Steven A. Cook

From the Potomac to the Euphrates

Cook examines developments in the Middle East and their resonance in Washington.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Lights Out for Al-Nour?

by Guest Blogger for Steven A. Cook
August 6, 2013

Nader Bakkar, official spokesman of the Salafi al-Nour party, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Cairo (Asmaa Waguih/Courtesy Reuters). Nader Bakkar, official spokesman of the Salafi al-Nour party, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Cairo (Asmaa Waguih/Courtesy Reuters).

The post below on Egypt’s Salafis  was written by my research associate, Alexander Brock, and my intern, Amr T. Leheta. I hope you find it interesting.  

After the military intervention that toppled Mohammed Morsi and imprisoned much of the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership, many Egyptian and foreign observers are speculating that  Egypt’s Salafis are poised to rise to prominence. The Salafi parties have shown political acumen that hardly anyone could have predicted, given their historical opposition to political participation. Yet just as Salafi parties, in particular al-Nour, are well positioned to replace the Muslim Brotherhood as the predominant Islamist political actor in Egypt, the seeds of the movement’s political demise may have already been sown.

Salafis, who are hardly a homogeneous group, champion a particular Islamic vision and identity that is based on a strict and literal interpretation of Islam. They are among the ideological descendants of the Islamic reformers of the nineteenth century in the style of Muhammad ibn Abdel Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism. They believe in the strict application of the shari’a and the revival of what they consider to be “pure” Islam: the Islam that the earliest Muslim generations, the salaf, practiced. Through their largely informal network (charities, mosques, educational institutions, and media channels), the Salafis have spread their message to a wide swath of Egyptian society. Despite this, they have historically been apolitical, claiming democracy to be an un-Islamic and foreign innovation (bid’a). Even when the uprising broke out on January 25, 2011, Salafi leaders issued fatwas warning against participating in the demonstrations, citing traditional teachings that forbade rebellion against any leader who was formally a Muslim, even if his rule were unjust.

It was only when the protests succeeded in overthrowing Mubarak that some Salafis decided to contest politics, setting up three parties: al-Nour (Light) Party, al-Asala (Authenticity) Party, and al-Fadila (Virtue) Party. They saw Mubarak’s fall as an opportunity to shape Egypt’s political order and push for an Islamic state, justifying their entry into the political arena by pointing out the threat of a secular political order emerging in Egypt. Nevertheless, this opportunism represents a divergence from its traditional doctrine, and is especially surprising in light of criticism the Salafis have directed at the Muslim Brotherhood, accusing them of abandoning their Islamic principles in favor of party politics.  Still, the Salafis recognized the need for pragmatism, particularly as they were well aware of their inexperience. They worked closely with the Brotherhood to ensure Islamists gained the upper hand, even if they did not fully believe that the Brotherhood prioritized the application of shari’a law as they did. They collaborated to win seats in parliament, to manage the dominant Islamist bloc in the legislature, and to support Mohammed Morsi in his bid for the presidency in June 2012 after the Salafis’ first choice, preacher Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, was disqualified.

This alliance, however, was short-lived. Morsi gave the Salafis no cabinet posts in his government, side-lined them from the decision-making process, and supported describing Egypt as a “civil state” in the new constitution, against the Salafis. The Salafis also got little backing in their most significant push to make Egypt an Islamic state: changing the wording of the much-disputed Article 2 of the constitution to make the actual rulings of  shari’a, not just the principles employed in deriving specific legal rulings, the basis of Egyptian law. It confirmed for the Salafis that the Brotherhood had, indeed, become “bourgeois elite disconnected from the street.”

Their pragmatism has even resulted in the most unlikely of alliances: al-Nour ultimately sided with liberal forces in support of the military intervention against Morsi, perhaps yet again seeing an opportunity to implement its own vision. But in this, as some observers have pointed out, al-Nour seems to have fallen victim to its own criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood, that of sacrificing principles for political gains, a criticism that was a source of leverage against the Brothers and that was a draw for much of its membership. Some members of al-Nour have been participating in the most recent pro-Morsi demonstrations, and some members have even left the party to join the Brotherhood in support of the ousted president. But it is now popularity, not purity of doctrine,  that is the compass for al-Nour’s leadership in its decision-making, made clear by al-Nour party spokesman Nader Bakkar’s statement that although twenty percent of its followers is disappointed in its position regarding the military intervention against Morsi, eighty percent remains faithfully aligned. In another doctrinal about-face, al-Nour is refusing to participate in the interim government, saying it would only be able to participate in a government established by democratic elections, when at one time it was democratic politics in which it could not participate. And how, indeed, can al-Nour possibly justify supporting the overthrow of Morsi, when by any measure the former president was “outwardly Muslim”?

The Salafis in Egypt have diverged enough from their doctrine, traditionally the source of its strength, to incite internal divisions among both the leadership and ordinary members. Even those dissatisfied with al-Nour’s political strategy, but not wanting to join the Brothers, are not without options. Some may find a voice with another more conservative Salafi groups, such as that led by Sheikh Said al-Raslan, who staunchly rejects party politics altogether, and who thus purports to represent a more authentic, and pure, Islamic worldview. And senior leaders of al-Nour have started to resign as well, suggesting that all is not well within the party.

This may seem like al-Nour’s time to shine, but the very pragmatic strategies that it  has employed to rise to power may also be its undoing, as it risks alienating its core constituency, which has supported it for its principled, rather than its pragmatic and political, stance. By assuming a leadership position in Egypt’s political scene going forward, the Salafi al-Nour party may be making the same mistake as the Islamist party which it maneuvered to replace.

Post a Comment 2 Comments

  • Posted by Imran Riffat

    Notwithstanding the fine-combed thought that has gone into this analysis it is a source of great discomfort insofar as the kind of future it predicts for Egypt. Today’s Egypt is not the same Egypt that is a progeny of the great Egyptian civilization. It does not behoove the pride and dignity of the Egyptians to be controlled and funded by the godfathers of Salafism (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries) and/or Brotherhood (Qatar) because, in terms of intellect and civilization, Egypt is far more superior to both. During my five-year stay in Egypt I was quite surprised when I heard people differentiate between Egyptians and Arabs and it took me a while to understand the underlying logic of this claim. It is quite possible that Gamal Nasser’s adventurism with Pan Arabism had blurred this line. The massively ignominious defeat of Egypt in the 1967 war has left deep scars of humiliation on the psyche of the masses. Although Egypt got back Sinai the continued occupation of other Arab lands for over 46 years has not helped.

    A better future for Egypt does not lie either with the Salafists or the Brotherhood. The military rulers must understand that in order for the country to perform on the world stage in a positive and constructive manner it has to be a democracy that respects human rights, the rights of women, the rights of all its non-Muslim citizens, and the right of every Egyptian to earn an honest living. The Salafists and the Brotherhood should not be allowed by the Egyptians to further poison the well. The military, too, should go back to the barracks after it has implemented a quick transition to a transparent civilian government. All this may well be wishful thinking but it stems from my heart that wishes nothing but the best for the common man, woman and child of Egypt.

  • Posted by faisal ibrahim

    It is a matter of great shame and embarrassment for a monotheist esp, a Muslims to say something in favor of democracy , and regards democracy as a solution for Muslims rights. It will be a very vivid display of inability to understand Islam and the need to obey the commandment of Allah . If we may will ask a pious christian that killing a magician is a crucial law and it is not the solution , and the way of bringing peace, if we will abolish it then it would be better , he will not at any cost agree with you in this regard, because he knows very well , what is capacity of Gods order, and why we should not disobey him too if we are very sad with what he ordered.
    In this way if an atheist will ask a monotheist why you people forbade people from doing adultery , magic , drink , nakedness etc , saying something against Jesus Christ peace be upon him , and Mohammad peace be upon him , and too abusing them and saying something against GOD and abusing him too , because the only solution for our peace is democracy and democracy should allow it , then it would be quiet stupidity , foolishness , abusiveness to allow him to do this , so here is the actual situation which i am going to explain,
    So now if you will not allow him then you know that it will create problems because you are hindering the creeds and wishes of a person which will transform into violence , turbulence if not today then tomorrow , but if you will allow such conducts in your dominion , necessarily peace will come but you will loose something , to which i need not to explain because a rational and pious person can understand the situation .
    We have not created to do anything else , but to obey and surrender to the commandments of our Creator , too if it brings peace or turbulence according our wisdom,
    this is what every monotheist say and believe in it , that O GOD you know better then me , what you have ordained for me are worthy of being obeyed , i need not to go further in its explanation now everyone can understand the situation.
    This is way that a society a government which allows everything and denies the commandments of God in preventing the people from committing such things which are not allowed by God , leaving the people to believe in what direction they wish and how they wish, so then such a society , government will necessarily be more peaceful than a society and government which will prevent the people from committing such things which are not allowed by God , preventing them from adultery , alcoholism , rape , fraud , satanism , idolatry , etc will must encounter opposition and will not be peaceful the same , but necessarily then such a society and government will must be more dear and loving to our Creator than the other.
    Then such people will be more righteous and worthy of being saved than the other one,s , so this is the actual thing which we have to achieve in our lives and for which we have created , the same will be the result democracy of which we are aware already.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required

Pingbacks