Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Faith or Ignorance? Manipulations in the Name of Religion

By       Message Ahmed El-Deeb       (Page 2 of 2 pages) Become a premium member to see this article and all articles as one long page.     Permalink    (# of views)   2 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 89456
- Advertisement -

Why not the other way around, which would have made more sense since Muslims are the majority of the country and could sufficiently support him? Mubarak was a good learner from past lessons. He learned from former President Anwar El-Sadat's experience with Muslim groups. Sadat has followed the more direct approach of bringing Muslim groups to surface as a balancing political force to support him against leftist opponents.

Sadat himself came later to realise their threat and tried to put them off; however, it was too late since they penetrated everywhere and grew powerful, till they assassinated him during the annual 6th of October victory celebration in 1981. Mubarak was not condemned to repeat the past mistake and developed a traumatic phobia against not only politically active Muslims groups but also any Islamic-uniting activities. He would dissolve any consistent large Islamic gatherings for pure religion lessons, expel any Islamic leaders who grew popular and influential to people, and perform ad hoc political detentions to Muslim religion activists or even bearded persons walking down the street, under the authority of emergency law he has put in place for such cases, which gave him the right to arrest anyone without any legal procedures under the justification of threatening the country's national security.

In such practices, Mubarak pictured Muslims as a threat to Christians that, without his protection, Christians' families, lives, money, and religious practices are insecure. On the international stage, Mubarak has played this wild card of Christian persecution ghost and his protection to Christians to gain support for his rule, especially from the United States for which Mubarak served as the strongest ally in the Middle East. To spice up the scene, arranged explosions by the police state would be performed from time to time targeting Christians to remind everyone of the continuous danger they are into; thus, the continued need for his protection.

Documentations for some arranged terrorist attacks were disclosed through the invasion of the National Security building after the January 2011 Revolution. Mubarak did not fully wipe out Islamic activities along the way yet he permitted only ones serving his rule. For example, during the events of the 2011 Revolution calling for the removal of Mubarak, presidency allocated Islamic leaders were spreading the notion that revolting against the country leader is a sin, unless he is an atheist, to deter people from going down in the streets. The Church, on the other hand, did not support the revolution in the fear that Christians may be sabotaged after the saviour is gone.

- Advertisement -

Mubarak was not the last scene in the series of religion manipulations to sustain rule. After him, another trend of religion-fostered manipulation was practiced; now to gain rule rather than sustaining it. After the January 2011 Revolution and the conclusion of transitional military rule, the country sought to write its history by organising the first democratic presidential elections.

Among candidates who run for president was the nominee of the Muslim Brotherhood party, Muhammed Morsi. Muslim Brotherhood party has presented their presidential program, which they called El-Nahda (meaning, The Renaissance), time-lined for execution in the first 100 day of the president in office.

Naturally, the people would assess between the different candidates based on their background, political experience, explicit and implicit inclinations, and of course, their presidential program. However, El-Nahda program was not the only forum to seduce the people to vote for Morsi. Muslim Brotherhood knew from the early beginning how they are going to publicise their candidate. Propaganda spread by their publicists on TV, mainly their own channel and adherent ones, and public street podiums trading only one concept: God (Allah) and Islam.

- Advertisement -

It's definitely no shame to trade Islam, or any other religion, as a socio-political system; however, this is if the candidate and its party were truly and truthfully representing it, through actions. Instead of centering their campaign around their program, they embarked on selling their affiliation to Islam, represented merely in the title of the party, rather than talking about actions and plans as a venue for people to see representation of Islam's principles.

Nevertheless, it was the easiest route taken to just say that Morsi's victory means a victory to Allah and its religion. In street podiums topped by Muslim Brotherhood publicists, words shouted through the mic saying, "We are all here, why? For Allah. We came all today, why? For Allah," magnifying that whoever coming to support Morsi is in fact coming to support Allah.

A few supporters carrying Morsi's picture all over the streets were interviewed by media in different places about why they are supporting Morsi; only a few touched answers pertinent to their confidence in his presidential program while the majority uttered words like "Morsi is representing Islam, so I am supporting him in order to support Allah." That was the essence of Muslim Brotherhood's pathetic campaign, showing from the beginning how they are empty and incapable of running a large country like Egypt.

On the other hand, Morsi's toughest opponent was the military-backgrounded and Mubarak chosen Prime Minister at the turmoil, Ahmed Shafik. Representing the old used-to political line of Mubarak, the Church, still infested with Mubarak's Islamic threat on Christians, was encouraging Christians to vote for Shafik, for a continued sustainability and security to their religious practices, as well as the Church's 'benefits'.

Not only the Church but also Muslims who were distrustful to Muslim Brotherhood's conduct of religious mandates in running country affairs saw that they will execute the religion arbitrarily and prohibit them from seeking their chosen lifestyle. For example, veil is mandatory for women in Islam and Muslim women who chose not to wear it were afraid that if Morsi won, he will enforce wearing the veil.

Alas, the first democratic presidential election the country saw for the first time after decades was in fact religion-driven at all its fronts, whether freaking out of it or desiring it as a mean to support Allah. This was clear in the final results of the elections--Morsi and Shafik occupied the highest two ranks of votes.

- Advertisement -

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Ahmed El-Deeb is a Medical Computing Scientist specialized in Medical Wearables and a philosopher specialized in Applied Philosophy, Ethics, Philosophy of Science, and Existentialism. He is an editorial team member in the Philosophical Society (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Faith or Ignorance? Manipulations in the Name of Religion

Philosophy of Living Blog Statement on London's Attack

EgyptAir Flight MS804: In Public Eyes Which Are Defective (And how to correct it)