|
Also on this page A Tale of Two States:
India and Pakistan
Leaving the Muslim Brotherhood
Late
in March 2007, I read in Elaph, the daily
Arabic online newspaper, a report about
the “Conference on the Plight of Minorities and Women
in the Middle East and North Africa,” that was held
in Zurich, Switzerland, between 24 and 26 March. All the
lectures were delivered in Arabic, and are appearing
gradually on Elaph’s website.
By early April, I had downloaded several conference
papers that dealt with this issue. I hope to work on
their translation, and ultimately, to share some of
their contents with the readers of 6th Column
Against Jihad.
The
opening lecture was delivered by a former member of the
Muslim Brotherhood; its title was:
“Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun: (The Muslim Brotherhood), Source
of the Persecution of the Minorities and Women”
Here are excerpts from the lecture; followed by my
analysis and comments.
“As we consider the status of minorities and women in
the Arab and Muslim world, we become very disturbed
about their condition. At the same time, we notice that
minorities living in the civilized world enjoy their
complete rights. It is a well-known fact that Muslims
consider both women and minorities as
inferior. A non-Muslim is not equal with a Muslim on
account of his religion; whereas a woman is worth half a
man, because of her gender.
“Now I would like to offer myself as an
example for the possibility of bringing about a change
in the Arab and Muslim world.
Up till 1990, I was a disciple of al-Ikhwan
al-Muslimun, having adopted their thoughts, and
being willing to defend them till death. Why not, does
not our faith possess absolutely the whole truth, for
all time and place; and is not our holy book perfect?
But after coming to France, I discovered a new world; a
world that has no place for hat red, resentment,
selfishness, or a sickly religious narcissism. It is a
world where one’s ability enables him or her to get a
job, regardless of color, religion, or race. I found
myself, an Egyptian Muslim immigrant, enjoying all the
rights that French citizens have, except the right to
vote in their elections.
“So I asked
myself, how could France’s motto,
“justice, equality, and fraternity”(1) be considered as “kufr,”(2) while our minorities
and women are discriminated against daily in the name
of Islam? I came to the conclusion that al-Ikhwan
al-Muta’aslimeen (3)
are the main cause for
this tyranny, and for the persecution of minorities and
women. They managed to accomplish their designs by
taking control of the fields of education, information,
religious discourse, and al-Azhar University.
They filled the textbooks with passages that encourage
hatred for the “Other,” calling him a
“kafir”
(2).
The teachers who follow the Ikhwan’s ideology
explain verse 7 of the Fatiha, (the first chapter
of the Qur’an) “The path of those whom Thou hast
favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger
nor of those who go astray” as follows: “those
who earn Thine anger” are the Jews; and
“those who go astray,” are
the Christians.
“They choose Hadiths that demean women forcing
them to wear the hijab, making it a required
Islamic practice. I read in the 10 March 2007 issue of
the magazine Rose el-Youssef, that a government
school in Upper Egypt forces Christian girls to wear the
hijab.
“The Islamist ideology is basically exclusivist,
and advocates the doctrine that Islam is the only true
faith. They base their claim on Surah 3 and Aya 85 of
the Qur’an: “If anyone desires a religion other than
Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of
him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of
those who have lost (All spiritual good).”
(Translation of Yusuf Ali) I used to look at this text
as propounding an absolute and permanent truth, not open
to any discussion or interpretation, teaching all
Muslims that there was no other true religion on
earth except Islam.
“The Ikhwan taught me that a woman was similar to
Satan since she is a tempter of man. After all it was
Eve who tempted Adam, and caused him to leave the Garden
where he had enjoyed an eternal bliss! Furthermore,
these Islamists did not stop with the various Hadiths
that denounced women, but they advocated the necessity
of depriving women of enjoying their sexual life by
advocating their circumcision. They ignored the fact
that this custom dates back to the time of the Pharos of
Egypt; and that neither the Prophet nor his associates
ever practiced the circumcision of their daughters. The
degradation of women and the minorities in the teaching
of the Ikhwan could be also seen in their
forbidding women and non-Muslims, from holding any
important positions in government.
“I
turned against the Ikhwan when I discovered that
they were the source of our misfortunes in our Arab and
Islamic Umma. It was in France that I learned that the
‘Other’ was not my enemy, but my friend and
comrade. Getting to know the ‘Other’ and
understanding him, freed me from the lies of the
Ikhwan. I remember that after coming to France, a
young beautiful lady worked in the same department with
me. At first, I was rather attracted to her. But when I
discovered she was Jewish, I distanced myself from her.
I became afraid of her; I convinced myself that she was
ugly! I could no longer be friendly with her, since that
would have compromised my faithfulness to my religion
and country. In fact, I began to work on a novel that
portrayed Jews plotting against Egypt! That was the
extent of my fear of the ‘Other!’
“When I was in Egypt during the period of my attraction
to Islamist ideology, I had a Christian friend who was
very dear to me. One day, I told him, ‘I want you to
embrace Islam.’ He asked,
‘Why?’ I
answered, ‘Since you are dear to me, I don’t want you
to go to hell.’ He laughed, and said, ‘But why
should I go to hell?’ I replied, “Over heaven’s
gate stand these words: “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad
Rasul Allah.” (4)
So, no one enters
heaven but a Muslim. These
words summarize the Ikhwani mentality.
“There is no way for minorities and women to get their
civil and human rights but through the spread of a
culture of tolerance. It is necessary to use our minds
as we read our sacred texts, and to oppose the role the
Islamist teachers are playing in our schools. They fill
the minds of students with the hatred of the ‘Other’
and of women. From their earliest days, students
should become acquainted with other faiths; and that
their religion is not the only true faith, but one among
other faiths.
“I
remember when I was a teacher in Upper Egypt back in
1987 there was only one Christian girl in the public
school Once she told me that on her way home after
school, there were students who used to throw stones at
her. Her only crime was that she was a Christian! That
was the impact of the Islamist mentality at work in
Egypt, thanks to the teachings of the Ikhwan!
The solution for the plight of minorities
and women is to be found in two words:
citizenship and ‘Ilmaniyya
(6). All religions should be practiced in
freedom. ‘Ilmaniyya is not against religion, but
in the service of religion. The state would become a
nation for all its citizens, with no discrimination on
account of religious faith or gender. The Ikhwan
reject the concept of separation of religion and the
state, and prefer to have a religiously-based state,
with the
imposition of the Jizya tax on non-Muslims. Oh, how I
thank God for delivering me from their ideology;
otherwise I would still be feeding on their lies and
fantasies.
Analysis
The
thesis of the opening lecture at the Zurich
Conference reveals the destructive and
discriminatory nature of the ideology of the Muslim
Brotherhood. No one but a former member of the movement
could have described it in such a clear and objective
way!
Comments
The
meeting and the papers that were read at the Zurich
conference constitute a landmark in the history of the
modern Arab world. Those who met there represented a
cross-section of Mideastern and North African
intellectuals. There were Arab Christians and Muslims,
men and women, Kurds and other ethnic minorities. They
pointed to a deep-seated problem that has plagued the
region since the early years of the 20th
century.
It’s
over two weeks since the Zurich conference has met, and
I have yet to see one report about it in the Western
press. Unfortunately, neither mainline Western media,
nor agencies of Western governments, seem to have been
interested to learn the facts about the true nature and
source of the problems of the Middle East and North
Africa. Not only that, but soon after the conference was
held in Switzerland, a troubling piece of news appeared
on the website of Fox News, on Saturday, 7 April,
2007.
“Hoyer Meets Official From Egypt's Banned Muslim
Brotherhood”
“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with the Muslim
Brotherhood's parliament leader, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni,
twice on Thursday — once at the parliament building and
then at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, said
Brotherhood spokesman Hamdi Hassan.”
It is beyond belief
that a U.S. House Majority leader should consider
meeting in Egypt with a member of an organization that
has been the source for the resurgence of Islamic
radicalism since the early 1920s?! How much Middle East
history does Mr. Hoyer know? Did he realize, for
example, when dialoguing with Saad el-Katatni, that on 6
October 1981, President Anwar Sadat
was assassinated by
members of Al-Jihad movement, an off-shoot
of Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun?
What
a pity that some U.S. members of Congress, knowing next
to nothing about the history of the Middle East, imagine
that by visiting the area, and holding talks with
dictators and members of terrorist organizations, they
are working for the welfare of the region! Nancy Pelosi
and Steny Hoyer should have gone to Zurich, rather than
to Damascus and Cairo. Their real education in the
affairs of the Middle East would have taken place in
Switzerland, while listening to the impassioned papers
that were delivered at the Conference of the Plight
of Minorities and Women in the Middle East and North
Africa.
Notes
(1)
Actually, it is: “Liberté, égalité, et fraternité”
that translates, “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.”
(2)
Al-Ikhwan al-Muta’aslimeen is a new
construct which implies that this group is not truly
Muslim, but claiming Islam. Another way of denying them
legitimacy.
(3)
Kufr: Unbelief; Kafir:
Unbeliever.
(4) The Islamic creed:
There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad
is the Messenger of Allah.
(5)
‘Ilmaniyya:
This Arabic word does not carry the same
connotation as the English word, “secularism.”
It is closer to the French word, ‘Laic’
implying separation of religion from the state.
~~~~~
Recently, while
glancing at the kwtanweer.com site, I
was attracted by the title of an article:
“Al-Hind wa Pakistan … al-‘Ilmaniyya’ Tantaser”
(India & Pakistan … Secularism Wins.)
Here was an Arab Muslim intellectual, who having
compared the history of these two states since their
independence from Britain in 1947, concluded that
the Indian experiment was a success story, while in
contrast, Pakistan has done very poorly. The
following are excerpts from the article, followed as
usual, by my analysis, and comments.
“As we compare the
secular Hindu State of India with the Islamic State
of Pakistan, we are struck by the utter contrasts
between the two. To begin with, India’s president
now is a Muslim, which indicates that his religion
did not keep him from reaching this high position.
Furthermore, we should remember that he has played a
major role in the development of the Indian nuclear
program. Add to that, India has made great strides
in the fields of technology, economics, agriculture,
and education. It has achieved a remarkable level of
democracy in its government. Compare all that
success with the awful backwardness of the Islamic
State of Pakistan, its system of religious
education, its failing economy, the rise of
terrorism with the blessing and encouragement of the
tribal and religious leaders of the land.
“A comparison between India and Pakistan would lead
an independent observer to pity the Pakistani
government and its Muslim people. In contrast,
India, having adopted a secular model for its
government, has managed to spare itself many
problems. It is true that India is not free of Hindu
fanaticism; nor may we forget that its society is
marked by the existence of the caste system; and has
to cope with the problems stemming from population
explosion. However, by adopting a secular system of
government within a democratic framework, India has
been in a better position to tackle its many
challenges, when compared with such countries as
Pakistan and Egypt.
“Thus, by developing its secular regime, India has
succeeded in creating a new way of life, both in
government and in society. An Indian, regardless of
his religion or ethnicity, participates in the
decision-making process. India has been free from
those religious schools that have negatively
impacted the Pakistani political system. In India,
the role of Hindu religious teachers is restricted
to the social realm; they are not allowed to
interfere with legislative matters. While India is a
secular state that did not keep several of its
politicians from being religious people as may be
observed in the press and the documentary films.
However, the role of religion stops at the door of
politics, economics, education, and culture; in the
sense that a political decision is not subject to a
specifically religious influence. This has spared
India a great deal of political strife, and enabled
it to achieve its prominent place on the global
scene. Through education, India has created the
[new] Indian man, on the foundation of the
separation of religion from the state, where a
religious identity has been replaced by the rise of
an Indian citizenship.
“While India has achieved all that progress,
Pakistan, as an Islamic state, has failed to
implement those Islamic religious principles, such
as faithfulness and trust that would have enabled it
to succeed in its societal and governmental venture.
The tribal tendencies in Pakistani society, by
deforming its Islamic values, have created a fertile
ground for terrorist activities and a myriad other
problems. As we contemplate the terrible
deterioration in the life of Pakistan,
notwithstanding the presence of its nuclear arsenal,
the question persists: would not secularism have
been the savior of Pakistan from its unending
crises?”
Analysis
The author of the article, by contrasting the
history of India with Pakistan since the partition
of the Indian Subcontinent offered a simple thesis:
Secularism (‘Ilmaniyya) has provided India with a
blueprint for success, domestically and on the
international scene. On the other hand, Pakistan
while striving to be a model Islamic State, has
foundered for the last sixty years, and has been
plagued with innumerable domestic and international
problems.
Comments
The study of the history of India and Pakistan since
1947 provides us with an irrefutable proof that the
attempt to create “a purely Islamic state”
as envisaged by the Muslim Indian ideologues of
the past was a sure recipe for political, social,
and economic disasters.
A little bit of history will help us to better
understand the subject. Quite early in the history
of the Islamic Futuhat, the Arabs
reached the western parts of India, the province
known as the Sind.
Later on, the Islamic Mughal Empire
ruled India for around three hundred years before it
came under the impact of British colonialism. Early
in the 17th century, the British East India
Company got many concessions to exploit India,
gradually raising its own army in order to extend
its control of India.
In 1858, India became formally an integral part of
the vast British Empire, and Queen Victoria was
crowned as its Empress! Early in the 20th Century,
Indian leaders began to work for the ultimate day of
independence. The Muslim League in
1909, under the leadership of ‘Allama Iqbal
sought to create within the Indian subcontinent, a
purely Islamic State. By 1940, the Muslim League
leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was
determined that upon the end of the British presence
in the country, the land would be partitioned
between Muslim and Hindu states. The last British
Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten,
presided over the partition, and the States of India
and Pakistan were born on 15 August, 1947. It should
be remarked that Pakistan consisted then of two
sections: East Pakistan and West
Pakistan, separated by over 1,000 miles of
Indian territory!
Terrible events followed the partition. Most Hindus
living within the new Pakistani areas, fled to the
Indian areas, while many Muslims rushed to Pakistan.
There were tragic scenes of killings on both sides
of the new borders. Added to that, came the problem
of Kashmir; its Indian ruler opted to
join India, even though the majority of his subjects
were Muslim. Pakistan never acknowledged the
legality of that decision. To this day, the Kashmir
problem has remained an unresolved matter between
the two countries.
The political courses of the two new countries have
been entirely different. India has succeeded in
forging ahead on several fronts, and notwithstanding
some tragic events in its history, is now considered
as the world’s largest democracy. In contrast,
Pakistan’s course has been marked by political
upheavals and social instability. In 1971,
East Pakistan, resenting the hegemony of the
Punjabi West Pakistani leadership,
seceded with the help of the Indian Army, and became
the State of Bangladesh.
While the article declared, by its very title, its
enthusiasm for ‘Ilmaniyya’
(secularism), it nevertheless equivocated by
claiming that Pakistan “failed to implement
those Islamic religious principles, such as
faithfulness and trust that would have enabled it to
succeed in its societal and governmental venture.”
The truth is that those very religious
principles were responsible for the failure. As V.
S. Naipaul, an expert on the history of the region
put it in his book, “Beyond Belief: Islamic
Excursions Among the Converted Peoples”
“It was Muslim insecurity that led to the call
for the creation of Pakistan. It went at the same
time with an idea of old glory, of the invaders
sweeping down from the northwest and looting the
temples of Hindustan and imposing the faith on the
infidel. The fantasy still lives; and for the Muslim
converts of the subcontinent it is the start of
their neurosis, because in this fantasy the convert
forgets who or what he is and becomes the violator.
P. 247
“The Indian subcontinent had been bloodily
partitioned to create the state of Pakistan.
Millions had died, and many more had been uprooted,
on both sides of the new frontiers. More than a
hundred million Muslims had been abandoned on the
Indian side, but virtually all the Hindus and Sikhs
had been chased away from Pakistan.” P. 290
Rather than bringing peace and prosperity to
Pakistan, Islam has been the source of its troubles.
The article in Tanweer arrived at the
conclusion that ‘Ilmaniyya’ was the
answer; it was tried in India, and made it a success
story. But how could Pakistan have adopted a secular
model for its state, when its raison d’etre
required the establishment of an Islamic
polity?
In conclusion, back to Naipaul’s sober words from
the Prologue of his book:
“Islam is in its origins an Arab religion.
Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert.
Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or
private belief. It makes imperial demands. A
convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in
Arab lands; his language is Arabic. His idea of
history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes,
whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab
story. The convert has to turn away from everything
that is his. The disturbance for societies is
immense, and even after a thousand years can remain
unresolved; the turning away has to be done again
and again. People develop fantasies about who and
what they are; and in the Islam of the converted
countries there is an element of neurosis and
nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the
boil.” P. xi
Note
V. S. Naipaul has written two books on contemporary
Islam:
Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey
(Random House, 430 pp. 1981)
Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the
Converted Peoples
(Random House, 408 pp. 1998)
|
