Paradigm shifts again

The paradigm of politics in Egypt has shifted multiple times within the last few years. Before the revolution of January 25^th, the people of Egypt perceived only one fault line: Government vs. everyone else. Immediately following the revolution, this perception shifted into revolutionary vs. reactionary. This continued till shortly before the presidential elections where the fault-line was artificially shifted into revolution vs. military\Mubarak regime remnants. I argued in a post before the elections that this fault line was untrue, and that the true division is and should be perceived as the division between those who want a modern (and yes secular) state, and those who want a nepotistic sectarian para-theocracy. This position was, of course, a tiny voice and it went unheard. The result was that revolutionaries, secular, and modern Islamist alike threw the country into the embrace of an ineffective, inbred, conservative mafia called the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now after the well expected cluster-failure of the MB, the fault lines are being redrawn. But this time it is significantly more complicated. Again there is an image similar to pre-2011 where there is the illusion of a division between those who are pro and those who are against the MB. But again, as with pre-2011 everyone is concentrating on what they don’t want (in this case the MB), not what they really want.

In this muddy environment few groups are clear on why they are aligning the way they are. There are some exceptions of course. Christians, despite MB protest to the opposite, are of course unanimously opposed to the MB staying in power. This might be partly because of the inescapable antagonism between an Islamist government and Christians, but any fair observer must have seen very material reasons for Christian dismay. MB sponsored progroms, murders that go unpunished, church burnings that go without investigation, the first ever recorded attack on the main Coptic cathedral (not to mention partly by the MoI), and continuous and consistent incitement against Copts in MB media outlets.

Another clear group is, of course, the MB cadre itself. How many there are is as much a secret as everything else about this cult. But MB commitment to their leaders is unwavering and religious. If Mohammed Morsi sinks the whole country, the MB membership will look to the supreme guide for their reaction, and they will copy it verbatim.

Everyone else in Egypt is in a more complicated situation. Why is it that the MB and some of the most solidly Mubarak-regimesque technocrats are on such good terms? Is there really a schism in the Salafist ranks, and would this schism encourage a Salafist to elect a liberal over an MB? Why have some of the most pro-Morsi “revolutionaries” become some of his worst enemies, while others are still unwavering in their support?

It all boils down to what people actually value and want. For the first time since the revolution, people are waking up to the fact that so far this revolution has all been about what they want to take apart and destroy, with no consensus on what anyone wants to build in its place. The exception of course, is the MB, who have always wanted to rebuild Egypt in the image of Hassan El-Banna’s home village.

So whether someone currently supports, is against, or is neutral towards the MB depends on the relative weight they put on several values. Top among these is freedom. Those who value freedom, as in the basic freedoms of people are of course aligned against the MB. This includes the majority of liberals and a section of progressive Islamists who in reality want a secular liberal democracy, but just want to name it and derive its values from non-western sources. Salafists and Islamists for whom infringement on the freedoms of others is a sacred right and duty may find themselves siding against the MB for being “too free” or siding with it because the liberals are much worse.

The second important value is order. People who put a high stake on order and rule of law would agains find themselves either siding with or against the MB. Perhaps they find that the MB’s repression is excusable in terms of the chaos that has struck the country. Yet others would find that the MB’s priorities and nepotism are the reasons for chaos and lack of rule of law.

The third and final value that most people consider before taking a position is stability. Yes, the dreaded S word of the Mubarak era. Egyptians are finally realizing that stability is not so bad, and that what Mubarak provided was indeed stability and not stagnation on so many fronts. Stability in a resource poor country like Egypt translates directly into money. Stability means more tourists, more investors, more jobs, higher salaries. And yes, it means that a guy would drive safely on the desert road to Alexandria to spend a very expensive vacations in Marina El-Alamein, and along the way they would stop to pay a tip to the guy in the parking lot of Masters. The revolution stated that it did not want the inequality between these two guys, what it delivered is a drop in the quality of life of both.

In the end each individual weighs these three factors and makes a very complex decision on why they do or don’t support the MB regime. The fault line will again be drawn and simplified by both sides and by the media as pro-MB vs. against-MB. But in reality neither camp is unified in what it wants. However, there are signs that this time, at least at the level of common folk, the question is starting to shift to: “What do we want” instead of “what do we not want”.

And therein lies the hope. 

Infidel hashtags: Atheist trend

Is atheism a trend in Egypt? What pushes Egyptian Muslims towards atheism? What is the traditional conservative Muslim intelligentsia doing in response. A few emerging Twitter hashtags help reveal some of the answers.

"There is a wave of atheism sweeping Egypt," this statement is often repeated online and in Egyptian talk shows, usually in the context of warning against the lash back on the push by Salafist clerics to reduce personal freedoms. Twitter has recently been flooded with hashtags that bring together Arab atheists. Hashtags with names like "diaries of an embarrassed X-Muslim" or the sarcastic "Islamic books that have benefited humanity."

The discourse on the hashtags reveals that atheism is probably just an elite phenomenon in Egypt, it has the potential to cause some very serious social disturbances, but it will by no means have any significant demographic impact in the near future. However, the logic for leaving Islam presented in these hashtags is very diagnostic and might be a pointer to major issues that Muslim societies will have to struggle with in the long run. Although the hashtags are meant for Arabs, the overwhelming majority of people posting are Egyptian Muslims with significant contributions from the Gulf and the Levant and noticeable absence of posts from North Africa. However, the issues raised are most likely common to all Arab countries.

First, what are the main reasons given for leaving Islam? These can be broken down into a few clear categories:

• Salafist fatwas: This is perhaps the largest category. Commentary on Salafist fatwas and their detachment from reality is sharp and clear. One can detect a level of  bitterness at Salafists for allegedly forcing some posters into a conflict with their own religion.
• Islamic history: The typical post would take an event from Islamic history where there was excessive use of violence, or excessive decadence and bring it to the forefront of the conflict. Foremost among the events are the Islamic conquests of the Middle East and North Africa and the great chasm that separates contemporary non-Islamic source accounts of the conquests from the common Muslim perception. But also very important are stories of the Sahaba, the companions of the prophet. Due to the near-prophetic stature Salafism has given to this group of people, they make very easy targets.
• Eccentricities of medieval jurisprudence (fiqh): The main issue here is the peculiar and specific nature of medieval jurisprudence and the useless tangents it seems to go into. This conflicts with the concept of Sunni Islam as a religion without a clergy. 
• Historicity of Quranic stories: This takes a leaf out of the book of criticism of the Bible. However, because the Quran is structured differently, the sharpness of the issue is less clear and thus this appears only as a side issue.
• Scientific "miracles" in the Quran:  What some well-meaning but ignorant Muslims think is a great way to strengthen faith turns out to be a surprisingly important component of many Muslims losing faith. While the Quran never claimed to be either a history or a science book, Muslims insist on forcing this role on it. Once exposed to any level of scientific scrutiny, the synthetic and contrived "scientific miracles" of the Quran fall apart instantly, bringing down with them the faith of many.
• Moral code: Polygamy, wife beating, slavery, female genital mutilation, inequality of sexes, persecution of minorities, and persecution based on ideas are major issues for many Egyptian "atheists." One person summarized his concern in a tweet (paraphrased): "If I live in a society that endorses pedophilia, persecutes minorities, considers the enslavement and rape of prisoners of war good, but is bothered by two adults having a private relationship, then I have a problem"

So are there any mainstream Muslim responses to these issues? The hashtags are naturally frequented by Muslims who respond, and again the responses can be broken down into a few major classes:

• This is not the right Islam: This forms the overwhelming majority of responses. The concerns X-Muslims have are dismissed as misunderstandings, aberrations, or myths. This is particularly effective when responding to concerns about Salafism or Islamic history but becomes foggy when the moral code and jurisprudence is concerned.
• You have to feel this not think about it: The issue is relegated to faith and lack thereof.
• You should be killed: A surprising number of tweets resort immediately to the controversial Islamic ruling on apostasy. As one "Sheikh" from the Gulf tweeted: "There is nothing like X-Muslim, there are Muslims and there are apostates who we should execute"

The bottom line is that the atheist hashtags are mostly sideline issues. Most Egyptian atheists are not actually concerned about denying the presence of God. In reality the majority are secular Muslims, deists, or at most agnostics. What really concerns most of the people forming the bulk of the "atheist wave" seem to be social and historical issues. Traditional Muslim society often responds by wading deep into said social and historical issues, trying to defend them as essential components of Islamic faith. What Muslims truly need in this respect is to purify the faith back to its essential form. This is, ironically, the original form of Islamic fundamentalism as espoused by reformists such as Mohammed Abdu, before it was abducted by Sayyed Qutb, the founder of modern Islamic fundamentalism.

But it is in the moral code and basic rights that the truly serious clash is shaping out to be. Islamists of all shades are scrambling to establish a state that is neither liberal, nor secular, yet one that gives more rights and preserves more human dignity than a liberal democracy. Human experience, including our own indicates that this will fail. In all cases, however the state ends up looking like, Muslims as a society have to answer some major questions and settle once and for all their positions on: Gender equality, the morality of slavery (regardless of its practicality), use of violence (especially against women), freedom of expression (absolute and protected), and freedom of faith. How Muslim societies reach this, whether it is through radical reconstruction, or classical reinterpretation, is irrelevant. What truly matters is that we must catch up with the rest of humanity.

Broken feedback: Why democracy won't work in the Arab world

Democracy is cool. All of a sudden democracy is now supposed to be well and good according to Islamists. That's a far cry from the position their fathers took against democracy in royal Egypt. Back in the forties democracy was supposed to be an invention of infidels, an abomination beyond the pale. So what changed? Is it true that the Muslim Brotherhood now fully believes in democracy? The answer is that they do believe in elections, and they accept a lot of the mechanics of democracy, but this is where it ends.

What the west defines as democracy is necessarily liberal, secular democracy. Liberalism is a solid ideal that guarantees basic rights for everyone and full equality for all citizens. These basic principles are accepted by the absolute majority of the political spectrum in most countries. What Americans define as "Liberals" are no more committed to these basic rights than what Americans term "Conservatives." Secularism ensures that religious rights are preserved by separating structures of organized religion from the state. Again no significant political force in the US, for example, has any issues with secularism.

Liberalism ensures that democracy does not turn into mob rule. So amassing a majority does not allow said majority to control the basic rights and freedoms of the minority. Majorities and minorities are ideally political, reducing polarization and the survival mode the minority finds itself in when their rights are at the whim of the majority. Secularism ensures that arbitrary rules of one religion are not imposed upon followers of other religions or upon the state.

In the presence of liberalism and secularism democracy's only advantage is allowed to function: Self correction. If a government fails; whether the failure is economic, political, or social; the voters change it. If the government that follows is still bad, they can change it again. The terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the US refer essentially to economic left of center and right of center respectively (despite period eruptions of strawman arguments over abortion and gay marriage). Americans periodically switch between the two parties representing the two poles depending on the economic climate, public mood, or as punishment for poor performance.

Islamists in Egypt and the Arab world accept democracy as a mechanism of elections and majority rule. However liberalism as the granting of universal and equal rights to everyone is categorically refused. Secularism is not even open for question as far as all Islamists are concerned. The stated position is that liberal democracy is a western construct, and that Muslims should be allowed to fashion their own form of democracy which takes their cultural specificity into consideration.

However, in practice what this means is that democracy becomes a cyclical phenomenon of sectarianism, religious arguments, minority bashing, elections, then some more sectarianism and so on. Thus if the MB fails (as it is failing) to achieve any form of economic or political development of Egypt they will simply start a new episode of blaming Copts and Liberals for their failings and calling for more million man marches to "defend Islam." If the MB needs a law repealed or a law instituted or modified they can simply claim that it is in accordance/against Shariia and then claim that it isn't the MB that wants this law, but God. This happens to some degree or another in all countries. But what isn't common is that in Egypt a solid, ignorant, and impoverished majority will always bite the religious bait. The fascism and baseless supremacism combined with fatalism that the MB sells in time of need is something that a lot of Egyptians (and Arabs) are ready to buy. What is also unique to this brand of democracy is that in the absence of a constitution that guarantees full and equal rights to citizens, the ignorant majority always sees a very real chance to crush the minority scapegoats that keeps the MB bait fresh and alluring.

So the scary thing is, the MB can continue to be an utter failure, and continue to win elections and get majority support until Egypt is devastated beyond recognition.

This is all unfolding exactly as Egyptian Liberals expected, the real shock that's starting to set in is with intellectual moderate Islamists who dreamed of an idealistic brand of Islamic democracy only to be faced with the greasy failed fascism of the MB.