The veil is not the plague

Before Islamists have even taken power, some are thinking of fleeing the country, scared about what they imagine as a coming clampdown on liberties. Their fear is the real opening to dictatorship

It's hard to set freedom against the threat of Islamism while people get confused among clichés, such as the veil, considered the symbol of women's imprisonment, while definitions are scattered, and when the newly born freedom to create political parties gave birth to so many, including unstable coalitions. In such confusion, we swim like in a swamp, everyone brandishing his or her own view or fears. Division instead of variety, fear instead of rationality, set the scene for extremism.
A few months earlier, in the morning after some bloody sectarian clashes in Imbaba (a popular area in Cairo), people around the neighbourhood were gathered in random debate groups. Through eavesdropping, while passing by, we could hear ordinary men put down a Salafist in the argument, stating to him that, “It's a revolution. We all have to change and improve our own selves. And Salafists should register that, same as every other Egyptian.” People's recognition of the state of revolution and its demands, levied upon each of us, is key.
"We Egyptians have tried everything, from communism to capitalism. Nothing worked for us. So maybe we, Islamists, should be given the chance to put our model in action. Don't be so scared of us," are words you as can stumble upon frequently in discussions with Islamists.
The tally of both the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists already at the end of the first round of parliamentary elections was enough to be taken by some people as proof that Islamists had already taken over Egypt or were on their way to do so. It is true, the Muslim Brothers and Salafists know how to take the ground: in Dahab on the Red Sea, Muslim Brotherhood leaders went down to the streets in suits, shook hands with tourist shop owners and tourists, spreading the message that they will not do anything against the tourism business there. Salafists in Siwa Oasis, another popular touristic venue, put so much publicity all over the village that one could feel they were the only ones running for parliament.
Fear of an Islamist Egypt
As understandable as the fear is, Egypt has not yet changed. And many know this is a phase Egyptians must pass through in order to understand - with time - what kind of state they really want. Many may worry that Egypt in the future will be led by clerics, but it wouldn't be as if the country and its culture started from scratch. Although Islamists were formerly banned from participation in political life, society is yet strongly coloured by religious ideology. Religion has been always the way to Egyptians' hearts. Alexander the Great knew it. It's why he visited the Amon Temple in Siwa and priests hailed him as “The son of Amon.” Napoleon knew it; he visited Al-Azhar and spread a rumour that he had converted to Islam. Egypt is a good place for Islamists, yet Egypt has no Khomeini.
Another reaction consists in expressing blind trust based on the idea that the Egyptian people will never accept to be deprived of their freedom or live under a religious state, such as that in Iran. Does it mean Iranians weren't that attached to their freedom so that they let Islamists take over their country without doing anything against religious radicalism? If we get to the point where we see Islamists in the streets of Egypt giving lessons on behaviour and morals to the people, would Egyptian individuals fight back? And while so many are occupied with economic survival?
Recently a hairdresser's shop in Qalubia, 45 minutes drive from Cairo, witnessed girls beating Salafist men as they were trying to entreat the girls working there into dropping their sinful jobs. How far will Egyptians go to defend their personal freedoms?
Back in the 1990s, the hands of Salafists were set free — if only slightly — by the government. Salafists continued burning down videotape shops, taking control by thuggery of slums and showing off their muscle to everyone. People felt helpless and called upon the police to save them. The police cracked down on Salafists viciously; thousands were put in jails and growing a beard or being friends with a bearded man became trouble. It was the beginning of the peak of police state tyranny. Each peak prior, from the 1950s, would start with the government setting the Islamists free - if just a little - and using it to scare everybody into submission. Then would come the crack down and mass detentions. The same cycle was repeated over and over. Neither Salafists nor ordinary people ever learnt the lesson. Are we now going to see a re-run? Will we trade one tyranny for another?
On the doorstep of extremism
Unfortunately, the way it might function could be more complicated. Facing people spreading an ideology with readymade answers for every question will trigger a certain difficulty in knowing how to respond. “Do you have anything against the word of God?” is a question that has no answer. Are we ready to be activists of freedom in our daily life? Do we agree on the kinds of freedom it is legitimate to have and defend in public space and private life? Liberals did fairly well in the elections, but Islamists much more. It means what it means: society is divided for good and bad. For good, as various opinions are healthy for debate and represent local issues. For bad, as being unified is the only way to avoid oppression.
Among the Egyptian elite and the foreign community one can hear more and more that we should be ready to leave Egypt (of course it concerns the few who can afford that kind of choice). And women are already refusing the eventuality of being “forced” to wear the veil or walk quietly in the streets. But first of all, wearing a veil does not protect against sexism. Because some unveiled women consider that most veiled women do it to avoid trouble, it leads some foreigners — for example — to put a scarf on when they go to moulids (festivals) or demonstrations, to feel protected. But the reality for veiled women is they are harassed like any other women.
We react too much according to the appearances of freedom or fascism, forgetting that in the end we all carry thoughts that are not fully readable by others. In the end, actions count. Stopping from entering the street and walking freely because of fear is the worst that can happen. Retreating indoors to private spaces to practice freedom of speech and morals would be the beginning of the defeat, where all thoughts are communicated only to others in small, enclosed, and separate circles, that have no power to survive on their own. Iranians took the same path to oppression.
Another preconceived idea is to think that wearing a veil covers or erases identity. We do not defend the veil; it is not our primary issue. We defend women for the sake of their right of thought. In reality, wearing a veil does not prevent movement; wearing a veil does not prevent thinking. It is not a plague. It is sad and maybe absurd to wear it by compromise or obligation, instead of by choice, but it does not destroy the individual who is behind the veil, and it would not destroy the revolutionary spirit many of Egypt's women picked up and retain since January.
We have seen at Tahrir Square women wearing theniqab (full face veil) attending long sit-ins far from their home and families; we have seen men throwing rocks accompanied by wives in the niqab.In the oasis of Siwa, one of the candidates on the Egyptian Bloc list (a coalition of three parties for Mohamed ElBaradei to be president) was a woman wearing theniqab. If she does not represent the middle class liberals from Cairo, as an example, she does represent — fairly — the Siwans and their local issues.
On fear and freedom
In the end, expression of freedom and freedom of expression are much more than clothes! We should look beyond the fear of the veil being forced, and maybe look more towards its representation of the state of personal freedom. Men should feel as afraid as women. Repression knows neither categories nor limits. It is too early to imagine how daily life could be in Egypt as an Islamic country. Some will call it a return to the Middle Ages, ignoring the fact that the Middle Ages weren't that dark and were but a phase in the history of humanity. Being asleep does not mean being dead. During Mubarak's era, people did not think less than now, but simply did not have room for debate because of repression, did not have hope to consider spending time designing another world, as deserved to be done.
Would Egyptian society be healthier if its elite and foreign community leaves for greener pastures, where it is permitted to drink alcohol in public space or to wear a miniskirt, as though either were the ultimate expression of freedom and human rights? A revolution is not only about actions; it is also about resistance. And resistance will become more of a being on its own, for its own. Islamists are infiltrated into Egyptian society; it's a fact. It's only arrogance to blame the rise of Islamists on the poor education of the population —that's a cheap card that we, the elite, usually play. Maybe we should rather realise how it's more the poor presence of the educated “us” that's the main fact.
In a democracy, everyone is allowed a space of existence. The majority then takes the biggest part of decision making, appearing to others as a kind of dictatorship that smashes minorities. There is no way to satisfy everyone, but there is a way to find a common ground under a more evolved definition of freedom. Still, maybe freedom needs more practice or more boundaries to be defined. Spinoza, the 17th century philosopher, said: “The more a government strives to curtail freedom of speech, the more obstinately is it resisted … In fact, the real disturbers of the peace are those who, in a free state, seek to curtail the liberty of judgment which they are unable to tyrannise over.”*
So, what about the option of resistance, which needs patience and distance? What about the concept of a revolution as a long process full of ups and downs? Fear is not an ally; it is an enemy. Maybe the human mind sees fire before it is ignited. And maybe the human being is able to adapt much more than is believed to the environment. Rejecting something we will probably not avoid but that is not there yet, arguing it is a disease we should run from, is an irrationality that involuntarily serves the traditional weapon of dictatorship, called fear, which prevents people working properly on their destiny.
* Theological-Political Treatise (1670), chapter 20.
The authors are a French journalist and an Egyptian writer. Both are based in Cairo.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/32195.aspx