Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood

Opinion on Prof. Shadi Hamid on Islamic Exceptionalism

"Shadi, sometimes it's actually a bit simpler than that; some people join the Brotherhood because they want to get into heaven." This was a really interesting and fascinating point made by the mid-level Muslim Brotherhood (MB) official during an interview with Shadi Hamid. Like Hamid, I assumed the reason people joined the MB was because it offered a way out (of poverty, of anger, etc.) and not because it offered a way in (to Heaven). Yet that belief is very much a motivating factor. In fact, while Hamid is from a secular background, I myself am from a religious background and this makes a lot of sense to me and resonates. Religion is very much a part of politics because it is part of the belief system of people in general. It should not be ignored.

Hamid points out that it is because of this genuine religious belief that Islam is so important to its adherents, who believe that “Islam should play a central role in public life, and this is why you have moments that define their political project around this particular concern—how to make an Islamic law prominent or central in public life and in legislation.” Was it any different for Christians in the Middle Ages? Wasn’t their goal to bring Christian principles to Europe?

Hamid’s ultimate conclusion is that people of different beliefs, whether they are Jews and Christians or Muslims or Hindus or whatever—they all need to learn to respect one another without resorting to violence or oppression: “What I would suggest is perhaps we should learn to recognize difference but not see that as necessarily negative or bad, but to appreciate, respect, and see how we can live with people we disagree with or we do not like.” Muslims want to have a society of law and order that is oriented towards their belief system. I would say that Jews and Christians and Hindus would all want the same thing, respectively. Secular people imagine that we can all live peacefully together and get along—however, I would say it is not going to be as simple as Hamid hopes it can be. For instance, what happened in India when Gandhi suggested a Muslim lead the newly independent India? He was killed by a Hindu nationalist, who took Gandhi’s suggestion as a serious affront and threat to Hinduism in the country.

My point is that people of different religious beliefs are never going to be fully compatible in a civil society where one religion is promoted as the true religion, nor are they going to be content in a secular society that promotes no religion as true but accepts religious liberty on principle. Believers want to spread their beliefs and convert others because they want others to get to Heaven—just as the mid-level MB official said: it really is that simple.

Overall, I think Hamid is correct that religion is a big motivator when it comes to the politics of believers and in cultures where belief is common. In societies where beliefs are all over the map or are more secular, there is going to be divisions and polarity, just like there is between nations of differing beliefs or between camps or sects of believers. Division and polarity are natural when it comes to belief, and I would say that it is just as natural that there would be struggles for power to control the laws of the land. Respect sounds nice in a secular society—but not everyone is secular or wants to live in a secular world. So this idea that respect and peace can be enjoyed is somewhat limited I would say. Differences in belief will lead to conflict of some type until there is resolution. That is why believers want to convert others: they want that peace that they believe will come when all are joined together in unity, working towards the same goal of getting to Heaven.