Ever since Islamists took office in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, they have been trying to convince us that they are advocates of moderation, democracy, women’s rights and individual freedoms. And most people in the West, after jubilantly watching the Arab Spring’s amazing revolutions last year, wanted to believe them.

But now we can see that these Islamic groups are taking us for fools.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood promised that it would not field a candidate for president. But then this month it went back on its word and put Khairat al-Shater, a wealthy businessman, on the ballot.

Defending that broken promise, one Muslim Brotherhood leader after another explained that they changed their mind to save Egypt’s budding democracy, in jeopardy now because of the military’s reluctance to step aside.

If that is so, then how do you explain the speech Shater gave in Alexandria last year in which he disparaged the whole idea of Western democracy and its social conventions, calling them the enemy of Islam ― including the concept of elections, even though he is now running in one. Voting for your leader, he said, is un-Islamic.

After Egypt adopted a Western education system, courts and a capitalist economy, Shater complained, “the various aspects of our lives are no longer based on Islam.” He would institute Sharia law and ensure that “every aspect of life is to be Islamized.”

So are we to believe that Shater, if elected, would abandon the life philosophy he espoused last year and follow Western examples that he abhors?

Today, Shater is not advertising his actual views. But another candidate, an ultra-conservative with a large following, Hazem Abu Ismail, is less reticent. He advocates stoning adulterous women and cutting off the hands of thieves. Ismail also called for canceling the peace treaty with Israel and curtailing relations with the United States. But in a deliciously ironic twist, he appears to be disqualified from running ― because his mother was American.

Think for a moment about what has actually happened. Youths with modern ideas, resulting in part from what they’ve learned online, were the engines of the revolts that threw the dictators out of office. But when elections came, most people voted for what they knew. That’s not democracy; none of those states have any significant history of that or exposure to it from their neighbors. For Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, the haven from brutal dictatorship has been religion. So, not surprisingly, they elected religious leaders.

But now all of these countries are in one way or another beholden to the West. Egypt gets at least $1.3 billion in American aid each year. The U.S. and NATO fought to help Libyans overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. Tunisia has strong trade relations with the West and receives significant aid from Washington. So it’s no wonder these candidates and leaders are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Imagine if an American politician ― a mayor, a governor, a congressman ― was thrust suddenly into a leadership position in a deeply Islamic state. The American would find he had to talk the talk. But in his heart would he ever be able to abandon the democratic ideals that have served as the foundations of his life? Certainly not.

As Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Libya’s interim leader, took office last fall, he thanked NATO, and then let slip that he believed Libya should legalize polygamy, an element of Sharia law.

That set off a furor. Nonetheless, a short time later he said his views are “moderate” but then added: “As a Muslim country, we have adopted the Islamic Sharia as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts Islamic principles with the Islamic Sharia is ineffective legally.”

In Tunisia, Sayyed al-Firjani, a senior member of the Islamic party that dominates the government, told Al Arabiya television a few days ago that “we want to solve people’s problems and build a democracy.” All of it will be based on “values we cherish, including Islam.”

His interviewer asked him whether those comments were simply “a means to evade using the word ‘Sharia.’”

“I disagree with this insistence on sticking to specific words,” he retorted.

Since Hosni Mubarak fell from power in Egypt last year, the Muslim Brotherhood has repeatedly promised moderation and vowed not to “monopolize political institutions in the new Egypt.” But right now a committee is forming to write a new constitution. The “moderate” Brotherhood controls the parliament and tried to stack the committee’s membership so that it held a controlling majority. On Tuesday, however, a court blocked the effort.

We should never have believed them.

By Joel Brinkley

Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former foreign correspondent for the New York Times. ― Ed.

(Tribune Media Services)