الترجمة الإنكليزيّة لنصّ المحاضرة الربيع العربيّ تحت المجهر التي قدّمتها في إسطنبول 11 تشرين الثاني 2014 “Arab Spring” Under the Microscope Posted by Administrator on November 23, 2014 at 4:53am in 2014 By Father Doctor Georges Massouh. University of Balamand. A revolution must have a set of elements in order to qualify as a revolution. A revolution is when you reap the benefits of advancement, prosperity and respecting human rights and their dignity. You can’t call a revolution a revolution when you replace a regime that doesnt respect freedoms, with an even more oppressive regime that kills freedoms. If revolution is not accompanied by freedom it will kill all dreams to a better tomorrow for the people. It is black comedy to call the revolution a revolution if we don’t change the social, cultural, political and religious rules. The revolution in the European countries was coupled with a scientific, cultural and civilization renaissance. It was also coupled with good principles that dominated politics, law and social relations between the different members of the same society. On top of it, it had the concept of citizenship which is a neutral field in which all members of the society find themselves equal in rights and responsibilities, regardless of color, language, religion or sect. This is when the concept of democracy came to serve as a practical mechanism to practice citizenship in its best form. Therefore, there is no real democracy without the respect of citizenship. From here, we find it bizarre that the term revolution has been given to movements that haven’t done much change in our Arabic societies. The revolution must start from the head, which pushes the thinker forward not backwards or bogged down. What does a revolution mean, if it changes the head of the regime without revolutionizing the entire regime? Why revolt if we are going to bring back the law of the jungle? We can’t call it a revolution if it is not led by respecting human rights and the rights to citizenship. What we are witnessing today is the dominance of extreme religious groups, but it will not make us lose hope, as a day will come where science, knowledge, thought and equal rights will rule, in order for us to deserve the revolution. Between dictatorship and religious ruling Arab regimes that are based on religion or sectarianism, and the majority are, have proved to fail miserably in convincing their citizens with its legitimacy or competency to lead them. When the ruler belongs to a religious minority, sectarian partisanship is being provoked by allies and opponents alike, fighting for power. When the ruler belongs to the majority, the minority will start calling for freedom and equality, sometimes based on sectarianism. Inciting religious and sectarian partisanship to stay in power, or by a coup, has only intensified internal problems and added more agitation to the existing strife. The sectarian conflict has added to the fear of the religious minority groups or sectarian minority groups, as they dont have much options to brace in the face of upcoming whirlwinds. It is now obvious that dictatorships which claim to be secular, but are nowhere near being secular, were not able to provide protection to minorities but by instilling fear of an extremist religious alternative. Under the reign of intelligence services which have deprived people of freedom and dignity, and after toppling some of these regimes, revenge was exercised against these minorities because they were supposed to be one of the allies. This is what happened, for example in Iraq, after the Saddam Hussain era, in addition to the existing rift between Sunnis and Shiites, Christians and Mandaeists are being heavily displaced whereas Yazidis are suffering from restrictions. Religious minorities in the Arab world and a large proportion of Muslims are not particularly eager to have an extreme religious regime, nor do the want to be ruled by a sectarian emir by the name God, using backwards methods that dont belong to the modern era. Islamic nations previously lived under the jurisdiction of caliphate. Yet, in our modern world, many countries have been established on its ruins, and in many countries the need for a new law became a matter of urgency, the most important was the relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the modern state. It is not permissible in the national country, for relations to remain as they were centuries ago. It is not important, in this particular matter, to differentiate between moderate Islam or any other name Islam is given. The only viable solution as perceived by the religious minorities and many Muslims, lies in the establishment of a country founded on the basis of full citizenship, based on a constitution that doesnt discriminate between citizens based on religion or sect. The dictatorship that rules with an iron fist is not a guarantee for minorities nor their existence, because if it is toppled they will go with it. And they dont want a religious system that will rule by an alleged divine preacher, which will turn them into a second class citizens. A system that is based on freedom and equality is their only guarantee and for the future of their children. The troublesome relation between the various different groups, majorities and minorities, is growing by the day. We only hope to see a modern state that respects all its citizens on the basis of true citizenship, but we must endure painful labor, with one question that remains: how long will it last? Civil state and religious ideology crisis Many of those who are looking forward to having a real civil state are suspicious in regards to the current developments in the Arab world, which are witnessing, the seeds of future changes, whether sooner or later, in the ruling regimes. The future remains unclear, it is characterized by mystery and blur. These skeptical people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims don’t rely on current repressive countries. On the contrary, they hope they will diminish, in word and deed, for the benefit of the citizenship-based country, the human rights-country. The source of this uncertainty is the fear of a second fall, after the fall of the tyranny, which will be religious ruling, or the regime that will use religion to impose its ruling and ideology on people. What we are reading in newspapers or watch on satellite channels, the advocates for a religious country doesnt leave room for doubt, we are certain of alternative projects that will set us back, centuries back. When the ones who believe in the necessity of a civil state participate in movements against an oppressive state, it is by no means an indication that they accept a religious state that is no less cruel than the current one. As they believe they will be the ones to pay the price, whether it is going to be slavery or suffering from oppression and not enjoying their rights and freedoms. Iran would serve as a perfect example. After the Iranian revolution, all left and civil parties and movements, that participated in the making of the revolution, were excluded and the state of Velayat-e faqih (the Islamic Government) was announced, the state that takes it is legitimacy from God, as they claim, and no one else. The main problem with the people who call for a religious state is not respecting political, social and religious diversity, in addition to not respecting the special components of groups that makes the national blend of the country. A religious country is not biased at all, because, according to its constitution, it puts citizens into different classes, those who don’t follow the same religion or sect will be only nationals. A religious states means a theocratic state (Divine governance or rule in the name of God), or nomocracy (rule of law) instead of autocracy (a state in which a supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person) or the state of dictatorship. All the aforementioned states are not accepted by those who call for a civil state, that has everyone living in it, equal. There will be no respect for the dignity of a human being without having a civil state that is fair, and that doesnt have a religious authority imposing itself and beliefs on others. If a civil state respects all its citizens religious beliefs and different sects, then why does a religion or a sect try to force itself and ideologies on other religions and sects? Isn’t that what dictatorship is all about? The crisis doesnt lie with the civil state or its ideologies which advocate for respecting diversity, but the crisis lies with some of the Islamic ideologies which have no regards to civilians, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, who don’t wish to live under an Islamic ruling. It is time for a civil dialogue, between all components. We wont say an Islamic-Christian dialogue or interfaith dialogue, because we hope we will have a state where rights are equal and human dignity is preserved, and we hope we can bury all oppressive states whether it uses religion as a cover or civility. Freedom is separating religion from the state There is no need to remind anyone that Christians have never acted as a minority in the Middle East. They were never afraid of Muslims, but they have participated alongside Muslims to fight against invasion, whether they were invaded by Christians or Muslims. And we have perfect examples during the Crusades or the Ottoman Empire, were Muslims and Christians united against the attacks, which claimed to belong to Islam or to Christianity. Christians cannot afford to accept to live like their ancestors, under the Islamic state or to live as Dhimmis, where their ancestors accepted living in an inferior state, in return for a guarantee to the existence and survival. We are not going to deny the positives for the Dhimmi system, but it had many negativities for the non-Muslims in an Islamic state. This system, if put in a historical context, i.e before the age of equality and separating religion form the state, it was an advanced and an ideal system in a country that is based on the superiority of the religious element over any other rule on any other element. Since the 19th century, Christians were looking for a formula that would end their inferiority, and where they could lay foundation to a prosperous future. They didn’t forget their Muslim counterparts, therefore they tried to stay clear from any formula that would agitate their normal surrounding. From here, they have chosen what would unite them all, believing in common history and the same fate they called for the separation of religion from state. Religion is the only component that differentiates between them and the Muslims, whereas they have the same heritage, culture and language, they all belong to one nation to one state. Freedom for the Christian thinkers was related to separating religion from state. There is no way a religious state, whether Islamic or Christian, would respect freedoms. As a religious state is discriminatory in its nature, it is not one of its goals that all citizens obtain equality whether in rights or responsibilities. From here, respecting freedoms will not be preserved if the religious factor was not eliminated amongst the citizens of the same nation. Freedom and separating religion from state go hand in hand, they either go together or they have no luck in existence. When Christians fear ambiguity that is dominating the current events in the Arab world, it is not stemmed from an inferiority complex for a religious minority and it is not what some call an alliance of minorities, but they fear a religious state that will send them centuries back, a religious state that will deprive them from the freedom they fought for for two centuries. It doesnt mean they enjoy their freedom under the reign of oppressive regimes, but they aspire to move forward and not go backward or be bogged down. Christians will not stand in the way of people’s choices. But it’s their legitimate right which no one can deny that they would like to see progressive systems, when it comes to respecting human rights and dignities. The oppressive state, whether religious or non, is an evil that must be eradicated, in word, thought and deed. Nationalism and Fanaticism Day after day, it is becoming more certain, that sectarian fanaticism is the strongest of all sorts of fanaticisms. This sectarian fanaticism is even making it over religious fanaticism, which can unite all those belonging to the same religion regardless of the different sects. They eliminate all common factors that unite the followers of one religion in favor of disagreement and deadly strife. If religious fanaticism motivates some to discriminate against the citizens of one country, then sectarian fanaticism doesn’t only disturb the citizens of a homeland but it disturbs the people belonging to the same religion, which means, that if sectarian fanaticism is misused it can cause a double conflict. Fanaticism, any sort of it, is not necessarily bad if used in order cooperate and benefit both people and country, but, when it turns into a blind fanaticism, destruction, murder and displacement will be taking over and it becomes pure evil. What’s happening in our part of the world confirms that the sectarian fanaticism that is still advocated for by so many, is way beyond blind fanaticism. What we are living today is the result of upholding the sectarian bond over all other religious or national bonds. After almost a century of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of national countries, the sectarian fantom is still present and it’s way stronger than being a nationalist, despite all rhetoric speech about national bonds and homeland. In the same context, Jamal al Din Al-Afghani (1987 )believes that no bond, not even loving homeland, can have a high regard for Muslims like the bond Islam has created. But today, we can say, that no bond, not even the Islamic bond can begin to replace the Sunni or Shiite bonds. Fanaticism, any fanaticism can be highly regarded if it is aimed at fighting a common invader, who wants to occupy land and violates human beings. But the fanaticism that has no regards to citizenship and co-existence for a “nation” that has no borders, this kind of fanaticism will only bring more rift, strife, retardation and decadence. The Muslims who are in a position of authority, Sunnis or Shiites, politicians or clergymen, or the vast majority, are involved in projects way beyond them, and beyond their homeland. When they transfer wars and foreign conflicts to their own homeland by mobilizing their followers and instigate them against the fellow citizens whom happen to belong to a different sect, this is an evidence that Muslims only believe that countries are a historical mistake and must be eradicated, in order to unify under an Islamic Nation. Not based on religion alone but based on sects, where it’s believed that those who don’t follow the same sect are outlawed. The division between the citizens of the same homeland, same city or street to two different sects fighting one another, defending or helping in a war outside their homeland, just because the fighters belong to the same religion or sect, means religion and sects are going to be destroyed, let alone the destruction of human and homeland. Islamic Failure In an article called “The End of Moderate Islam?” (An Nahar newspaper, 5th of June 2013) we said that the Syrian conflict will destroy all what’s been named moderate Islam. The sectarian split we are witnessing in various Arab countries, which has different sects, like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrain, is leading many sectarian leaders to slip into more extremism. We, today, are paying an expensive price as moderate Islam has failed to provide new jurisprudences that would face today’s challenges, which we have been living for a century now, after the fall of the Caliphate and the eruption of the new national countries. Yes, many of the Muslim scholars since the late 19th century have tried to provide jurisprudence to different matters, but the reality of the Islamic societies have changed especially facing new challenges imposed by modernity and globalization, and with that the failure of the Islamic scholars to keep up with the development. Therefore, religious institutions thought it is enough to praise the traditional moderate Islam, and made it the ceiling instead of making it a foundation to build on a modern contemporary Islamic thought that can cater to the modern day life, which could have freed these societies from constraints that are not allowing them to follow up with modern civilization. Religious institutes, that are moderate, were not active, for they have provided answers to today’s challenges. They should have done their role by helping the state to free itself from fanatics and help it legislate laws that dont discriminate between a citizen or another, a sect or another, but instead, regimes and religious institutions conspired with one another. Regimes subjected religious institutions to it, and in return religious institutions agreed not to reform its constitutions, and at the same time religious institutions gave up on jurisprudence, which is it’s main duty, if not the sole. Where is the moderate Islam, which couldnt dismantle sectarian fanaticism which is dividing Muslims into Sunnis and Shiites? What we are witnessing today is the result of upholding the sectarian bond over all other religious or national bonds. A security solution is necessary today because of the status quo, but the real solution is to destroy the heart of terrorism, giving freedom to moderate religious institutions, freeing them from regimes and providing new jurisprudences taking into consideration that Islam is not three centuries old, rather fourteen centuries. Do not blame minorities Some blame minorities for upholding their ethnic or religious identity over other. But many of these critics come from a sectarian position, and because they are numerous they believe it is ok for them to dictate what minorities can and cannot do. Fact is, Islamic ideologies failed to solve minorities problems, for it divides the society into two, Muslims on one side and non-Muslims on the other. The Islamic ideology in itself is responsible for the minorities phenomena, and because they couldn’t find ways that would allow the minorities to blend in the Islamic society. The relationship crisis between religious groups, majorities and minorities is intensifying by the day. Yet, today, minorities are allowed to look forward to having modern, developed regimes especially when it comes to respecting human rights. As for an oppressive state, whether religious or not, it is an evil that must be eradicated, sooner or later. danisharabdialogue.org/presentations/arab-spring-under-the-microscope?context=category-2014
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:52:25 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015