Treaty of Tripoli

How so very topical

Despite the comforting comparisons of the Muslim Brotherhood with political movements in Europe, and the enthusiasm with the group’s active role in the pushing for regime change in Egypt, there is the uncomfortable truth that there are core principles of the Muslim Brotherhood that are regressive, exclusionary and bigoted. 

There should be no space in the 21^st century to party proclamations that over half the population is “unsuitable” to run for presidency by sole virtue of their religion or gender.  Nor are the following type of half-assed accommodations by “reformists” acceptable:  

“Our adherence to the jurisprudential opinion refusing the appointment of women or Christians as president does not mean we impose this opinion on the people, who have inherent jurisdiction in this regard…I personally accept for Copts to be appointed in hundreds of positions, including sensitive leadership positions in the country in accordance with the criterion of efficiency and competence, regardless of their proportion in society.”

One might suppose coming from a base in which Copts and women were meant to accept their rightful place as irrelevant to the body politic, such a message might be seen to be uplifting.  But in truth, only contrived relativism could make that actually seem reasonable.

Principles matter, especially in this day and age of grand ideas of how to reform the constitutional framework for a country.  The principle of the equality of individual rights is not something for which there should be a “transformation” or “evolution.”  Either the Muslim Brotherhood and its sympathizers and accommodators accept this, or they do not.  There is no in-between.