I referred to religious books to understand Islam’s verdict on election rigging and I found that sins are divided into major sins and minor sins. Major sins are those that deserve punishment by God in this life and in the afterlife, and although jurists disagree on details they all agree that bearing false witness is one of the gravest of the major sins. The Qur’an itself strongly advises against bearing false witness in more than one verse; for example, and those who bear not false witness (25:72) and eschew the speaking of falsehood (22:30). Bearing false witness is lying deliberately in order to undermine justice. When someone stands in front of a judge and testifies falsely, he commits a grave sin because through his false testimony he deprives people of their due and confers it wrongly on those who do not deserve it. In their condemnation of false testimony some jurists go so far as to couple it with idolatry and even say that it cannot be absolved by repentance or by performing the pilgrimage until the offender has made amends to those who lost their rights, or until he at least confesses to them his crime and asks their forgiveness.
Bearing false witness, which Islam considers to be one of the gravest of faults and one of the most horrendous crimes, is the equivalent in contemporary life to rigging elections, no more and no less, because the civil servant who takes part in rigging elections bears false witness to fake results and prevents the winning candidate from obtaining the position that is his or her due while giving the position to someone who does not deserve it. In fact, in my opinion, rigging elections is much worse than bearing false witness, because bearing false witness deprives an individual or a family of their due whereas rigging elections deprives the whole nation of its due. If the fraudsters in the Ministry of Interior realized that from the religious point of view they are bearing false witness they would refuse to take part in the rigging process, but like many Egyptians they consider elections, democracy, and the rotation of power to be secondary matters that have nothing to do with religion. This limited understanding of religion makes us susceptible to despotism and more submissive in the face of injustice, and it explains why despotism is more widespread in Islamic countries than elsewhere.
People progress only in two cases: either when they understand religion properly as primarily the defense of human values—truth, justice, and freedom—or when they start with an ethical concept that makes the human conscience the arbiter that sets the criteria for virtue and honesty. But in countries where religion is understood as detached from human values, talents and resources will go to waste and the people are bound to fall behind in the march of civilization. Limited understanding that ignores the spirit of religion and turns religion into a set of procedures leads mankind to false formal piety and undermines the natural sense of conscience. It may even drive a man to behave appallingly while confident of his own piety, which he thinks is limited to performing religious obligations. The state of affairs in Egypt has sunk to rock bottom, and it is no longer possible to stay silent. Millions of Egyptians live in inhumane conditions, amid poverty, unemployment, disease, repression, and unprecedented corruption. These people have a right to a dignified and humane life. The change we demand will come from the top of the political pyramid and equally from the base. It is our duty to put pressure on the regime until it allows proper elections, but at the same time we have to explain to people that those who take part in rigging elections are committing a grave sin and a despicable crime against their country. When the president gives his orders to rig elections and finds that no police officer or civil servant in the Interior Ministry will agree to soil his honor and his religion by taking part in the rigging, only then will the future begin in Egypt.
Democracy is the solution.
April 19, 2010
Do We Need a Benevolent Dictator?
Last Wednesday was a bad day for Gordon Brown, the British prime minister and leader of the Labour Party. He was making an electoral tour in the northwestern town of Rochdale and while he was talking to people in the street a woman named Gillian Duffy appeared, a retired civil servant sixty-six years old. Ms. Duffy had a heated discussion with Brown in front of the television cameras and she complained about immigrants from Eastern Europe, saying they have taken jobs from British people. The prime minister tried to persuade her that his government’s policy on immigration is right, but Duffy stuck to her position. All Brown could do was end the debate gracefully and ask her about her children and grandchildren. He then shook her hand politely and hurried back to his car to catch his next appointment. But unfortunately for Brown he forgot to turn off the small microphone attached to his lapel, and so the microphone continued to broadcast to the television networks what Brown was telling his aides in the car. Brown was angry about his encounter with Duffy and said, “That was a disaster. They should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? … She was just a bigoted woman.” All the media carried Brown’s words and within an hour the gaffe was the talk of Britain. The prime minister had insulted a British citizen, accusing her of bigotry simply because she disagreed with him. When Duffy heard through the media what Brown thought of her, she was most upset, so just a few days before the general elections in Britain on May 6, Brown was in a difficult position. He called Duffy on the phone to apologize but that was not enough. Brown later appeared on British television and the presenter was tough. He played Brown a recording of what he had said about the woman and asked the prime minister if he blamed himself for what happened. Brown said he did blame himself and would never do the same again, and he then made an apology to Duffy in front of the whole country. But even that was not enough to enable the prime minister to put his heinous act behind him. He had to go back to Rochdale and visit Duffy at home, where he spent forty minutes and repeated his apology. Finally Duffy accepted the prime minister’s apology but she refused to come outside with him to announce in front of the media that she had forgiven him. So Brown went out alone and announced once again that he had made a mistake and regretted it but now he was relieved that Duffy had graciously accepted his apology.
At the same time that the British prime minister was insisting on apologizing to an ordinary British citizen simply because he described her as bigoted in a private conversation recorded by mistake, hundreds of Egyptians had been sleeping for months on the street in front of the cabinet office and parliament, along with their wives and children. These people were representative of the millions of poor Egyptians whose standard of living has fallen so low that they cannot support their children, but Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif has never taken the trouble to go out and listen to these poor people or to try to help them in any way. On the contrary he abandoned them and went on holiday to Hurghada with his new wife. As for the young people demonstrating in favor of amending the constitution and demanding freedom and an end to the emergency law, they have been beaten up, dragged away, and detained by Central Security Forces (the Egyptian army of occupation), and some members of parliament from the ruling party have even suggested they should be shot.
This vast difference between the behavior of the two prime ministers—one in Egypt and one in Britain—must make us pose the question: Why do the authorities in Britain treat their citizens with such respect while the authorities in Egypt treat people as though they are criminals or animals? The difference here is not ethical; it is political. There’s no evidence that Gordon Brown is more moral than Ahmed Nazif, but Brown is an elected prime minister in a democratic system, so he knows that he is the servant of the people, who are the source of all power. He also knows that if he lost the trust of the voters then his political life would be over. Ahmed Nazif, on the other hand, is not elected in the first place but appointed by President Mubarak, so what matters to him is not people’s confidence but the approval of the president. Similarly, no one elected President Mubarak, who seized power thirty years ago through repression and rigged elections, so it does not matter much to him whether Egyptians have confidence in him as long as he can subjugate them through the security agencies. I
f Gordon Brown ruled Britain by fraud and by emergency law, he would not have apologized to Gillian Duffy. In fact he would probably have had her arrested and sent to the nearest State Security office, where she would have been beaten, strung up by her legs, and electrocuted in sensitive parts of her body. Maybe Duffy would be tried in a State Security emergency court on charges of causing trouble, insulting a symbol of the state, and endangering social peace in Britain.
It’s the way the ruler has obtained power that determines his behavior while in power. This fact, which is well established in the developed world, still escapes some Egyptians, who judge a ruler on his policies in office and do not pay much attention to how he came to power. Some Egyptians still dream of a benevolent dictator who would be above all laws but would use his overwhelming power to ensure justice. The concept of the benevolent dictator, just like the concepts of the noble thief or the honest whore, is no more than a meaningless fantasy. How can a dictator be benevolent when dictatorship in itself is patently unjust? But the concept has infiltrated Arab thinking over many centuries of despotism. It would be fair to mention here that genuine Islam offered a great democratic model many centuries before Europe did. The Prophet Muhammad did not choose a successor because he wanted Muslims to be free to choose their ruler. In fact, three of the first four caliphs were chosen by the people and remained accountable to the people, as happens today in the best democratic systems. As soon as Abu Bakr, the first ruler in Islam, took office, he said in a sermon, “I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.… Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger. But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.”
This great sermon predates modern constitutions by centuries in defining the democratic relationship between the ruler and the ruled, but the democracy of early Islam quickly disappeared and long centuries of despotism followed, with the sultan’s jurists putting religion at the service of the ruler, stripping Muslims of their political rights and laying the foundations for two very bad and dangerous ideas. The first idea is that power belongs to the winner, which gives legitimacy to all those who usurp power as long as they can hold on to it by force. The second idea is that Muslims have a duty to obey the ruler even if he is oppressive and corrupt. These ideas have created a gap in Muslims’ awareness of democracy, making them prone to be submissive and more tolerant of despotism than other peoples. Conditions in Egypt have reached rock bottom and most Egyptians have started calling for the kind of change that will bring them justice, dignity, and freedom. We have to understand that change will never come about through one person, however noble his intentions or faultless his morals. Change will come about through a just new system that treats Egyptians as fully competent citizens with full rights, not as subjects or slaves who exist to please the ruler. When Egyptians are able, by their own free will, to choose who governs and who represents them in parliament, when Egyptians are all equal before the law, only then will the future begin and the president in Egypt will be as concerned with the dignity of every citizen as demonstrated in Britain last week.
Democracy is the solution.
May 3, 2010
A Story for Children and Adults
The old elephant was under the big tree on the riverbank, the place where he usually met his assistants, but this time he could not stand on his own four legs, so he knelt down and his trunk rested on the ground beside him. He looked so completely exhausted that it was a major effort for him to keep his eyes open and follow what was happening around him. Next to him stood his four assistants, the donkey, the pig, the wolf, and the fox, which seemed tense and started the conversation, saying, “Brothers, our great forest is going through trying and difficult times. Our lord the old elephant is still suffering the effects of his recent disease and I have heard that all the animals in the forest are coming this way in a protest march led by the giraffe.”
The donkey brayed loudly and said, “Why does this giraffe insist on causing trouble?”
The pig, whose body gave off a foul smell, squealed to object. “I suggest we kill this giraffe to be rid of him,” he said.
The fox looked at the donkey and the pig with disdain and said, “Really, I’ve never seen anyone as stupid as you two. The problem is not with the giraffe. All the animals are disgruntled and we have to negotiate with them and reach some compromise.”
The wolf howled and said, “I’m sorry, fox.… We won’t negotiate with anyone. The king of the jungle, the old elephant, is still alive, God preserve him, and his son, the young elephant, Daghfal, will succeed him on the throne.”
The fox smiled and said, “Let’s be frank. Daghfal isn’t fit to rule. He plays all the time and isn’t responsible. Look what he’s doing now.”
They all looked over at the young elephant and found him rolling happily in the grass, flapping his vast ears, sucking water up his trunk and then spraying it on his body. He did indeed seem to be too fun-loving and carefree for the difficult times the jungle was going through.
The fox continued: “All I ask of you is that you keep quiet and leave me to come to terms with the angry animals.”
At this point the wolf snarled and said, “Since when did we have to take those wretched animals into account? We decide what we want and they just obey our orders.”
The fox smiled and said, “You would be wise to realize that the situation in the jungle has changed. The animals today are not as they were yesterday. Being tough won’t work any longer.”
“On the contrary. Now we need to be tougher than ever. We own everything. We have a trained army of dogs fierce enough to subdue any animal that lifts its head against us.”
The fox was about to speak when suddenly the sound of all the animals together rang through the jungle. A mixture of all the species—rabbits, chickens, cows, buffalo, sheep, cats, and monkeys, and even fairground monkeys—joined the march. They advanced from all over the forest, with the elegant giraffe striding at their head. They came close to where the old elephant was lying. Suddenly the wolf shouted out, “Who are you and what do you want?”
The giraffe shouted back, “We are the inhabitants of this jungle and we have grievances we want to submit to the elephant king.”
“This isn’t the time for grievances. The king is tired and busy. Go away.”
The giraffe swung his long neck right and left. “We won’t go away until we’ve submitted our grievances.”
“How dare you be so bold!”
The fox intervened and said, “Okay, calm down, giraffe. What are these grievances?”
The giraffe replied, “This jungle belongs to all of us but we see none of the benefits. You rule the jungle in your own interests and don’t care about the other animals. All of the benefits go to the donkey, the pig, the wolf, and the fox. The other animals do an honest day’s work but still don’t have enough food for their children.”
The wolf was about to speak but the giraffe continued with gusto: “The situation in the jungle has hit rock bottom in every way. You have indigestion from eating too much while we die of hunger. We can’t take it any longer.”
The rebellious animals cheered at length in support of the giraffe, their leader. The wolf stuck his head out and shouted, “Go away. I don’t want to hear what you say. Off you go!”
“We won’t go.” It was the giraffe who spoke and it seemed clear that he would not back down. At that point the wolf looked up and gave a long howl, and instantly dozens of trained dogs appeared and started to growl defiantly at the animals. In the past the sight of these dogs had been enough to strike terror into the hearts of the jungle inhabitants, but this time they stood their ground against the dogs. Amazed, the donkey said, “They’re not afraid of the guard dogs. My God! What’s happened to our jungle?”
The giraffe said, “Wolf, you and your colleagues have to understand that we’re no longer afraid of you. We’re no longer afraid of anything, even death. Eithe
r you give us our rights or we’ll have to fight you.”
The guard dogs advanced in combat formation in a semicircle, ready to attack. They opened their mouths, showed their sharp teeth, and started to snarl. The sight was truly frightening but the giraffe did not flinch. “You’re in a strange position, you guard dogs,” said the giraffe. “You’re fighting us on behalf of the elephant and his assistants, although you really belong on our side, not on theirs. Just like us, you are victims of injustice and poverty. We’ve all lost the same rights. Why are you supporting the despotic elephant against us? He’s using you and when he no longer needs you he’ll throw you by the wayside.”
Some of the dogs seemed to hesitate. The giraffe went on the attack and all the animals attacked behind him. The dogs grappled with them savagely. Much blood was spilled and many dead fell on both sides. The strange thing is that many of the dogs were moved by what the giraffe had said and did not take part in the fighting, which enabled the animals to triumph over the other guard dogs. When the fox realized that defeat was certain he ran off, leaving no trace behind him. The wolf crouched on the ground, then made a single pounce at the giraffe, digging his powerful teeth into its chest. But despite the severe pain and the copious bleeding, the giraffe climbed to its feet, thought hard, and then aimed a firm kick at the wolf’s head, crushing its skull instantly. The donkey and the pig were so stupid that they were unable to act until the animals mobbed them and finished them off. Then the animals found themselves face to face with the elephant king and his son, Daghfal.
On the State of Egypt: A Novelist's Provocative Reflections Page 6
