Brotherhood's theocracy is incompatible with a democracy

In Europe, Muslim Brotherhood realized that their pragmatic project was failing in the Muslim world. At first, some controversy emerged because their position in non-Islamic territories was difficult to keep in accordance with Islamic law.

But in the end, they changed the rules and decided to stay in Europe with a new mission – to islamize the non-Muslim world. This new ideology "Brotherism"is a mixture of ideas emanating from the Muslim Brotherhood – taken up by Al-Qaradawi – and the Jamaat-e-Islami founded by Maududi.

The globalized economy allowed the development of a halal market. This market not only spreads products but also norms. New regulations were progressively invented in the 1980s to spread the halal norm. Starting with meat and then other food products like sweets for children, it further extended to inedible products that the body absorbs, like drugs and cosmetics. New processes and ‘spaces’ were made halal too, like banking and travel. The rise of ‘modest fashion’ (like hijab) is, of course, part of this phenomenon.

Analysts believe that reasonable liberalism shouldn’t let a religious group alter the social contract. If some Muslims want to develop a halal market, it is not an issue as long as it does not imply a reorganization of society, like for instance changing the local rules of commensality and conviviality. But if hijab or halal food makes its way into the public school, it disturbs the conviviality and the consensual values that allow everyone to cohabit despite their differences.

Most of all, the fundamental values of the Muslim Brothers are different from those the European societies inherited from their history. Their project is a theocracy, which is incompatible with a democracy.