Why Did We Not Shed Tears on Morsi’s Downfall?
As was expected, Morsi is gone. No tears, as we said in the previous blog, absolutely none at all. A detailed analysis is needed of what has happened and what lies ahead, but for now let us briefly explain the reasons why we took the ‘no tears’ position.
At the outset, the fact needs to be noted that Morsi’s opposition came from different sources, for different reasons, within and outside Egypt. While interesting, that is not our subject; rather the point of focus here is our support for Morsi’s exit. As said, different groups joined together for a variety of interests, grievances, agendas and Morsi was brought down with active intervention by the Egyptian army. As this occurred, one of two positions could be taken: anger and opposition; or relief and celebration. We adopted the latter position – but why? Let us briefly explain:
1) In his speech on Saturday 15th June 2013 at the Syria conference in Cairo Stadium Dr Mohammad Morsi called for a No-Fly zone to be set up over Syria – a manifestly pathetic gesture. Does he not know how treacherous it is for a so-called Islamic leader to invite USA to a Muslim land, that too so strategically a sensitive place like Syria? Is he oblivious to the nature of US military intervention? He is now speaking to huge audiences, addressing young spirited Islamic youths, and the message that goes out is: ‘Come, Come America’. After some time this same man and his party will create another agitation, gathering millions and (this time) chanting ‘Go, Go, America’. At the end, when someone asks what have we achieved and what, if any, is the progress we have made in our objectives, the answer will be a resounding no. If you say ‘Come, Come’ at one time and ‘Go, Go’ at another, for God’s sake, please tell me what is the net achievement, and what happens to those sacrifices of men and material made in this clueless process of come and go. You are simply creating chaos and confusion, you should be barred from participation in public life.
2) It is not rocket science, and even if it was, an educated person like Dr Morsi and his organisation should have absolutely no problems in understanding that the conflict in Syria is something other than what it apparently looks like. It is the West’s war against Islamic Movement of which the Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged as a leading edge since 1979. The West has employed every last tactic to defeat Iran but has thus far failed.. The current Syrian conflict is yet another way to defeat Iran, Bashar-AlAssad and his regime are simply incidental to the whole reality. The plan is simple: gain control of Syria, then Lebanon thereby destroying Hizbullah, and then confront Iran. This is the self-evident reality of the situation. If it were a genuine movement for justice, it would not have the vehement support of regimes like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, both of whom continue to pump billions of dollars in fuelling the conflict. Saudi Arabia can rush its own army to Bahrain to suppress a popular indigenous movement there yet support the same in Syria. Can anyone of sound mind believe that the medieval tribal chiefs of these sheikhdoms like Qatar or Saudi Arabia are craving democracy? Or that the US, UK, France and their allies are losing sleep over the plight of Muslims in Syria? The truth is that be it Syria or Assad, opposition or democracy, none of these is what the Syrian conflict is ultimately about; it is solely about containment of the Islamic movement via a proxy war against Iran. This kind of war is more dangerous than an open war by army and jet fighters, because this way the enemy seeks to advance its war objectives by promoting division, fuelling hatred and bloody conflict along sectarian lines. Are Mr Morsi and co aware how greatly valued the unity of the Ummah is? Or how badly it hurts our beloved Prophet when Muslims kill each other? Should Morsi really be exhorting his countrymen to dive into a conflict that seeks nothing but to advance the colonial interests at the cost of Muslim blood?
3) There is something very important that we call ‘missing the obvious’. Sometimes people choose to be stupid by missing the obvious. A classic example of this is when the US and its allies invaded Iraq telling the world they were in search of Weapons of Mass destruction. Nobody raised the obvious point of whether that could really be the reason for the invasion, given the fact that WMDs were earlier used by the same guy, Saddam Hussain, against Shia and Kurdish Muslims at the behest of the US and Western powers. How could these same countries now oppose what they had previously fully allowed?
Another instance: In 1980s Muslims from all over the world were mobilized to go to Afghanistan and kill Soviets because they were communists, and thus Godless. Any Muslim of basic commonsense could have asked, why only the Soviets? There are disbelievers everywhere, along with the secular West itself, so why single out the Soviets? For the West, the Soviet Union may have been the one but for Muslims there were so many others and none more so than the Zionist entity.
Now the latest instance of missing the obvious: For Morsi and his supporters Bashar-Al-Assad is the only evil. If he goes, Islam will reign supreme. At this point, I sincerely ask everyone who is after Bashar’s blood, is he the only one we should point our guns at? I have no affinity with this guy. Assad is an Arab, I am not. He is an Allawi, I am not. Yet I fail to understand why he should be singled out. Are the Saudi dynastic kingship and its fellow sheikhdoms also not against Islam? True, Assad family had been ruling Syria for long and an uprising there was natural following the mass uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. But given the government’s crackdown, this uprising would have simmered down though not ended, with opposition groups reorganizing, rethinking new strategies and lowering their profile but remaining determined to put an end to Assad’s regime. After all, this is what happened in Bahrain where people started mobilizing themselves and coming out with the modest demand of one person one vote, but their uprising was brutally crushed. The movement did not die down, and while lying low, continued building its grass root support, and displaying its continued presence and strength from time to time. However, Bahrain did not become Syria – why? Simply because Bahraini people did not get, and no body gets, supporters for free, Syrians did. But this, as we said earlier, was neither the support for Syria nor for democracy, and how could it be? As the saying goes, with every dollar and every gun comes an agenda, so it was for something else, for evil interests and agendas, and this was plain right from the outset. Missing this obvious reality is opting for stupidity. Morsi has done so, therefore, he had better sit in his drawing room and keep away from public life.
About Blogger:
Dr. Syed M. Inayatullah Andrabi is the founder convenor of Mahazi-Islami, Occupied Kashmir. He is an intellectual-political activist from Srinagar, capital city of occupied Kashmir.
respected Andrabi sahib, very thoughtful and informative. I have always appreciated your vast knowledge about what ails ISLAMIC WORLD especially my accursed home-I mean Kashmir. please let me know if you are from the noble family of LATE ANDRSBHI SAHIB OF barzalla baaghat srinagar custodian of evacuee property of Kashmir. inayatullahkhan
How eloquently the author has pulled the discussion to the higher heights? The situation, now-a-days, is made so complex, by the media, agencies, and on, that what appears on face is forced to appear true. One has to take the holistic view, as has shown by the author, of any event, bi it Moris departure, to arrive at its roots.
One, with a little of knowledge, can easily gauge what Morsi tried while in power. Instead of addressing the pressing issues facing Egypt society he dived onto other ship and was helping the water currents of US and other powers in the region.
The fact of the matter is that Ikhwan, like Jamate islami for instance, has been trying to quench the political power yet without any homework about how politics is executed. It took just one year to decode what has in store with 70+ years old party.
Andrabi Sahib You rediscovered the Islamic path ad movement for new generation It is hard for me to keep pace with your quick and right thinking
Dear Andrabi Sahab, do spend some time in readings and rhetoric writings.
Enayet Sb What you call the “Islamic Movement” launched by Iran in Syria,is it an Islamic Movement, is a million dollar question.
Andrabi sahibs understanding of political Islam is not questionable, but it is evident from his writings and analysis of various issues confronting Ummah is that he try to explain development through the eyes of Islamic Republic of Iran ( Which has witnessed sea change after death of Imam Khomeini). Iran also went along the USA, India & Zionist forces in Afghanistan just to save her interests. I think Andrabi sahib need to come out of his old age exclusive pro Iranian stand and then offer the solutions to Muslim Ummah problems.
as no one is in tears for Kashmiris. Kashmir is burning , turned into graveyards and cantonment. Kashmiris are losing their identity as Indian domination through its designs is weakening and making miserable day by day life of this land of sufis.In its colonise apporoach educated people youth facing tension problems. And world community and when we claim Muslim World is indulged in its own problems some eating some enjoying on slogans
you also supported four points of Musharaf now mushraf is gone
Respected brothers: It is better to discuss the message than the messenger, as the Andrabi sb has rightly pointed out. Scholars and academicians discuss the issues decently. Br Shaikh Showkat sb: Pl respond to writers write up on recent Egypt crises. Moreover, please read the author’s write up on Musharaf formula again. I think the author has initiated the debate on the said formula instead of toeing a particular line. Pl. behave like an academician. I am neither supporter of Musharaf formula like Hurriet M nor “Seh Fireeki Muzakrat” proposed by both fractions of Hurriet. In fact the Leaders of both the Hurriet’s have offered to accept whole heartedly the outcome of”Seh Fireeki Muzakrat” even if the outcome is the “Ilhaq e Hind”. One can ask these leaders that if “Ilhaq e Hind” is also one of the genuine options, then why to give huge sacrifices for other options. Is it just to satisfy our ego or some personal interests are involved. In fact Mushraf formula is less dangerous than the hurriet’s above mentioned stand. Mushraf formula merits for discussion but any wise man can question the rationale behind the Hurriet stand. But I wonder why our academicians never discussed the Hurriet stand. Perhaps they pose to be academicians or lack guts, commitment and sincerity to discuss the same. Wassalam
Assalam u Alaikum: Let me add One more but very important point to my earlier write-up. I was actually pursuing this debate from the day one and was expecting “great debate” on this basic question: Why Ikhwaan failed to deliver in Egypt? Those who are engaged with Islamic movement word over will be benefited with this debate, particularly those activists who work for ISLAMIC REVOLUTION in muslin countries like Pakistan, Turkey etc. I am myself witness to the fact that Muslim organizations particularly Jamaat e Islami failed to deliver in Pakistan. The main reason is Election politics. They invest huge human and financial resources and time on this process but could not deliver a bit. In return they lost their credibility and human resources. They enjoy a great street power. This power, if used properly, could bring some basic changes. But Alas! This capability was used in election process. On the face book one of my friends quoted late Dr Israr Ahmed that Islamic revolution is not possible through both Gun and Ballot in Muslim countries. This friend of mine was earlier associated with both these. I do not want to discuss Dr Israr’s thoughts about the revolution but I think the present Egyptian crises provide us an opportunity to discuss the issues related to the Islamic movements and its Islamic revolution. Wassalam
@Fahd:
Your last post has indeed touched one of the vital parameters, when looked from overall perspective, about the failure of Islamic movements such as JI, in our sub-continent, and MB, in Egypt.
Extending your point of view about JI’s failure in Pakistan. JI is still a well-organized party on the grass root level in Pakistan and yet it has failed all the times to be a political force to be reckoned with. There are indeed myriad factors for it. It’s not all about ‘Election Politics’ as these times election politics is a significant factor all over the world. If we delve deeper about their failure I think there are important factors that are responsible for it. First and foremost is ,” what they have to offer?”. Unfortunately, whether JI or MB or others have in reality nothing to offer. Have they done any serious study on issues such as economy, etc.? I am just giving economics as an example. The answer is bib zero. The fiasco of the rhetoric, of JI and MB, is bound to happen because basically they just want to grab political power without having the tools of change with them…..
very thoughtful piece of writing. I differ only with your perception about iran. Islamic republic of iran is fully supporting asad regime with men and material. So is doing hezbollah. Islamic republic is helping asad to kill men, women and children. Why-for her islamic character? No iran has its own agenda to work at; the middle east project, to control middle east. While judging who is wrong and who is right, we should objectively pinpoint the whole scenario. In this murky water, iran too is not so clean.