The glowing future
A guy called Joseph Mayton at Comment is Free tells us about the ‘reform-minded younger generation’ in the Muslim Brotherhood.
In many ways, these young people have created a new identity and image of the Brotherhood, both in Egypt and abroad. No longer do knowledgeable people view its members as the stereotypical bearded Islamists. Instead, they see members who talk of their desire for democracy and greater freedoms, not to mention their love for American films. The first time I met a group of the MB’s young bloggers a few years ago, they talked for 10 minutes on the upcoming Charlize Theron and Tom Cruise films.
Aw, gee, really? Isn’t that sweet? Some ‘MB’ bloggers are interested in movies with Charlize Theron and Tom Cruise in them, therefore they have ‘created a new identity and image of the Brotherhood,’ therefore the Brotherhood is kind of cool and reformy and okay and interesting. Kind of like if Hitler and Goebbels had only gotten excited about Carole Lombard and Jimmy Cagney, all that misunderstanding between 1939 and 1945 would have been avoided, because there was certainly nothing wrong with those guys that a little exposure to Hollywood wouldn’t have fixed. Same with the Muslim Brotherhood, ok?
You’ll think I’m being unfair, but I’m not; there’s nothing in the article that actually gets to grips with what the Muslim Brotherhood is.
Perfectly fair point. Lenin enjoyed Chaplin films, after all. And didn’t some of the 9/11 gang go to Vegas for a last get-together?
Soft and cuddly friendly neighbourhood Islamofascists. *pukes violently into her teacup*
I’m always baffled by this attitude — on the one hand, all right-thinking people are supposed to be on guard against the possible threat of theocracy and/or religiously based laws in the US or (much less often) UK/Europe, which should be fought against no matter how popular they may be among the populace…and on the other hand, we should understand Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as an expression of what the people of Egypt want and accept them as partners in democracy (or something like that). Any trace of theocracy in the US is bad, but allowing Afghanistan and Iraq to enshrine Islam in their new constitutions is considered “pragmatic” and “sensitive” (see Noah Feldman’s embrace of shari’ah as part of government in Islamic countries like Iraq — or better yet, don’t). The election of somebody like Bush is a horrific example of uneducated, uncultured people in the US being led by the worst elements and should be challenged at every opportunity (including the legitimacy of his election), but the election of Ahmadinejad in Iran should be accepted as a manifestation of the common people of Iran’s wishes, as opposed to that of the “Tehran elites” who are grossly unrepresentative of the populace at large, and challenges to that show utter disregard for the majority of Iran’s wishes. Threats to abortion rights in the US or in US foreign aid (the gag rule) as well as “family values” advocates (not infrequently conservative women) who propose that women should stay at home and produce babies should be fought against fiercely, but “it’s not our place” to tell Muslim women (love that grouping all of them as one mass with one opinion) that they are being oppressed by Islam, and we need to learn to understand how the hijab, sex segregation, and traditional understanding of women’s roles are actually liberating and can form vibrant parts of Muslim feminism. Etc.
I know very well that not all, and I’m guessing most of those who support the first of each of these positions will not support the second, but there are too many examples that fit this pattern for my taste. I guess it’s the blatant double standards that irritate me the most, although since those making such arguments live in the West and so don’t have to fear Islamists assassinating them or making their lives unbearable, while there is such a fear of Christianists doing the same where they live, it makes a bit more sense (if still indefensible). Are humans from different cultures really such utterly different beings that while we would hate theocracy with a passion and find it a gross threat to our rights, those in Muslim countries would find it quite congenial?
I’m not completely baffled by it – I think partly it’s just a (natural and even reasonable) feeling that we know enough about our own religious loonies to be justified in resisting them whereas we don’t know enough about more distant ones. It’s an understandable thought up to a point…but when there are plenty of people like Maryam Namazie and Gita Sahgal around to act as interpreters, it becomes a good deal less understandable.
And then active approval like Mayton’s isn’t very understandable even from the ‘I don’t know enough’ perspective – since that would prompt him to stfu, not pontificate at Comment is Free.
And why is Obama sucking up to the OIC? Well I know why, but he shouldn’t.