 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 1 - 7 June 2000 Issue No. 484 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 1 - 7 June 2000 Issue No. 484
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Focus Features Heritage Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Appearances are deceiving
By Hala Mustafa*
The fierce campaign launched against the novel A Banquet for Seaweed raises issues that have been plaguing Egyptian and Arab cultural and political life for over two decades, the most significant among which is that of building a modern state, and the position and role of religious institutions therein. The issue gains further importance with the democratic transformation processes taking place worldwide on an unprecedented scale, in addition to the spread of ideas and principles of human rights, including the values of tolerance and pluralism.
States and societies, however, still differ in their estimate of what "percentage" of these principles they should adopt, and the extent to which they should be translated into actual practice. The issue is not necessarily related to governments, most of which have already ratified international treaties recognising the universality of the said principles, rights and freedoms. The more complex problem remains linked to individuals themselves and the various official or unofficial institutions representing them, because in the end these bodies are formed of individuals and their activities are an expression of the prevalent mentality and culture.
In the course of the natural development of different human societies, the formation of values and thoughts is one of the most difficult tasks involved in change processes in general. Changing and upgrading structures and legislation may be the quickest response to the requirements of change on the tangible, material level, but values and thoughts take far longer and involve many subsidiary factors, such as upbringing, education, customs and traditions, in addition to other matters that by definition only come about in the long term because they are linked with the individual's moral sphere.
The evolution of democracy and human rights has been historically and practically linked with secularism, on one hand, and liberalism, on the other, with the implied emphasis on individual freedom. The possibility of such freedom was not available equally in non-Western states and societies. Thus, many democratic experiments that go through transitional periods may stumble or face a variety of challenges. This is due to two main factors. The first is related to values, as democracy is often abbreviated into a set of procedures, such as the presence of political parties, institutions, elections and the press, in the absence of the actual practice of basic individual rights and freedoms. The second factor is the increased confusion between religious belief and religious institutions, or between religion and those who practice politics in its name on one hand, then between the roles played by these parties and their involvement in political, intellectual and public life on the other. This periodically gives rise to crises on the level of individual rights and freedoms, be it private life, as was the case of the Hisba lawsuits, or opinion and free expression.
The first factor has given rise to an incomplete political party life -- herein, perhaps, lies the danger it poses. Political parties, plurality, the proliferation of newspapers, institutions of representation and regular elections have not led to the growth of the democratic experiment. Some political parties, the press, and members of representative institutions still express the views of trends that, if not fundamentalist, are at least closed-minded, and lack a rational world-view and respect for democratic values and individual freedoms. They have only the outer appearance of democracy, which provides them with legitimacy and political presence.
The political discourse of the Labour Party newspaper Al-Shaab, for example, was confrontational in addressing many issues, including the novel. It issued decisive judgments condemning individuals with respect to patriotism and religious belief. This is not a tolerant discourse that respects individual freedoms, a fundamental component of democratic practice.
The second factor is linked to the censorship role played by Al-Azhar, the largest religious institution in the Muslim world in the field of thought, expression and creativity. Al-Azhar was an important player in the battle that resulted from the press and party campaigns launched against the novel. Its involvement started with the statements issued by 60 scholars explicitly condemning the novel and used in the campaigns. The institution's involvement continued through the demonstrations organised by Al-Azhar students, then through the report on the novel it was required to provide.
This brings up the issue of Al-Azhar's role in controlling intellectual and creative production in general. Al-Azhar's Islamic Research Academy was responsible for confiscating many books that, according to some of its members, contravened religious teachings. This led some to believe in the existence of a sort of institutionalised religious authority responsible for monitoring thought. The issue may have become more apparent during the last few years following the judicial opinion issued by the State Council on 10 February 1994 and stating that "Al-Azhar alone has the authority to advise the Ministry of Culture in deciding whether creative audio or video productions are acceptable from the Islamic point of view." At the time, this opinion gave rise to doubts regarding the state's modernisation project. It may even have encouraged a particular trend within Al-Azhar to practice increasing control over culture. This same trend participated in the campaign against the novel, as it previously supported some campaigns against "apostates." It even attacked Al-Azhar's current leadership because of its enlightened and moderate position on economic and social issues, a position informed by the leadership's awareness of Al-Azhar's role as a university and an institution for the dissemination of religious ideas, not a body responsible for issuing judgements against individuals.
The laws governing Al-Azhar do not give it religious authority over society. They do not give it the authority to close the doors of thought, culture and creativity. This situation may vary, however, according to the prevalent political and cultural climate. The State Council's opinion was not the only development expanding Al-Azhar's role in intellectual and public life. Law 3/1996 regulating Hisba procedures also had an impact. This law reflected one of the aspects of the conflict that has pitted political-religious, civil (secular/modern) and liberal streams against each other for years. This conflict has taken many forms: political, intellectual and finally legal. (The Hisba lawsuit filed against university professor Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid accusing him of "apostasy" and demanding that he be separated from his wife in the mid-'90s, which ended in Abu Zeid leaving Egypt, was the first of its kind in modern history).
During the same years, supporters of political Islam increasingly resorted to filing lawsuits against writers, intellectuals and artists and condemning their literary and artistic works.
Although some spoke out at the time to demand that Hisba lawsuits be canceled based on civil law, the state adopted a moderate stand. Accordingly, only the public prosecutor was given the right to file Hisba lawsuits.
The law and the related debate, which continues to rage, involve larger problems that go beyond the law itself. One of these problems is related to Hisba itself. The law only addresses the procedural aspect of Hisba, while failing to address its core concept and applicability.
The main problem raised by the law thus revives the debate about the nature of the modern state, which theoretically should not mix political and religious considerations, particularly in the field of legislation. Article 40 of the 1971 Constitution states that "citizens are equal before the law. They shall enjoy equal rights and public duties. There shall be no discrimination among citizens on the basis of race, origin, language, religion or belief." This article is based on the principles of human rights that emphasise and guarantee the value of individual freedom. Article 2 of the Constitution, however, amended in 1980, states that the Shari'a is the main source of legislation, a different reference from the first one, which can affect laws and the judiciary.
Finally, there is a problem related to the practical aspects of implementation in cases where the prosecution decides to take up one of the Hisba lawsuits it receives. This was the case recently when the public prosecution asked Al-Azhar to issue an opinion concerning the novel in accordance with the State Council's opinion. The prosecution then referred the matter to the judiciary, following the previously mentioned law. This may mean that the state plays two simultaneous roles. It files the lawsuit, which usually relates to literature, thought and art. At the same time, it is committed to guaranteeing individual rights and freedoms.
All these considerations have given some authorities (primarily the religious establishment) increasing moral authority in the field of censorship. An enlightened Al-Azhar leadership is not sufficient at this stage. Experience has shown that different trends exist within the same institution.
We cannot depend on the "enlightenment" and moderation of the sheikh of Al-Azhar. There is a need to define accurately the role of this institution in certain areas so as to preserve its acknowledged scientific and religious position in dissemination and instruction. This will also guard against attempts to use it in political battles that may have a negative impact on its image. The current confusion between politics and religion may require a reevaluation of the current political map if we are to ensure a larger space for the values and content of democracy, rather than just appearances and procedures.
* The writer is an expert at the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
