I meant to write on this topic for quite some time now but it was difficult to add anything to the subject after Mensour�s convincing article.  Nonetheless, I still wanted to write a few words  to register my disagreement with our host and to cry along with Mensour....  Baboor e Gebeyka! 

I would have liked to believe that Awate team  was merely trying to bring the issue for discussion but the fact that it has called upon ELF-RC to disown the Jihad movement precludes such a possibility.  In any case, I hope this is not a dogmatic stand on the issue.  In the past, Awate team has listened to and responded to well-founded criticism (the election issue is an example) and we hope it will do the same here.  This is a very serious issue that can jeopardize the credibility of Awate�s mission statement and that can plant new seeds of resentment which we can ill afford in the democracy that is yet to be born. 

One of the main criticisms we constantly level against the current regime in Eritrea is its exclusivity.   How can we then turn around and start advocating the same exclusionary attitude we hate in others?   To believe in exclusion and disowning is bad enough in itself but to call upon others to do so is absolutely reprehensible! Pencil�s argument that the Alliance is not drawing new members is irrelevant since we cannot judge an organization solely on how successfully it markets itself. If only decent organizations can attract a large fellowship, how is it then, we may ask, that so ruthless a dictator as Isayas succeeded in duping so many supporters for such a long time? 

Thus, when we evaluate the popularity or unpopularity of the Alliance, we must do so in light of the massive propaganda campaign it has been subjected to all these years by GOE.  The Alliance�s lack of popularity, if true, tells us more about the triumph of Isayas�s venomous propaganda campaign than it does about the Alliance. 

But Awate team�s main contention is that a secular organization should not join forces with a religious organization particularly with one whose avowed aim is the establishment of an Islamic Sharia.  This reveals a fundamental misconception of both the Alliance and the nature of democracy.  If the Alliance members were posing as a single party with a unified vision and political program, then of course such a critique would be valid.  But the Alliance never claimed to be such a coalition.  It is thus a misconception of what the Alliance stands for. 

It is also a fundamental misconception of democratic pluralism because pluralism is all about inclusion and accommodation of different visions.  Once we start to exclude, disown, or otherwise marginalize a single group based on its belief, we demolish the very basic foundations of democracy.  We cannot place preconditions (as GOE did) on democratic participation and pluralism.  The only acceptable precondition is that all participants agree to participate and respect the democratic process.

Some Muslims wanting Sharia is just one piece of the puzzle. Others want different things. As I have stated before, we live in a world where competing values interact continuously and simultaneously.     It is quite natural and expected for a believer in a certain ideology to wish for an atmosphere where his belief systems reign supreme.  A devout Christian hopes to be governed in accordance with the teaching of Christianity.  Likewise, an atheist striving to make atheism the ruling ideology would not raise any eyebrows.  The same holds true for purely political ideologies and other secular beliefs.  In like manner, a Muslim hopes and dreams for a Government that rules according to his beliefs.  There is absolutely nothing odd or strange about this.  In fact, it is something we should all expect.

"If liberty means anything at all," George Orwell once wrote, "it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."   Modifying Orwell�s witty remarks  to fit our theme, we can say:  �if liberty means anything at all it means the right to strive peacefully for what we believe.�   I think Orwell would agree with that postulation.  Hence, as it would not be right or proper for Muslims to tell others what they should aim or wish for, it would be improper for others to tell Muslims what to strive for. 

This is, however,  as far as the inner sentiments and goals of Muslims are concerned. But when we have to live in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society like ours or where there are competing ideologies clamoring for attention, democracy provides an avenue for peaceful coexistence.  

But Awate team�s remarks coming shortly after September 11 tragedy may be a measure of how  pervasive a superpower�s propaganda can be.   The �clash of civilizations� as envisioned by Huntington may not be fully upon us yet but recent events are threatening to make that frightening prediction a reality.  And it is not altogether impossible that Eritreans are being unduly influenced by the barrage of negative information about Islam, Jihad, and Muslims that has been coming out recently. 

But to buy into the caricature of Islam as a violent religion is to entertain a selective vision of  reality.  I say selective because the focus is selectively being placed on atrocities committed by Muslims.   Huntington himself conceded in a recent interview: �I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims.�  It is also 'selective' because we are leaving out the world's notorious �secular� dictators of such magnitude as that of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin who terrorized their people, their neighbors and the world. Similar horrifying deeds have been committed by such champions of secularism as the US and British.

We may object by saying these are not true representatives of secularism and we would be right.  But the same can be said (truthfully) about those handful religious fanatics that commit heinous actions.  They do not represent true religion.  We cannot simply say that religious people will go to extremism since this tendency manifests itself in all groups (religious or secular).  No Taliban or Mengistu could ever hope to match the atrocities perpetrated, for example, by leading secular countries such as the US and Britain. Are we to consider the Taliban's or Menghistu�s of the world more evil just because they tend to shout more or lack modern political finesse?   Are the US and British leaders that did not feel a moment's hesitation to commit genocide, enslave whole populations and annihilate entire civilizations any better?

By what standard other than secular bias against religion  can we elevate one and debase the other?  That is why Chomsky, citing a partial list of atrocities committed by the US in such diverse countries as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, East Timor, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, recently reminded his audience that the �the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason."  (emphasis mine.)

Nor is this tendency entirely in the past. These countries continue to wreck havoc in the world by pitting one country against the other to maintain their supremacy and by strangling  poorer and weaker nations economically and culturally. These were/are all secular countries and all claimed to serve the greater good just like some religious extremists do today.  Should we then ban or exclude all secularists from actively participating in society? 

Democracy is not about �hade lbi hade zbi�.  It does not aim at homogeneity nor would it succeed if it did so.  The goal of democracy is, rather, to bring different �lbis� to live as one �hzbi� so to speak.  If you need an example of how this can be done, we can look at the US. Groups like democrats, the Christian coalition, republicans, liberals etc� have, as a whole, a distinct political philosophy and a vision of what is right and what is wrong. They have differing views on such basic issues as abortion, affirmative action, pornography, family values etc� Yet, they all work within the parameters of one system (however imperfect that might be). 

Thus, we can find no sound justification to exclude any group based on its belief, goals, or ideology.  What we should be struggling against instead is any organization�s attempt to impose its program or philosophy (secular or religious) upon others by force. To my knowledge, no group has advocated imposing its religion on others without their will. Who are we arguing with then?

By signing the democratic charter of the Alliance, the Jihad movement has endorsed the democratic process and showed its readiness to tolerate other views.  It has thus become a partner in the democratic struggle.  In fact, Alliance members are to be commended for putting aside their sharp political differences to come up with a minimum set of principles around core issues they can all agree upon.  Thus, objectively seen, the Alliance could serve as a perfect model of coexistence and tolerance among disparate groups.  It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to promote and applaud such formations instead of discouraging them.  In fact, we urgently need to work for even broader coalitions to avert the possibility of tension, bloodshed, and conflict in the post-Isayas era.

The reality is that there will always be differences of opinion or beliefs.  Some of these beliefs will appear strange or weird to some of us but with mutual respect and understanding of each other's point of view, a common ground can usually be found.  This is best achieved, I believe under a democracy where people respect one another and can communicate without fear.  Let us concentrate on achieving that.

Note:  if you have any questions about this subject, or about what I wrote here, or about Islam in general, please drop me a line at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it