The two popular revolutions that toppled former presidents Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak constituted a new challenge to al-Qaeda and its ideologues.
This challenge did not arise after a targeted military strike or additional restrictions on the movements of al-Qaeda leaders in their preferred staging areas on the Afghan-Pakistain border.
Instead, the challenge is the result of a wish that came true: the fall of regimes routinely described as "dictatorial" or "apostate" for ruling in a manner contrary to the teachings of Islamic Sharia.
| Be careful what you wish for, and all that. |
Al-Qaeda's intellectual dilemma came to the forefront immediately after the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes fell. Dr Ayman al-
Zawahiri... Second in command of al-Qaeda, occasionally described as
the real brainsof the outfit. Formerly the Mister Big of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Bumped off Abdullah Azzam with a car boom in the course of one of their little disputes. Is thought to have composed bin Laden's
fatwaentitled
World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders.Currently residing in the North Wazoo area. That is not a horn growing from the middle of his forehead, but a prayer bump, attesting to how devout he is...
, al-Qaeda's second in command, recorded a series of messages apparently made just days before Mubarak resigned, following street protests that brought millions of peaceful demonstrators to the Egyptian streets calling for "the fall of the regime".
The messages were al-Zawahiri's first comments on the popular uprising in Egypt. In them, he attacked the Mubarak regime for presenting itself as a secular and democratic regime that uses Islamic Sharia as a source for legislation and not the sole source. He also criticised it for saying that illusory sovereignty stems from the people.
Al-Zawahiri called Mubarak's regime a "Jahilia" regime (meaning un-Islamic) and said that the "democratic process can only be secular and not religious". He lashed out at states with democratic systems, showing disdain for Islamists who are calling for the adoption of "the system known as the civilian state".
Al-Zawahiri's statements appeared out of touch with the aspirations of young men and women who erupted into the streets in Egypt and Tunisia to call for real democratic regimes to replace what they viewed as the corrupt regimes of Mubarak and Ben Ali.
His words were reminiscent of a video message released years ago, in which he said change in Islamic countries cannot be accomplished in a peaceful manner. In that message, which was posted on discussion forums along with his latest one, he challenged those who do not share his opinion to provide "one example" of a peaceful revolution that succeeded in changing a regime.
While al-Zawahiri's messages, both old and new, were being posted online, Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman
... Now former Vice president of Egypt. From 1993 until his appointment to that office in 2011 he was Minister without Portfolio and Director of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate (EGID)...
announced that Mubarak was stepping down, meeting the demand of the protesters. The Egyptian army, which assumed power during a transitional period, appeared to be serious about meeting the aspirations of protestors. Demonstrators sought Mubarak's departure, a campaign against rampant corruption in state institutions, and constitutional amendments that would open the door to real democracy that allows for the peaceful transfer of power, political pluralism, and press freedoms.
The Egyptian authorities began immediately to prosecute former regime officials for involvement in corruption and amending articles of the constitution to allow greater competition for the presidency and for parliamentary seats. The new leadership also started licensing political parties that were awaiting approval for 20 years such as the Centre Party, which was founded by former leading figures of the Moslem Brüderbund.
The brotherhood appears to ready to make the transition into a legal party after being banned for several decades.
Decades of violence brought oppression, not change
The ability of the Egyptian population to change the regime through peaceful demonstrations brings to mind three decades of security turmoil that Egypt witnessed because jihadists like al-Zawahiri insisted on the use of violence and armed action as the only ways to change the regime.
Jihadists assassinated former President Anwar Sadat in 1981. The next regime, led by Mubarak, reacted by imposing an emergency law, violently suppressing Islamists, and preventing any political activity that could lead to any change in the regime (as exemplified by the dissolution of the Labour Party and the prevention of the Moslem Brüderbund from participating in political life).
This security and political crackdown was reinforced throughout the 1990s because the jihadists continued with more acts of violence against symbols of the state -- such as politicians and security officials -- as well as Western tourists who visited Egypt, and who constitute an essential part of the livelihood of a large segment of Egyptian workers in the tourism sector.
This became the formula offered by Egyptian officials when foreign visitors raised the issue of opening the way for greater political freedoms: any easing of the iron grip through which the regime holds various segments of society will usher the Islamists into power, they would argue.
Some officials accepted this argument and ignored for many years the human rights
... which are not the same thing as individual rights, mind you...
violations and the political and security crackdowns that occurred in Egypt, along with other "police" states. Others attempted to persuade Egypt and other countries that political reforms and acceptance of popular demands could help and not threaten efforts to combat al-Qaeda and those described as Islamist thugs.
However,
The infamous
However...
the Egyptian regime was quick to dismiss calls for political liberalisation, arguing that it would allow the Islamists to obtain power as happened with the Moslem Brüderbund during the Egyptian People's Assembly elections in 2005 and with Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, in the 2006 Paleostinian elections.
Despite the fact that this argument may be true to some extent -- i.e. that elections may bring Islamists to power -- the fundamental weakness, it appears, is the confusion between political Islam and al-Qaeda. In fact, there is a fundamental difference between political Islam and the jihadist movement because the latter uses armed violence as an essential means -- sometimes the only means - for regime change.
Political Islam vs. al-Qaeda
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between political Islamists and al-Qaeda is their differing view towards political pluralism. While the brotherhood accepts it and defends its participation in parliaments that include non-Islamist parties (which may be secular or national), al-Qaeda and other jihadist movements with a similar ideology do not accept this at all. They reject what they consider as "infidel parliaments" (since they control personal status laws), reject multi-party systems, and refuse to accept any democratic transfers of power.
The Tunisian Islamic Revival Movement was among the first Islamist groups that responded to this line of thought, which argues that it is not permissible for Islamists to abandon power if they lose elections. This Tunisian group stated, in reviews in the 1990s, that it would give up power if Islamists lost the elections.
It is likely that this debate between political Islam and al-Qaeda will resurface, with the former preparing to engage in electoral contests to be held in the coming months in both Egypt and Tunisia. It is also likely that their political participation will be met with opposition from supporters of al-Qaeda on the pretext that it is contrary to the correct teachings of Islam.