WI: The Muslim Brotherhood Backs Nasser

[LHB]

"By 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser had consolidated his positions as the undisputed head of the new "revolutionary" government. The Brotherhood's repeated calls for the application of Shari'a and its public support for General Muhammad Naguib, Nasser's rival in the power struggle that followed the Free Officers' takeover, had already provoked Nasser's antipathy"

From The Muslim Brotherhood, Carrie Wickham, pg. 27

What if the Brotherhood backed a different horse and sided with Nasser earlier on over Naguib? What impact would this have on the Muslim Brotherhood's development, Egypt, pan-Arabism, and Middle East history? Would it have been possible for Nasser and the Brotherhood to work together and develop some kind of new ideology for uniting the region? Nasser himself, as is shown in his writings, was not opposed to the idea of broader Muslim unity, regularly in public speeches made a big deal about him being a pious Sunni Muslim, and saw Islam as being a crucial part of Egypt and the Arab world's heritage.

So what if the Brotherhood makes common cause with Gamal Abdel Nasser?

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Personally, I don't think it would last long. Nasser is too much of a secularist for it to work. Also, you would need somebody like Ali Shariati for Nasser to get along with, and I'm not sure an Egyptian equivalent exists in the Muslim Brotherhood. There's a lot of difference between Shariati and Qutb.

Ultimately, I think Nasser would turn on them once their interests diverged.

 

[LHB]

Personally, I don't think it would last long. Nasser is too much of a secularist for it to work. Also, you would need somebody like Ali Shariati for Nasser to get along with, and I'm not sure an Egyptian equivalent exists in the Muslim Brotherhood. There's a lot of difference between Shariati and Qutb.

Ultimately, I think Nasser would turn on them once their interests diverged.

Qutb wasn't a major figure in the Brotherhood, ideologically speaking, until after Nasser suppressed them and locked the entire organization up. Qutb's writings were first produced while serving time, prior to this the Brotherhood was a far more diffuse group.

Also from what I can tell the issue in the initial suppression starting in January of 1954 (well before the assassination attempt in October of the same year) was one of the Brotherhood being a large, powerful force that backed Nasser's main opponent in his struggle for power. There's any number of points between 1952, when the Free Officers took over, and 1954 where the more diffuse leadership of the Brotherhood could have decided otherwise. After all in the closing pages of Falsafat al-Thawra (Philosophy of the Revolution) Nasser himself envisions a global association of Muslim leaders, nations, and communities working together on common issues. That's something that sounds like it would have been right up the Brotherhood's alley.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Qutb wasn't a major figure in the Brotherhood, ideologically speaking, until after Nasser suppressed them and locked the entire organization up. Qutb's writings were first produced while serving time, prior to this the Brotherhood was a far more diffuse group.

You are correct, however I'm inclined to believe a lot of the thought was closer to Qutb's views. To be honest I'm a bit rusty on early history of the Muslim Brotherhood besides al-Banna. Overall, I think the general conflict is how they view power structured. Nasser operated a lot more in line with the Westphalian system, not that he didn't support the OIC and ties to other Muslims. The Brotherhood was ultimately built in response to and outside of the traditional nation-state. Ultimately, there's going to be a tension between the two that has to be resolved, and I'm not sure Nasser is the type to be able to subordinate himself.

Like I said, I'm not entirely fresh on this material, so YMMV.