The most contentious issue is the dominance of Shari’a. The pre-1971 constitutions did not mention Shari’a, which was inserted by Sadat to appease the Islamists led by the Muslim Brotherhood (MB.) Though a dominant part of the constitution, it lay dormant and almost defanged until the ouster of Mubarak.
The January 25, 2011 revolution has reshaped the Egyptian scene in all aspects of life. The MB subterranean tunneling, aiming at Islamizing Egypt and turning it into an Islamic theocracy, was very deliberate and was bound to surface. History will attest to the success of the MB in fulfilling all their aspirations. Thankfully, and for Egypt’s salvation, they overplayed their hand and grabbed power with impunity, thus revealing their true color. The year in power under Morsi opened the eyes of most Egyptians to the intended plunge into a dark pit.
The ouster of Morsi and his cronies on June 30 was the will of the people. It is absurd to call it a military coup. In contrast to the 1952 revolution, which was indeed a military coup, this last shakeup was by the people, for the people inviting the police force and the armed forces to carry out the will of the people against the MB usurper, which was heavily funded and armed from outside the country.
As the people go to the polls to give their blessing on the ‘new’ constitution they need to understand what the Shari’a clause is about. Firstly, according to Islam Shari’a is the law of Allah, which supersedes all laws made by man and cannot be countermanded. It is an all or none situation. Thus there is no gainsaying it. Even though it is the law of God it is dated and thus open to interpretation but not modification. Interpretation is by humans and is in the eye of the beholder. Al-Azhar is detailed to undertake this ominous task. Many of the elevated clerics of Al-Azhar are appointees of the government and like it or not can be swayed one direction or the other at the behest of the rulers. All Islamic absolutists globally refute a change of one iota of this document. Therefore we may face an impasse.
Secondly, in the second article the word ‘main’ (source of legislation) is inadequate. It is a quantification without definition. ‘Main’ implies most, but most importantly, the issues not under the purview of Sharia are not defined clearly enough. For example the hereditary laws where the portion of the male is twice that of the female is equally applicable to all Egyptians be they Muslims or Christians. This and other examples leave a wide gap, a loophole, which gives Shari’a total power over the jurisdiction of the land. In that I find that deleting article 219 does not limit the total dominance of Sharia.
I agree that ‘mainly’ this version of the constitution is an improvement of the 2012 document. I have consistently disagreed with hurrying up this process with the provision that it could be amended at a later date. To me this is sweeping the dust under the rug and not getting rid of the dust once and for all. In my opinion the post-July 3 rulers are playing fast and loose with the roadmap and the euphoria dousing the people will wear off soon. This may lead to another autocracy and the Egyptians may as well kiss goodbye to a civilian democracy.
___________________________
Saba E. Demian, M.D.