On the State of Egypt (24 page)

All of that is well-known, understandable, and to be expected, but I was thinking of something else. The journey from Washington to Cairo takes more than ten hours, so how does President Mubarak spend that time? The president’s private plane is no doubt equipped to the highest possible standard, but it’s nonetheless a long journey, so what does the president do on the way? Does he take the opportunity to snatch a few hours’ sleep so that his body can recover from all the exhausting work he does? Does he spend the time in conversation with the government newspaper editors whom he takes along with him on every trip? As usual, they would compete to praise the president’s achievements, his historic leadership, and the excellence of his decisions. I think that the president must be somewhat bored by repeated praise. Does he enjoy some reading during the journey? Does he take along the collected works of Mahmoud Sami al-Baroudi, whom he has cited as his favorite poet? I don’t know exactly what the president likes to do, so I suggest he watch some good videos, which I hope he likes. Not long feature films, but short documentaries in which the performers are not professional actors or even amateurs but just ordinary Egyptians with nothing to distinguish them except that, like millions of other Egyptians, they face a bitter daily struggle to feed their children and provide them with a decent life. Here are the videos I suggest.

In the first video we see a young Egyptian from Port Said being horribly tortured in a police station. The young man appears in the first shot with the skin on his back and stomach flayed from a beating, lifted up and hung from the ceiling by his hands. The man starts to beg the police officers for mercy, saying, “Enough, Mohamed Bey! I’m going to die, Mohamed Bey.” In the second shot the young man appears blindfolded, weeping and imploring the officer in a broken voice, “I beg you, Mohamed Bey. We’re human beings, not animals.” We can’t see Mohamed Bey in the shot but we can hear his angry voice as he shouts, “Shut up!” at the man and then hurls the most vicious insults at him. Why does Mohamed Bey seem so angry? The reason is that the young man has been screaming under torture and Mohamed Bey sees this as an affront to his status because, according to the rules as he sees them, no one has the right to speak up in front of a police officer even if the officer is beating and torturing him.

The second video has a woman as the main character: an Egyptian woman in her thirties, her hair uncovered, wearing blue jeans and a dark t-shirt. The police officer appears with a big stick, beating her mercilessly. He is beating her all over with all his strength, on her feet, her arms, and her head. The woman screams and then falls silent and then in the next shot we see her strung up horizontally with her hands and feet tied to a metal pole. This is the position people say is used in police stations and on State Security premises and is known as the ‘chicken position.’ It causes horrific pain, tears the muscles, and can lead to bone and even spinal fractures. Not content with stringing her up in the ‘chicken position,’ the policeman carries on hitting her with his big stick until she cries out at the top of her voice, “Okay, pasha, it was me who killed him, it was me who killed him.” At this point we realize that the policeman is investigating a murder and that by this very effective method he has identified the murderer and justice has been done.

In the third video we see a man in his forties trembling in fear in front of a police officer, who is hurling the most vile insults at him. The policeman then raises his hand and brings it down forcefully toward the man’s face. Just as the man shuts his eyes against the blow, the policeman freezes his hand in the air then wiggles his fingers obscenely. The policeman breaks into sustained laughter and walks around the room triumphantly as though he has just pulled off some clever trick. Then the policeman gets serious again, approaches the man with a cigarette in the corner of his mouth, and starts slapping his face repeatedly with both hands. When the man raises a hand instinctively to fend off the blows, the policeman stops, insults the man’s mother, and tells him to put his hand back down at his side. Then he starts slapping him again.

In the fourth film we don’t see the policeman because he’s sitting behind the camera. Instead we see a man more than sixty years old, frail and obviously poor and malnourished. A muscular police informer has grabbed him and we hear the officer saying to the informer, “Hit him, Abdel Rasoul.” Abdel Rasoul carries out the order and starts to lay into the old man. But the policeman, whose voice sounds serene and playful, says, “That’s very gentle, Abdel Rasoul, too gentle. Hit him hard.” Abdel Rasoul hits the man more and more violently as the policeman tells him where to strike. “Give it to him on the back of the neck, Abdel Rasoul. Now hit him on the head.” Abdel Rasoul tries hard to please the officer and hits harder and harder, but the officer tut-tuts and says, “Your performance is very feeble, Abdel Rasoul.” At that point another informer comes into the room to help Abdel Rasoul do his job, and the two of them beat up the old man, trying to prove their competence to the officer. The old man submits to their blows to the extent that he cannot raise his hand or even scream. He looks vacant, as though he is dead.

Mr. President, I chose these films from the many available on Wael Abbas’ blog, “Egyptian Awareness,” and many other blogs on the Internet. All of them are authentic visual and audio records of the terrifying crimes of torture to which Egyptians are subjected daily. In many cases the names of the officers and the places where they work are available along with the video. In most cases the faces of the officers are clearly visible in the image, which would make it easy to identify them. All of these videos were recorded on cell phones by people who happened to be present during the torture sessions, and were somehow leaked to the blogs. Sometimes the police officer videoed himself as he was doing the torturing, to show the images to his colleagues or to humiliate the victims or intimidate them in the future. Humans are normally inclined to record the happy moments in their lives. It makes sense that one would photograph one’s wedding or graduation ceremony, but to record oneself as one tortures people is bizarre behavior, the motives for which psychiatrists might help us understand.

Mr. President, I am not asking you to intervene to stop this degradation to which dozens of Egyptians are subjected daily in police stations and on State Security premises. I am not asking you to investigate the crimes of torture committed against innocents by people who represent the regime you head. I am not asking you to intervene because, like all Egyptians, I have learned from experience the limits of what is possible in Egypt. I only wanted to recommend some films to entertain Your Excellency on your long journey. Mr. President, have a safe trip.

Democracy is the solution.

August 18, 2009

Before We Damn Switzerland

O
n October 27 I was on a visit to Switzerland and wrote about the battle over minarets for the first time. I said that the gravity of this battle went beyond banning minarets because it would lead to the passage of a law in which Islam is officially linked with terrorism and because it would open the door to more legal campaigns by right-wing racist parties aimed at restricting the freedoms of Muslims in the West. In my article I advocated forming a delegation of professors of Islamic civilization and enlightened men of religion to travel to Switzerland in order to explain to the public that the minaret is an Islamic architectural feature and not an emblem of war, as alleged by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, which started this battle.
Al-Shorouk
newspaper responded to my suggestion and contacted senior officials in Egypt, but it appears they were not enthusiastic about the idea or were enthusiastic but did not do anything about it, except for the mufti of the republic, whose media adviser happened to be invited to a conference in Switzerland and came back after the vote on banning minarets was over. The truth is that the failure of Egyptian officials to do their duty has become a frequent and saddening phenomenon. In the events surrounding the football match between Egypt and Algeria in Sudan, we saw how the Egyptian authorities were unable to protect Egyptian citizens from the barbaric assault committed by Algerian criminal gangs sent over on military planes by the Algerian government, and how after that they were unable to hold to account those who affronted the dignity of Egyptians.

A few days ago, the referendum result went against us and minarets were banned by law in Switzerland. Egyptians felt angered and wondered how Switzerland could claim to be a democratic country and at the same time prevent Muslims, not members of other religious communities, from building minarets. They asked what harm there is in minarets and why the Swiss do not want to see them in their country. Could similar measures be taken against, for example, Jewish synagogues in Switzerland? The anger of Egyptians is natural and understandable and their questions are legitimate, but before we damn Switzerland we should remember several facts:

First, the ban on minarets in Switzerland does not at all mean that the Swiss have all taken a position against Islam. Almost half the Swiss voters, as well as Swiss government officials and representatives of Christian and Jewish communities of all sects, vigorously defended until the last moment the right of Muslims to build their minarets. In fact, the referendum result led to demonstrations in many Swiss cities in defense of the right of Muslims to practice their religious rites. I received many letters from cultured Swiss friends expressing their deep regret at the ban on minarets, including one from the prominent critic, Angela Schader, who wrote, “I am shocked and ashamed for my country,” and described the ban as “a decision that is stupid, narrow-minded, and cowardly.”

Second, although the referendum is legal and binding under the Swiss constitution, it violates the principles of human rights and a case can be pursued in international forums with a view to overturning the ban. This is the right way to deal with the problem. Calling for boycotts and accusing Switzerland of hostility to Islam would indicate an unfair perception of the Swiss people and would lead to mutual hostility from which only the extremists there would benefit.

Third, the Swiss People’s Party, which provoked this crisis, is one of many right-wing European parties, all of which have racist messages hostile to foreigners and immigrants. The People’s Party has exploited Swiss people’s fear of Islam and their ignorance of its tolerant teachings, and with this referendum it has taken a step that will be followed by other steps. Party officials have stated that they are preparing new referendums against wearing the
hijab
at work and in educational institutions, against female circumcision, and against separate cemeteries for Muslims. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was quick to support the ban on minarets and said he understood the need for western society to preserve its cultural identity, and voices soon arose in the Netherlands and Germany calling for similar referendums to restrain Muslims. So the battle has not ended with the ban on minarets. It has only started, and we must defend the rights of Muslims by means that are legal, effective, and respectful.

Fourth, from my long experience of western society I believe that we as Muslims are responsible to a large extent for the powerful wave of fear of Islam. This feeling did not exist, or at least was not evident, before the attacks of 9/11. Criminal terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri took it upon themselves to tarnish the image of Islam in the minds of millions of westerners. Suffice it to say that the word ‘jihad’ is now used in western languages to mean armed attacks on civilians and that the term ‘islamisme’ in French has come to mean terrorism, even in academic circles. Add to this the fact that most mosques in the West are financed by Wahhabi oil sheikhs who offer an extreme Salafist interpretation of the religion, which has very much helped to distort its image in western minds. It is enough to know that physical education classes for Muslim girls have become a big problem in Swiss schools because many Muslim parents insist on preventing their young daughters from taking part in physical education and swimming classes (based on erroneous Wahhabi
fatwas
of course). This forces the school authorities to defend the right of girls to take part and at the same time reinforces the image of Islam as a reactionary religion that sees women only as bodies that cause temptation and are to be used for pleasure. One has to imagine the reaction of westerners when they hear that Islam requires female circumcision (a horrendous crime that has nothing to do with Islam) or when they see a woman wearing the
niqab
, or face veil, whether with two eye openings or only one, as some Saudi sheikhs advocate. Wahhabi ideas, backed by oil money, provide the worst possible image of Islam to western minds. Those who voted in favor of the ban on minarets in Switzerland are not all racists; they are simply afraid of a religion linked in their minds with violence, murder, backwardness, and the oppression of women. It is our duty to offer the West the correct image of Islam, which created a great civilization that for seven centuries taught the whole world the principles of justice, freedom, and tolerance. If we fail in performing this duty then we will have no right to blame others.

Fifth, the banning of minarets in Switzerland is clearly a flagrant violation of freedom of belief, and Egyptians, Arabs, and Muslims have a right to object to the ban and to try to overturn it by all legal means. But the Egyptian government has no moral right to object to the ban on minarets in Switzerland because it has failed to ensure freedom of belief for Egyptians. The Egyptian authorities regularly arrest Shi’ites and Qur’anists, put them on trial on charges of contempt for religion, and throw them in prison. In fact, the official department headed by the mufti, which is now calling for freedom of belief in Switzerland, has issued an official
fatwa
declaring Baha’is to be infidels, putting them in danger of being murdered at any moment. These Baha’is are Egyptian citizens who have fought a bitter battle for recognition of their religion in official documents. As for the Coptic Christians, they face the greatest hardship when they try to build new churches or even repair old ones. A uniform law for places of worship that would put mosques and churches on the same legal basis has been buried for many years in the files of the Egyptian government, which refuses even to discuss it.