A reader wonders why Egypt has been largely off-the-radar as a important regional presence in the Syrian conflict. With interesting timing, the last few days may have inaugurated the beginning of a change to Egypt’s lack of involvement, a development coinciding with the U.S.’s own policy changes.
A few days ago, I received an email from a friend following the activities of religious clerics in the Middle East. In it, he said:
…today there was a big Islamic conference in Cairo for top Muslim scholars (TV figures) organized by the Muslim Brotherhood and attended by Qaradawi and other famous sheikhs such as al-’Uraifi. They issued a statement calling on the Muslim world for jihad against Iran and Hezbollah. Furthermore, one of them [Dr. Safwat Hijazai, an Egyptian] called for forming military brigades under the banner of the World Union of Muslim Scholars, the League of Sunni scholars, etc. This means taking the conflict to the Muslim World and encouraging thousands to volunteer. … al-Qaradawi himself talked about Shiites being infidels and spoke of them cursing the companions of the Prophet. Another call later on was made to ban them from the hajj. This is wrong and will have serious consequences on relations between Sunnis and Shiites in the future.
Though the statement issued at the conference doesn’t explicitly call for jihad targeting Iran, it does make plain that the call to jihad is to counter Iran’s influence and actions; Iran is therefore openly depicted as the enemy that has made this jihad necessary. The second item in the statement says the following:
اعتبار ما يجري في أرض الشام من عدوان سافر من النظام الإيراني و حزب الله و حلفائـهم الطائفيين حربـــــاً معلنـــــــــةً على الإســلام و المسلميـن عامـــــــــــــة
“The blatant aggression occurring in the land of Sham should be considered a declared war of the Iranian regime, Hezbollah, and their sectarian allies against Islam and Muslims generally.”
Though the injustices experienced by Syrians were the ostensible motivation for this conference and the call for jihad that it produced, the fact that it represents a line-up of influential Sunni clerics and the Muslim Brotherhood arrayed opposite several exclusively Shiite enemies is a very dangerous development. We have watched the sectarian character of the Syrian Uprising awaken the dormant tensions that underlie never-quite-solved disputes—divergent visions for the state that afflict the entire Levant and Iraq. Now, Egypt seems to be moving into position in its relationship with a regional conflict towards which most nations in the Middle East are oriented by sectarian affiliation.
To issue a call for such a jihad in the current volatile context, framing the three major “Shi’a” entities as the collective enemy, particularly without any nuance to affirm the humanity of Shiite people in distinction from their governments or non-state political actors, is highly irresponsible, especially after the terrible rise of targeted sectarian killings we’ve observed inside Syria. Despite a reference to the Iranian “regime,” the entire affair will serve only to whip up animosity toward Shiites generally.
Another feature of this rhetoric that will incite further division is the referring to Iran and Hezbollah’s involvement as a “war against Islam and Muslims.” Without any political context for the interests of these communities, the labeling of their objectives as a “war against Islam and Muslims” has the effect of asserting that they are not Muslims.
The indications of Egypt’s “movement into position” extend beyond the condemnation vocalized by angry clerics; in the same week that this conference took place, an Egyptian official expressed approval for Egyptians wishing to travel to Syria for jihad.
At the state level, the developments described above have occurred alongside an official decision to end all diplomatic ties with Syria, and the closure of the Syrian embassy in Cairo, a move that will increase the difficulties faced by the Syrian refugee population that has taken refuge in Egypt, who the Syrian opposition will be unable to assist in any meaningful capacity regarding travel documents and passports, marriage certificates, etc.
All of these changes (as well as the U.S. shift in policy) seem to follow the expansion of Hezbollah’s role on the ground. Iran has reportedly said that it will be sending 4,000 troops to assist the Syrian regime. If the sending of troops does take place, Iran will appear to have taken the lead in conducting the most literal form of “intervention.” But in contrast to such official state-level action, the states hoping to counter Iran’s growing role in the conflict appear to accept the use of an undefined and disorganized jihad that will see many young, unaccountable men going to their deaths, as was the case with the mujahideen in the Iraq war.
Though any serious (and strategically feasible) endeavor to resolve the Syria crisis and end the bloodshed would be laudable, the U.S. should carefully think through its decision to take sides in a greater sectarian conflict.
