In Egypt, the top two widely circulated newspapers are part of the public sector and their chief editors are directly appointed by the highest levels in the government. The implications of these publicly known facts never seem to be pondered about by the public. For the majority of Egyptians, these newspapers are the main and daily source of information about their country and their world.

Another example is that of Al-Azhar, the largest Islamic institution and university in Egypt and the Middle East. According to a law that has been passed in 1985, Al-Azhar watches over all published and broadcasted religious material within Egypt, and has the power to sensor whatever it considers to be blasphemous. However, its power has been exercised long before this date and its outreach extends to artistic material that touches on religion in any way, shape or form.

One famous case is that of “Children of the Alley”, one of the most notable works by Egyptian Nobel laureate Nageeb Mahfooz. The novel, which, on some level, recounts the history of the major religions of the world in a symbolic way, has been banned from publication within Egypt by Al-Azhar for more than four decades. The ban, coining the novel as blasphemous, contributed to the reputation of Mahfooz as being an apostate, and thus indirectly contributed to Mahfooz being stabbed in the neck by an Islamic fundamentalist in 1994.

This clearly is a powerful institution that shapes people’s religious convictions, and consequently their actions, and its head is appointed by the government and the institute itself is funded by the state. The same goes for the position of Al-Mufti. This is the man who is mainly responsible for telling people what is good and what is evil according to Islamic law. This is the guy who draws you the path to heaven, yet his official title is Al-Mufti of the Republic.

This is a book about the present. History is by no means a focus. Inevitably, events of the past will come up, but they, in themselves, are of no concern. They will be explored only as far as their capacity to shed light on the current state of affairs. So if you are looking forward to a mystic read about the builders of the pyramids or the suspicious death of a young pharaoh thousands of years ago, this is not the book you should be reading.

This book started as nothing more than a way to vent anger. I am one among many who are compelled to set sail to strange lands everyday. There is nothing special about my case. In fact, I am one of those who left on better terms. Many die just trying to reach foreign shores. But for all, deciding to leave is never easy. And with that decision there becomes no alternative to success. The prospects of failure and the associated shame make a return trip dreadful.

However, suffering and perseverance do not necessarily make a heroic story. Some might even argue that leaving has selfishness and surrender written all over it, and it is a claim that has some truth to it. After all, leaving is primarily about seeking personal achievement. It is also about an overwhelming feeling of helplessness that leads one, on some level, to give up. And if everyone leaves, who will be left to fight for better circumstances?

Needless to say, not everyone who stays behind is a hero. People come in all sorts, but based on stance, and not social status, one can recognize three main attitudes. Some think that as long as they go around minding their own business, they can keep away from trouble and lead peaceful lives. They look for a little corner where they can live unnoticed. Soon they get a job and start a family. But corruption is so pervasive; there is no escape from it. And now, as life gets tougher around them, they respond in the only way they can; they work harder. They cannot afford to reject or protest anymore because they have families to feed. They whisper their complaints, while their negativity speaks loud and clear in favor of corruption and oppression. They seek consolation in their holy books and pray for God to do their work for them, but salvation never seems to come. And as they go on surviving day by day, they hope their efforts will yield a better future for their children, not realizing that in the process they breed scared generations that will follow in their footsteps.

Others try to get off the hook, but given the circumstances, there are only two ways to do that: either topple the system or manipulate it. Faced with such options, they easily and clearly realize that the latter is much safer and far more lucrative. Having been brought up under an authoritarian regime, they intuitively understand that the dynamics of the system work in such a way as to fiercely oppress all activities that might undermine its authority, while, at the same time, encourage and reward corruption since it is essential for authority to survive and tighten its grip over power. It is then not difficult to see that with little rationalization backed up with a lot of survival instinct, many choose to ride the wave instead of trying to break it.

In between these two mind sets lies the majority. Their dilemma stems from daily confrontation between their morals and their primitive instincts. Such a conflict is, in fact, a basic aspect of human nature (footnote: Cosmos, page 303), and in that respect, the dilemma is the same for all human beings across the globe. It is only the ferocity of the conflict that varies, scaling as the level of corruption in a society. To inspect the rigor of this argument, consider the hypothetical example of examining a society starting with an initial condition of zero corruption level. In addition, we shall assume there exists no penalization system. That is, there is no stated law, or government that sees to applying it, and therefore the notion of “illegal” is irrelevant. With fear of punishment out of the way, ambivalence in that society will initially be confined between morals and desires. Matters of conflict will include issues like compassion versus selfishness, monogamy versus polygamy and contentment versus greed. One’s actions will then be based solely on his/her beliefs about the world and, in many cases, the hereafter. Inevitably, some will succumb to their desires, and being within a society where the majority plays by moral rules, there will be little competition and they will find themselves achieving quick and considerable gains. Now following the evolution of our experimental society through successive generations, the number of individuals who pay little attention to morals will multiply and corruption will tend to increase in level as well as gravity, and as a result, the implications of corruption start becoming significant enough to exert pressure on one’s moral decisions. Sticking to principles now requires endurance and sacrifice and there is no guarantee it pays off as well anymore. As this process continues, a point is reached where the level of corruption is so high it renders morals and survival incompatible. One can then identify two extreme states: a state of zero corruption where moral law applies and a state of infinite corruption where jungle law, so to speak, applies. Due to other factors in play, like human compassion and the presence of law enforcement, and the fact that people disperse all over the moral spectrum, the state of a society never settles at any of these two extremes, but always somewhere in between. Nevertheless, our simplified social analysis captures the essence of the problem and therefore the main conclusion remains valid no matter how complex, and therefore accurate, our social analysis becomes. And the main conclusion is this: that corruption breeds more corruption and is thus self-perpetuating.

One is then able to recognize the vicious circle of corruption in which the majority back home is caught. And because they are afraid to abandon their principles and equally afraid to give in to their desires, they start making exceptions for every principle they claim to believe in, which, sadly, makes their moral system void of any meaning. The justification is usually something along the lines of “everybody does that” and/or “I am not hurting anyone”. As for the first, it fails to recognize, or chooses to ignore, that the case for morality is often unsupported by the numbers. In fact, the admiration with which morals are hailed stems, mainly, from the fact that not many people on this planet firmly live in accord with morals, not in the active sense. We all know, from personal experience, that it is easier to boast about morals than live by them. If it were otherwise, there would be no sense in recognizing the efforts of those who struggled for equality and freedom throughout human history; the very act of honoring them is an admission that their acts were, and still are, rare and extraordinary. Morality that takes common behavior as a reference is then self-contradictory and, in many cases, hypocritical. The second justification, if nothing else, fails to see the implications of simple actions within the bigger picture. It only takes a simple mind exercise to realize that the events of life are so intricately connected that one cannot possibly consider all consequences of a potentially immoral act, and conclude, with a high degree of confidence, that no harm is being done to anyone. 

It is with this kind of self-deception that the majority manages to find a place for themselves and their families in a society where corruption bends all rules. It is also not difficult to understand why this would be a dominant pattern: simply because such small exceptions, when compared to the norm of corruption around, seem quite harmless, while, at the same time, one can still keep his/her self image of righteousness. This is quite a comforting solution when you are torn between your principles and your desires, but you do not have the necessary decisiveness to choose one over the other.

There is no record, in the entire history of the Library (of Alexandria), that any of its illustrious scientists and scholars ever seriously challenged the political, economic and religious assumptions of their society. The permanence of the stars was questioned; the justice of slavery was not. Science and learning in general were the preserve of a privileged few. The vast population of the city had not the vaguest notion of the great discoveries taking place within the Library. New findings were not explained or popularized. The research benefited them little. Discoveries in mechanics and steam technology were applied mainly to the perfection of weapons, the encouragement of superstition, the amusement of kings. The scientists never grasped the potential of machines to free people. The great intellectual achievements of antiquity had few immediate practical applications. Science never captured the imagination of the multitude. There was no counterbalance to stagnation, to pessimism, to the most abject surrenders to mysticism. When, at long last, the mob came to burn the Library down, there was nobody to stop them.

Carl Sagan – Cosmos

It does happen to be the case that plenty of Muslims have been getting it in the neck from the United States – but that’s not because they’re Muslims, it’s because they’re not sufficiently under control. There are plenty of white Christian people who are also getting it in the neck. In the 1980s, the United States fought a vicious war in Central America primarily against the Catholic Church – and that means European priests, not juts priests from indigenous origins – because the Church had started working for what they called “the preferential option for the poor,” therefore they had to go [47]. In fact, when Americans Watch [a human rights organization focused on North and South America] did their wrap-up study on the 1980s, they pointed out that it was a decade framed by the murder of the Archbishop in 1980, and the murder of six Jesuit intellectuals in 1989, both in El Salvador – yeah, that wasn’t accidental [48].

See, the Catholic Church became the main target of the U.S. attacks in Central America because there was a radical and very conscious change in critically important sectors of the Church (including dominant elements among the Latin American bishops) who recognized that for hundreds of years it had been a Church of the rich and the oppressors, which was telling the poor, “This is your fate, accept it.” And so they decided to finally become a Church in part devoted to the liberation of the poor – and they immediately fell under attack.

So you’re right, it is true that the U.S. is attacking a substantial part of the world that happens to be Muslim, but we’re not attacking it because they’re Muslim – we don’t care if they’re Martians. The question is, are they obedient?

This is very easy to prove, actually. For instance, there’s a lot of talk in the U.S. about “Islamic fundamentalism,” as if that’s some bad thing we’re trying to fight. But the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist state in the world is Saudi Arabia: are we going after the leaders of Saudi Arabia? No, they’re great guys – they torture and murder and kill and all that stuff, but they also send the oil profits from their country to the West and not to the people of the region, so they’re just fine [49]. Or take non-state agents: I suppose the most extreme fanatic Islamic fundamentalist in the world is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan, who got over a billion dollars of aid from the United States and Saudi Arabia and is not tearing what’s left of Afghanistan to pieces. Yeah, he’s a good guy,he’s been fighting on our side – narco-trafficker, terrorist, all those things, but doing what we wanted [50].

On the other hand, if Islamic fundamentalists are organizing clinics in the slums of Cairo, they’re going to have to go, just as the liberation theologians in Latin America who happened to be Basques – you know, blue eyes, blond hair and so on – had to go. I mean there isa racist element to U.S. policy, of course, but the basic motivation is not that, I think. The real goal is just maintaining obedience – as in Cuba, as in Panama, and so on.

Noam Chomsky – Understanding Power

Meeting a friend in a corridor, Wittgenstein said: “Tell me, why do people always say it was natural for men to assume that the sun went round the earth, rather than that the earth was rotating?” His friend said, “Well, obviously, because it looks as if the sun is going round the earth.” To which the philosopher replied, “Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as if the earth was rotating?”

Jumpers – Tom Stoppard

When we die there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes. We were built as gene machines, created to pass on our genes. But that aspect of us will be forgotten in three generations. Your child, even your grandchild, may bear a resemblance to you, perhaps in facial features, in a talent for music, in the colour of her hair. But as each generation passes, the contribution of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions. Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conqueror. Yet it is quite probable that she bears not a single one of the old king’s genes. We should not seek immortality in reproduction.

But if you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live, intact, long after your genes have dissovled in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G. C.  Williams has remarked, but who cares? The meme complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going strong.

The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins

2003 – Number of Egyptian winners: 1551 (2.82%) – Egypt’s ranking: 18
2004 – Number of Egyptian winners: 4189 (8.37%) – Egypt’s ranking: 9
2005 - Number of Egyptian winners: 6070 (12.14%) – Egypt’s ranking: 3
2006 - Number of Egyptian winners: 6439 (12.87%) – Egypt’s ranking: 2

Since winners are picked at random, the increasing share of Egyptians can only mean an increasing number of applicants. Now the question is: how is it that the undeniably increasing hatred for the US in Egypt during the past few years, has been accompanied by more and more Egyptians seeking entry to the US?

One still has to bother with the question: what is the purpose of setting such limits (on freedom of expression) anyway? Because it could well be that those who are asking for limits want to set it in such a way so as to make their beliefs the basis by which others have to live. It then becomes obvious that these people are fakers, only allowing voices that support their opinions to be heard, and so we end up where we started.

Today, there was an e-mail on one of the mailing lists I am subscribed to and I thought it is a good example of fake belief in freedom of expression. The message concerned the recent statements of the Egyptian minister of culture, Farook Hosni, regarding Islamic veil. In an interview to The Egyptian Today, the minister expressed that he considers Islamic veil to be a step backwards. To quote Hosni:

.. A woman’s hair is like a beautiful rose, it should not be covered .. Today, being religious is a matter of looks, when faith is actually something between man and God and has got nothing to do with clothes .. Egypt should be beautiful as it used to be. We should stop immitating Arabs .. We were brought up by our moms, seeing them go to college and work without veils, so why should we take a step backwards now? ..

These statements generated a wave of anger in Egypt, with the wave front being the Muslim brotherhood. Through its members in the Parliament, the brotherhood demanded the minister to apologize or otherwise resign office. The pressure, it seems, was immense that the government decided to offer Hosni as a scapegoat, giving him no support in the Parliament and joining the members of the Muslim brotherhood in their demand for an apology or a resignation. 

But back to the message that was posted on the mailing list today, the following is an excerpt:

.. You all know that the reasons behind the campaign I am trying to oragnize against his (Farook Hosni’s) statements, are, first and foremost, humane, because these statements are considered to be a volation of human rights as mandated by the UN .. What we are concerned with here is our rights as citizens .. We just want him to apologize  and respect the choices of others, and he should, preferably, resign because he is not competent when it comes to carrying out his job ..

The writer addresses the issue as a matter of human rights, and if I follow her line of reasoning, I end up with a situation like this: a guy said his opinion about a certain matter and she claims what he said is a violation of human rights. But isn’t it in fact the opposite? Isn’t it true that he has the right to express his opinion freely? Whether one agrees with what he said is irrelevant. The important thing to note here is that he did not try to force his opinion on anybody. So how can it be that he is disrespectful for the rights of citizens? Unless, ofcourse, all opinions that do not agree with the writer’s are required to be suppressed and punished (like, in this case, asking for the minister’s resignation).

Another thing that does not make much sense is the way the writer mixes Hosni’s statements with his performance as a minister. It has been almost two decades since Hosni held office. However, it is hard to point out his achievements. But incompetence, as in any corrupt system, can be overlooked if one knows the rules of the game. And with Hosni being in office for such a long time, it is reasonable to say that he knows how to play and is no different from others in the government. So the question here is: if he has always been corrupt, why is it now that he is being attacked for that incompetence? Because from human rights point of view, it is always a fight against corruption. Or is it his statements that made him intolerable anymore?

I cannot help but think that the writer is just pretending to be defending human rights, while actually she is outraged with an opinion about a head cover. It is yet another twelfth century inquistion in disguise.

Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill (PATRIOT ACT)