Muslim Brotherhood’s Antagonism to Art (5)

• The Analysis of the Fatwa:

First and foremost, the title of Fatwa is quite telling. The strange title says: “the imported arts,” as if art is a food commodity that is subject to some quality specifications as determined by consumers!

Contrary to the Brotherhood’s negative attitude, art is viewed by others as a universal language shared by humanity.  Art-based interactions among humans go beyond any racial, religious or linguistic affiliations as well as they transcend the person’s specific and limited environment and worldview. Conversely, the Brotherhood do not see in art any of these characteristics. Their Fatwa is only limited to a bunch of opinions that were based on insular, ossified and prefabricated thoughts. The real issue is that they falsely ascribe this flawed understanding to Islam as if they had the monopoly on the truth. As a matter of fact, Islam is completely innocent of this narrow-mindedness and stagnation. In the Brotherhood’s terms, if we consider that the opposite of the imported is the local production, the question that begs a satisfying anwer will be: what is the Brotherhood’s position on the Arab and Islamic art and innovations? As far as this art is concerned, we have a glorious, rich artistic heritage which is objectively no less and no different than the so-called “imported” that the Brotherhood deprecates as cause of corruption and evil.

In his introduction to the fatwa, Sheikh Al-Khatib does not conceal his position on arts which are limited to singing, music, cinema and TV drama. As for theater, photography, sculpture, ballet and opera arts, the Brotherhood believes that the ruling of prohibition is established and beyond question.  Therefore, no need for new fatwas in this regard!

Sheikh Al-Khatib’s Fatwa begins with a strange but deliberate confusion which is quite telling. He sees that entertainment (or fun) is one of the primary reasons that led to destruction and annihilation of previous nations.  In the context of art, the reader does not need much intelligence to realize that he refer to art here. To him, art is entertainment and entertainment is art. Both are synonymous words that can be used interchangeably for the same meaning.

Al-Khatib starts with giving a non-objective and negative impression of art that has been necessarily reflected in his dealing with the issue. He leaves no form of art without belittling and condemning it. It is as if Sheikh Al-Khatib wants to offer all his concessions in order to alleviate such an enormous burden off his back.  He uses examples of old Arabic and Islamic songs, and considers it the ideal model and example of how art should be like. He decides that this type of “art” is allowed on occasions such as such as the Feasts, the weddings, the return of the absent (from travel or Hajj or Jihad), during formal and aqeeqah banquets and in birthdays. This is the role of art according to the Brotherhood’s limited understanding; and that is its purpose: just a bunch of pure songs to be played on specific occasions!

This is how the Brotherhood’s definition of good, pure and favorite art looks like. What is otherwise is necessarily corrupt art, be it imported or local! That’s a thin veneer of piety.

As strange as it may seem, Sheikh Al-Khatib also resorts to utilizing the words of preacher Saeid Hawi, making him an authoritative frame of reference in identifying and analyzing the grave consequences of the corrupt art which must be prohibited. In fact, what Hawi writes about art has nothing to do with real art or its philosophy. It also has nothing to do with good intentions or balanced reasonability. Hawi’s version of art cannot lead to the gratification of the human instinct that tends to appeals to what is enjoyably pleasing and corresponding to the sound nature. How does Saeid Hawi think of music? He maintains that music feeds the human lust and caprices, and engenders a sense of irresponsibility and indifference into the souls. “Music is the climax of distraction; distraction is the climax of this worldly life. Self-indulgence in music and melodies and the constant demand for it, draw man far from the Hereafter. His feelings are numbed and his overriding concern becomes ‘how to enjoy life to the maximum’.” Obviously, Hawi talks in abstraction about music. In other words, he does not tell us exactly how a ‘specific type of music’ is capable of causing all that evil. He merely makes no difference between the music of Beethoven and the singing Shaaban Abdel Rehim (an Egyptian pop singer)!

The contention here is not about clean or corrupt art. What Hawi and his like-minded comrades have all reach the conclusion that the time of a Muslim cannot be spent in art-related activities. According to them, a good Muslim is one who spend all his time in work, production, sleeping, eating, drinking and that’s it.

Should a Muslim have any time to spare, then he/she must spend it in self-reform and self-discipline by trying to attain sublime human virtues and perfect our attitudes towards fellow human being. A question arises here: Cannot art be an effective tool that helps man be a better member in the community?! Of course, no. That is their answer. Art is not part of the Brotherhood’s identity. They think of it as downright evil that must be fought

God has distinguished man from animals by his artistic sense and ability to innovate and enjoy what others produce. That is the sane and sound human nature.  However, the Brotherhood’s thinker sees nothing good in art, and even worse, he sees it antithetical to nature.  Thus, wasting time in distraction—i.e.  Art—may turn man into an animal!

The fact of the matter this brand new theory on the ‘banality and evilness of art’ has been predicted by none before Al-Khatib and his clique.

After quoting and presenting the argument of Said Hawi, Sheikh Al-Khatib closes the debate on art by saying: “We fully concur with what the majority of jurists have agreed upon, that is, art is prone to all evils. It is historically and experimentally determined that art has always been associated with hedonistic attitudes and with alcoholism. This is commonly held as an undisputed fact.”[1] The Brotherhood’s most unquestioned facts would be in three different domains which are religion, politics and art.  It goes without saying that the facts are limited only to what the Brotherhood say and act!

Al-Katib adds: “In this age, the influence of the so-called art on people has been increasing and widespread. Thanks to the availability of televisions in homes, clubs and amusement parks, this influence has grown stronger than it was before. At the flick of a switch, man has been able to move from one place to another, to see and hear what he wants from around the world. Nothing is controlled; and nothing is censored. People are easily exposed to sayings and doings that stand for human perversion, and indicate regression from the sound nature. Everyone is racing to become the talk of the teenagers, and to make a fortune out of this decadence.”  He continues: “These are the most dangerous weapons of falsehood that are used for spreading corruption and demoralization in society.  Our youth ought to avoid and fight against them.”

Here I feel duty-bound to  a distinction between mawkish

There is a big difference between lambasting the cheap, vulgar and flagrant works that are being falsely attributed to art and condemning the art itself. Without an iota of doubt, the former has to be counteracted and addressed by everyone, first and foremost, especially true artist who are aware of the lofty mission of art. The latter should be supported and encouraged for the .

If Sheikh al-Khatib had even a modicum of artistic taste for exploring cultures and arts, we would have presented him with dozens, or maybe hundreds, of fine and high-end artistic works that he would not be admiring.

To him, the concept of artistic vulgarity differs from what everyone else would understand. What the man has been kept repeating about clean, purposeful and meaningful art is nothing but another form of what used to be said in totalitarian societies about the normative art. The Brotherhood seeks a sort of conformist arts whose purpose is to glorify rulers, their ruling party and their draconian decrees and decisions. The Brotherhood wants ‘art’ to be a mouthpiece for the autocratic authority, sanctifying it and portraying it as infallible and beyond question!  All in all, his eminence Sheikh Al-Khatib asks for no art, no matter how meaningful it is, and tolerates no art per se.   The Brotherhood does not even feel how much influence these arts have in modern civilization. The influence itself can be an apparent reason for objecting to and rejecting art, while entailing calls for its banning, prohibiting and denouncing it altogether.

Al-Khatib says, [I quote]: “Islam’s objection to art and its likes is not only because it was imported from another civilization that is different from its civilization or because art is perceived differently in the Islamic religion. In fact, Islam has a different cultural perspective that is independent and unique, and in disagreement with the western values that have been imposed on the Islamic Ummah as a result of the colonial, cultural invasion. This forced acculturation was the moving spirit behind the ill of blind emulation.”

I respond to this by asking the Sheikh the following two questions: Is this position is based on a purely Islamic perspective, or it is just from the perspective of a few Muslims represented in the Sheikh and his group?! Then how would the Sheikh give himself the right to monopolize the understanding of Islam, and the right to speak in its name?

The man does not even bother to bring single rational or textual evidence that would support his position as Islamic? The most that can be said about his fatwa is that ‘it is just a form of reasoning that might be right or wrong’. So why should Islam bear the burden of his wrong judgments?

What Westerners might have to say after reading his fatwa. I guess they would definitely ask his eminence quite a few questions such as: if this is the case, so why you are still importing printing machines that you use to publish and disseminate your fatwas. Your eminence, why you are still shooting radio and television interviews, while losing sight that these were invented and industrialized by western hands. You claim that no good has ever come from the west. So who invented and devolved the airplane that you take for Hajj. Who has come up with medicine that is you take for treatment.  It is the Western civilization that has been leading the world of technological innovation and industrialization. Why you do not consider these amenities of life as part of the so-called cultural invasion. Why do you think that European, American and non-Islamic art in general are only parts of a big conspiracy to malign Islam and mislead its people.

• Art: Under The Yoke of The Brotherhood’s Government

The model of State adopted and promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood is not any different or far off from that of Taliban in Afghanistan.

Brace yourself, my fellow Egyptians, for a new style of living that is at odd with civilization and culture. Under the Brotherhood, there is no singing, no music, no cinema or theater. Had they still been in power, cinema houses and stages would have been destroyed; television broadcasts would be reduced to a few hours during which the Egyptian people would have to listen to the instructions and directives of Sheikh Al-Khatib and his like-minded Brothers. Above all, it would have become incumbent upon them to demolish all statutes and monuments which are found scattered in Cairo’s and Alexandria’s public squares across Egypt.

The Brotherhood government would make exceptions to the rule, or to its best interest.  While they have a burning appeal to shut down all “photography” shops under the pretext of its prohibition, they would allow some other shops to operate. They would activate the policy of strict censorship and filtering in order to prevent shooting or filming content that include women in there. The big surprise—or concession—is that there would be no prohibition on photocopying documents. However, they would be imposing a kind of slight censorship in order to watch over the content should it might have—perish the thought—some nudity pictures or even worse, some hostile infidel pamphlets that contain calls for a revolution against the Brotherhood’s government! In short, this is the picture or the scenario that right away comes to mind when reading the Brotherhood’s Fatwas on arts. This would have been the case had the Brotherhood ruled Egypt, a country known as the hub of art, and the breeding ground for artists.

[1] Emphasis added. (author)