Ahmed Ageiza is an Egyptian Islamist extremist who founded the Vanguards of Conquest group and was responsible for a series of terrorist attacks in Egypt and abroad. In 2001, Ageiza managed to escape to Sweden, where he made a request for political asylum. While the authorities in Sweden were examining his request, the Egyptian government requested his extradition. Human rights organizations in Sweden objected to extradition and mobilized public opinion there to oppose extradition to the Egyptian government, on the basis of its horrendous human rights record.
Demonstrators said he would be tortured in Egypt, like tens of thousands of other Egyptian detainees. The Swedish government found itself in a difficult position, torn between the pressure from Swedish public opinion and pressure from the US government, which insisted Ageiza be handed over to the Egyptian regime. The Swedish government reached a compromise: it obtained a written undertaking from the Egyptian government that Ageiza would not be tortured, and then handed him over. Of course the Egyptian Interior Ministry did not keep its promise and Ageiza was horribly tortured. When the news of his torture spread in Sweden, public opinion was again aroused and the Swedes accused their government of abetting the torture of Ageiza. The government had to apologize and admit it had made a big mistake by handing Ageiza over to the Egyptian regime. The matter did not stop there: Ahmed Ageiza sued the Swedish government for allowing him to be tortured and a Swedish judge awarded him 300,000 euros in compensation.
When I read the details of this story, which is well known in Sweden, I found myself wondering: Why were the Swedes angry with their government for facilitating the torture of Ahmed Ageiza? The victim was not a Swedish citizen, nor a European Christian or Jew, nor even a political refugee in Sweden, and he really did face charges related to cases of terrorism. The answer is that the angry Swedes were not defending Ageiza as an individual: they were defending the principle that all human beings have intrinsic value. No responsible government can hand someone over to another government if it knows that he will be tortured. People have the right to be treated with respect and dignity whatever their gender or religion. In my opinion this attitude reflects the pinnacle of human progress: to defend the rights of others to humane treatment, not because they are compatriots or share the same faith or because they share your opinions and your politics, but simply because they are human beings who deserve to be treated humanely.
When will we in Egypt learn that a person's intrinsic value is more important than his or her place in the world? When will we learn that everyone, however different from us they might be, has the same rights as us? Does religion teach us this concept? Does religion make us more committed to humanity? In fact a true understanding of religion must be rooted in our sense of belonging to humanity. In essence, religion is no more than the defense of human values—truth, justice, and freedom— and everything else in religion is less important. The problem is that religion is often misunderstood and instead of conveying a powerful humanitarian message, it becomes a source of hatred, racism, and crimes. How do pious people shift from tolerance to bigotry? We have to remember here that religion is an exclusive belief. It is not a point of view, but a dogma in the sense that everyone thinks his religion is the only true faith. Every group is convinced that its religion is right and all the others are wrong. This belief that you alone possess the truth could at some point makes you feel you are better than people of other religions, because you are right and they are misguided. This sense of monopolizing the truth soon changes into a sense of superiority over others, and at some point you might dehumanize them, seeing them not as human beings but as some other category: Christians, or Muslims, or Jews. At that stage you are liable to violate their rights, because they are not like you. Only you are right and they are wrong, so they are not entitled to the same rights as you.
There are many examples of how religion has moved away from its humanitarian essence and changed into bigotry. When the caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab went to Jerusalem, the patriarch Sophronius invited him to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and while he was touring the church it happened to be Muslim prayer time. The patriarch invited the caliph to pray in the church but the caliph declined, in case Muslims might later demolish the church and build a mosque in its place. Omar left the church and prayed on the ground on the site where the mosque of Omar was later built. Omar understood that the real tenets of Islam preserved human values and gave equal rights to Muslims and non-Muslims. This profound understanding of religion is the opposite of what we now see on the part of some bigots in Egypt. Some Islamists complain loudly that the French government has banned the face veil in public places but at the same time they have no scruples about trying to prevent Copts building churches. In fact they consider that building a church in their neighborhood is an insult to their faith. Some Islamists defend the citizenship rights of Muslims in Europe but at the same time publicly declare that an Egyptian Copt can never have the right to be president of Egypt. There is bigotry on both sides. Some Copts advocate a civic state but welcome the transformation of the church into a party that speaks in the name of Copts politically. Some Copts defend freedom of belief only when a Muslim converts to Christianity, but if it happens the other way around they do not mind if the church detains a Christian woman who has converted to Islam until she reverts to Christianity.
True understanding of religion make us more humane, while erroneous understanding drives us to hatred and aggression toward others. Another factor that turns religion into an instrument for aggression is dragging religion into political conflicts. A politician who wants to win votes can do so in two ways: by convincing the voters of his electoral platform or by playing on their religious sentiments. In a few months, the first free elections in decades will take place in Egypt, and anyone following recent events can see how religion is being used as a stepping-stone to power. Last week the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood came out and accused intellectuals who disagree with the Brotherhood of being enemies of religion. Dr. Mohamed Salim el-Awa, the law professor and renowned Islamic thinker, held a press conference at which he said that all parliamentary candidates must start their speeches with a Quranic recitation. He then said that those seeking to postpone the elections are “non-believers.” Sobhi Saleh, a leading member of the Brotherhood, said directly that the Brotherhood does not recognize leftist Muslims or liberal Muslims. In other words, in Saleh’s opinion, Muslims fall into two categories: a privileged category of Brotherhood members and a second-class category made up of Muslims who disagree with them. That’s how religion can become a means to belittle those who disagree with our own ideas.
The only way to eliminate bigotry is to set up a civic state where religion does not decide political rights and to establish the rule of law such that the state recognizes the rights of citizens regardless of their color, their gender, or their religion. A civic state is not atheistic or hostile to religion, but respects the religions of all citizens without preference or bias. A civic state in not new to Egypt: Mohamed Ali, who ruled from 1805 to 1848, laid the foundations for one when he built a modern Egyptian state based on education and competence regardless of religion affiliation. The concept of a civic state was fundamental to the 1919 revolution, which for the first time embraced the concept of Egyptian citizenship. Under the leadership of the Wafd Party, the most important and most popular party, Egyptians fought a long struggle for two objectives: independence from British occupation and a democratic civic state. In fact it’s amazing to read now how the Wafd leaders defended for years a civic state and opposed mixing religion with politics. In 1937, King Farouk wanted to celebrate the anniversary of his accession in the Cairo Citadel to give the impression that he was the Muslim caliph. But the prime minister and Wafd Party leader, Mustafa el-Nahas, protested that the Egyptian state was civic and insisted the ceremony take place in Parliament, which represented the people. In another well-known story, some young politician went to see Nahas and showed him his political platform. Nahas started reading but quickly folded up the piece of paper and gave it back to the politician. “Why do you talk about God in an election program?” asked Nahas. “As soon as you invoke God’s name in a political document, you instantly become a charlatan playing on people’s religious emotions.” Nahas himself was pious and devout, and performed all his religious obligations, but he knew how dangerous it was to use religion to gain power.
For Egypt to progress, it needs a sound democracy, and that can be achieved only through a civic state. Experiments with religious states—as in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan—clearly show that government in the name of religion always leads to bigotry, sectarianism, despotism, and repression. The Islamists in Egypt have the right to express their political opinions, just like other citizens, but they do not have the monopoly right to speak in the name of religion in such a way that those who disagree with them are deemed infidels or enemies of religion. I have the right to oppose the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood without anyone considering me opposed to Islam itself. In the revolution they launched on January 25th, Egyptians sacrificed their lives to free the country of Mubarak’s corrupt and oppressive regime and to set up a democratic civic state. We must not get rid of political despotism only to fall into the clutches of religious despotism.
"