Background:

The Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwān al-Muslimīn) is an international Sunni Islamist group founded by Ḥasan al-Bannā in 1928. Although, originally the movement claimed to be against violence, it has been accused of many alleged terrorist attacks, and is banned in Egypt as well as considered a terrorist organisation by several Arab states. Father Christiaan van Nispen (15.3.1938 – 12.5.2016) discusses the implementation of Sharīʿah Law in Egypt and refers to several Islamic scholars, clerics, philosophers and people associated to the Muslim Brotherhood, ranging from moderate to Islamist including: Dr. Naṣr Abū Zayd, Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ghazālī, Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qarḍāwī and Dr. Fūʾād Zakarīā.

Van Nispen worries about Saudi Arabia’s role in the movement of society. Many artists complain that their books are being banned, or movies are not approved, that they are not able to express themselves freely. Even 17 years later, Saudi Arabia still suffers from what to some might be seen as a violation of human rights. For instance, blogger Raʾif Badawī was accused of apostasy and charged 1000 lashes for "insulting Islam through electronic channels" in 2012.

Side A:

Father van Nispen states that some Islamic clerics believe that Sharīʿah must be implemented in countries where there is total justice. This is at the moment not the case anywhere (and probably will not be the case ever), and he therefore sees no reason why principles such as cutting off one’s hand for stealing should be implemented in society. Van Nispen mentions that he has spoken to many Muslims ranging from members of the Muslim Brotherhood to secular Muslim philosophers. The Muslim Brothers do not want the Sharīʿah originating from the 7^th century, but one that is from the 21^st century, although this does not exist yet and van Nispen finds this quite vague. There is also the question of what Sharīʿah truly is. Not much of it has been explained thoroughly as it has been merely described in the Qurʾān. Is Sunnah part of this as well? Some say only the authentic parts of Sunnah, but what is authentic and what is not?

Father van Nispen believes that by censorship and restriction, people are pushed into the arms of fundamentalism and in fundamentalism; there is no room for creative theological thinking. In Tunisia, in contrast to in Egypt, there is no room at all for discussion, according to van Nispen. Although Egypt may be more open for discussion, the people pay a high price – violence.

Dr. Naṣr Abū Zayd, a liberal Muslim philosopher who is known for challenging traditional Islamic thought, talks about the human aspect of Qurʾān. God’s word needs to be understood separately, there is no one absolute meaning. Believing that there is, leads to extremism said Abū Zayd. He calls for a re-interpretation of the Qurʾān.

Side B:

According to van Nispen, American politics is in favour of fundamentalism and this belief dates back to the Cold War period. Everything that was not considered communism was good. As they say ‘The enemy of my enemy is my good friend.’

In contrast, Egyptian politics has a history of rejection of fundamentalism says van Nispen, whereby the state has arrested members of/people affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood time and again. Father van Nispen states that the National Democratic Party is not actually a party, but just the state’s influence in politics and that if there were true free elections in Egypt, there would be a great percentage voting for Islamists. Besides, a significant portion of the Egyptian population is illiterate, thus we cannot expect political insights or political sophistication among the majority of the population, which in turn reduces representation.

Shaykh Muḥammad al-Ghazālī advocates that Jews have a democratic state, Christians have democratic states, it is only Muslims who are asked not to be involved in politics as to not stray away from religion. Dr. Fūʾād Zakarīā argues these states are not actually secular states, democratic but not secular. Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qarḍāwī believes to have the solution for all economic/social issues in society, but van Nispen is sceptical and argues that if the issue of the first day of fasting in Ramadan can still not be determined, then how does one expect the Qurʾān to have solutions to much more complicated issues? In addition to that, Zakarīā argues that if we have the law of God, it still has to be explained and implemented. The one who explains and the one who implements still cannot diminish human intervention for he is human. Imperfection is part of human nature, thus we will never escape human error, and there cannot be one interpretation of Islam.