Heavenly pursuits
Two cultures are looking towards heaven, albeit in different ways. And the worst, says Abdel-Moneim Said, is yet to come
Arab countries are going through their third stage of state-building. The previous two stages occurred in the 1920s and the 1950s. Some of these countries are reconsidering their constitutions. Most are trying to make sense of the world around them, while exploring the link between religion and the modern state. One thing that symbolises the current perplexity is the recent debate over hijab, which was triggered by the French decision to ban conspicuous religious symbols in public schools.
Especially puzzling, for me, was the ferocious attack on Sheikh Sayed Tantawi, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, who had simply stated his opinion on the matter. My puzzlement was not just because people of less knowledge and stature than Tantawi were calling him into question. What I found particularly galling was that some tried to present Hassan Nasrallah of Lebanon and others as authorities of higher stature than the grand imam, the highest known source of religious knowledge in the Arab and Islamic worlds.
I will state my own position on the matter at the outset. It is a position I have already made clear when the Turkish Parliament prevented a deputy from entering its premises because she was wearing the hijab. My opinion was that such a move was one of secularist extremism unbefitting a democratic state, and an encroachment on personal freedoms, which could be a prelude to further encroachments.
Some Turkish intellectuals I met at the time told me that the issue at stake was not women's personal freedoms and their right to wear outfits they associate with peace and piety, but the attitude of certain political movements that use religiosity to change the nature of the state and establish a regime based more on religious law than the ballot box. I wasn't convinced. My position was that no democratic country should restrict the right of its own citizens to choose their clothing. The Turkish measure, I thought, would give a bad name to democracy and liberalism, for the essence of the latter is the protection of basic civil and human rights.
This was four years ago, and my view hasn't changed since. What happened in France, however, requires us to look more carefully into the matter, particularly since the fiercest critics of the grand imam are not known for their democratic credentials, nor do they hail from democratic societies. The criticism directed against the French decision were not based on human and civil rights, but on religious grounds.
One interesting question is: why has the French president issued such a decision at this particular time? Muslims have immigrated to western countries in search for economic betterment, public freedoms, and a broader scope for innovation. Throughout the 20th century, Islam has been the fastest growing faith in the West. As this was taking place, Islamic customs and dress codes became more visible, and no one objected to Muslim women wearing the hijab, or to men wearing any particular headdress. Actually, certain municipalities in various western states began honouring Islamic events, allowing special decorations to be set up in public squares during Ramadan and the Fitr and Adha feasts.
Suddenly, all this changed, not because of a sudden eruption of racism in the West, but because Islamic fundamentalism began infiltrating various expatriate Muslim groups. The issue of the hijab was being presented as a first step on a long path of religious duties culminating in "jihad", which could imply the destruction of all who disagree with the beliefs of a specific group. Perhaps the main issue was not even that of extremism; for there are extremists in all religions and creeds. It was that the Islamic public seemed insufficiently disturbed by the extremists in their midst.
When the 11 September events occurred (and before that the attempts to blow up the Eiffel Tower and destroy the Lost Angeles Airport on the eve of the third millennium), the overall Muslim reaction was one of denial, of conspiracy theories, and of refusal to address the significance of such catastrophic events from within the Muslim community. When westerners listened closely to what Muslim extremists were saying, they weren't reassured by prayers of the "may God break their unity and burn their offspring" variety. How often did the immigrant Muslim communities plead with God to protect and bless their adopted countries?
This was the climate in which the hijab became an issue in France. It is climate that brings into question the political motivation and the methods of propagation and recruitment among certain Muslim groups. If Muslims, and their imams, were genuinely concerned about personal -- and even religious -- freedoms, they should start by addressing the roots of the problem. It is time to save the world's Muslims not from unfair treatment, but from the extremism in their midst, which is threatening to burn all their bridges with the rest of the world. Instead, the hijab issue became an obsession. It was blown out of all proportion, infused with the tensions that followed the 11 September attacks, strewn with the obstacles that have come to separate Islam and the West.
As this was going on, Europe and the US were racing to Mars. Europe may have failed initially, but the Americans managed to land two vehicles on the red planet. As the two vehicles landed, President Bush spoke of a new US space policy that would, over the next few decades, turn man's dream of invading space into reality.
The two sets of events are somewhat linked: the hijab crisis in France and the landing on Mars. Together, they epitomise the 21st century. Humans may have succeeded in resolving the complex scientific problems encountered in space travel, but they have miserably failed to address the question of values, the causes of sedition, and the intricacies of faith. I do not wish to belabour this point -- suffice it to say that while human systems may have made stunning progress, man himself still has much to learn when it comes to values, personal freedoms and the priorities of human choice.
It is interesting to note that the Muslims who have, rightly, revolted against the French decision to ban the hijab, along with other religious symbols, have failed to revolt against the massive technological gap separating them from those who have reached Mars. Nor has there been a Muslim hue and cry over the abject poverty in which millions of Muslims live, or the widening gap in education, knowledge, and health that separate us from the West.
This gap is going to grow even wider. The landings on Mars reflect the tremendous improvement in science and technology. Humankind is now in possession of a great number of satellites orbiting the earth, a manned space station, and a collection of space shuttles. The Concorde -- once a futuristic vision -- is no more, for its technology was based on flying within the atmosphere, subject to Earth's gravity. The day when passenger planes may venture into space and back may not be far off.
There is no doubt that such developments will have major ramifications for global trade, investment, and human interaction, though, I cannot begin to imagine how it would affect such matters as the hijab. What we do know, however, is that the international balance of power is ever-shifting. Time was when superpowers would neglect countries that possessed no immediate strategic or economic worth. This led to the appearance of what was commonly known as marginalisation. Many, including myself, believed that this phenomenon jeopardised the national security of many Arab and Islamic countries. For example, the US military intervention in Somalia in the 1990s ended once 18 US servicemen were killed. The world did not care much if Somalia were to stay united or within the international community. Somalia was at best a charity case, at worst a headache.
Right now, the world is in no mood to tolerate the marginalised. For the marginalised -- of Somalia, Afghanistan, and the rest of the states that have come apart at the seems -- have proved themselves capable of upsetting a world system that is becoming organised with rigorous attention to detail. This urge to upset the world has its roots in a different set of values, in a combination of fanaticism and despair, and in the inability of the marginalised to join in the increasingly complicated world they live in.
In brief, the more the economic, scientific, and technological gap widens between those who land on the moon and those who cling to the hijab, the more arrogant will the winners become and the more fanatical and close-minded the losers. Such a state of affairs can only culminate in an assault on freedom in a world that is set to break into space, away from Earth's gravity. These are difficult moments for state-building in Arab countries, and, indeed, may prove to be more difficult than anything these countries have gone through in the past.
The Arab state is now being reproduced under the harshest of conditions, and the world's patience is running out. The worst is not over yet.
* The writer is the director of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
