The Muslim, Christian and Jewish Brotherhood... a view ...by Jamil Shawwa

For the strict purpose of this article, I am going to use two major powers- and then branch out- in the Middle East right now to make the point, The State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran. See, from the names of these countries you probably would know what I am going to talk about. I agree with the title or the name of Israel and I do not agree with the name of Iran. I do not agree with countries adding a religion or nationality to their names. Now, Israel can -and I said before- explains or decides that it is a Jewish state and Iran if it changes its name can decide that it is an Islamic country- as long as it is not in the name itself and as long as the countries that put a description respect civil liberties. I know in Israel, you can be anything and still live your life normally; you can have a mosque, a church and a synagogue. In Iran it is not the same, women have to cover their hair, have to abide by certain restrictions and the country imposes its description or it's version of religion on its citizens and others, Israel does not.

Few days ago in a discussion, I said-concerning the Muslim Brotherhood organization- that the official number of its members if it exists does not mean much to show the real strength of the group. The strength of the Brotherhood stems from many factors. The main factor in my opinion is that they are banned, and this makes them look mysterious and make ordinary people intrigued by the fact that the state keeps cracking down on them. Based on media and public pulse reports, the group could win the parliamentary elections not only in Egypt but also in Jordan, Syria, and other Arab countries if it is conducted completely freely. I know this scares moderates, liberals, and conservatives who feel that the religion's place is not in politics, or who oppose the theological system of government. The Muslim Brotherhood and other religion based political parties can participate in elections but only if they adapt the following: They must respect and obey civil liberties and civic societies, must respect and obey the liberal constitutions. They must obey and respect the people’s will in not using violence and terrorism to achieve political gains. They can of course have their political agendas and political maneuvers but they must recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist side by side with the new State of Palestine. The problem is not the Muslim Brotherhoods; the root cause resides in the Arab regimes, they are not elected freely, and they do not have the legitimacy to govern. Another problem is the constitutions of many Arab countries, how can you ban the Muslim Brotherhood and other religion based political parties if the preamble of many Arab countries constitutions states that the region is the only source for legislation. Contradictions and hypocrisy, I think.

I just cannot see going back as countries and cultures to have theological states although we have been seeing and witnessing a strict or even fanatic interpretation of the three divine religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam across the world. People are suffering from mental, spiritual vacuums, frustrations, disillusionment and financial distress. They are resorting to purity, spirituality that is found according to the minds of most humans in the holy books or faiths, in the beliefs. The different sects and interpretations within each faith still tear people apart. Religions in my thinking are personal, private, use them the way you want, cherish them, but to yourself and do not impose them. Go to your synagogue, to your church, to your mosque, to your temple, if you want but again do not force them. Mine is not better than yours and vice versa, should be the mantra. In Europe, there are political parties with a religion adjacent to its names, such as the Christian Democratic Party in Italy, but Italy is just Italy, not a theological state. The parties there though cherish the principles, do not impose them to change the state into a theological state. In the United States, we do not have parties with a religion name in particular but we have groups, such as the life groups that do not believe in abortion besides those who do not mind it. Fighting democratically for what you believe is fine, arguing, debating, deliberating, all are good as long as we stick to dialogues and not violence. Free societies usually do not strict political or religious parties from existence; you can have for example, a Jewish Brotherhood, or Christen Brotherhood or as in the Middle East right now and for generations the Muslim Brotherhood. I want to go further and say why not having all these organizations in the Middle East if someone or groups are interested. This is the point I want to make, if you allow a Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East, then you cannot ban a Christen or Jewish Brotherhoods in the same place. The followers of the three religions exist and they have or should have the same rights. I really do not see a problem in naming a political party with a religion as long as this party respects the civil liberties and the civic and liberal societies that in my opinion the Middle East should be based on. The New Middle East, as I said before, will include both Israel and Palestine and will be based on civil liberties. Societies will evolve from using religions to attract or search for identity to have strong political processes based on the needs of the people and the changing times. Finally yet importantly, religions will always have tremendous force on its followers especially in a place like the Middle East, the birthplace of the three divine religions, but tolerance-probably- will prevail in general.