But now we can see that these Islamic groups are taking
us for fools.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood promised that it would
not field a candidate for president. But this month it
went back on its word and put Khairat al-Shater, a wealthy
businessman, on the ballot.
Defending that broken promise, one Muslim Brotherhood
leader after another explained that they changed their
mind to save Egypt's budding democracy, in jeopardy now
because of the military's reluctance to step aside.
If that is so, how do you explain the speech Shater gave
in Alexandria last year in which he disparaged the whole
idea of Western democracy and its social conventions,
calling them the enemy of Islam - including the concept of
elections, even though he is now running in one. Voting
for your leader, he said, is un-Islamic.
After Egypt adopted a Western education
system, courts and a capitalist economy, Shater
complained, "the various aspects of our lives are no
longer based on Islam." He would institute Shariah law and
ensure that "every aspect of life is to be Islamized."
So are we to believe that Shater, if elected, would
abandon the life philosophy he espoused last year and
follow Western examples that he abhors?
Today, Shater is not advertising his actual views. But
another candidate, an ultraconservative with a large
following, Hazem Abu Ismail, is less reticent. He
advocates stoning adulterous women and cutting off the
hands of thieves. Ismail also called for canceling the
peace treaty with Israel and curtailing relations with the
United States. But in a deliciously ironic twist, he
appears to be disqualified from running - because his
mother was American.
Think for a moment about what has actually happened.
Youths with modern ideas, resulting in part from what
they've learned online, were the engines of the revolts
that threw the dictators out of office. But when elections
came, most people voted for what they knew. That's not
democracy; none of those states have any significant
history of that or exposure to it from their neighbors.
For Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, the haven from brutal
dictatorship has been religion. So, not surprisingly, they
elected religious leaders.
But now all of these countries are in one way or another
beholden to the West. Egypt gets at least $1.3 billion in
American aid each year. The United States and NATO fought
to help Libyans overthrow Moammar Khadafy. Tunisia has
strong trade relations with the West and receives
significant aid from Washington. So it's no wonder these
candidates and leaders are talking out of both sides of
their mouths.
Imagine if an American politician - a mayor, a governor,
a congressman - was thrust suddenly into a leadership
position in a deeply Islamic state. The American would
find he had to talk the talk. But in his heart, would he
ever be able to abandon the democratic ideals that have
served as the foundations of his life? Certainly not.
As Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Libya's interim leader, took
office last fall, he thanked NATO and then let slip that
he believed Libya should legalize polygamy, an element of
Shariah law.
That set off a furor. Nonetheless, a short time later he
said his views are "moderate" but then added: "As a Muslim
country, we have adopted the Islamic Shariah as the main
source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts
Islamic principles with the Islamic Shariah is ineffective
legally."
In Tunisia, Sayyed al-Firjani, a senior member of the
Islamic party that dominates the government, told Al
Arabiya television a few days ago: "We want to solve
people's problems and build a democracy." All of it will
be based on "values we cherish, including Islam."
His interviewer asked him whether those comments were
simply "a means to evade using the word 'Shariah.' "
"I disagree with this insistence on sticking to specific
words," he retorted.
Since Hosni Mubarak fell from power in Egypt last year,
the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly promised moderation
and vowed not to "monopolize political institutions in the
new Egypt." But right now a committee is forming to write
a new Constitution. The "moderate" Brotherhood controls
the parliament and tried to stack the committee's
membership so that it held a controlling majority. On
Tuesday, however, a court blocked the effort.
We should never have believed them.
