I do not address this discussion to the miserable committee charged with the formation of Egypt’s new constitution, though it is deserving of the title of “committee of the wretched,” as the historic Nation’s Leader Saad Zaghloul gave this very title to the 1923 constitution committee, because it gave King Fouad, the king of Egypt at the time, more power than he was entitled to, even though it took upon itself the establishment of constitutional principles and democratic structure. The so-called 2012 constitutional committee is illegitimate in form and essence.
This committee was appointed by a parliament that is now dissolved by a constitutional court decree, the invalidation of which consequently invalidates said committee.
It is an illegitimate committee because most of its members cannot be expected to do an honest job; those who are flagrant enemies of the constitution, whose final aim is the revival of the Islamic caliphate, who refuse to stand up for the national anthem, who deny women their right to be represented in this committee, except for 7 women, half of whom belong to the Muslim Brotherhood; a committee who despises Egypt’s history and recognizes only one era thereof, giving no credit to the eras that preceded or followed.
Egypt’s history did not begin by the Arab Conquest in 641 AD, nor does it end there. Egypt existed 4,000 years before, where it was a centralized, stable and unified state, a vast empire that was the cradle of civilization and divine messages.
This is a committee that wages war on the civil state, because their narrow-minded views were imported from Bedouin communities, involve hostility to modern civil states, where an individual is a citizen rather than a subject, and the ruler is chosen by votes rather than imposes himself by a sword or a holy book.
Even worse are those who propose a civil state with an Islamic reference; a term which will put the leader, who is supposed to be there by the will of his people in the place of a custodian, or a divine delegate, whose job is to ensure that the Islamic Sharia is observed in every aspect of our lives.
What about other references—like our Pharaonic, Christian, and modern European references? Should we just ignore all this and go back to the age of the Mamluks, where we were being oppressed, terrorized, and flagellated in the name of Islam?!
There is also the fact that those pro-sharia team members are divided among themselves as to the wording of Sharia rule provision within the constitution; there are those who want to maintain what came in 1971 constitution providing that “the principles of Sharia are the main source of legislation,” while the hardliners want to change it to be “the provisions of Sharia,” a difference that has not yet been settled, given that the principles of Sharia are permanent, while its provisions are, in fact, variable.
Notwithstanding, this Sharia article has no place in the constitution, because it contradicts its provision that the state is the source of authorities; it is the state’s role to elect leaders, enact laws and enforce them. If the role of the state has been replaced by Sharia, this means the demolition of the democratic structure—for then Sharia will become the constitution; and this is exactly the theocratic state that Muslim Brothers and Salafists seek to establish, even if they deny it.
Translated by CS; originally published by Al Ahram, 7/10/2012