Statements by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his son Gamal Mubarak at the annual conference of the ruling NDP party sparked renewed debate in Egypt on Egypt's nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Immediately following the conference, Egypt's Supreme Energy Council convened to discuss the nuclear issue.

In 2003, MEMRI published a three-part Inquiry and Analysis reviewing the public debate on the development of nuclear energy in Egypt during 1998-2003.

The following is a review of the beginning of the present debate, with an appendix containing MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Nos.118, 119, and 120 on the prior debate.

The Beginning of the Present Debate

On September 21, 2006, at the closing session of the NDP conference, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said: "We must answer several important questions: How do we preserve the rights of the future generations to our oil and gas resources? How do we give the necessary consideration to [developing] alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy?... We must take greater advantage of new and renewable energy sources, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I call for a serious dialogue which takes into account the clean and cheap energy sources provided by nuclear technologies.

"Obviously, we are not starting from scratch. We have knowledge of these technologies, which enables us to proceed along this road. Whatever the outcomes of the dialogue, we will continue to implement them without hesitation, out of conviction that future [sources of] energy are a primary aspect in building the future of our homeland, and that the energy issue is an integral part of the system governing Egypt's national security." [1]

Gamal Mubarak: "Egypt has a Right to Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes"

NDP Deputy Secretary-General Gamal Mubarak said at a press conference on the first day of the NDP convention: "Egypt is a signatory to the NPT, like many other countries. This treaty guarantees, inter alia, the signatories' right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, in the production of energy for development purposes and so on...

"We are talking about using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and, incidentally, Egypt is not the only country - many developing countries have preceded us in this regard, and the world has cooperated with them and helped them so that they could use nuclear energy as alternative energy in the future...

"We must, like the entire world has begun to do, search for alternative energy, whether wind energy - and we have had some minor experience in that - or nuclear energy, and so on." [2]

Egypt's Supreme Energy Council Discusses the Nuclear Alternative

On September 24, 2006, immediately following the speeches by President Mubarak and by his son, Egypt's Supreme Energy Council, which is headed by Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmad Nazif, convened to discuss the nuclear issue. Government spokesman Magdi Radi stated that the council had decided to immediately start examining the nuclear alternative, in light of Egypt's increasing need for energy. [3]

Egyptian Minister of Electricity and Energy Hassan Younes told the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram that "the nuclear issue will be discussed at the level of the state institutions and [at the level] of the civil society, so we can [reach] a consensus regarding the need to utilize nuclear energy in order to preserve [Egypt's] oil resources for the future generations... It is expected that a nuclear power station will begin operating within 10 years of the final decision [to launch] the project, and that the research on this project, which was suspended in the 1980s, will be renewed." [4]

The London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the Egyptian Ministry of Electricity and Energy officially ordered the construction of three nuclear power stations in the Al-Dhab'a region in northwest Egypt, on the Mediterranean coast. [5] Minister of Electricity and Energy Hassan Younes, however, denied that there were any plans to build nuclear power stations in the Al-Dhab'a region. [6]

Appendix: MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis Nos. 118, 119, and 120 - Egypt Rethinks Its Nuclear Program

By Y. Feldner*

For some time, there has been debate in the Egyptian and Arab media on the question of whether Egypt, and Arabs in general, should strive to develop nuclear programs and obtain nuclear weapons. Participating in the discussion are Egyptian nuclear scientists, politicians, and clerics.

Israel's 1981 bombing of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq, and, a decade later, the U.S.-led international coalition efforts to destroy Iraq's nuclear capability, had a formative effect on Egypt's nuclear doctrine in the late 20th century. Since 1990, Egypt has been pushing through diplomatic means for international supervision of Israel's nuclear facilities, while simultaneously developing means of conventional, chemical, and biological deterrence. Yet the international community's reaction to India's and Pakistan's nuclear testing in May 1998 - perceived by Egypt as lenient - gave Egyptian public figures some ideas, ideas expressed even by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak himself.

At this moment, in Egypt and the entire Middle East, all eyes are upon the international community's attitude towards North Korea, which violated its nuclear commitments and recently declared that it was withdrawing from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The initial Egyptian response, reflected in an editorial in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, was that "the North Korea-U.S. crisis clearly proves that small and medium-sized countries are capable of steadfastness in the face of the pressures that desecrate their sovereignty from countries whose strength is greater - provided that these [small and medium-sized] countries use their domestic and regional resources wisely and skillfully… This crisis proves that the world has not yet become a single sphere of influence entirely subject to a single superpower, and that there is still ability to resist." [7]

Nuclear weapons are often perceived in Egypt as evidence of a country's regional and international standing. Another Al-Ahram editorial stated that it is not right for Israel to have a nuclear arsenal while "other countries in the region dozens of times bigger and more important" do not. [8] Thus, other Middle Eastern countries' initiatives for developing nuclear programs, for example, the nuclear reactor that Russia has announced it plans to build in Syria, [9] may encourage the Egyptian leadership to push the Egyptian nuclear program so as to maintain its leadership status in the region.

Part One: Scientific and Technological Capability Vs. International Commitments

*Egypt's Long-Standing Nuclear Policy

In theory, Egypt relinquished any intentions to develop a strategic nuclear capacity by joining the NPT. Later, it also signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, though it has not yet ratified it. Furthermore, for years the call for nuclear disarmament in the Middle East has been a cornerstone of Egyptian diplomacy, as has the demand for supervision of Israeli nuclear installations. Statements by heads of the Egyptian nuclear program during the 1990s show evidence of despair, because of the "death throes" of their country's plans in that area.

Nevertheless, among the flood of declarations regarding Egypt's commitment to its international obligation to refrain from developing strategic nuclear capacity, occasionally there are conflicting statements showing that the Egyptian leadership has not closed the door on the atomic option altogether. The most prominent of these came from President Mubarak, in an interview with the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat in early October 1998. Mubarak said: "We do not think now of entering the nuclear club because we do not want war… We are not in a hurry. We have a nuclear reactor at Inshas, and we have very capable experts. If the time comes when we need nuclear weapons, we will not hesitate. I say 'if we need it,' because this is the last thing we are thinking about… Obtaining materials for nuclear weapons has become easy, and they can be purchased easily. India and Pakistan have carried out nuclear testing, and there is talk that Iran is next in line. Every country is preparing for itself a deterrent weapon that will preserve its integrity and its existence." [10]

About a year later, political advisor to President Mubarak, Osama Al-Baz, declared, "If the Arabs sense a threat from Israel, they can create their own parallel nuclear program, or they can develop their own chemical and biological weapons." [11] Also, Amro Moussa, while still serving as foreign minister and leading Egypt's international campaign for regional nuclear disarmament, said, "The Middle East cannot have one nuclear state. It may live with two nuclear states, but certainly not one." [12]

*Scientific and Technological Capability Vs. International Commitments

There are three basic requirements for developing a strategic nuclear program: scientific/technological and economic capability and political will. Nearly all the Egyptian experts who expressed their opinions on the matter agreed that Egypt possessed the scientific and technological capability to develop a strategic nuclear program; economic capability also existed, they said, although the economic feasibility of a nuclear program was in serious doubt. But all those who spoke stressed that as far as they knew, the political will required to push forward a nuclear program was lacking.

In discussing the nuclear issue, most of the Egyptian professionals stated that Egypt and the Arabs possessed the capability to develop a strategic nuclear program and even nuclear weapons - provided that there was political will to do so. Dr. Fawzi Hussein Hamad, head of the Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority from 1990-1994, said, "In all conferences in which we have participated since May 1998 [when India and Pakistan carried out nuclear testing], we were asked why we are not producing nuclear weapons. Our answer was, of course, that we have decided on the matter by joining the treaty [NPT]… Among the Arabs there are all the scientific and technological qualifications [for developing a united Arab nuclear program]… but the truth is that this is not the problem; the fundamental problem is political will…" [13]

A 2001 book featuring articles by Egypt's top nuclear scientists, and published by the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, portrayed Egypt's joining the NPT as "the worst blow for the Egyptian nuclear program." A book review posted on the Islam Online website said that after joining the NPT, "the Egyptian nuclear program was almost completely frozen, and for the first time in decades the nuclear aspect has disappeared from Egypt's energy policy, until 2017." [14]

Egyptian nuclear scientists stated unanimously that Egypt could not violate its commitment to the international community - particularly as it spoke, from every possible platform, in favor of nuclear disarmament in the Middle East. Dr. Sayyed Abd Al-Gawad 'Amara, head of the Nuclear Safety Center of the Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, said: "The development of nuclear capability for purposes of warfare and not for purposes of peace is possible only if a political decision on the matter is made. We must ask ourselves whether we, at the beginning of the third millennium, are capable of diverting [nuclear] applications for peace into strategic [nuclear] applications. I think that the world system and its capability today do not permit this. What would have been permitted in the 1950s and the 1960s, when India, for example, built up its nuclear capability, is not permitted today." [15]

However, in a hypothetical exercise, some scientists hinted that if, in future, the political will emerged, this commitment could be circumvented by focusing on the development of a general Arab nuclear program - which would also facilitate dealing with the anticipated international pressures. Dr. Ahmad Qaroun, an expert from the Egyptian Nuclear Substances Authority, said: "We are committed to the NPT, and stand by our word in this matter. But if we wanted to develop these capabilities, we have the human and financial cadres that will allow it. It is a top-level political decision made by the president of the state. Egypt in particular is unable to do anything because it joined the NPT and because it is calling for nuclear disarmament in the region. But if we wanted to do something, all Arab countries would have to join in… Thought of such weapons is still very distant, but the means exist and the material for nuclear bombs can be obtained abroad or produced locally, because in Egypt there are many uranium sites with not inconsiderable quantities that can be utilized. But the question is fundamentally political… In addition, beginning production of nuclear weapons means entering into conflict with the superpowers. Look at the American sanctions on India. This must be taken into account, in addition to the tremendous outlay required. Another condition is the unification of the Arab countries - something I think is difficult, since we haven't even managed to set up a common economic market due to Arab disagreements." [16]

*Nuclear Reactors for Electricity - A Platform for Nuclear Weapons Production

A central question regarding Egypt's nuclear intentions concerns the establishment of large nuclear reactors for producing electricity, which will give Egypt technological capabilities that can be diverted for other purposes. Egypt has refrained from building such reactors because, it says, they are not economically necessary. Following the Chernobyl disaster, it added the claim that nuclear reactors are unsafe. Thus, for example, President Mubarak declared in late April 2001, "There is no thought at the present time to establish nuclear power stations for producing electricity, because we have great quantities of energy and natural gas reserves that increase from year to year, and because Egyptian public opinion does not welcome the establishment of such stations." [17]

However, in contrast with Mubarak's statement, about a year later Egypt's Electricity and Energy Minister Hassan Younes told the Egyptian Parliamentary Industrial Committee that a decision had been made to establish a nuclear power station for electricity in 2010, and that its construction would take eight years. [18] In late June 2002, the electricity minister stated that the plan to build a nuclear power station in Al-Dhab'a, west of Alexandria, was still on the agenda. [19] In an interview with the Egyptian opposition weekly Al-Usbu' the minister said, "Egypt has the full right to obtain nuclear technology for peaceful purposes" and that "a large nuclear station for energy will be built at Al-Dhab'a, to produce electricity, in 2010-2012." [20]

The minister's statements were significant because a large nuclear station for producing electricity is considered a possible platform for developing strategic nuclear capability. Professor Mustafa 'Alawi explained: "Egypt made a gross strategic miscalculation when it chose to ratify the NPT in 1981… Today, Egypt should certainly pursue a peaceful nuclear option, because such capabilities can be transformed to perform non-peaceful ends in a very short time." [21]

Some Egyptian nuclear scientists emphasized the military potential in their struggle to revive Egypt's nuclear program. Dr. 'Izat 'Abd Al-'Aziz from the Egyptian Nuclear Safety Authority said: "Egypt has not managed to establish strategic nuclear capability because we were not allowed to build large nuclear reactors for electricity production. The construction of such reactors constitutes a nuclear strategy in itself, because it brings us into the so-called nuclear fuel circle and gives us expertise in this area." [22]

Dr. 'Ali Al-Sukari of the Egyptian Nuclear Energy Authority cited Japan as an example of an "economic superpower without nuclear bombs or a plan to use nuclear bombs, but which, if it wanted to obtain nuclear weapons, could do so tomorrow." [23]

However, Munir Mujahed, in charge of feasibility studies at the Egyptian Nuclear Reactor Authority, wrote: "A political decision to revive the Egyptian nuclear program, in light of the above and other challenges, will be similar to President Al-Nasser's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal. It will revive the spirit and the feelings of national pride which would provide the basis of popular support for the development plans and the sacrifices that may be required… Besides nuclear power's potential role in mobilization and modernization, its role in enhancing Egyptian national security should not be neglected. … The introduction of nuclear power plants could help counterbalance this threat [i.e. Israel]… Under certain conditions, [mastery of] nuclear technology can facilitate the production of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can always be developed when there is a political will." [24] Al-Ahram Weekly, which published the article, added a disclaimer at the bottom: "The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the Authority's policy."

So, the words of the Electricity Minister were enthusiastically received in Egyptian atomic circles. Dr. Abdallah Hilal, from the Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, told the Islam Online website: "This news [about the establishment of the nuclear power station] is most important, and is a huge leap [forward] in nuclear research, for Egypt and for its atomic energy, so that we can stand on [our own] two feet. In Egypt, there is an explosion among the scientific cadres in the nuclear sphere - they have no work. The two existing Egyptian nuclear reactors in the Inshas region are sufficient for training Egyptian scientists in experiments, but not in the aspects of application. A large nuclear power station will allow application [work] of great importance in the area of nuclear energy… Egypt is classified internationally as a country capable of producing nuclear weapons within a short time if it wants to do so, if it has the means of training, and if it makes a political decision to do so." [25]

Part Two: The Nuclear Lobby

*The Politicians

Although the official Egyptian position rules out nuclear weapons development, Egypt has a nuclear arms lobby. In addition to many of the Egyptian nuclear scientists who support the development of a nuclear program that can in future be diverted for military purposes, the nuclear lobby includes politicians, former senior military commanders, and clerics.

The most prominent of the politicians who expressed support for the nuclear option is Egyptian parliamentary speaker Ahmad Fathi Sorour. After India's and Pakistan's nuclear testing in May 1998, Sorour said, "It is no longer acceptable for the Arabs to be content with watching international developments… They have to hurry up and act to become a mighty power in possession of all the elements of force and strength." [26] It should be noted that according to the Egyptian constitution, the parliamentary speaker is second in line for the leadership of the country - thus, in the event that President Mubarak cannot function, Sorour will take his place, at least temporarily.

The most coherent view in favor of the nuclear option among the politicians was that of Egyptian Parliamentary Foreign Liaison Committee head Dr. Mustafa Al-Faqi, who represented Egypt on the International Atomic Energy Commission in the late 1990s. In 2002, Al-Faqi published two articles on the nuclear weapons issue in the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram in 2002. In the first, he wrote: "Years ago, Egypt adopted a clear option, calling to declare the Middle East a region free of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, on the assumption that this call would prepare the ground for a just peace that would lead to stability in the region.. Now, the Israeli-Arab conflict has entered a most miserable stage, and we again mention the other options - not in order to cry over spilled milk, but to discuss the Arabs’ lost opportunities and to think about the future of the region, after a peace is attained that will restore the rights to their owners and liberate the usurped land. Today, we need to go back and reopen the files about security in the Middle East, because it would seem that there is still a long road before we reach an arrangement…

"The question that arises on its own now is whether it wouldn’t be better for the Arabs to obtain nuclear weapons that will assure them a degree of balance with Israel… whether it would not be better for us to advance, during an early stage, towards obtaining Arab nuclear weapons - not in order to use them, but in order to create a measure of strategic balance that will not permit Israel to run amok in the region as it did on many occasions?… The Arabs must search for alternative tools that they can use in hostilities. I am not referring strictly to military conflict, in the event that Israel forces it on the Middle East. I want to point out also the means that have been neutralized in the history of this conflict. We are a nation that volunteered to halt all development programs and its democratic process in waiting for peace that has tarried greatly, and perhaps will not arrive soon. This comes at a time when economic supremacy and technological progress were meant to lead us to a much better situation than [our situation] today… I am not calling for preparation for military action… What I do want is to close the gap in technological level and economic achievements in a way that ensures some degree of strategic balance that will lead to peace and stability…

"The way is not blocked to us, and options are still open. Israel is not the same incredible and invincible power [it once was]; it is only a despotic power that does not implement the legitimate international resolutions and does not honor international law… There is an Israeli decision from decades ago to deny any Arab country the possibility of attaining [the ability] to produce an atom bomb - which is no longer a scientific secret that is difficult to obtain, since the technology for using [atomic means] for peaceful purposes can be preparation for other uses. However, what is required is material means and professional knowledge. We have both. The Arabs have enough money to buy the components for nuclear production, and we have scientists on a high level. It is enough for us to know that Egypt alone has ten scientists working as international inspectors at the Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna, which is headed by an Egyptian diplomat. However, what is more important [now] than years ago is the factor of political will to move ahead in the strategic nuclear program - not for the sake of aggression towards others, or threatening them, but in order to create a strategic balance in the region that will defend the rights and the holy places…" [27] In another article that appeared in Al-Ahram, a month and a half later, Al-Faqi wrote: "We need to begin a strategic nuclear and deterrence program that will constitute an incentive to raise the standard of education and security." [28]

SUPPORT OUR WORK

$500 $250 $100 OTHER CryptoCurrency Apple Pay Paypal Credit Card

Elements in the Egyptian opposition also support the nuclear option. The pan-Arab-leaning Al-Wifaq Al-Qawmi party, the founding of which was approved in March 2000, includes in its platform an article stating, "Egypt should possess nuclear weapons in order to maintain peace in the region. It is true that Egypt is a signatory of the NPT, but Israel did not sign. Peace cannot be a reality unless there is a balance of force in the region." [29]

*The Ex-Generals

Former top Egyptian military commanders also expressed support for developing nuclear weapons. The Egyptian chief of staff during the 1973 war, Sa’d Al-Din Al-Shadhali, said: "Nuclear armament is a fait accompli. We all know that Israel has nuclear armaments and the means to launch them, as well as satellites that convey data on the progress of the bomb launchings. Nevertheless, America refuses to allow any Arab or Islamic country to obtain the nuclear bomb. With an investment of $10 billion over ten years, it will be possible to produce a nuclear bomb." Al-Shakhali called for starting this undertaking. [30]

A former commander of Egypt’s Third Army and member of the Egyptian Foreign Relations Council, Mahmoud Khalef, said: "The key is the language of power. The Arabs must think about the political decision connected to the ‘nuclear club.’ This issue should be reexamined, and Israel can in no way have exclusivity in nuclear weapons. We must deal with the balance that has been violated…" [31]

Unequivocal support for the production of nuclear weapons was expressed by Lt-Gen. Salleh Halaby, head of the Arab Industrialization Authority, who in a speech to the Egyptian Foreign Affairs Council said: "If Egypt does not manage to force or persuade Israel to relinquish its nuclear weapons, there is no way but to find an alternative solution, and that is to obtain this weapon. Even if Egypt has turned a blind eye, and temporarily accepted some of the Israeli excuses that some Arab countries are still in a state of war with Israel, this situation will not continue for a long time… Egypt can never forget this matter, otherwise the situation in the region will get out of control, and we will not manage to achieve balance in the region… The Arab situation in the Middle East is an exceptional situation, which does not exist in any region in the world: A single power has exclusivity in this weapon. Even if there is Egyptian-American cooperation in maneuvers, or in direct supply of weapons to the Egyptian military, this is not enough - unless the U.S. gives us the actual nuclear weapons." [It should be noted that "Egyptian military sources" reported to the Al-Ahram Weekly that the joint U.S.-Egyptian Bright Star military maneuvers in October 1999 were slated to include "nuclear, biological, and chemical training." [32] ]

"It is not possible to rely on the claim that a nuclear balance has already been achieved in practical terms because the region has more than one nuclear power… Where is that power? Does it agree to use its weapons on Egypt’s behalf? When Pakistan exploded its nuclear bomb, it was thought in the region that it was an Islamic bomb, but Pakistan declared that it had no intention of exporting nuclear technology to countries in the region…"

"Egypt is not lacking the means to catch up with Israel in this area. Had the Arabs cooperated with Egypt in the Arab Industrialization Authority during the boycott, Egypt would not have tremendous power in the weapons industry and [weapons] export." [33]

In contrast, another Egyptian chief of staff, Abd Al-‘Ghani Al-Gamasi, maintained that Egypt did not necessarily need nuclear capability to achieve balance with Israel. Al-Gamasi, and Maj.-Gen. ‘Esma Ezz, declared that Arab states can, through a number of phased stages, achieve the necessary degree of balance with Israel. This can be achieved without waiting for the production of any nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, but simply by acquiring missile systems with traditional warheads." [34]

Part Three: The Nuclear Lobby, Con't

*The Journalists

Supporters for the nuclear option are also found among journalists for Egypt's government press. Following India's and Pakistan's nuclear tests, Salameh Ahmad Salameh, columnist for the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, wrote: "…The latest developments compel the entire Arab region to reconsider the collective nonchalance that has dominated our approach to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We can no longer afford to be negative on this matter: We must take more decisive and daring positions. Calling for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East is no longer enough." [35]

Makram Muhammad Ahmad, editor-in-chief of the government weekly Al-Musawwar, inserted the following into his article about preparations for the war on Iraq: "In all honesty, it is every Egyptian's right to ask his government now why it keeps its commitment to the NPT - especially because Cairo's and all the Arab capitals' signing of this treaty was part of a comprehensive agreement, in the framework of which the U.S. made a commitment to oblige Israel to sign the same treaty. Unfortunately, since the last two Arab countries - Oman and Djibouti - signed the treaty in 1995, Washington has turned its back on all its previous commitments, which many Arab capitals saw as deception… What increases suspicion regarding Washington's intentions is that it exploited the last Iraqi crisis in order to deliberately and without warning omit from the preamble to Resolution 1441… a clause… stressing that Iraq's disarmament from weapons of mass destruction should be part of an integrative process aimed at the WMD disarmament of the Middle East… Additionally, there is the American insistence, recently intensified, that Egypt sign the ban on proliferation of biological and chemical weapons, something that Cairo rejected out of the principled position that there must be biological deterrence in the face of Israel's nuclear weapons." The London Arabic-language daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, which quoted this article, wrote, "The two most prominent individuals who can be relied upon to know the position of [Egypt's] president on critical political issues are [Al-Ahram editor] Ibrahim Nafi' and our friend Makram Muhammad Ahmad." [36]

In an editorial, Al-Ahram wrote: "If Israel does not join the NPT, and if it is not subject to inspection… it will influence a trend in all the countries of the region to obtain nuclear weapons, so as to actualize the balance of fear in order to prevent Israel from using nuclear weapons… Nuclear weapons are evil; but India's and Pakistan's experience proves that if countries in any region have this evil weapon, a balance of fear is formed, which leads to peace." [37]

Muhammad Mustafa Al-'Arafi explained, also in Al-Ahram, that "the anarchy in the area of [nuclear] technology that followed the collapse of the U.S.S.R. allowed some more regional powers to obtain weapons of nuclear deterrence - which may reflect negatively on Egypt's regional status." Al-'Arafi proposed developing nuclear capability without actually producing nuclear weapons, until it became necessary. [38]

Worthy of note is the view of the well-known journalist Wahid Abd Al-Magid, who does not belong to the nuclear lobby but who wrote in 1995, in the Al-Siyassa Al-Dawaliya quarterly published by the Al-Ahram Institute, that "even if we suppose that Iran can develop nuclear heads, this will represent threat to the Arabs before it does to Israel." [39]

*The Religious Establishment

Leading elements in Egypt's religious establishment expressed clear support for developing Arab/Islamic nuclear weapons, based on Koranic verses that they claim permit and even require doing so. The first to support Arab nuclear weapons was Sheikh of Al-Azhar Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, in the opening speech he was invited to deliver at a conference on the future of nuclear strategy, held at the University of Asyut in October 1999, with the participation of nuclear scientists from various Arab countries. Sheikh Tantawi explained, "Islam calls for strength, but for logical and just strength that stands by the oppressed until he completely vanquishes the oppressor, because this strength is one of the traits of Allah and one of the traits of divine inspiration."

Quoting from the will of Caliph Abu Bakr - which is usually used for defending a considerate approach towards civilian life, as the Caliph called for avoiding harming non-combatants in time of war - Sheikh Tantawi said that the Caliph had instructed the Muslim commander Khaled ibn Al-Walid to fight the enemy with the sword if the enemy fought him with the sword and to use the spears if the enemy fought him with the spear. Sheikh Tantawi explained: "Had Abu Bakr lived today he would have said to Khaled ibn Al-Walid: If they fight you with a nuclear bomb, fight them with a nuclear bomb. Strength is [one] of the traits of good and wise people who know their obligation towards their God and towards their homeland, and they use this strength in order to defend their faith and their homeland. This is the Sunna that was known to the forefathers of all times, and is known to us as well."

"We must keep up with other peoples in their progress and in their scientific superiority. In Egypt and in the Arab and Islamic countries, we have many scientists. Talking of the nuclear option and of disarmament from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East does not prevent us from getting ready and advancing in all kinds of science, in order to serve truth and morality… Our demand that Israel join the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty does not prevent us from learning and advancing in science until we surpass it and until we act in accordance with Abu Bakr's words to Khaled ibn Al-Walid: 'Fight them with that with which they fight you.' Islam welcomes any force that serves truth and religious precepts and defends the honor of men. Islamic religious law states that every despotic and aggressive power must be eradicated. It should be fought, whatever its strength, and life is decreed by Allah. If Israel has nuclear weapons, then it is the first to be doomed, because it lives in a world that does not fear death. Israel's nuclear weapons do not frighten us; what does frighten us is [the possibility] that we will not wake up and not advance. Welcome the use of nuclear energy for purposes of peace!" [40]

Recently, Al-Azhar University's support for developing nuclear weapons made headlines. The support followed the posting of a fatwa, issued by the Al-Azhar Religious Ruling Committee, on the Islam Online website. The ruling stated that developing nuclear weapons was a "religious obligation." [41] Al-Azhar Religious Ruling Committee head Sheikh 'Ali Abu Al-Hassan explained to the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai Al-'Aam: "… The Muslims must obtain all kinds of weapons, not only nuclear weapons. I refer to arming [ourselves] with might, in accordance with the words of Allah, 'Make ready for them whatever you can of armed strength and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may daunt the enemy of Allah and your enemy...'"

"Current international circumstances confirm the need for this fatwa, primarily at a time when Israel and all the enemies of the Islamic nation have this weapon. The Islamic nation's nuclear weapon must be used for self-defense, and for demonstrating power, so that none will [develop] covetous aspirations about the nation. What is happening to the Muslims in all countries of the world is the result of weakness, and if the Muslims obtain this weapon, no one will conspire against them… When North Korea's defense minister threatened to attack America with nuclear weapons, fear was evident on the faces of America's rulers, and they began to negotiate with the Koreans. Obtaining nuclear weapons is a religious obligation, and anyone who gives up on [obtaining] this weapon is a sinner, according to religious law. Preparation in the face of the enemies, and employing all possible means to defend land and honor, should be considered a religious obligation."

"There is consensus among the clerics that any Muslim ruler who does not prepare, does not strengthen himself, and does not fortify himself against his enemy is a sinner. Islam calls for obtaining means of strength, not for aggression but for self-defense. The world and relations between countries are governed today by the logic of power, not by law or morality… Just as it is the Muslims' obligation to obtain their means of strength, the most important of which is nuclear weapons, they are obligated to use this weapon if the others use their weapon. Israel is aiming its nuclear missiles at the Arab capitals, and this arouses fear in the souls of the people. This is the reason for the weakness of the Islamic nation and for the aggression it faces. It would not happen if the Muslims armed themselves with every weapon, including nuclear."

Sheikh Abu Al-Hassan objected to the argument that some weapons are legitimate and others are not, saying, "There are nuclear, chemical, and other weapons in the hands of those who produced them. Are [these weapons] permitted to them and forbidden to us?! The international laws legislated to restrict these weapons are implemented only for the weak countries; in contrast, the strong and large countries - this law does not apply to them." [42]

Sheikh Abu Al-Hassan also said, "If a weapon appeared in the hands of one of the nations of the world, whether it was a friendly nation or a hostile nation, the Muslims must obtain this weapon, or a more powerful weapon, and the clerics are in consensus about this." [43]

Egyptian sheikh Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader now residing in Qatar whose rulings are extremely popular in Egypt and across the Sunni Arab world, was in favor of obtaining nuclear weapons. In a Friday sermon broadcast on Qatari television, Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi said: "I say that the Muslims must obtain this [nuclear] weapon but not use it. We must obtain this weapon, but it is forbidden to use it, because it serves as deterrence and threat, [as the Koran says] 'whereby you may daunt with it the enemy of Allah and your enemy.' This is what is called armed peace - when you have [means] of deterring and frightening the enemy, and then your enemy has no way of waging aggression against you." [44]

The Islam Online website, which discussed the nuclear issue at length, also posted statements by Islamic clerics opposed to Islamic nuclear arming, under the headline "Islam's Clerics Oppose the Use of Nuclear Weapons." However, a close reading shows that these "clerics" are actually two Muslim leaders in the U.S. Dr. Muzammil Saddiqi, former head of the Islamic Society of North America, said: "Islam has not defined for us the type of weapon we must use, whether it is the sword or the cannon. But it is opposed to the use of weapons of mass destruction, because Islam teaches us that even in war we are forbidden from attacking civilians and peaceful people who do not fight against the Muslims. According to the precepts of Islam, we are forbidden from attacking animals or killing them, from destroying crops, and from harming water sources, because Allah punishes those who spread corruption on the face of the earth, those who destroy the vegetation and the seed of man. It is important that we remember that it was not the Muslims who invented weapons of mass destruction, and it was not they who presented the world with these bombs. There are today no fewer than 50,000 atom bombs in the world, and all of them are in the hands of non-Muslims." [45]

Taha Jaber al-Alwani, chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, added: "It is a fact that Islam sees all people as a single family: Their God is one and they are of the seed of one father and one mother. Therefore, when a quarrel between the members of one family becomes apparent, everyone must lend a hand to finding the best way of settling this quarrel. Weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical, and other weapons - must not be used against the members of this single family, because by nature this weapon is unable to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent." [46]

However, the opposition to the view of Al-Azhar and Sheikh Qaradhawi remained within the U.S. Even Sheikh Yousuf Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Fiqh Council, said, "If the enemy uses this type of weapon and causes harm to many noncombatant Muslims, we are allowed to treat him identically, until he stops using these means. Identical treatment is a principle that is legitimate in all international norms and laws." [47]

* Y. Feldner is the Director of the MEMRI TV Project.