Inside the brotherhood

This being the title of a rather depressing book by Hazem Kandil, lecturer in something called political sociology at the University of Cambridge. An expert in power relations in revolution and war who focuses on the Middle East, Western Europe, and North America. Brought to me by the NYRB.

A book mainly about the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, founded by a primary school teacher in 1928, a big organisation which finally attained power in 2011, only to be removed and proscribed by the military in 2014.

An organisation which included many technicians in its ranks - doctors, engineers and their like - which did good works and which looked after its own. Not that unlike our own Freemasons in that regard. But also rather closed and culty. Much emphasis was placed on faith in God and faith in the leadership. Discussion of such matters was not encouraged. Scholarship in religious matters was not encouraged. No anthropological, historical or textual analysis of the Koran here, thank you very much: you infidels might do that sort of thing with your book, but we won't have it with ours. An outfit which believed that if they believed in God and observed the rites & rituals prescribed in his Book (as interpreted by the leaders of the Brotherhood), then he, that is to say God, would look after everything else; not a terribly worldy bunch. And not very strong on public policy. Some would say incompetent.

And while some of them went along with inclusive democracy, quite a lot of them believed that anyone not of the true faith was fair game. With those who had lapsed or deviated from the true faith being particularly fair game. Rather an intolerant bunch, rather like us Caucasian Christians were four or five hundred years ago and with, to my mind, no place in the modern world, a world in which most of us are not very, if at all, religious, while respecting the rights of those who are. They are free to worship as they see fit, within the bounds of the law, but not to impose that worship on us. Although deciding where exactly to draw the line can cause problems, as the French have found - and perhaps our rather vaguer approach works better.

Kandil documents plenty of tension between what one might call the older, soft-line wing of the Brotherhood and the newer, hard-line wing, with the latter being very impatient to make progress. Also infected with the salafism of their neighbours, the Saudis. I also get the impression that like plenty of other faith based outfits before them, when they get some power, many of them turn out to be pretty much as venal as the people they seek to replace. Their faith does not stand in the way of their lining their own and their family's pockets. I associate here to the juicy scandals of the Bible Belt of the USA. Also to a politician of faith a bit nearer home.

An interesting and easy, if rather dull, read. Not for nothing does Kandil have the word 'sociology' in his CV.

With thanks to google for the illustration, similar to the badge of the brotherhood, chosen for the size and quality of the image.

PS: are the crossed swords significant? They are certainly a lot more aggressive in tone than our own crosses, symbols of sacrifice, expiation and patience in suffering rather than aggression - although we do have the Salvation Army with their cod-military uniforms. Would an anthropologist draw any conclusions from all this?