Hillary’s message likely will be unheeded

The news from Egypt that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on visiting Alexandria recently, was greeted by a crowd chanting “Monica” while throwing tomatoes and shoes at her motorcade did not come as a surprise.

There is nothing outrageous, atrocious, vulgar and violent done on a regular basis in the name of Islam across the Arab-Muslim world that comes as a surprise anymore.

It is neither the infidels, nor the so-called malicious Jews, fork-tongued “white” folks of former colonial-imperial powers and detestable Hindus, who have conspired together in trampling upon and pulverizing the good name of Islam. They could not have done this and succeeded to the extent Muslims have in successfully wrecking their own faith-tradition and culture.

I write this on the eve of Ramadan, the month of fasting and repentance in the Islamic calendar, knowing well from experience that violence and mayhem in the Arab-Muslim world will likely increase during this period.

The reason for this sad situation is simple, and I have been pointing this out in my columns for sometime now. Instead of striving to disentangle their religion from their politics, Muslims have worked hard to fuse the two even more, to believe even more fanatically in the slogan coined by Ayatollah Khomeini that “Islam is politics.”

The result has been predictable, and the situation across the Arab-Muslim world predictably will get worse.

Those most responsible for this worsening situation are the men of learning among Muslims, primarily the imams or religious leaders in Muslim communities, as was Khomeini.

The Qur’an counsels, “Cultivate tolerance, enjoin justice, and avoid the fools,” or instructs, “Do not revile those who invoke others apart from Allah, lest they begin to revile Allah out of malice and ignorance.”

The religious leaders among Muslims have been at the head of mobs across the Arab-Muslim world doing precisely the opposite of what the Qur’an states.

In other words, contrary to Khomeini’s slogan, Islam is about right conduct since the best of people — as the Qur’an mentions, and this is true in any other faith-tradition — are those who behave rightfully.

What is right conduct? It is following the golden rule, and though it might be differently expressed in different traditions its meaning is true and same everywhere.

This brings me back to Hillary Clinton, and reading her words delivered in Alexandria on the occasion of re-opening a U.S. Consulate in that ancient city.

Clinton spoke about Arab Spring, the American experience, and observed that principles of democracy have “to be enshrined not only in the constitution, not only in the institutions of government, but in the hearts and minds of the people.”

Then she stated, “Democracy is not just about reflecting the will of the majority; it is also about protecting the rights of the minority.”

These were brave and truthful words spoken on the eve of Ramadan to people caught in the delirium of their own fanaticism, as they have turned Islam into a religion of bigots and rendered their culture inhospitable to minorities.

Clinton’s words were also a timely reminder for Muslims who need reminding repeatedly that the Qur’an warns God will do away with people who persist in misconduct towards others.

 

Egypt’s choice — the bad and the ugly

The spring revolution in Egypt driving Hosni Mubarak from the presidential palace in Cairo appeared as high drama, and experts gathered in television studios in capitals of the West minutely examined the plots and subplots of this drama in the manner of some sporting event.

As crowd swelled in Tahrir Square in Cairo, a lot of flags and placards were displayed, security forces were deployed and redeployed, tanks appeared, so did camels and horses with riders displaying their martial skills. Then tensions mounted, the young got excited and the old got nervous.

The world media led by the BBC obligingly descended to capture in real time an Arab version of 1789. Listening to the commentaries, it seemed Egypt was poised at the precipice of some cataclysmic showdown between the crowd demanding freedom and democracy and the dictator preparing to break heads.

The only problem with the script was the much discussed revolution never happened.

In my column on Egypt two weeks ago, I indicated the public demonstration took Mubarak by surprise and his presidency, as a result, was over. Yet the state Gamal Abdel Nasser built and Mubarak presided held together, as it did in the past when confronted with much more severe crises of legitimacy.

In 7,000 years of Egyptian history, states have risen, decayed and been displaced. But the one common thread running through this history is Egypt ruled by autocrats. And this history suggests Egypt is not about to turn back on its past.

A revolution would have happened if the state cracked and crumbled and an outside group, both disciplined and organized, seized power. This occurred in Iran with the Islamic revolution when Khomeini returned from Paris in February 1979 following the Shah’s departure from Tehran.

The slogans for freedom and democracy raised by Egyptians are not to be doubted.

But it is of critical importance to know the difference between the generic thirst for freedom among a majority of Egyptians, which is genuine and deserving of support of all freedom-loving people, and the sham of the slogans behind which lurks the Muslim Brotherhood’s design to acquire power.

The Brotherhood is the oldest organized party in Egypt and the Arab world. More importantly, it is the Arab version of the European fascist parties from the 1930s.

To understand what the Brotherhood program means if it came to power electorally — as did the Nazis in Weimar Germany in 1933 — or by revolutionary means as did Khomeini in Iran, one needs only to take a close look at Gaza under the Hamas.

Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood. The Hamas program for implementing Shariah-based rule and mobilizing the society for jihad (holy war) against opponents — in the case of Hamas, against Israel — are applications of Brotherhood’s ideology.

It is the state Nasser and his co-officers constructed in 1952 that stands between the Brotherhood and the Egyptian people.

Sixty years later, Egyptians have come full circle once again to decide for themselves which is greater — their distaste for rule by the military or their fear of Brotherhood and its program. Their choice between the bad and the ugly will affect them and the world beyond the Nile.

Memories of Iran

What is so particularly unnerving about the coverage of the Egyptian uprising is how eerily similar it is to the media’s reporting on the Shah of Iran’s fall from power.

We were told then by our liberal masters that Shia Islam was gentler than the Sunni branch, that the mujahadeen were progressive and enlightened, how the Iranian people would never take to fundamentalism, and how we could trust democracy.

Within two years, the mujahadeen had all been slaughtered or exiled and democracy effectively twisted into theocratic dictatorship. We now have homosexuals publicly hanged, the Holocaust denied, terrorism sponsored, few human rights and the promise of nuclear arms. Political power abhors a vacuum, and the mere absence of one strong leader in Egypt is not going to transform the country into Scandinavia on the Nile.

A little history. Egypt was not originally an Arab country, but populated by a people who spoke a non-Semitic language and who were, until the seventh century, mainly Christian, with Jewish and pagan minorities. Indeed it was St. Mark, he who wrote one of the four gospels, who took Christianity to Egypt.

Arab Muslims invaded and forcibly converted many of the people and imposed Islamic law and customs. Today the 10% of the country that still bravely hold to Christianity are persecuted and sometimes murdered.

The main opposition organization in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the darling of many on the North American and European left. Which is a little odd, in that it desires the creation not only of an Islamic Middle East but an Islamic world. True, it has championed the poor in Egypt, but then so did the IRA, the Tamil Tigers and a variety of such ultra-violent groups.

But it does have genuine support in Egypt, and the notion that some compromising, feel-good democrat can rule this country with no mass party structure or militant purpose is frankly idiotic. There are two power bases in Egypt, as in most Islamic countries: The military and the mosques. This part of the world lacks a secular middle-class, a genuine intellectual elite and a motivated bureaucracy. It’s why generals or imams so regularly take power.

If the Brotherhood does rule, directly or by proxy, there will be no long-term peace treaty with Israel, and movement through the Suez Canal will be used as a bargaining tool against the West. You may not care about Israel, but a war between the two regional superpowers will make it interesting when you buy gas or look at your investments.

As for it all being far away, such a war would inevitably lead to a flabby and over-staffed Egyptian army being defeated and the war continued by Muslim friends of Egypt through an international terrorist campaign. If that doesn’t bother you, imagine the Suez Canal being closed and it costing twice as much to transport goods around the world.

Today we look back on the Shah as a flawed but modern man, about to take Iran into a glorious and liberated age. His regime was kindness and light compared to the Ayatollahs. Egypt? Could be a disaster of biblical proportions.

Egypt is bruised, but not broken

History lessons are useful, and when events are in flux it is the past that can shed light on what the future might hold.

Autocracies, as I have indicated in recent columns, have shelf life. But there are caveats in any generalization, and the shelf life of any particular autocracy could get extended beyond its expiry date.

The current crisis in Egypt erupted with surprising speed for President Hosni Mubarak. The public demonstrations demanding an end to his 30-year rule has undermined him and very likely, as he has himself indicated, will end his presidency.

But the Egyptian state over which Mubarak has presided since Oct. 6, 1981 — the terrible day when President Anwar Sadat was gunned down by soldiers with links to the terrorist offsprings of the Muslim Brotherhood — remains more or less intact.

Mubarak’s Egypt, in the language of political science, fits the description of the authoritarian-bureaucratic state in which military officers and civilian technocrats hold the commanding heights of the economy and security.

Mubarak, as president, is only the third public face of an Egypt that emerged out of the military coup of July 1952, which overthrew the monarchy established in 1805.

The man behind the coup was Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser, and on his demise in 1970, succeeded by Sadat, followed by Mubarak on Sadat’s death.

Egypt is the Arab world’s largest Sunni Muslim state and, hence, a balancing power since 1979 to Shiite Iran’s regional ambitions. Al-Azhar, the mosque-university in Cairo, is also Sunni Islam’s highly respected centre of religious authority.

The internal foe of the Egyptian state is the Muslim Brotherhood. A political movement founded in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna, the Brotherhood has sought to merge its jihad-based ideology with mainstream Sunni belief expounded by Al-Azhar.

Since Nasser’s crackdown on the Brotherhood and execution of some leaders, such as Sayyid Qutb, the movement has worked hard to adapt to changing circumstances even as it consolidated its relationship with and financial support from Saudi rulers.

What remains unchanged is the Brotherhood’s goal of establishing a Sunni theocracy, and support for its affiliates in the region, such as Hamas in Gaza, towards achieving similar end.

In the long history of Egypt, and in the Arab world, there is an absence of a culture that embraces and supports individual freedom. Arab politics has no example of an individual such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel with unquestionable credentials of a democrat and a liberal providing leadership for a democratic alternative.

It is also ironic that the traditional doctrine of Sunni Islam taught in Al-Azhar gives preference to order — even when order is despotic as it has been in Muslim history — over anarchy.

The misfortune of Egyptians is to be squeezed between the military’s iron fist and the Brotherhood’s ideology. In such circumstances, it is a delusion to expect democracy to sprout unattended in the desert of Arab autocracy without self-sacrificing leaders to prepare the grounds.

Egypt survived the immense ignominy of defeat in the June 1967 war with Israel and Sadat’s murder. It will likely ride the present crisis, and this is not to be decried when the alternative is Muslim Brotherhood acquiring power.