10 Feb 2012 By Hamad Al-Majid The professionalism shown by Lieutenant General
Dhahi Khalfan Tamim, the chief of the Dubai Police
Force, in his proficient management of Dubai's traffic
system, seems to be in complete contrast to his recent
controversial remarks that have now transformed into
something akin to Kalashnikov fire. As if firing
bullets, Khalfan Tamim accused the US of being behind
the Arab Spring revolutions, and the Muslim
Brotherhood of being a more dangerous threat than Iran
to the region. These words formed part of the speech
which he delivered during the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GGC)'s National and Regional Security Conference held
recently in the Bahraini capital Manama. Lieutenant General Khalfan Tamim is a widely
respected character in the Gulf region for his
integrity, professionalism and modesty. I'm not
writing here to defend the subjects of the Lieutenant
General's recent accusations, nor do I deny him the
right to express his opinion regarding the countries
and movements he considers to be dangerous - or a
source of disturbance - for his country and the Gulf
states. Rather, I am making the point that a
professional statesman is one who seeks to narrow the
circle of opponents and hostilities around him as much
as possible, rather than provoke antagonism towards a
specific category of citizens in his own country, as
well as those elsewhere that have contributed to the
development of his country. In fact, accusing the
Muslim Brotherhood of being more dangerous than Iran
is tantamount to an accusation of treason against some
of his own Emirati natives, and this is a serious
mistake that a heavyweight Khalfan Tamim must not
commit. The Muslim Brotherhood rose to power and the
parliaments of Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco through
elections and the ballot boxes. They did not instigate
their countries' revolutions, nor did they hijack
them. Indeed, the Brotherhood's popularity in Egypt
almost plummeted when its members agreed to attend the
infamous meeting with Omar Suleiman, prior to the
regime's overthrow, which was perceived by many as an
attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to help the regime
survive, if it granted sufficient reforms. The Muslim
Brotherhood has remained committed to the principle of
peaceful opposition from the era of Gamal Abdel Nasser
to that of Hosni Mubarak, in spite of the repression,
killings, prolonged imprisonment, displacement, and
even when it was denied the right to establish a
political party, and despite the severe restrictions
placed upon it in the elections. Despite all this, the
Brotherhood committed no single act of violence. In
fact, because they were peaceful and patient amidst
the oppression of their rulers, they soon became the
opponents of extremist Islamist groups such as Takfir
wal-Hijra and al-Qaeda. Moderate Islamists in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia
have gained control of the parliaments in their
countries through democratic means, and in Libya, they
Brotherhood was the backbone of the revolution there.
Whether the Lieutenant General likes it or not, the
Muslim Brotherhood has become a highly significant
political entity, which he and all Arab states must
coexist with it. If the pragmatism of politics
dictates that countries must coexist with post-coup
governments, even if they turn out to be bloodthirsty
and tyrannical as with Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein
and Hafiz al-Assad, then surely we must also act to
coexist with those who come to power through the
ballot boxes. Lieutenant General Khalfan Tamim was also quoted
during the same conference as saying "I will say
openly that the (Brotherhood) does not wish to see our
Sheikhs as rulers in the Gulf." I hope he didn't mean
such things, as his idealistic character contradicts
such harsh words. However, if he was serious, then
this is a gross misjudgment that contradicts the true
reality of the great majority of Islamists across the
Gulf States. It was the Muslim Brotherhood in Kuwait
that led a movement to rally around the rulers during
the al-Sabah royal family's darkest times, when it was
expelled from its own country. Is there any stronger
loyalty than this, when a group stands by a ruler who
was expelled from his country at the hands of a
dangerous and a wild neighbor like Saddam Hussein? In
Saudi Arabia, when suspicious entities provoked the
Saudi youth, urging them to demonstrate on the
so-called Day of rage [March 11th], Islamist symbols
maintained honorable stances by championing the state
and its rulers, whilst warning the youths not to
respond to such ill-intentioned calls, so as not to
drag the country into the furnace of sedition and the
pitfalls of violence. The result was a positive one
when no one responded to such calls to demonstrate.
Similarly, let us consider the Islamists in Bahrain,
whose demands have been largely unmet, and
nevertheless, they have maintained a defensive stance
with the king and the government to stabilize the
country and protect it against the Iranian octopus
that is provoking sedition there. So, how can such Islamists be as dangerous as Iran?
Dr. Hamad Al-Majid is a journalist and former
member of the official Saudi National Organization for
Human Rights. Al-Majid is a graduate of Imam Muhammad
Bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh and holds an
M.A. from California and a Doctorate from the
University of Hull in the United Kingdom. Comments 💬 التعليقات |