Reading Mona Eltahawy’s September 21 opinion article, I felt more than ever that all Egyptians — regardless of their ideological orientation, gender or age — have a lot in common (“I Will Stand Up for the Muslim Brotherhood”). Eltahawy and I differ on much, yet we share a common objective and we struggle for the same cause of bringing real democracy, justice and freedom to Egypt.
Eltahawy is critical of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political orientation and stances on a number of issues, yet she stands with us in solidarity against the Egyptian government’s crackdowns. It is important that Egyptians of different political views defend each others’ political rights, as Eltahawy has done — and as several Muslim Brotherhood members, myself included, have previously done on behalf of opposition leaders Ayman Nour and Talaat El Sadaat and bloggers Kareem Amer and Sandmonkey.
Nor is that the only point on which we agree.
In her opinion article, Eltahawy criticizes the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, for calling her “naked” because she was wearing a short-sleeved T-shirt and pants. I could not agree more with her.
Not wearing the hijab, or headscarf, makes a woman unveiled, not naked. I realize how offensive it is to call someone “naked” for not wearing a headscarf, and I find Akef’s comment unjustifiable.
To be clear, I support Akef’s stance on wearing the hijab, and like him view it as a religious obligation. There has been consensus on that among Islamic scholars for centuries.
Yet this has got nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood as a political group. While we believe that wearing the hijab is an obligation, we believe it is an individual woman’s choice to uphold it — a choice that the state should not interfere in.
There is a difference between what Islamists, and Muslims in general, regard as correct, and what they regard as enforceable by the state. This difference has unfortunately been blurred by the misguided practices of some contemporary Islamist systems, and in order to clear up any misconceptions the literature of moderate Islamist scholars needs to be scrutinized further.
Where I do disagree with Eltahawy is on the Muslim Brotherhood’s commitment to democracy, which she calls into question. Akef’s refusal to recognize different interpretations of quranic verses concerning women’s dress makes Eltahawy cynical about his ability to accept pluralism.
Not accepting another interpretation as authentic, however, does not mean attempting to silence it.
Every person is entitled to believe in the correctness or incorrectness of an idea, but he or she has no right whatsoever to enforce that belief on others. Akef, who told Eltahawy there are no other interpretations of the verse, never tried to force his beliefs on her.
As she herself writes, in 2005 she walked into the Muslim Brotherhood’s headquarters and no one asked her to wear a headscarf, as they had when she visited the offices a decade earlier. This should give a strong indication of the positive changes taking place within the Muslim Brotherhood.
More importantly, acceptance of political pluralism is much easier than accepting pluralism in text interpretation. In the world of politics, Shariah only sets objectives to be achieved and core values to be taken into account. This leaves large room for dynamism, even among Islamist lines of thought.
We understand the rules of democracy, and realize that people have the right to choose to do whatever they want, even if we view their choice as incorrect. At the end of the day, what matters should be neither the Muslim Brotherhood leaders’ opinion nor that of President Hosni Mubarak, but rather the Egyptian people’s opinion, as manifested in ballot boxes in free and fair elections — given, of course, that their decision does not undermine the basic rights or civil liberties of any group or individual.
I agree with Eltahawy when she writes that the Muslim Brotherhood is “the last man standing in Egypt.” I sincerely believe this puts an additional responsibility on the group, as it must shoulder the burden of helping others to stand.
As declared several times by leaders including Deputy Chairman Khayrat El Shatir (who is currently being tried by a military tribunal), the Muslim Brotherhood realizes that no single party or group will be able to solve Egypt’s economic, political and social problems. It is for this specific reason that Muslim Brotherhood members need to hear constructive criticism and advice from their political rivals, so we can all help each other move forward in pushing for genuine reform in Egypt.
Eltahawy says she is unconvinced that a majority of Egyptians would vote for the Muslim Brotherhood in free and fair elections. I agree, as it was the regime’s harsh crackdowns and unsuccessful distortion campaign in the media that helped deliver the elections to the Muslim Brotherhood, along with a clear maturity in the group’s political and organizational capabilities.
If contested in free and fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would at most win around 45%-50% of votes. Yet the silent majority that would not vote for the Muslim Brotherhood would, if given the chance, vote against the extralegal measures used by Mubarak’s regime to silence the group. Most Egyptians know that these suppressive measures only contribute to boosting radicalism, with consequences that may be devastating to all of us.
It is true, as Eltahawy notes, that Mubarak and his regime have played the bogeyman card. They have been able to do so in part because the Muslim Brotherhood has failed to reach out to the world and convey a better understanding of what the group stands for.
More effort has been put into dialogue in recent years, particularly after the parliamentary success in 2005, and a notable number of Western intellectuals and policymakers have come to see the real face of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hopefully these efforts, along a sincere and evenhanded defense of human rights, will help Egypt move forward toward becoming an inclusive democracy.
I wholeheartedly salute the positive spirit exhibited in Eltahawy’s opinion article. I salute her pragmatism, I salute her willingness to overcome ideological disputes and work with political rivals for a common cause, and I salute her uncompromising position on human rights and her defense of freedom for all.
It is through this kind of spirit that dialogue becomes fruitful — and it is such spirit that makes one confidently say that we are capable of standing up united for Egypt.
Ibrahim El Houdaiby is a Cairo-based board member of Ikhwan Web, the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language Web site
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
You've successfully signed up!
the rights of minorities were most certainly NOT respected in the united states in the 19th century: jim crow, lack of civil/political rights for women, a thousand other examples. however, this does not mean there was any causal link between said issues and the preponderance of christian fundamentalists in congress: human right were just not that developed back then. in egypt, however, it would most certainly be the case.
ah, so you're the man responsible for the utter and total difference between the Ikhwan's English and Arabic websites! You'll have to do better than that. The Arabic wesbite makes it clear that the Brotherhood is far from embracing democracy. besides, your analysis is simplistic: all laws are based on moral choices, and what if Brotherhood MPs, if people should so lose their mind as to return them in majority to parliament, one day decide that some measure which THEY believe in is "for the good of society"? it won't matter what personal rights they infringe then. democracy, right? the will of the people. no, an intrinsic part of democracy is respecting the rights of minorities, including women, BY LAW, and having any religious majority in parliament will always result in the infringement of their rights, because religious people know what is best for society.
I am perfectly prepared to assume for the sake of argument that the Muslim Brotherhood "Will Stand Up For The Rights of All Egyptians." But why should the Forward's non-Egyptian readership care?
There seems to be a sea change in attitudes towards Al-Ikhwan taking place in the west. Leiken and Brooks’ recent article on “the Moderate Muslim Brotherhood” has pushed the issue further towards the tipping point where it looks as if some western governments may soon fully engage with the MB, however what the MB seem not to have fully realised is that this means they will have to engage fully with the west. In the UK the MB currently use front organisations in an attempt to have several different personae available whilst keeping secrecy around the MB itself. If engagement is to work, this must end otherwise they appear less than honest, and regardless of what one thinks of their policies one thing we can be certain about is the MB’s honesty and honour. It would be a shame to loose their greatest asset as a result of unnecessary subterfuge. The second problem is highlighted by the “You are naked” and “there is only one interpretation” statements. Pluralism does not just mean the existence of several points of view; it means the acceptance that your opinion may be wrong. However when anyone uses religion as the starting point for their politics the acceptance that the religion or at least their interpretation of that religion may be incorrect is difficult for them. This is regardless of which of the worlds 128 ‘one true religions’ you subscribe to. If anything stops the MB from success once in government, like so many of their predecessors it will be the inability to differentiate between their interpretation and the correct one. History is littered with the corpses of those who prayed that God was on their side, when they really should have been praying that they were on God’s side. In engaging fully, the MB will also then be in the full light of scrutiny: as a result there will be a limit to how much blame for their failures they will be able to pass of to the evils of the west. They will have to take full responsibility for their own decisions, including when and when not to apply their perceived obligations of religion. History as it always does, provides us with a fine example. In the late 18th century the Pasha of Tripoli attempted to extract tribute from the newly formed American confederacy, explaining to Thomas Jefferson that it was a religious duty on Muslims to dominate and exact tribute from his new country. America at that point had decided not to build a navy capable of working in international waters. As a result of The Pasha’s demands, the confederation not only decided to build a marine force under the slogan: “Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute” but also chose to become a full country, The United States of America. In the resulting Barbary Wars The USA achieved a military victory over the Islamic coast of North Africa that European powers had tried to achieve and failed. To this day the Marine Anthem is ‘Tripoli’. Instead of Muslims dominating America, America began its domination of Dar ul Islam. Had the Pasha been less greedy history may have been very different.
I don't believe E.H for a minute. E.H. knows a useful idiot when he sees one. Mona along with the "Western Intellectuals" will be used as long as they remain useful. Liberals are stupid that way. The Brotherhood does not try to hide it's goal of Islamic takeover of the world and the institution of Sharia law. (I have posted the link below again for those who are not aware what they believe and say when they are not talking to gullible liberals) I have no doubt that if given the freedom to vote in a democratic election the Arabs would elect a fascist Islamic government in Egypt as they have in Gaza. The Arabs are stupid that way. As Graham pointed out, the US has been fighting state sponsored Muslim terrorism since the inception of our country. It is the reason the US Navy was created. The Muslims, however, have been at war with the world for 1300 years. Today, virtually every conflict in the world involves Muslims not being able to peacefully coexist with their non-Muslim neighbors. The West needs to come to terms with the fact that Iraq is only the beginning battle in what will be a very long worldwide war against Islamic fascism. Will we have the courage and the fortitude previous generations have had to fight this evil? With the government that we have I am not optimistic. The democrats hide their heads in the sand, root for our defeat, and rejoice over every setback we have in the war. And the republicans are too cowardly to do what is necessary to defeat the enemy. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/homeland_security_implications_1.html
Well said. I must point out, though, that throughout history groups have claimed to be oppressed by the mere sight of their neighbors acting differently. This falsification must be set aside once and for all. The unity of humankind, which for so long was an aspiration, is now a brute fact: we are united, however diverse and disagreeing, simply because a single act of destruction can find us all. Shereen: Throughout the 19th century, the legislatures of the U.S. were dominated by what would now be called fundamentalist Christians, and it is still probably impossible for any open non-theist to be elected to high office, yet the rights of minorities were fairly well respected. Mike: Because wherever human rights are denied in the world, Jews are at risk, for one thing. And we humans are all fiftieth cousins at most. Jochanan ha-Goy
Should the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization devoted to our destruction, have a voice in a Jewish newspaper?
Shereen: quite right about blacks and women -- I meant religious minorities, and should have said so.