The following is commentary on an extensive article authored by
Ahmed Zaki Osman that appeared in
Al-Qahera (a weekly published by Egypt’s Ministry of Culture) on Tuesday, 16 January 2007. Issue #353, p. 24. A
pdf image of the article can be viewed at
this link.
In the attached page that carries a fairly large picture of
Abdu’l-Bahá (the son of Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith),
Al Qahira investigates the possible reasons behind the attack on Baha’is after the ruling of the first administrative court of 4 April 2006 that gave Baha’is the right to official documents required by the state for all transactions whether with various state departments or social institutions, banks, schools, universities etc…. The verdict was overturned by the Supreme Administrative Court, on 16 December 2006, to much jubilation from Islamist extremists both inside the court and in the papers, and to the amazement of Osman who points out in his article the confusion in self perceived roles on the part of members of parliament in particular.
The article is entitled:
"Why was not the home of Islam big enough for all people, including the Baha'is...recognizing their rights to believe in whatever pleases their hearts?" In one of its subtitles the article points out that "Egypt's citizenship laws have
never stated that adherence to divine religions should be a condition for citizenship."
Ahmed Zaki Osman, the author of the article, chooses as starting point what he calls the "geography" of the Baha’is' case. He quotes the famous geographer
Gamal Hamdan who in his magnum opus "The Character of Egypt," has specified Egypt as the land most likely to manifest in all matters the rule of the 'golden means' and contrast, due to the rich variety of its demographic and historical heritage. Ahmed Zaki Osman carries this metaphor to its conclusion by highlighting the paradoxes in discourse that were rampant while the case for the Baha’is was being made public, albeit to underscore the underlying paradoxes rather than to demonstrate the positive aspect in Hamdan’s initial statement.
He scrutinizes the discourse of hegemony in a way that underscores what he suggests is a national ailment that he sees as fairly novel to the Egyptian scene, and arrives at the conclusion that Muslims are passing through an unprecedented phase of oppression, weakness and humiliation whereby it is difficult for the adherents of that faith to point to any achievement worth their while except in those societies where the preponderance of the population is not Muslim. He points to the fact that there are Muslim members of parliament in France, Britain, Germany and other countries and cites the fact that there is a Muslim woman judge in the United States; this however does not seem to impress Muslims at home with any message. They remain according to Ahmed Zaki Osman the victims of a monocular vision, unable to appreciate the invigorating elements in a healthy debate that rests on rational premises instead of vainglory and pride that derives its raison d’etre from an imagined threat in which all that is not Muslim is targeted for its own sake.
Ahmed Zaki Osman is not out to describe a persecution complex...far from it. What he is trying to do is to put in perspective the difference between handling a situation rationally or resorting to inflamed emotional rhetoric which is how he describes the responses that occurred from members of parliament who are otherwise noteworthy citizens. What he seems to be saying is that, in the absence of true democracy, frustration is taken out haphazardly without resort to either decency in dialogue or indeed an understanding of the roles designated by society to its judiciary, its executive and its representative bodies.
He describes a confusion of issues that allows members of parliament to draw their comments from their own personal leanings and feelings on a matter that falls within the realm of the courts and the institutions of justice and nothing else. To the extent that those members of parliament who raised the issue as intolerable, have addressed their request for questions in the house to the wrong minister! The minister they needed to address in order to voice a grievance such as their intention to deny a group of citizens the right to hold national ID cards with all what that implies, should have been the Minister for Interior and not the Minister of Religious Endowments!
This situation bespeaks, in the opinion of Osman, a degree of frustration and intolerance that stems both from annoyance with the political atmosphere as much as it is a manifestation of the confusion of issues that allow those politicians to play on the emotions of the public and to instigate their fears...though he does not accuse the parliamentarians who stand guard on Islamic pseudo issues--as was the case when the minister for culture made a denigrating remark (off the record) to a journalist about the veil, or when the Pope of the Vatican made his ill-advised references to history--of anything less than a misconception of their role in parliament.
The other reason Osman attributes the anger to is the lack of a mind educated to accept diversity and difference. He cites a famous dialogue between the
Imam Muhammad Abdu and
Sheikh Rashid Reda on the issue of the Baha’i faith. In the quotes he chooses, it is more than apparent that there was a steady and stable ground of enlightenment that ensured the rationality of the debate without either of the clerics condescending to haphazard accusations of the faith, its proponents or its leading figures. Indeed, Muhammad Abdu is quoted as saying of Abdu’l-Bahá that he is a very Great man. But then we must recall--says Othman--who the parties to that dialogue were, in a clear reference to their excellence, and thus the relative mediocrity of the current commentators and players.
Osman stresses what he calls "the geography of paradoxes" to indicate the clear schism between what a Nation thinks of itself, and what the reality of its discourse reveals. He describes the jubilations (Allah'u-Akbar!) that were loud in the court on the 16th of December, as an indication of a moral bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, he puts that scene under the subtitle:
"The psychological defeat of the nation." He ends his article by posing a number of salient questions that all address the issue of the times when diversity is viewed as a threat and hopes that Egypt will overcome its current narcissistic, introvert outlook in order to regain its sense of dignity, rights for all its citizens whether poor or rich, Muslim or non Muslim, weak or strong.
To conclude, this writer challenges all the dogmas, delusions and illusions of the Islamist fundamentalist establishment which has triggered the government's appeal of the administrative court's ruling that had granted the Baha'is their rights. This challenge was introduced in the Egyptian parliamentary debate more than a month after the court's judgement and following several sessions during which the matter was never brought up. To make matters worse, these extremist individuals addressed the wrong minister regarding their issue. The article also points out the fact that the task of the parliament is not to police the judiciary and challenge court decisions, but rather act as a watch-dog to the executive branch of the government to ensure that the rights of individuals, whom they represent, are protected.
Furthermore, a secular member of the parliament, Dr. Zainab Radwan, a well known academician supported the recognition of the Baha'is, not because it is their right, but for a sinister reason--that is "to identify them so that the society can be protected from their influence"...not far removed from the Nuremberg Race Laws! Then, all of a sudden, the issue of "public order" was brought in, which in fact has absolutely nothing to do with this case, particularly when the disruption of public order, so rampant in the Egyptian society recently, has been caused by the exact same society elements which have been attacking the Baha'is....
Thus this whole matter which had emerged through the parliament, challenging a court decision that granted citizenship rights, has been illegal and out of jurisdiction all along. Even worse, the Supreme Administrative Court avoided the question at hand, and instead of ruling on the civil and personal status questions in front of it, resorted instead to take shots at the legitimacy of the Baha'i Faith!
15 min 45 sec - Feb 23, 2007
