16/11/2013

These our scholars

Many scholars who are sympathisers of Muslim Brotherhood say about Egypt that instead of struggling with the military, the Brotherhood should have adopted the path of reconciliation. President Morsi should have acknowledged the superiority of military and withdrawn himself from power. That is, after the intervention of military, the Brotherhood should have settled in homes and as before left Egypt at the mercy of army. This was the vision before these scholars. As the Brotherhood did not do so, to these scholars all the responsibility of the bloodshed which killed many people and left many others injured in military operations, lies on Muslim Brotherhood and their Freedom and Justice Party. Like the opponents of Brotherhood, these people also believe that the Brotherhood should have adopted the path of national reconciliation and won the confidence of other groups and parties besides the Opposition. Getting into the shoes of the enemies of Brotherhood, they also say that the Brotherhood should have withdrawn their Islamist agenda and followed the common ‘secular’ agenda. In the style of common commentators, who are not familiar with the condition prevailing in Egypt, these scholars also say that Morsi and his government got a whole year but in this duration he did nothing to improve Egypt’s economic and administrative conditions, rather destroyed Egypt.

Had they been those scholars
Had these scholars been those who do have sufficient knowledge of Islam and Islamic Shari’ah but are unaware of Islamic movement, especially of the history of Muslim Brotherhood, its constitution, manifesto and performances, it would not have been surprising. But it is strange that these inappropriate and irresponsible comments are also from the pens of scholars who are basically associated with the Islamic movement. Such a write-up has come from the pen of an Islamic scholar and intellectual who also publishes a quarterly from Aligarh. He has written all this in its April-June issue. He has also commented on Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, as an example of and for comparison with Muslim Brotherhood. He has justified whatever treatment the secular Awami League government is meting out to the Jamaat over there. Not only this, he has levelled serious allegations against the Jamaat there which the Sheikh Hasina government and the anti-Islam commentators of India have been levelling. To these Islamic scholars, the Islamic movements in Egypt and Bangladesh are totally imprudent, indiscreet and lack political acumen. About those who are raising their voice against Egypt’s persecution, he has written: “Now when the Egyptian President Morsi has been sacked, it has created uproar in the neighbouring country Pakistan and in the print media of Jamaat-e-Islami in India, and the army and the opposition over there are being subjected to fierce criticism. As if it were a sin to protest against persecution.

But here are the facts
While analysing one’s ideas and thoughts, one’s intention, knowledge and understanding should not subjected to doubt; especially when it is in the context of thought and philosophy of an Islamic scholar and intellectual. On the write-up under discussion, at least it can be said that it has been written without any knowledge; otherwise the comment would have been something else. For the reminder of that commentator and many other sincere writers like him, some facts are presented here: (1) Since the very first day, the Muslim Brotherhood has worked with utmost farsightedness and great caution. They stayed behind during the Arab Spring but they are definitely guilty of taking part in elections and did come out with flying colours in all five stages of election and referendum with popular public support while Egyptian army and external forces made their efforts at every step and at a very large scale to defeat them. (2) By giving representation to political opponents, Christians and women, they decided their way of action. (3) Like Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, they did not totally sever relations with America and Israel; however they did try to limit their interference in Egypt. (4) By changing the western policy on Suez Canal, they tried to bring it all in the interest of Egypt. (5) Without begging aid from America and the Gulf, they took a number of concrete measures to strengthen Egypt economically. (6) And we do not know whether or not the commentator is aware of the fact that sacking of President Morsi was celebrated in Israel, America breathed a sigh of satisfaction at the success of its plot, and the wealthy rulers in the Gulf having welcomed this persecution warmly opened their treasuries to help the persecutors.
16/11/2013 khabar-O-Nazar by Parwaaz Rahmani, sehrozaDAWAT, translated by:Miss Khalida Hussain


No comments:

Post a comment