Lessons from Egypt

LESSONS FROM EGYPT

                                                                Maryam Sakeenah

Given a similar baggage from the past, the social spectrum in Egypt and Pakistan is built on ideological polarization as a result of political decisions- on both domestic and foreign policy- by leaderships unrepresentative of the public sentiment. These were unguided by understanding of social reality, creating a gaping split between religious and secular-liberal extremes over ideology, opinion, identity, worldview, lifestyle and affiliation: both strongly entrenched in passionate ideological commitments, feeding off one another and unwilling to budge.

Both nations suffered years of unscrupulous authoritarian rule directly or indirectly supported by the United States and allied Western nations. In Egypt, the resentment this created boiled over in the Arab Spring last year. Heartening and exciting, yet it also was in many ways a detonation of pent-up feeling with little organized political planning behind it. That should not however, take away the deep admiration the resilient protesters at Tahrir Square inspire. However, a huge question stared in the face: where to, and what now?

It still haunts the mind. While the Muslim Brotherhood has won an historic electoral win, for many the options were limited between a pro-Mubarak military man and the Brotherhood’s candidate. The vote was more against the continuation of a dictatorship many had given blood sweat and tears to defeat, than in favour of what the Brotherhood symbolized. Ruling over a populace so diversified in level of religious affiliation, Morsi faces huge challenges to bring to fruition the Brotherhood’s Islamist dream. The opposition against the attempt to increase presidential powers and the eventual success of the referendum approving the  draft-constitution by an Islamist-dominated council resonates with vital lessons Islamists in Pakistan have much to learn from. 

For starters, governing a society divided between the fiercely secular and the warmly religious is to have a hand in the hornet’s nest, unless one realizes that as human beings we all share in common the need for justice and basic freedom, for dignity and a decent life and two square meals a day. And if rulers set about delivering these, schisms and ideological affiliations do not stand in the way of achieving the common human good. The secular-liberals and the conservative Islamists are united by their basic human need for a dignified existence. In fact, for a government aspiring to rule by Islam, providing bread and rights is not about expediency, but a primary moral responsibility.

The Muslim Brotherhood with its well articulated prioritization of economic welfare, egalitarianism and social justice seems to have reached political maturation. In his first address after the referendum, Morsi said,"The coming days will witness, God willing, the launch of new projects ... and a package of incentives for investors to support the Egyptian market and the economy,"

Islamic political groups in Pakistan and abroad have made the mistake of putting the achievement of political ascendancy as their prime goal while ignoring the social project that must accompany it. Groups calling for a return to the Khilafah believe the establishment of Islamic government is the panacea, while religious parties often claim that the promulgation of the Shariah law shall crystallize a veritable Utopia. This runs contrary to the  precedent we have from the sunnah of the Prophet (SAW) whose epic spiritual and social mission preceded the establishment of the Shariah.

Both law and political policy are means to greater ends. Religious political groups make the mistake of seeing them as ends in themselves. The Shariah of Islam is the guarantor of the maqasid e Shariah, the guardian of Islamic values by which life is to be lived. Similarly political power is a means to establish an order that guarantees rights indiscriminately. Islamist groups in Pakistan have not so far proven themselves here. The talk of Shariah and the dream of Khilafah cannot be sold to a public writhing in the throes of poverty, ignorance, oppression, disease.  

Before launching a political struggle, Islamist parties need to embark upon the social project to mend a broken society, moderate between the dangerous ideological polarization and address social injustice. Such an effort can act as a secure launching pad for a political movement and a support base for a stable government. Without demonstrating this ability, political struggles of Islamic groups will be stillborn.

So far, an intellectually robust discourse mediating between the ideological polarization has not emerged from Islamic scholars in Pakistan. A comprehensive strategy to address the real problems has not been presented. 

As long as polarization between the religious and the secularized exists and grows, any religious group winning power will have to deal with stiff opposition leaving its hands tied.  That is the lesson from Egypt’s dilemma which the ruling Islamists seem to have dealt with skilfully. With a council including sizable diverse groups like Coptic Christians, leftist social activists and women, the draft constitution referring to the centrality of the Shariah managed to scrape through. The president has assured that the concerns have been taken seriously and that the constitution offers protection for minorities. The decision to put the draft to vote by a public referendum demonstrates the Brotherhood’s commitment to democratic process and its inclusive vision. Opposing groups quit protests in the wake of the Brotherhood’s conciliatory gestures, settling for a ‘wait and see’ approach.

Most ordinary people protesting in Egypt’s streets in 2011 and now have always been more interested in liberty, equality and rights than Shariah or the lack of it. Those calling for a return to the Shariah or actively opposing it will always be at the fringes, even if loud. The mass man wants things more tangible than legislation. As long as religious parties fail to take on social ills, they will remain unattractive to the man in the street.

Putting the cart before the horse by making Shariah law precede the provision of basic justice has proven disastrous. When the letter of the law is imposed without first actively promoting the value it exists to protect, this becomes brutal and spiritless. The experiment with the Hudood laws in Pakistan in the 80s allowed Islamic law (or the pretense of it) to fail by not creating the necessary conditions for it to work. Such disasters are likely to be committed by those seeking to win legitimacy by appealing to religious sentiment.

Islamic groups must also be conversant with modernity. Both freedom and democracy are part of the inevitable modernizing process in societies today. Egypt is livid over what is perceived as Morsi’s attempt to curtail both these hard-earned gifts. While the democracy package bred in Western society may certainly not be suitable for Muslim societies, the values of governance by popular will, decision-making involving public participation and accountability before the public and the law are values Islam vigorously promotes. Certainly, the intricacies of how these democratic values can best be ensured is something scholars and leaders have to work out given their social contexts. Other than that, the implementation of laws must be done in a manner that does not encroach upon personal liberty. While an Islamic society will facilitate and promote the values of Islam, it must not call for moral policing that trespasses the line between the public and the private. Individual morality in an Islamic system is promoted through education and gentle ‘dawah’ and no imposition is acceptable in the private lives of individuals as that is between a man and his God. Islamic groups in Pakistan are still unclear and uncomfortable with both these aspects of modernity and what these mean to them: freedom and democracy.

The Muslim Brotherhood seems to be learning the right lessons and growing in the right direction. Josh Rogin writing for Foreign Policy terms the Egyptian government an ‘honest broker in the Middle East.’ Morsi’s aide Essam Haddad makes it clear that the Muslim Brotherhood does not want to create a theologically based state in Egypt, but that it does want shariah to inform governance and law going forward. The Brotherhood's religious leader, Mohamed Badie, tweeted on the eve of the referendum approving the constitution by a 64% vote: “Let's start building our country's rebirth... men and women, Muslims and Christians."

Their Pakistani counterparts, while in awe of their victory, still have a long way to go- with a good deal to be unlearnt and a good deal to be learnt. 

Attack on Swat girl

A METHOD IN THE MADNESS?

Maryam Sakeenah

That attacking a child who expressed her will to educate herself and others like her is a crime most heinous is something every right-minded human being would assent to. There is, quite unsurprisingly therefore, an absolute consensus among Pakistanis and the rest of the world about the reprehensibility of the act_ and that certainly tells us our hearts are still in the right place. It is also a given that whoever is behind this attack is evil. 

Thinking thus is not leftist or rightist, or liberal or conservative or religious or secular. It is just common decency. 

But I must risk being controversial beyond the facile narrative of this episode. There are vital questions that need to be asked. For one, who would do this, and why really? I am told it is the thing called Taliban. But I must be cautious against unproven assumptions. Not because I am a Taliban sympathizer, but because I do not know enough to make that conclusion other than the fact that one Ihsanullah Ihsan claimed it was the Taliban. Mr. Ihsan however, does not quite have the credibility I need in order to believe him. He also tells me he wants her killed because she ‘promoted secularism’ and had the shamelessness to quote to me the Quran and the sunnah to justify the most despicable act. Indeed, the devil can cite scriptures for his purpose.

I would really like to know and condemn whoever is behind this in the strongest possible terms. But I cannot but put my finger on a murky, dubious and elusive entity that is called Taliban. I do not know what that is, except that it is an umbrella-term for something far more nuanced and complex than the term implies; used more liberally, loosely and expediently than it should- by both those who call themselves the Taliban as well as those who use it for others. Because while it originally described a popular defensive struggle against warlordism and civil strife in Afghanistan and thereafter against the US occupation of the same, it is now adopted by a band of sorts, consisting of mercenaries, petty criminals, hired assassins, agency funded terrorists, double agents, spies and pathological fanatics. Their link with the original Pashtun resistance by this name in Afghanistan remains unclear and questionable, and often denied by mainstream Taliban leadership in Afghanistan.

The skewed up mindset I read in the letter by Ihsanullah Ihsan is sickeningly diabolical. I stop and think what kind of a mind would call for the killing of a mere child using a completely irrelevant, ill-fitting and utterly out-of-context sacred text to justify the point-blank targeting of a female child who had come to mean so much for so many. Even if one cannot expect moral scrupulousness from the Taliban, this sounds like a masterstroke of grandiose stupidity in terms of political consequences as well as psychological repercussions. It is an absolutely suicidal move on the part of the Taliban, given the fact that the very natural and very expected sympathy for the innocent victim will bring utter condemnation and ruination to their cause. It is only natural that a pretty little girl wanting to educate herself and getting shot in the head by misogynistic terrorists for it will deflect any sympathy there may have been for what the Taliban fight for and will provoke the ire of all feeling hearts.

But perhaps there is method in this madness? For one, the episode came to light right after Imran Khan’s peace march against drone strikes had managed to draw attention to this issue that ails the heart of many Pakistanis, and just when there was talk of creating grounds for an operation in North Waziristan.  A news report in ‘The Express Tribune’ on September 17, 2012 entitled ‘North Waziristan Operation to Stay Under Wraps’ quotes a Pakistan government official saying that Pakistani authorities plan to create a ‘necessary environment’ for the Waziristan operation. Moreover, soon after the attack_ given the overwhelming public sympathy_ there is conspicuous effort to swing opinion in favour of the necessity to use drones to hit targets in the region and the necessity to begin a military operation in North Waziristan agency. This had been a demand from the White House since some time. 

I must be allowed to wonder who really is the beneficiary of it all? The pattern I detect is a familiar one. Before the Swat operation some years ago, opinion had been swung in support of it after the screening of a video that showed the Taliban lashing a yelping woman. Months later, a small news strip revealed the video had been a fake one. It did not matter then, for the deftness of the forgery had come in handy to justify the operation and to give an inept regime reasons for self-congratulation over something the Former Dictator had failed to do: rally public opinion before a military move into the restive, bleeding north.

Last month’s joint report by Stanford and NYU on the impact of the drone strikes in Pakistan calls them ‘damaging and counterproductive’ as opposed to the false US narrative of these being ‘surgically precise effective tools’ to hit specified targets with minimal collateral damage. The report documents 2562 to 3325 casualties by drone strikes since 2004, out of which 474-881 are civilians including 176 children.  The number of injured is roughly between 1226 to 1362 individuals. The report includes harrowing narratives of survivors and victim communities in a region where the ‘free media’ of the country cannot dare to tread.

I may be dubbed a hopelessly illiberal fanatic for linking up the Malala incident to the drones when I say that the sympathy generated for Malala must also be for all victims of terror, drone strikes, sectarian and ethnic killings, indiscriminately. We cannot discriminate between dead bodies just because it may not be ‘politically correct’ to question and condemn the cause of the deaths of some, depending on who the killer is. However, the necessary link between Malala and the drone strikes is best drawn by an anonymous lady holding up a most unforgettable placard that confounds the senses: ‘Drones Kill so that Malala can Live.’ I commend her scathing honesty. Few can put so succinctly the political agenda behind the state-sponsored media campaign for Malala and the vital link that does exist between the two. It is, in fact, quite ordinarily a strategy of psychological warfare to generate favourable opinion and support for a planned military offensive which may otherwise be opposed and questioned on moral grounds. In American military terminology, this vital strategy is called PSYOPS (Psychological Operations). Wikipedia explains: 

“Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.The purpose of the United States psychological operations (PSYOPS) is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to US objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic activities available to the US. Strategic PSYOPS include informational activities conducted by the US government agencies outside of the military arena.”

So now again I hear talk of military operations with renewed vigour while public outrage is toned down and muted. Hawks who cannot see beyond a military solution to the complex, deep-rooted phenomena on the rampage in the tribal north must be patting themselves on the back for yet another tawdry, meaningless triumph. I shudder to think of the possibilities being contemplated.

And I wonder if this really is all about girls education as it is being made out to be? How effective will this be to further the cause of education for the girlchild in this country? Or will it blow to smithereens more lives, generate more terror wreaking havoc on human lives and keeping little girls away from school? And I think of those other victims it is not good manners to make mention of: those battered anonymous and unsung lives connected to so many other lives; of children whose dreams of brighter futures die away and recede into the falling debris; and of my religion audaciously sinned against and made a malleable ploy to the whims and unholy ambitions of evil self-appointed guardians of it.

But if we wish to reach solutions we must be ready to understand, ask questions and wonder why, really? If it is really an ideology that motivates the Taliban’s diabolical moves, I wonder why the ideology never drove these misogynistic Pashtuns into paroxysms of fury and frenzy when Swat hosted tourists and many young honeymooning couples a decade ago? A friend born and raised in Swat speaks of the cheerful, chivalrous, hospitable people with well-knit and warm community lives. My mother who went to school in Nowshehra and Peshawar reminisces of ruddy chivalrous Pathan youths escorting groups of girls to school and of bright-eyed Pathan girls following their dreams into high school and college, many of whom graduated as professionals. So where exactly has it all turned awry? Ideologies do not take birth instantaneously; but vengeance does.

And, if it really is an ideology that motivates the madness, can the use of wholesale, blind brute-force that does not discriminate, defeat it? The answer is a most basic lesson of history it would serve us well to learn.

And somewhere, this simplistic narrative I must believe, just does not cohere.

The pointer here is that maybe this uncontrollable hydra of insane extremism and terrorism is the work of our own fumbling, bloodied, sinning hands? Maybe it is the inevitable result of the dirty deals we brokered and the unholy alliance we forged in indecent haste and sinister hush? And maybe the monster will not be tamed and cut down to size unless we dare to understand that violence begets violence, and the victim does not forget or forgive; that drones don’t see the faces in the dust nor hear the moans in the darkness, but that the faces are people and lives and stories forever knitted into several other stories with the silken ties of love. And by being complicit in this unholy mission, we make these sad stories ugly, grotesque, haunting, terrifying, vengeful. And our own story of ignominy and annihilation is writ indelibly by the Moving Finger. 

On the offensive Youtube video....

                                                             FROTH ON THE SEA

Maryam Sakeenah

That a thirteen-minute long tawdry inanity from a dubious manic character could trigger off an uproar both from the emotionally and psychologically volatile fundamentalist groups as well as from states and governments is something that needs talking about. Complex social trends are taking over, quite beyond taming- a plethora of forces, factors, ideas and ideologies that collide and crack and clash and rebound.

For one, the disproportionately huge impact of something that deserves no more than a contemptuous sideglance points towards the enormous sway of the mass media in determining what ought to garner attention, how much and for how long. It also raises critical questions about the ‘freedom of expression’ that defines the cyber world- a blind and amoral freedom with no parameters and no ethic, that knows neither good nor evil, truth nor falsehood. Before the communication revolution becomes a hydra on the loose making fools and gasping helpless spectators of us all, we need to engage in a rethink of the entire concept of freedom and liberty as it relates to expression. Where does one draw the line between free expression and hate speech? And who draws those lines? Do we want to live in a world where everyone has complete and unlimited access to misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, pornography, falsehood, hate and prejudice indiscriminately disseminated all in the name of freedom of expression?

Still more interesting is the predictability of the action-reaction, provocation- backlash sequence that plays itself out every now and then. Whoever posted the filth onto Youtube seems to have done it with calculated deliberation- in his own words, it was a ‘political act’ in order to push the button driving Muslims into a feverish frenzy sending them to a spree of smashing and burning and ripping. It is like a bored passing urchin looking for some fun, who decides to throw a rock at a rival group so that he can stand back to watch the ensuing entertainment for a cheap thrill. A sick-minded desperado throws the bait and it is eagerly picked up by emotionally charged extremists. The theatric episode gives Islamophobes and extremists from both sides, much to shout out from the rooftops, much to reinforce their simplistic us-and-them narrative of binaries. It is too familiar and too regular a pattern.

And deeply distressing too. One can compare the sudden surge of religious passion over a despicable piece of filth a random maniac posted on Youtube to the lull in the Muslim world, over the state-sponsored carnage in Syria. One can also read into these pathological religious hysterics a tragic disconnect with the spirit and essence of the personage in whose blessed name it is claimed to be. Umm Jameel bint Harb, the wife of Abu Lahab, made up some verses of poetry to defame the Prophet by changing his name to a word that meant ‘the insulted one’ as opposed to "Muhammad" (i.e. the praised one). This enraged Muslims, especially in the early days of Islam when they were weak. The Prophet (SAW), however, responded thus: “Allah is protecting me from the Quraish's insults as they are cursing and swearing at "The Insulted One", whereas I am "Muhammad", the Praised One! (Sahih Al-Bukhari) 

In an Islamic Studies class while explaining Surah Al Kausar I could not help but draw the obvious and vital connection between the ‘Abundance’ (Kausar) granted to Muhammad (SAW) and the contemporary context. Kausar, the Abundance of God’s blessing, of virtue, of God’s Mercy and Love, of felicity, peace, spiritual richness, radiance and beatitude through which any obscenity spewed out by odious villains matters nothing. Kausar is also interpreted as abundance of following- but a following not as the froth on the beach...

Thauban (R.A) reported that the messenger of Allah said: "It is near that the nations will call one another against you just as the eaters call one another to their dishes." Somebody asked: "Is this because we will be few in numbers that day?" He said: "Nay, but that day you shall be numerous, but you will be like the foam of the sea, and Allah will take the fear of you away from your enemies and will place weakness into your hearts." Somebody asked: "What is this weakness?" He said: "The love of the world and the dislike of death." (Abu Daud)

An important narrative in the Islamic tradition is of the man who refused to make puerile effort to guard and defend the Sacred House in Makkah against an attacking army, realizing the futility of such an attempt, and relying instead, wholly on the help of Allah Himself while displaying great courage and strength of character. Divinely armed hordes of midget birds crushed the army in an awe-inspiring miracle that manifested the Glory of Allah and His transcendence above and beyond human machination. Realizing that the honour of the Prophet of Allah (SAW) does not stand in need of violent protest marches, nor does such expression accentuate his spiritual stature is a fundamental lesson in faith.

In my part of the world the angry mobs in the name of the Prophet (SAW)’s honour betray the spirit of what they seek to defend. It exposes the superficiality of our understanding of the message of Muhammad (SAW). The audacity of the corrupt and inept regime’s decision to celebrate the ‘Youm e Ishq e Rasool’ (Day of the Love of the Prophet SAW) is revolting, and uncontrollable street mobs on the rampage smashing public property make a grotesque mockery of the grandiose motive. Such street sentiment actually expresses the pent up feelings of frustration and grievance, helplessness and anger over drones and poverty and Gitmo and joblessness and the great atrocity of the War on Terror, seeking cathartic relief in burning and boot-kicking effigies of freakish blaspheming idiots which personify the invisible Effigy of that one hostile monolithic entity called ‘The West.’

I long for a ‘Youm e Ishq e Rasool’ wherein I can relive the message of Muhammad (SAW) in acts of kindness and compassion and spread around me some of the goodness he exuded in abundance. I long for a ‘Youm e Ishq e Rasool’ when I work with greater honesty and integrity, and smile at my colleagues at work more spiritedly than usual, and lend a helping hand more enthusiastically than usual; refuse to throw that plastic wrapper in the street and dispose off the ones I see lying around; send blessings to the Prophet (SAW) and read about the Prophet (SAW) to derive lessons relevant to my personal life and understand more clearly my responsibility towards the community I am part of. That would be a ‘Youm e Ishq’ I would love to celebrate. Not one with aggressively externalized displays of religious passion that turn ugly and then dissipate and fade away like froth on the sea, swept away by the incoming tides just as easily as it came.

We have a remarkable capability to transform into celebrities and global figures of great importance petty deranged slimeballs with our mislaid enthusiasm and fervour. Terry Jones and Nakoula Basseley ought not to matter, as they do not.

What matters, uplifts and heartens is that glow on the horizons still young and rosy but promising- of a rising, rejuvenating contemporary Islam personified by a new generation of young Muslims in the West and also emerging in the Muslim world who have risen to the occasion and responded with composure and wisdom, creativity and intelligence. Lesley Hazelton describes these Muslims as ‘writers, filmmakers, political activists, comedians, academics who wear their Muslim and hyphenated Muslim identity with a casual confidence, are activists but not of a defensive nature, armed with wry humour and a sharp sense of irony. They laugh at simplistic slogans like ‘Islam versus the West’ and the infamous ‘Clash of Civilizations’ as they represent the blending of civilizations. These are the polar opposites of Islamist extremism and confound the stereotypes, and the more visible they become, the less the smallest and most extreme minority can claim that it represents the whole.’

 During a particularly long day at work and longing for a respite, my senior batch of students walked in, telling me they wanted to work on a documentary film on the personality and legacy of the Prophet (SAW). It was heartening, a breath of fresh air to see the enthusiasm, positivity and activism of these young girls. They wanted to record my views on the film by Nakoula. “That doesn’t matter,” I answered. “Like froth on the sea. But this work matters. It is not the froth on the sea, but the glow in the eastern sky. And that is something to talk about.”