Shafik and the Sufis

Interesting points from Daniel about Sufi support for Shafik:

“It is perhaps a minor point, but I would like to make the point that it is not only the Copts who support Shafik (as the vote totals alone would prove). Although the Sufi leaders refrained from endorsing a specific candidate, it is my understanding that Shafik has strong support from many Sufis, particularly those who are from the al-Azamiyya tariqa (many of whom are (or were) members of the Egyptian Liberation Party). While the proposition ‘All or most Copts support Shafik’ seems to be true, the converse proposition ‘All those who support Shafik are Copts’ is quite clearly false, no?

In a way, this makes sense — the Sufis have similar interests with the Copts, in that they want a civil society which supports equal rights for all and, as many of the Sufi leaders have said, their dervishes should not be supporting someone who is an Islamic extremist who has, in the past, expressed hostility toward the Sufis (as the Brotherhood in fact have). Al-Azamiyya tariqa, in particular, has a history in Egypt since the beginning of supporting Egyptian nationalism and pan-Arab nationalism of an Islamic variety, but with civil protections for minorities. They are understandably wary of a Brotherhood government. While the Brotherhood government would, perhaps, provide civil protections for non-Islamic minorities such as the Coptic Christians, they would most decidedly not provide protections for Islamic minorities such as the Sufis, since they regard the Sufi dervishes as heretics.

I’m not trying to build a case for supporting Shafik. He may well be the lesser of two evils, however, from a ‘law and order’ perspective. All I’m saying is that, if I’m a Sufi dervish, I’m going to be supporting Shafik at this point, because the Brotherhood, who now control the Parliament, need to be checked, otherwise they may in fact outlaw, or persecute, the Sufi tariqas in Egypt, and that would be a disaster for anyone concerned to cultivate a ‘moderate Islam.’

If there is going to be a moderate political Islam in Egypt, the Sufis have to be a part of that, and the Brotherhood will never tolerate their participation.”

First, I never said that all Shafik supporters are Copts. I said only that in my circles, all of the strong Shafik supporters I know are Copts. A number of these people are working class and did not benefit at all from the old regime, and are moved primarily by genuine fear of what an all-Brotherhood government might mean for them (and as I have said, those fears seem perfectly legitimate to me). The Copts are a small minority, and obviously aren’t going to win the election singlehandedly for anyone.

Nonetheless, Daniel is right to point out that there is a longstanding distrust between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Sufis, who are present in Egypt in considerable numbers. And if I were an Egyptian Sufi, I too would be strongly tempted to vote for Shafik, again out of sheer visceral distrust of the alternative.

I still puzzle over how I would vote, if I had a vote, and am still inclined to think that I would cast a blank ballot if I bothered to go at all.

It really is an unfortunate electoral situation in the runoff for any non-Islamist, pro-Revolution voter. “The worst-case scenario,” some have said. But then you have people who do think one of the two is far worse than the other, and who that worst candidate might be varies from voter to voter, even among ardent pro-Revolution people.

I struggle to come up with a reasonable analogy for an American equivalent of this choice, because the stakes are so different. But let’s say that in the U.S. you had to choose between a more extreme Pat Robertson announcing that religious law would be imposed in the U.S. if he won, and a more extreme Donald Rumsfeld claiming that the War on Terror required a domestic military crackdown against all protests in American cities. Which would you choose in that case? You might well stay home.