Of religion and politics
France's decision to ban the veil reflects the depth of the crisis in western liberalism, writes Awatef Abdel-Rahman
The French decision to make overt religious symbols illegal -- abolishing the wearing of hijab, large crosses and skull caps -- has solicited a range of conflicting responses, particularly in the Muslim world. Of these the reaction of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar has revealed the extent of the crisis within that institution. The majority of Islamic scholars disagreed with his position, which was to affirm France's right to take whatever action it chooses.
Many described the Sheikh of Al-Azhar's position as nothing more than a personal opinion. It did not, they argued, express the view of Al-Azhar scholars as a whole. In issuing his controversial fatwa, indeed, he did not consult with his colleagues. The normal procedure would have been to hold a meeting to seek approval for the decision, which would then be issued in the name of Al-Azhar, the stronghold of orthodox Islam. That this was not done, and that the decision provoked such uproar, suggests that, while the Sheikh of Al- Azhar's decision was in accordance with official views, it was contrary to Islamic precepts.
The implication is that the sheikh takes his orders from the political establishment. By extension, we might say the religious establishment is dependent on the political establishment. The matter also raises important questions about the absence of democracy within Al-Azhar, a situation that undermines Al-Azhar's independence and leaves it in danger of falling into the trap of following blindly in the footsteps of the executive authority which is itself governed by pragmatic considerations.
For its part the French decision, while appearing to have a religious focus, is in essence a political decision directed specifically at Muslims, perhaps as a consequence of their increasing numbers (five million in France) and fear of their influence following 11 September. The decision reflects the crisis of liberalism and secular thought in the west, since it contradicts every convention or constitution, including the French constitution -- all of which affirm the right to freedom of belief and freedom to practice religion. Yet increasing fear, and the rise of American hegemony, have resulted in an unprecedented retreat in the human-rights achievements of western civilisation.
Since Islam remains Washington's principal target it is important to note, in the present context, that Muslims have suffered most, and lost most, in the form unnecessary and destructive wars prosecuted by Washington. These wars have inspired terror in governments and peoples throughout the northern and southern hemispheres. This antagonistic, partisan atmosphere has revealed the fragility of life in western democracies. It has also confirmed the paralysis and dependency of Muslim states. This period of oppression may or may not end shortly. Only one thing is certain. It will result in the suffering of innocent people not only in third world but within the western democracies themselves.
All that can be done to counter such tendencies is to promote knowledge of, and respect for, human rights. Nor should we give in to attempts to politicise religion, or to separate it from its humane content and its ability to invest human beings with spiritual refinement, urging them to struggle against injustice.
