained weak, backward and lacking in financial resources. Revolutionary movements therefore had recourse to the State, to a vast public sector in order to accumulate capital, invest, industrialize and modernize. But the state itself had developed under colonial or feudal rule, remained a backward, rigid and authoritarian apparatus and when it expanded through the establishment of a big public sector, led to the formation of an oppressive bureaucratic monster.

However even if Arab societies, and with them Egypt are far from being democratic despite the fact that most of them have adopted a pluralistic system one would still ask how much democracy really exists in Europe, or in the United States, or in Japan where the multi-national corporations exercise their hegemony over the economy, control governments and parliament, run the parties through their political spokesman, own and operate the media, and have even transformed the social democratic parties into versatile instruments of their rule.

Despite all this it would still be wrong to deny the significance of democratic and secular developments in the West. But it is necessary to be fully aware of their limitations, to understand the mechanisms of camouflage and deceit used by an extremely limited minority of global capitalists who wish to impose their interests on the rest of the world no matter how terrible the price which people are being made to pay everywhere.

However the development of secularism and democracy in the West has shown that when they are divorced from social and economic rights they turn into a sham, a facade behind which the dominant economic and social forces pull the strings.

The world for hundreds of years has become accustomed to seeing things from the perspective of the North. But democracy as practised in the North has lost its glamour for most people in the South. A growing number of intellectuals, thinkers, community leaders, and activists in civil society are seeking for democracy of a different kind. For them real democracy means participation in planning, decision making, and implementation at all levels, means decentralization and local government, means decentralization and local governments, means a rotation of leadership and leeway for women and youth. It also means ridding society of discrimination on the basis of religion, race, colour, class and gender, that is the gradual deconstruction and reconstruction of the patriarchal class system which oppresses the poor and women.

Secularism, that is separation between religion and the state, is an integral part of democracy. But this separation is an extremely difficult proposition in a country like Egypt, and even more difficult in some other Arab countries. For in these countries religion is closely linked to the state and to government, religion is widely used by all parties, including even left wing parties in the political electoral game, and religious parties are powerful and have a strong following. It is widely used to reinforce oppression, to maintain conservative ideas, values and traditions, and to fight against democratic forces and reinforce authoritarian trends. Islamic movements have been consistently utilized by the political forces of international capital to implement its policies, defend its interests, and divide people, and examples of this are there for all to see.

(III) Religion and Democracy

Although there should be complete freedom for all non-violent trends and movements in Egyptian society to organize and to participate in political, social and cultural activities, the utilization of religion in the political struggle has proved to be extremely dangerous, and on the whole inimical to democracy and social progress for a variety of reasons.

Apart from other considerations there is an intrinsic contradiction between the ideology propagated by religion and democracy. Religion is built on the alienation of the human being from his or her creative powers since it places them in some higher metaphysical force, in God or Allah the Creator. Religion is by its nature authoritarian requiring obedience to the precepts, orders and guidance of this higher force.

In Egypt Al-Azhar, which is the official theological institution linked to the state, has almost always given religious backing to the most conservative trends in society and has consistently fought against and succeeded in defeating all modernizing or reformist trends within Islam. Its interventions in matters of policy have increased rapidly in recent years. These include directives, or guidance and even orders and edicts related to education, banning of books included in school and university curricula, the functioning of the economy and banking. It has censored plays and films, pronounced views on what women should wear, insisted on polygamy for men and virginity for women. Sometimes by maintaining that certain matters do not lie within its domain it has permitted progressive measures and policies to be implemented. For example by declaring that female circumcision is a medical matter to be decided by doctors it paved the way for a decree from the Ministry of Health outlawing the practice of clitoridectomy by medical staff in government and private institutions.

Faced by a growing economic crisis the state is using religion to buttress its failing authority. In Egypt as in all other countries of the South capitalist globalization is leading to severe societal stresses. The legitimacy of the ruling system, its credibility is threatened and chaos is spreading in a country known for the relative stability of its regime and the patience of its people controlled by a centralized state structure born almost five thousands years ago.

With increasing privatization and the institution of “free” market policies to the benefit of a handful of compradores linked to the multi-nationals, with the abolition of different forms of subsidy for welfare, food, health, education and housing, with prices and housing or agriculture rents soaring sky high, with rampant speculation and 40% of the population living under the poverty line fixed at an annual income of one thousand dollars life is extremely difficult especially for young people below 25 years who constitute 50% of the population. Educated youth constitute 20% of the unemployed labour force. Religion is their solace, and fundamentalism a politico religious movement which can attract many of them. Its messages are simple, accessible and radical leading to the growth of violent and terrorist tendencies.

The government suppresses the Islamic fundamentalists when they have recourse to terrorism or seek to take over power, but at the same time it propagates fundamentalist religious ideology and culture as a way to make people accept their straits. It shoots the terrorists or puts them in jail, and imprisons the more dynamic young leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, but at the same time propagates their ideas and values continuously and on the widest possible scale.

The state like society itself has a split personality is torn between the economics and culture of capitalist globalization, between the values, concepts and practices of consumerism on the one hand and the retrograde religious culture and mentality prevalent in important sectors of society. On television for example at one moment you may be following a sermon by Sheikh Al Azhar the highest religious authority in the state about the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the next moment find yourself watching a half naked woman advertising some product or other produced under license or imported from abroad.

In such an atmosphere it is no wonder that religious trends and that legal or semi-legal religious parties and movements keep gaining in strength even if in the struggle for power the government has so far kept them at bay. They capitalize on their oppositional stance, on the fact that they appear as martyrs or victims of government violence and oppression, on the network of mosques, on 13,000 religions associations in civil society some of them extremely rich, on long standing religious movements like the Soufis’ and on the fact that they have never come to power, for power exposes the true nature of political parties and groups.

Political Islam (and Coptic Christianity) and with it religion is consistently against democracy. For what is more easy than to invoke the authority of God, and words, to suppress free thought, to accuse whoever opposes or criticizes those who invoke the Prophets teachings and Qur'anic verses or those who disagree with you on purely “worldly” issues of blasphemy, or apostasy, of being heretics. In the struggle for democracy this can be a very potent weapon with which to intimidate people who stand up for it. There are very few men or women who are prepared to be ostracized, persecuted, or even killed because of the opinions they hold, or the activities they undertake in public.

* * * *

Is Fundamentalism going global ?

The revival of religion and the growth of religious fundamentalism which we have witnessed over the last quarter of a century or so is not limited to Islam. I taught at Duke University from 1992 until early 1997, witnessed the increasing strength and influence of the Christian fundamentalist movement, the growth of membership in the Christian Coalition to over two million, its political alliance with the Republican Party, its expanding role in the economy, in culture, education and the media. The Baptist church also kept growing, exerted pressures to reintroduce prayers in school and abolish the teaching of Darwin’s evolutionary theories, to ban abortion and close down abortion clinics often by violent means. Since I lived in North Carolina I could observe the development of what is known in the United States as the Bible Belt and the mushrooming of fundamentalist institutions noticeable in the Southern States, many of which I was able to visit.

In the region of the world where I live political Islam and Muslim fundamentalism have gained in strength, and its political as well as cultural influence on the values and ideas of people strikes anyone who pays even a short visit to Egypt. Across the border in Israel, the Jewish fundamentalist movement has become a prominent force in the politics and life of the country and has powerful ramifications or connections with Jewish fundamentalism in the United States. Today we can speak without exaggeration of a Judeo-Christian alliance in the United States with influence over more than sixty million people especially if we take into consideration the power exercised by Zionist[1] forces at the highest levels of multi-national capital, in the media, in culture, science and technology, in education, and last but not least in polities.

One and a half months before attending a conference about “Religion and Democracy” at Mansfield College (Oxford University) from the 10-12 September 1999, I was in Harare (Zimbabwe) for the Annual International Book Fair and a conference on “Gender and Women’s Writing”. Every morning I used to watch the news on public television. Each day after the news there would be a kind of round table discussion. The first day there were three Afro-American priests belonging to the Seventh Day Adventist movement talking about an educational project which their Church was sponsoring in Zimbabwe. The aim of this project was, and I am quoting their very words: “to bring Light to the Dark Continent”. It’s name: “The Christian Crusade”. In a second I was carried back to the 13-14th and the 17-18th centuries. At the same time the names of Huntington and Bernard Lewis came to my mind.

The next day on the panel were three Anglican missionaries, two men and a woman. They were engaged in another project, namely to collect money for needy Zimbabweans in hospital. And on the third day the announcer was interviewing a young Zimbabwean pop singer who had as his mission to bring “sinners back to the fold”, “to show them the way to the Kingdom of Heaven”. He was being funded by the Baptist movement.

Almost everywhere I go I see evidence of this quasi-universal religious revival and it is usually connected with one or other grade of fundamentalism so that when Professor John Keane complains that the religious institutions, that religion is under siege from secularism, it seems to me that, for one reason or another he is not aware of the fact that in our post-modern age it is exactly the opposite which is happening.

(IV) Fundamentalism: Cultural and Economic. The example of Egypt.

Every day we can observe how similar to one another these movements are in the religious ideas and practices they propagate, in the rigid backwardness of their thought, in the way they act.

The growth of politically active religious movements, of religious fundamentalism is almost universal. In the past years the concentration on Islam has often served the political aims of ruling circles in the West. In addition it tends to obscure the role played by the religious revival, and by religious fundamentalism in our post-modern world, in maintaining and reinforcing the free market, and the political and economic system promoted by global multi-national capitalism.

The cultural atmosphere in Egypt today is very different from that which prevailed during Nasser’s rule (1952-1970) and even before under King Farouk. A few years ago I moved to a populous district of Cairo called Shoubra. The majority of people living in this district are Copts (that is Christians) but from the tens of mosques scattered around our building microphones blare out the Islamic call to prayer five times a day. The first call is at dawn, the last one and a half hours after nightfall. The calls to prayer may be preceded by half to one hour sermons delivered in a thunderous voice through the same microphones with promises of Paradise and Allah’s mercy, or threats of eternal Hell fire. When I go up in the lift to our flat located on the twenty sixth floor if I ask one of the occupants which button to press for him, he will answer “If Allah wills I will go up to the tenth floor” meaning that the slightest move made by a human being is ordained by God, and God might have decided to stop the lift, or cause it to drop, or give one of us a heart attack. On the days in which I drive to our small village house 125 kilometers north of Cairo I meet flocks of young girls going off to school or coming back their heads enveloped in ample veils of white cotton cloth. Before coming to this conference I spent ten days on the North West Coast. Every day I walked at dawn and swam before sunset in the turquoise blue waters of the Mediterranean sea. Women and young girls on the beach also plunged into the sea but fully dressed, under the watchful eyes of a husband, a father, an uncle, or a spouse. In the morning newspaper a reader wanted to know whether a Muslim could accept a blood transfusion from a Copt to which the Sheikh who deals with religious matters answered “only if there is no alternative by which we can save his life”. On the pavements of Cairo thousands of books popularizing conservative religious ideas about women and other matters and propagating superstitious beliefs, or faith in miracles, or magic or sorcery lie side by side with pornographic magazines and pamphlets on sex. Television and radio broadcasts devote hours to religious programs, serials, plays and talks. During the past year more than eighty books have been censored or seized as a result of direct intervention or pressure from Al Azhar the official theological authority in Egypt. If you write a letter or give a talk without pronouncing the ritualistic opening phrase “In the name of Allah the most Merciful and Forgiving” you can be sure that ninety nine times out of a hundred in the audience there will be a small click, a quick glance at the feet or a short holding of the breath.

In the last two years after the government struck out successfully at the more fanatical religious terrorist groups the atmosphere has improved. The bullets have been stopped, but the same conservative religious cultural atmosphere largely prevails except amongst the Westernized upper or middle class groups most of whom manage to combine a religious ritualism with a consumer culture. This in a country known for its religious tolerance and for an easy going pragmatic attitude towards religion in every-day life.

The danger of the “cultural change” and its impact on democratic attitudes and practices in private and public life cannot be minimized. If people believe in obedience to God, to the patriarch (father, husband, elder…etc.), in fate and destiny then autocratic, authoritarian ideas and systems will flourish. People become their own police, accept chains or even create them.

A religious revival, a cultural change of this scope and nature has had many implications. One of them is the growth of active fundamentalist movements, a greater activity and out-reach of politico-religious movements.

It seems paradoxical that a cultural change of this nature should take place in many parts of the world including Egypt at the beginning of the third millenium. Why at this stage, in our post-modern world should we be faced with a revival of religious fundamentalism which in some ways takes us back to the Middle Ages?. If this revival was limited in nature, if it did not involve many countries in the world and most of its religions we could have sought the reasons for it in causes related to specific situations. But since (together with racial, ethnic and nationalistic fundamentalisms) it is universal in nature, then the causes themselves are to be sought in global changes.

Why are we witnessing this growth of Islamic, (and Coptic) fundamentalism in Egypt, why the increasing influence of anti-democratic politico-religious movements called by some scholars an Islamic revival?

I believe that the “cultural change” characterized by the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Egypt is an integral part of our post-modern era, of the developments that have affected all countries, and all peoples, and in particular of the phenomenon known as multi-national global capitalism. It is a reaction to the socio-economic crisis of the so-called free market, to the lack of perspectives for the future, to the sufferings, the insecurity, the economic difficulties, the lack of opportunities for youth, the unemployment, the loss of hope amongst people. In this worsening situation people have sought comfort in God, in what is familiar and simple and gives easy explanations. Having lost faith in the system and in the rulers who lead us, in their will to change things find a way out, a return to God has become the alternative, and a growing number of people have turned to the fundamentalist movement as the instrument through which God will make changes.

The defeat suffered by Egypt in the 1967 war and the end of the hopes placed in Nasser’s revolution, followed by his death and replacement by Sadat opened a new era, an era in which the popular gains achieved under Nasser were liquidated, in which the neo-colonial powers headed by the USA gained economic and political domination over Egypt. It is the era, in which the multinationals and the World Bank have implemented policies of structural adjustment for the developing countries, an adjustment which has made the majority composed of poor people poorer and the small minority of rich richer.

The “religious revival” and the growth of Islamic fundamentalism has also been a retrograde “cultural reaction” against the “West” perceived as being responsible for the increasing woes of people but also as presenting a model which has devastated any hope, an image of degradation and decadence which fails to attract despite all the glamour of technological progress. But while the “West” is pointed out as the “cultural enemy” the economic ties between fundamentalist forces and movements and transnational capital have become closer and closer. The economic forces behind fundamentalism remain an integral part of capitalist globalization. At the same time while globalization centralizes and concentrates capital at the top, in the hands of the few, fundamentalism helps to maintain the power and control of global capital by dividing people at the bottom on a religious basis. It has been used by global capital to foment religious strife, between Muslims and Copts in Egypt, to exert pressure on the government when it is not as obedient as the United States would want, to send trained guerillas to Afghanistan and other places, to lead the daily struggle for democratic freedoms and rights astray. It helps to maintain the power and the control of the few.

During the past decades tens of millions of Egyptians who migrated in order to work in the oil rich Gulf countries have been influenced by the extremely conservative religious societies in which they spent years of their life. They have developed an economic and cultural affinity with the sources of their new found welfare and often wealth. In cooperation with the ruling families of the Gulf countries policy makers in the United States, Britain, France and Germany have helped in setting up Muslin fundamentalist networks, harboured and protected their leaders, given them financial, military , logistic and technical help to serve their political ends inside and outside the region. The conservative theocratic regimes in the oil rich Arab countries draw their main support from governments and multi-nationals in the “West” and would be unable to survive without this support.

Successive Egyptian governments have encouraged and cooperated with the fundamentalist movement for long periods of time. Religious conservatism has permitted them to mislead people, to make them accept their fate, to engage in strife instead of uniting for change. Fundamentalist movements have been used to halt the growth of liberal, national democratic, or left wing political and social forces and religious fundamentalism has become an integral part of the economic, political and cultural structure in the country and of the system of control. Despite differences related to “culture” it would not have been possible to impose the policies of the World Bank without the growing influence it has exercised over the way people think. It was Sadat who opened the door to “free market” policies, to the United States, and to the explosive growth of the fundamentalist movement during the seventies. But when the fundamentalist leaders started to steal towards power they clashed with him using the Camp David agreement with Israel as an excuse in order to gain popular backing. On the 6 October, 1980 he was assassinated by members of the armed forces at a military parade. They belonged to a fundamentalist group called “Al Gihad” (meaning “Holy Combat”, or Struggle).

The “Gihad” was a splinter group which differed with and broke away from the “Muslim Brotherhood”. It accused the latter of not being “radical” enough. All the “terrorist groups” which appeared on the scene successively during the past years have been off-shoots of the main fundamentalist movement with a mass following known as the “Muslim Brotherhood”. This is seen by some analysts as a new division of labour imposed by the continuing failure of the “Muslim Brotherhood” to seize power. In this new division of labour the “terrorist groups” undertake the task of “destabilization” while the “Moslem Brotherhood” moves towards power by strengthening its mass support, and playing the electoral game.

To speak or to write about “Political Islam and Democracy” in Egypt is to speak or write about the “Muslim Brotherhood”. The second sector of importance in political Islam is the official, establishment, or government sector of political Islam constituted by the theological University of “Al Azhar”, the Ministry of Wakfs, the religious Sheikhs and Imams and a network of around 90,000 mosques as well as schools, prisons and prayer corners spread all over the country. In other words by the complex politico religious structure born more than a thousand years ago. The two sectors are not strictly separated for their linkages are manifold. Nevertheless I will not deal with official government Islam which has adapted itself to the semi-secular interests and policies of successive governments in Egypt. It is the Moslem Brotherhood which is the more political the less “theological” or “clerical”, and by far the most militant and popular of the two. It is also the movement which is competing for power in the present set-up.

(V) The Muslim Brotherhood, Political Islam and Democracy

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1924 by Hassan al-Banna, a school teacher who studied in Al-Azhar University and Dar al-Ouloum the college from which teachers of Arabic graduated. He started his “da’awa” or preachings in the city of Ismaileya head quarters of the Anglo-French Suez Canal Company and advanced command of the British occupational forces. This detail indicates its close links with colonial circles right from the start.

In 1932 the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood were moved to “Helmeya al Guedida” a populous district in Cairo. Its third congress held in 1935 laid down the basic tenets of the movement. The Muslim Brotherhood was described as “The Islamic Movement” meaning that only those who belonged to it could be considered “real” Muslims, that it was the only authentic representative of Islam, thus denying all other institutions or movements their true Islamic character. It was declared a social non-political organization but its members were not allowed to adhere to any other organization, a ruling clearly in contradiction with its alleged non-political aims. It did not seek to define a clear platform or program apart from the general principles of Islam, and the need for a moral reform of society. This left the supreme guide Hassan al Banna free to decide on all matters without making him accountable for any decisions he might take. It also meant a blind obedience and submission on the part of all members to his directives and commands.

During the Second World war the Brotherhood grew rapidly and by the year 1940 had over two million members and two thousands branches scattered all over the country, an armed militia, 10,000 mosques partially, or wholly under its control, a network of social services including, clinics, hospitals and schools as well as hundreds of small or middle size economic enterprises run by its members, including printing presses, publication houses and a newspaper.

This rapid expansion of its activities was facilitated by several factors. The economic difficulties faced by people during the Second World War, and the social insecurity in a changing situation encouraged many people especially belonging to the lower and middle classes in society to seek refuge in a religious movement. The British colonialists were perceived as the main cause of the worsening situation, of inflation, and rising prices. The rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood against these “foreigners” won support for their cause. On the other hand the colonialists did not consider this religious movement as a threat. On the contrary it could be used as an instrument when the need arose, as a fundamentally autocratic force replacing nationalism with Islam, democracy with blind obedience, and unification with religious strife. Right from the start the British occupation forces, the palace, the Egyptian police and successive governments with the exception of the Wafd (the main secular democratic and national party of the people) encouraged the movement and gave it financial as well as other forms of support[2].

In 1946 at the university and schools the Muslim Brotherhood countered the slogans raised for national independence and democracy by a broad front including most of the political parties, student organizations and Trade Unions, women’s groups and cultural clubs with slogans against alcohol, “material values” and moral corruption. People they said should obey their ruler King Farouk and worship Allah. “Allah is great” was their battle cry and to impress this on people’s minds they beat up those who did not agree with them with iron chains and long curved knives called “gazelle horns”. By 1945 the Brotherhood had built up an armed militia of 47,000 young men who sometimes paraded through the streets of cities with lighted torches in a show of force. In 1948 just before the movement was disbanded this “militia” called “boy scouts” had reached 75,000 with a well-organized core command, training camps and weapon stores.

To understand the “ideology” of this movement. It might be appropriate to quote some of the ideas formulated by Hassan al Banna at the time.

- Science and art have progressed. Riches have grown and the land has become greener, attractive to the eyes. But does that mean that we know peace when we lie in our beds, and that the tears have ceased to drop from our eyes.

- Foreign legislation has not solved any of our problems. These can only be solved if we apply “Shariat” (religious jurisprudence)[3].

- All parties should be abolished. The struggle between parties is a negative thing. We have only one leader and he is the Prophet. We should refuse all Western ideas including democracy. All our ideas should come from Islam. However we can take certain things from the West but only in the following areas:

· Administrative systems.

· Applied sciences.

· Communications.

· Services.

· Hospitals and drug stores.

· Industry, animal husbandry, agriculture, and environmental pollution.

· Nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

· Urban planning, construction, housing and traffic flow.

· Energy.

Apart from this we do not need any thing. Islam includes all things.

- Islam is worship and leadership, religion and state, spirituality and action, prayer and militancy (holy struggle), obedience and ruling, Qur'an and Sword.

All these are inseparable dualities.

- Our system of government should be the Caliphate. It is the only system acceptable to us. It combines political and religious rule in the Caliph with no separation.

The Struggle for Power

The Arab Israeli war of 1948 enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to strengthen its political influence by capitalizing on its stand against the creation of the Israeli State and the participation of its “Volunteers” in the war. At the same time it was able to collect more arms, and expand, as well as train the members of its militia and military leadership. It prepared to take over power. Nokrachi Paslia the Prime Minister of Egypt, leader of the feudo-capitalist Saadist Party and a close collaborator with the King outlawed the movement. The Muslim Brotherhood retaliated by assassinating him and six months later Hassan al Banna the Supreme Guide of the movement was shot by members of the secrete police on the streets of Cairo. He was replaced by Hassan Al Hodeibi a judge in the Court of Appeal with close links to the palace in an attempt to improve relations with the King.

In July 1952, the Free Offices movement came to power. In the beginning the Muslim Brotherhood tried to exercise a leading role and gradually take complete control over the revolution, but Nasser was determined to follow an independent path. In 1954 negotiations started with the British for an eventual withdrawal of the British forces occupying Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood after some time started secret talks with the British as a part of a pressure game on the new regime, but also in an attempt to present themselves as an alternative force with which the British could reach agreement. Nasser cracked down on the movement, jailed its leaders and hundreds of its followers. In the autumn of 1954 members of the movement tried to assassinate him while he was addressing over a quarter of a million people gathered in the huge al- Mansheya Square in Alexandria.

Followed long periods of imprisonment which lasted over ten years. But meanwhile within the movement change was taking place. This was the development of a more fanatic radical wing which manifested itself in the successive breakaway of different splinter groups, composed of young men and women with a strong base in the University, in South Egypt, and amongst semi-educated groups.

The spiritual leader and ideologist of this group was a man named Sayd Qutb. He was the radical successor of Hassan al Banna, the product of different factors including the successive failures, persecutions and imprisonments through which the Muslim Brotherhood had to live. For Sayed Qutb the society was living a period similar to the one preceding the advent of Islam, known to Islamic scholars as “al-Gahileya” which means the era of “Darkness and ignorance”. This society and the people in it were heretical non-believers. It had to be destroyed by an Islamic force. This would permit re-instituting the absolute rule of Allah and imposing it on all aspects of life. Only those who participated in the creation of this force were true believers. They had to accept absolute submission to Allah in everything they did. All other people were heretics to be destroyed unless they joined the ranks of this unique Islamic movement called “al Gam’aa al Islameya”.

Letting the Genie out of the Bottle

When Sadat came to power at the end of September 1970 he quickly emerged as a ruler who had different views and represented different interests to those of Nasser,

and his supporters.

To implement his policies he had to overcome those who opposed him because they believed in national independence and an economy geared to satisfy the basic needs of people. Under the guise of a multi party system and a new liberalism, and after naming himself “al Raiss al Moumin” which means the “President Believer” he reverted to the old game of encouraging and supporting the Islamic political movement, to counterbalance and overcome the opposition composed of Nasserites, and different national progressive and left wing movements.

Once again the followers of the Islamic political movement started to surface, the young men bearded, the women wearing the veil. Their slogans “Allah is Great” or “Islam is the Solution” reappeared on the walls, on taxis and cars, posters and stickers, or were shouted out through hundreds of microphones. But once again when they grew strong they started to steal towards power. A favourable moment seemed the Camp David Peace Treaty unpopular with many people and to which they declared open opposition. But on the 5 September 1981 Sadat arrested 1536 members of the opposition the majority of whom belonged to the Muslim politico-religious movement. One month later militants of this movements assassinated him during a military parade held in commemoration of the “victory” against Israel in the war of 1973.

Released from jail by his successor “Moubarak” they resumed their activities, growing more powerful everyday. But to many of the young members the “Moslem Brotherhood” seemed to have grown old, lost its vigour, become too mild. The Iranian revolution had entered on the scene as a new factor. Events in the Sudan, in Algeria, in Afghanistan involvement with the CIA, all played their role.

Over the years the pattern of the movement had changed. It became characterized by a greater sophistication and complexity coupled with an increasing tendency to resort to violent methods. Violence has always been a part of the ideology and action of the movement but now it seemed to have split into violent and non-violent groups. On the one hand there were numerous extremist hard core groups, some of them quite small, mushrooming or growing like a grape vine, so that if one was destroyed it was replaced by others existing or newly born[4] which all propagated, doctrinaire terrorist teachings. On the other the main bulk with a mass following remained the Muslim Brotherhood, an ostensibly more moderate mainstream no longer engaged in terrorist activities. Learning from past experience it was now making use of the multi-party system and elections equated by Western ruling circles to a democratic system, playing the electoral game to get into parliament or local government, to gain control of professional, cultural, trade union, and social organizations. It was also moving more and more into the media (newspapers, T.V., radio, publishing houses) continuing to work hard at setting up a network of health, educational and other services, using the thousands of mosques more effectively, infiltrating into the judiciary, banks and economic enterprises, making use of the considerable resources and high level connections at its disposal especially in the Gulf countries.

As a result of these developments, the roles were now nicely divided between the moderate “mainstream” movement and the small radical terrorist groups. While the terrorist groups threw the bombs at Presidents, ministers, high level civil and police authorities intimidated or assassinated intellectuals, killed tourists and disrupted the economy by creating an atmosphere of insecurity and showing that “democracy” was a failure, the mainstream movement could steal towards power step by step. It no longer needed a militia, or a military wing. Others probably supported by it in different ways, off-shoots of the big brotherhood could do the job for it while it presented a moderate face for all to see, and appeared as the savior of society from the fanatical Muslims, as the only force capable of putting an end to all the chaos and destruction. To these ends it used the language of religion, of God, of morality exposing the corruption of Arab governments, standing up as the opponent of Western encroachment on the norms, traditions, values, and interests of the people. It capitalized on the protest movement of people harassed by poverty, unemployment, and the heavy hand of governments who protected the rich and had failed to implement any policies that would make their situation easier, and who applying the policies of the World Bank and the International Money Fund were making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

But the time came when those in power had to intervene or else step down. It was Moubarak’s turn to crack down first on the terrorist groups which were the immediate threat, then on the Muslim Brotherhood. So now the situation lives an uneasy equilibrium and future developments may depend on whether Western ruling circles will need an Islamic alternative. For the time being they have moved away from what seemed under consideration sometime ago, since the more secular systems in Egypt or Algeria are less unpredictable than the backward and narrow minded movements of political Islam. Nevertheless amongst these movements more modern, open minded and younger leaderships have developed slowly over the years and so one day they may be looked upon as an alternative if things go wrong under present regimes, or if they “lose face” as we say in our part of the world.

Within the Muslim Brotherhood this process of modernization has been accompanied by limited democratic changes in the mentality and attitudes of its protagonists who belong to new generations of the movement. However these changes remain extremely limited. In addition a small number of Islamic intellectuals and professionals have sought to introduce more liberal interpretations of Islam. Nevertheless these developments continue to be of a minor nature in the absence of democratic changes and an influential democratic movement within the society as a whole. This does not mean that the Islamic political movements cannot develop one or other form of liberation theology similar to some of the movements which have developed in the West, but all these trends will tend to affect only a minor sector of the political religious movement as long as the present balance of forces is maintained not only in our region but also in the rest of the world. Since all religions are political in nature and the direction in which they evolve depends very much on the socio-economic structures and trends within which they operate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] I use the word Zionist to indicate that this racist movement which has strong links with international capital in many countries but especially in the USA still exists even if the word has been abolished from our vocabulary.

[2] The Suez Canal Company is known to have given generous donations to Hassan al Banna especially in the early years.

[3] Known to be extremely anti-democratic and against women. Includes cutting off the hand of those who steal, stoning a woman who commits adultery.

[4] Examples of the most important are “al Gam’aa al Islameya", "al Gihad" (responsible for the assassination of "al-Sadat” “al Takfer Wal Higra”, “al Nagoun Min al Nar”.