Al-Masry al-Youm reported yesterday that Al-Azhar was paying substantial sums of money to 60 generals in state security, with payments being fully documented on al-Azhar’s books.  This seems to be a clear case of money-laundering for the benefit of state security: why would al-Azhar undertake such a policy on its own?  This leads to the likelihood that other governmental agencies were used in a similar manner to transfer resources to the security apparatus and other regime insiders.

OnIslam Arabic reported yesterday that the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Dar reported that Gulf countries have told the Egyptian Military Supreme Council that it must prevent Egyptian courts from holding Mubarak accountable for his crimes, and that if they fail to do so, they will retaliate by, among other things, expelling Egyptian workers and withdrawing Gulf investments from Egypt.  The plausibility of such reports should not be dismissed outright.  A democratic revolution in Egypt that holds corrupt politicians, including Mubarak, accountable to the law, is precisely the last thing that rulers of the Gulf wish to see.  Unlike Iran, they cannot vilify Egypt on sectarian grounds.  Accordingly, they reasonably perceive the success of the Egyptian Revolution as a direct threat to their own regimes, perhaps even more threatening than the Iranian Revolution of 1979 or Abd al-Nasir’s regime in the 60s.  Nevertheless, it would be a great mistake for Egyptians to heed such threats.  There are alternative sources of capital in the world, and a democratic Egypt would recognize that the talents of its people are its greatest resource.  Some of the most talented Egyptians are in the Gulf, and their return could have a positive impact on Egypt’s development provided the right economic reforms are made.  With a democratic government, the chances of implementing such reforms are greater than they have ever been in the past.  Finally, and if the worst case scenario took place, the Egyptian government is not helpless: it could freeze their assets in Egypt until such time as they came to their senses.

Many friends and relatives have asked me whether, in my opinion, Egyptians should or should not approve the proposed constitutional amendments in the fast-approaching March 19^th Referendum.  I have consistently refused, however, to express an opinion because, unlike most of the views that I have expressed thus far on the progress of the Revolution, I don’t see this referendum as representing a decisive turning point. Accordingly, it does not raise, in my mind at least, a clear issue of principle.  Moreover, my analytic response to this question (unconvinced that there is a need to adopt an entirely new constitution to replace the 1971 Constitution) is at odds with the strategy I have used since January 25, namely, to defer to the leaders of the January 25^th Revolution.

British Muslims are experiencing yet another challenge to the integrity of their religious life.  This time, the threat emerges not from hysterical right-wing Islamophobes, but their virtual allies within the Muslim community who seem too-eager to act according to the Islamophobes’ stereotyped script of what a Muslim is.  The controversy surrounds comments made by a certain British Imam, or religious leader, Usama Hasan, regarding the compatibility of the theory of evolution with Quranic teachings regarding God’s creation of the world and human beings.

While responsible British Muslims have been quick to denounce these dangerous demagogues, I pause to note that some arguments condemning this kind of behavior are better not being said at all.  One British Imam, for example, in the context of explaining why he rejects these threats, pointed out that issues of heresy, and punishment for heresy, are a matter that is within the exclusive competence of a legitimate Islamic political authority, and since such an authority does not exist in Britain, calls for the death of Hasan on account of his heresy are simply incitement for murder.

The problem with this kind of reasoning is that it sidesteps the central issue: does Islam permit Muslims in good faith to raise the kinds of theological questions that Usama Hasan attempted to discuss, or are Muslims simply required to adhere to a theology that consists only of literalist adherence to scripture?  We know that Islamic theology, historically speaking, has not been so limited, but has always systematically attempted to reconcile the apparent meanings of revelation with other sources of knowledge — whether rational or empirical.  As a result, Muslim theology generally took the position that it was permissible, indeed, obligatory, to treat certain passages in revelation as metaphorical when their literal meaning contradicted rational truths.

Indeed, according to all Muslim theologians, it is impermissible to defer to the opinion of another in matters of creed (usul al-din), and each person is obligated to understand creedal matters for himself.  Usama Hasan was simply discharging his individual duty when he engaged in an attempt to reconcile evolution with the plain sense of revelation.  Suppose his argument was silly: well, in that case, the proper Islamic response is not to denounce him as a heretic, but rather to expose the fallaciousness of his reasoning.  Instead of hiding behind procedural arguments as to why such threats are not permissible, we would be better off as a community if we reasserted the fundamental obligation Islam imposes upon us to understand, as individuals, the nature of God, our relationship to God, and God’s relationship to us.  Once we restore this obligation to our communities as one of its core values, then we will have taken a substantial step toward defeating those for whom Islam is simply a “take it or leave it” set of dogmas or rules that is incapable of tolerating any form of thought, much less dissent.

Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Daniel Ayalon, recently published a piece on foreignpolicy.com’s Middle East Channel lamenting the fact that Libya was able to secure a position on the UN’s Human Rights Council, and decried the fact that states gave political expedience greater priority than a genuine commitment to human rights.  I, too, look forward to a day when countries don’t use political or financial interests to subvert cooperation in advancing human rights, and welcome an Israel that could be a partner iin such a world.

But Minister Ayalon’s criticisms of the UN Human Rights Council can hardly be taken at face value.  Indeed, he is exploiting the scandalous behavior of Qaddafi, and the fact that Libya is a member of this council, to undermine the Goldstone Report and the Commission’s report on Israel’s attack on the Turkish vessel, Mavi Marmara.  Unfortunately for Ayalon, the politicization of membership in the Council is not, in itself, evidence that these particular reports are not credible: they were each prepared by independent and professional human rights experts.  Moreover, there is even a deeper flaw in Ayalon’s reasoning, which is essentially based on the fallacious argument that “Because my enemy is bad, I am good.”  Ayalon brags that Israel receives a score of “free” from Freedom House, but Freedom House does not take into account the status of Palestinians in reaching this conclusion.  Accordingly, it is of little moral relevance: I’m fairly certain that southern whites enjoyed robust democratic rights in the Jim Crow south, but it was a still a regime of racial subordination.  So too, Israel may very well be a democracy and therefore “free” for tis Jews, but it certainly does not qualify as free for even its Arab citizens, much less the Palestinians who are under its military rule.

I am also happy to hear Ayalon state that “The people of our region are speaking in great numbers about the need for freedom, transparency, and accountability.”  I hope that means Israel is about to launch on its revolution, an equality revolution, in which it dismantles its own structures of oppression, subordination, and separation. If that is the case, then I am happy to report that Ayalon is on board with the Arab Spring.  Let’s keep on hoping for spring in Israel.

Today, the acting prime minister of Egypt, Ahmad Shafiq, resigned, and was replaced by `Isam Sharaf.   The opposition’s successful insistence on the resignation of Shafiq indicates the depth and breadth of the revolution’s popular support and gives those of us who are hoping that the January 25th Revolution will result in a genuine democratic transformation an objective basis to believe that this goal will be achieved.  Why is it so significant that Shafiq resigned in the face of popular pressure? In the wake of Mubarak’s resignation, a debate has raged in Egypt between those who describe the events of Jan. 25 as a revolution whose goals were to transform the nature of the Egyptian state and its relationship to the Egyptian people, and those  who dismiss it as a revolt centered around succession, nothing more or less.  Events subsequent to Mubarak have removed all doubts surrounding this question.  The people want a revolution, not a change in succession.  Shafiq’s resignation is clear proof that the revolutionary program is ascendant at this moment in time, and the Supreme Military Council remains substantially constrained by the popular will.  Nor is it likely that there can be a return to the status quo ante.  Even before Shafiq resigned, the fact that he was forced to appear on Egyptian talk shows and defend his statements before a skeptical host and confrontational guests means that the age of Egyptian authoritarianism, and with it Arab authoritarianism, is gone.  At a minimum, Jan. 25th has put an end to that stage of Egyptian political development.  We now have good reason to hope for real democratic reform and accountability.