Liberal/ Secular Vision
Al-Nasir, who was a major in the army, led the Egyptian military revolution in 1952. Many people thought that the revolution resulted from the soldiers’ experiences in the Palestinian War and the disputed Army Officers Club elections (Islamfiche Project75). According to Nasir, the makings of the revolutions began when he was still a student. His philosophy stemmed from the need to liberate Egypt from the hands of the imperialist government. Nasir believed in an independent Egypt where self-governance and democracy thrived. In his opinion, the revolution was the harvest that the Egyptians had cultivated for a long time. Since the failed revolution in 1912, the Egyptians had a vision for self-government and self-determination. Soon after the revolution, it became clear that the vision of unity and order had not yet been achieved. As such, Nasir and his comrades took it upon themselves to get rid of the hatred, chaos, and dissension that had grabbed the country. To Nasir’s anger and disappointment, every leader and scholar he approached was marred with greed and selfishness.
He then realized that Egypt was experiencing two revolutions at the same time, a political, and a social revolution. The country needed to be rescued from the oppression of a tyrant government as well as the oppression caused by the social injustices. The two were in conflict. Whereas a political revolution calls for unity and self-sacrifice in the spirit of nation building, a social revolution results in loose values that feed the ills of corruption, egotism, hatred, and doubt (Islamfiche Project 83). Due to the conflict of the two simultaneous processes in the Egyptian society, the revolutionists felt obliged to put some form of control to prevent the country from being overtaken by the social ills of corruption and greed. As a result, Nasir and his comrades took steps such as the limitation of land ownership. Although the vision of the revolution was to bring about independence and freedom in the form of self-governance and self-determination, the resulting government ends up acting contrary to this idea.
Political Islam Vision
Sayyid Qutb believed that social freedom could only be achieved through the adoption of the Islamic lifestyle. He maintained that the Western ways of government, though supreme in material creativity, lacked the values needed to “preserve the fruit of material progress and fulfill the needs of human nature” (Euben & Zaman138). He believed that the Western way of government was a transgression to of Gods Sovereignty because it made some people masters and the rest servants. These forms of governance allow people to their values, laws, ideas, and statutes. According to Qutb, this freedom transgresses Allah’s authority, which requires humankind to submit to God.
Political Islamists like Qutb view the Islam way of life as the solution to the capitalistic and oppressive nature of the governments marred with western ideologies. According to Qutb, the Islamic revolution can only be achieved by using the Quran to transform lives and personalities as opposed to just using it for the sake of knowledge without action (Euben & Zaman141). Like the first generations of Muslims, people should be “shaped, molded, and educated” by the Quran only (Euben & Zaman140), and other forms of civilization should not dilute this knowledge. His ideology called for the removal of the jahili oppression, traditions, ideas, and leadership by embracing the Islamic perspective followed by the transformation of the society i.e. the development of jihad. The ultimate goal of the jihad is to achieve a universal acceptance of Islam and a universal worship of Allah alone (Euben & Zaman146). Political or capitalistic impediments to jihad are to be fought by Islam.
Similarities and Differences
Both the secular revolutionists and the political Islamists envisioned a people who were free from colonialist oppression and capitalism. Both were fighting a system of governance that they believed had been corrupted by Western beliefs and mannerisms and denied freedom to the Egyptians. The secular revolutionists advocated for a system of governance where the people determined their future. According to Nasir, the revolution was a success because the hope that the Egyptians had since they started “to think in terms of self-government and to demand that they have the final word in determining their own future” had come to realization. Qutb was of the opinion that Islam would rescue humanity from humiliation and oppression resulting from communism and capitalism (Euben & Zaman139).
However, despite their common vision of freedom and independence, both ideologies end up causing chaos and oppression. The revolution in Egypt resulted in the enforcement of the oppressive limitation of land ownership in a bid to combat corruption and greed. Political Islam, on the other hand, ends up in fighting those people who resist being at peace with Islamic way of life. In the end, total freedom is elusive in both cases.
The two perspectives are different in the manner in which they define freedom. The secular philosophy calls for self-governance and self-determination that involves the people developing ideas, laws, and systems that govern them. Unlike secularism, which advocated self-governance and self-determination, political Islam pushed for the adoption of the Quran as the foundation of governance and the people’s lifestyle. Thus, people would follow Gods will as stipulated in the Quran.
Liberal/Secular Vision
Like the revolution in Egypt that sought to bring down an imperial government that was sympathetic to the agenda of western powers, the Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddeq endeavored to fight the political and economic oppression and exploitation that America and Britain were exercising in Iran. The successful passage of the oil nationalization law in parliament is indicative of the vision that Mosaddeq had for Iran. He felt that the Western nation were benefiting from Iran’s natural resources while oppressing the people. In his speech, he illustrates the deceptive way in which the British government had contributed to the formation of “a dictatorial government which deprived all the people of their human rights of freedom” (Landen 362). He was also opposed to Britain’s attempt to make Iran a protectorate. In his fight against imperialism, Mosaddeq envisioned a country where democracy reigned, and people were free to express their opinions (Landen 364).
Political Islamic Vision
Ayatollah Khomeini was a Shi’i Islamist, who led the Iranian revolution in 1979. The revolution overthrew the government of Muhammad Reza Shah. Khomeini was against the westernization that had rapidly taken place during Riza Shah’s governance (Euben & Zaman156). The conflict between the government and Khomeini led to the attack on his students and his arrest. This attack resulted from Khomeini’s strong opposition to the authoritarian government and its restrictions on private land ownership (Euben & Zaman157). Despite his arrest, He still confronted the authorities concerning the diplomatic immunity given the American Military. He felt that the foreign nations were attacking the nationalism of Iran and the sanctity of Islam.
Khomeini disseminated his Islamic ideals on governance through lectures, unlike other Shi’i scholars who chose to maintain their silence. He was of the opinion that the Jurists had the mandate to implement God’s law. However, unlike Qutb who believed that the law should be followed as it is in the Quran, he opined that the governing Islamic authority had a duty to serve the interests of Islam as it saw fit (Euben & Zaman160).
Similarities and Differences
As in the case of Egypt, the liberal revolutionists and the Islamists in Iran were fighting for freedom and independence of the people. However, their approach towards freedom and liberty were different. The secular constitutionalists like Mosaddeq believed in democracy where people’s opinions mattered. He believed in the political and economic freedom of the Iranian people. Khomeini, on the other hand, viewed freedom from the western domination and exploitation through the integration of the Quran into governance. He believed in the jurist’s supremacy in implementing the law of Allah.
Personal Opinion
It is worth noting that, both revolutions (liberal and Islamic) happened in the sane duration of time in both countries. The liberal revolution took place in the 1950s while the Islamic ideologies took root in the 1960s and 70. I believe that this similarity stems from the almost identical political environment in the two nations. During the secular liberation, both the Egyptians and the Iranians were seeking freedom from oppressive imperial governments. Similarly, during the Islamic movement, both countries were fighting against westernized forms of government. They also sought to the restore the Quran as the foundation of the rule of law.
Works Cited
Euben, Roxanne L. and Zaman, M. Q. Princeton Readings in Islamist Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Print
Landen, Robert G. Iran and the National Front, a Speech by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, 27 September 1951. Print. (Client file)
The Islamfiche Project. Jamal Abd al-Nasir (Gamal Abd al-Nasser) from Egypt’s Liberation, 1953. Print. (Client file).
