i t looks like our colleague hamed alhamoud is not the only thinker in kuwait who believes the muslim brotherhood can be allowed into political mainstream as an effective movement. our colleague and friend shafiq alghabra wrote an article at the beginning of this month wondering why a group of effective arab countries labeled the muslim brotherhood as a terrorist organization. their decision, he says, gives rise to many questions about the extent to which the arab system is identical to the american definitions of terrorism, which fail to distinguish between resistance, violence and acts of terror. al-ghabra wonders what changed the attitude of these countries against the muslim brotherhood which was a political party, with which the arab systems were allied at various stages. the answer to this question is simple. there are no permanent alliances or principles in politics, but permanent interests, and the interests of states may vary with the change in leadership or otherwise. al-ghabra looks at those who deny the brotherhood movement the right to enter politics is a kind of monopoly over power. according to me this denial is unrealistic. the muslim brotherhood is not a normal political faction, but a terrorist organization, and preventing them from political action even if it means monopolizing power by others is much better than their rule. the civilian devil known to you (who may not even be a devil) is much better than the dogmatic satan unknown to you. if the germans had known, at the beginning of the 1930s, the risk posed by the nazis to the nation and the world, they would have never voted them in power. i do not doubt the long experience of my colleagues, al-hamoud and al-ghabra in the political issues, but they may have misunderstood the risks posed by the islamic religious thought, represented by the muslim brotherhood movement. the analogy of the muslim brotherhood with the european christian parties is blatantly superficial and the comparison is never sound. the thought of the european christian parties is not based on their understanding of sacred texts that cannot be shaken or reinterpreted. they are political parties operating in non-religious communities and their relationship to religion is limited to economic ideas of the right wingers and their desire to apply tolerant ecclesiastical values in their societies without terrorism or domination, or monopoly or claiming they represent the almighty or the right to interpret the texts of the bible. they may win or lose in elections and if need be forge alliances with the communist parties, atheist groups and others and not blame the loss in any election to conspiracy. professor shafiq al-ghabra says the muslim brotherhood and the arab rights democratic movement are collectively punished for their daring participation in the 2011 revolutions and this is not true. what is meant by the ‘rights democratic movement’ and who represents it? did he forget that the brotherhood came to power in egypt and lost it due to terrorizing and marginalizing others? did he forget their authoritarian rule in gaza, their dictatorial rule in sudan and tunisia which almost set fire to them? the radicalization of the muslim brotherhood, their aggression and their desire to monopolize power were the main causes why they lost power. therefore, what is happening to them now is a kind of awareness-raising attitude by those who want to cut them to size and not a kind of punishment. al-ghabra said the fight within the ‘arab system’ does not only target the brotherhood but all politicians and political parties and those who issue calls for freedom and accountability. this may be true, but it is well-known that if the muslim brotherhood comes to power, it will automatically be like the arab system and fight those who call for freedom, equality, political accountability and others. the arab system may find for itself a way out in future and become more flexible and democratic, but the understanding of the religious texts by members of the muslim brotherhood is unclear to believe one day they will give up what they believe in and become advocates of freedom and equality. should this happen then their movement will empty itself of monopolistic religious thought. therefore, the fear of the arab regimes about the muslim brotherhood coming to power is not an exaggeration. i do not see the muslim brotherhood turning its back on its slogan during the next phase. to say or to admit that the muslim brotherhood has passed the test and contributed to the maturity of their perceptions and acceptance of the rules of democracy is a distant reality. the muslim brotherhood slogan ‘and prepare’ written beneath the two twocrossed swords remains unchanged. this means the choice is not in the hands of their leaders but their choices are based on their ideology which does not accept the rule of others. this is the whole point.

email: