Article 2 of Egypts new constitution

In response to both sentences, what do you make of the inclusion of this:

"The followers of Christianity and Judaism have the right to be apply their own laws when it comes to personal affairs, religious practice, and the selection of their spiritual leaders"

...?

"personal affairs, religious practice" are political rights. Limited, but rights none the less. In time, it will undoubtedly expand. Its early days.

 

Using YOUR source

The 1961 law that reorganized al-Azhar not only expanded the institution
but also brought it more firmly under control of the executive branch of the
Egyptian state.....

But in 1961, all bashfulness was banished. In that year, the Senior Ulama
Body was replaced by a council of senior al-Azhar officials, including deans of
the newly created secular faculties. Some government officials were also added
to that council. The degree of government financial and administrative oversight
was stepped up, and appointment of the shaykh was placed in the hands
of the president of the republic.
The 1961 law was the most ambitious attempt by Egypt’s post-1952 rulers
to bring al-Azhar under their control, but there were two other aspects of
al-Azhar governance that more subtly undermined the institution’s position.
First, religious endowments were more fully brought under the control of the
Ministry of Religious Affairs (a process that began in the nineteenth century
but that the Nasserist regime picked up with vigor). This step had the effect of
undermining the fiscal independence of al-Azhar because it no longer had control
over funds that had been specifically designated to support its activities.

Thats why you are reduced to informing us that I have gotten my ass kicked by you. al-Azhar, A government institution that was under the control of a secular Mubarek, will become a government institution that will be under the control of the MB.

Motto of the Muslim Brotherhood

- Allah is our objective.
- The Prophet is our leader.
- Qur'an is our law.
- Jihad is our way.
- Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

 

Did you read Mayerling's post?

I make "status quo" out of its inclusion, not a shift towards anything more plural.

Not necessarily.

What we're looking at here are the limited personal and religious rights that religious minorities/dhimmis have, for the most part, always been permitted to exercise in Islamic/Sharia states. They don't necessarily translate to the political rights that they have been denied in those states.

Status quo, none the less.

In light of the fact that Islamists, including a significant number of Salafists, now dominate the Egyptian government and the new constitution specifies that the principles of Sharia will be the primary source of legislation/law, there's plenty of room to doubt what your crystal ball is telling you, especially for the foreseeable future. Right now, Egypt is moving away from secular pluralism, not towards it...

 

Source? I wasn't aware the three players, the Junta, Mursi and the Supreme court had agreed on who was going to write it yet or what proportion of the electorate had to approve it for it to come into force.

 

This thread is the only place google finds the text quoted as part of the new constitution.

 

Your cherry picking of sources is so constant and so biased, you would have made a good bureaucrat in Soviet Russia. It amazes me how much you can delude yourself. Reading the whole thing you will also see that:

Al-azhar and its various institutions "were given more autonomy under Mubarak's regime. Under Jad al-Haq, the sheikh of al-Azhar from 1982 until his death in 1994, al-Azhar asserted its independence from the state, at times criticizing policies of the state for instigating extremist Islamist sects. Al-Haq argued that if the government wished al-Azhar to effectively combat groups such as al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya then al-Azhar must be permitted greater independence from the state and for it to be allowed to make religious declarations without interference.[83] Under Mubarak, a number of powers of the state were ceded to al-Azhar."

Because you have. That's a fact, not a 'reduction' on anything.

Wrong. It was never a government institution - it was simply encroached upon by the government at varying degrees at different times. The study I gave you shows new leadership will most likely continue most recent trends of restoring its independence. By resorting it, that means it was once independent - thus not a government institution, as you claim.

This supports my point.

 

Cute. YOU cherry picked the source

 

Yes- a few not many. You may find this site interesting egy.com

 

Egyptian law as it stands now follows more or less French law in everything except personal status issues ( marriage, divorce, inheritance, child custody) which is based on sharia law for Muslims. Other religions have their own courts and laws covering this.

There is no special tax paid by non muslims btw and Christians do serve in the military and have been ministers. Are they in the majority in these institutions? No. Jews also held high office, served as ministers, as senators, and I believe one was a Prime Minister under the King.
The Constitution technically guarantees the same political freedom for all egyptians regardless of religious belief.

 

Well I have to. LOL You cant just pick any source to validate something - you need a specific link. haha such a retarded statement you've made once again.

 

Thanks for that Mayerling. You've been referred to repeatedly, obviously with great manipulation of the truth, as is to be expected with much of this lot.

 

That would be you. Accusing me of cherry picking a source, and then admitting you are the one who is cherry picking the source.

 

I dont see anything to indicate the few jews who were present before the revolution, still remain.

 

LOL No, I picked a relevant source to prove a claim. By source I mean an actual article or source of info. You on the pother hand manipulated information by using only parts of a source to give a false conclusion. The Ministry of Truth would be proud of you.

 

You havent proven any such thing. Its government funded. Its leaders are appointed by the government. It is a government institution.

 

LOLOLOL!!!! You are so full of it. This isnt from your cited link
http://carnegieendowment.org/files/al_azhar.pdf
Youve now switched to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_Mosque
and didnt think anyone would notice. Good god man dig DEEP for some remaining shred of integrity.

 

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night dude.

Funding does not equal control nor ownership.

But perhaps, not for much more.

LOL, no it isnt.

By your logic the private school I went to was a "government institution" because it head was approved by the government and received government aid.

 

LOL Mate, I never made a switch.

Indeed I thought everyone knew already. haha

No need its entirely intact. For someone who has manipulated information, asserted entirely false and unsubstantiated lies not to mention generally derailed discussion, coming from you this comment is just good for a laugh.

 

Delusional. You deny you made a switch in one sentence, then admit it in the next.

 

Like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night dude. LOL Absolutely retarded.

 

His argument here certainly is, I agree.

 

I dont know why anyone even bothers with them

 

Salafists battle for a religious state in Egypt

Thursday 12 Jul 2012

'Principles' of Sharia law must remain primary source of legislation: Egypt's Grand Imam



Ultraconservative Salafists have stepped up efforts aimed at imposing their radical brand of Islam on Egypt's new constitution. The two Salafist parties, El-Nour Party and Asala, have exploited their membership of the Constituent Assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution to battle hard to change the first three articles of 1971 constitution.


They were successful with the first article, but lost with the second and third articles under pressure of the prestigious and moderate Sunni Islam Al-Azhar institution and liberal forces.

On Article 1, the assembly’s Basic Components Committee approved the request of Salafists to add the word “consultative” (a literal translation of the Islamic word "shura") to the article. Mohamed Emara, an Islamist thinker and chairman of the committee, said the article now reads: “The Arab Republic of Egypt is democratic, consultative, constitutional and modernised; based on the separation of powers and the principle of citizenship.” It adds that, “Egypt is part of the Arab and Islamic nation, with strong ties to the African Continent.”

This differs from the text of the 1971 constitution where Article 1 states that "The Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic state based on citizenship. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab nation and work for the realisation of its comprehensive unity.”

The addition of the word “consultative” or (“shura"), said Emara, was proposed by the Salafist El-Nour Party because the word “shura” is contained in the Quran, the holy book of Muslims. “Shura means democratic in the sense that rulers should listen to representatives of the nation and always keep in consultation with them before deciding on major issues,” said Emara.

In 1980, in a bid to curry favour with Salafists and other Islamist conservative groups who fiercely objected to the signing of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, late President Anwar El-Sadat decided to create a “Shura Council” and change Article 2 of the constitution to state that “The principles of Islamic Sharia (code of laws) form the major source of legislation in Egypt.”

The Salafists’ battle to changing articles 2 and 3 of the 1971 constitution has been fierce. Salafists insisted on removing the word “principles” from Article 2 on the grounds that it gives reason for judges to circumvent implementing Islamic Sharia law. They also believe that Sharia law, not its principles, should be the main source of legislation to ensure that the hudood, or the ordinances of God — such stoning non-believes and amputating the hands of thieves — be applied. The imposition of hudood, according to most Islamist conservative forces, is a necessity so that Egypt does not become a secular state and that it is committed to implementing God’s laws.

Adel Afifi, chairman of the Salafist Asala (Fundamentalist) Party, said Salafists wanted the article to bluntly state that “Islamic Sharia is the major source of legislation in Egypt.” According to Afifi, “it would be haram (forbidden by Islam) to vote on a constitution stating that Egypt adopts the principles of Sharia."

The Salafist party used its members in the Constituent Assembly to insist that if the word "principles" is added, it should be followed by words stating that "legislators should refer to Islam’s four schools of jurisprudence at times of drafting laws.” The Salafist party attacked Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Ahmed Al-Tayeb, accusing him of adopting a negative position towards Sharia, stating he is not serious about applying “God’s laws.”

After much deliberation, Al-Tayeb, the highest authority on Sunni Islam, said the principles of Islamic Sharia must remain the major source of legislation in Egypt's new constitution. He added that Article 2 of the 1971 constitution must remain unchanged and that any laws that violate the principles of Sharia in Article 2 must be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC).

Joining forces, secular and liberal parties have insisted that the article remains unchanged to preserve the civil nature of the Egyptian state. Muslim Brotherhood members said they do not see a strong reason for changing Article 2 of the 1971 constitution.

The text of Article 2 now reads: “Islam is the religion of the state; Arabic is the official religion of the state; and principles of Islamic Sharia are the major source of legislation.” It also adds: “Al-Azhar is the major reference on interpreting the principles of Islamic Sharia and that non-Muslims, especially the followers of Christianity and Judaism, should refer to their religions on personal matters, religious affairs, and the selection of their religious leaders.”

On Article 3, it currently states: “Sovereignty is for the people alone and they are the source of authority. The people shall exercise and protect this sovereignty, and safeguard national unity in the manner specified in the Constitution.” The Salafists want to change one aspect. They want to remove the phrase “the people” in the second sentence and replace it with “God,” to be: “Sovereignty is for God and it is the source of authority.”

Secularists reject this as the foundation of a theocratic state. Sobhi Salah, a Muslim Brotherhood lawyer, said he does not see a necessity for changing Article 3 to satisfy the Salafists. “It is quite enough that Article 2 states that 'Islam is the official religion of the state' and this means that 'sovereignty is for God.'”

Wahid Abdel-Meguid, a liberal member of the assembly, begs to differ, insisting that, “Sovereignty for God means that we would have religious people to govern in the name of God.”

Abdel-Meguid indicated that the assembly’s five committees have gone a long way in drafting the new constitution of Egypt. “They would meet again on 15 July to complete their job and refer the initial draft of the constitution to the Constituent Assembly to be discussed in its meeting scheduled 18 July,” he said.

Abdel-Meguid indicated that the assembly includes five committees (Basic Components; Systems of Government; Rights and Liberties and Public Duties; Supervisory Agencies; and Proposals, Dialogue and Communication). “Each committee is entrusted with drafting a certain chapter of the constitution while reviewing proposals submitted to the Dialogue Committee,” he said.

Abdel-Meguid also explained that the Systems of Government Committee formed five sub-committees dealing with the new constitution’s chapters on executive authority, local administration, the legislative authority, the judicial authority, and national defence.

He added that most of the texts formulated by committees gained broad consensus from all political currents and there is much progress in writing the remaining texts of the new constitution. According to Abdel-Meguid, “Unlike what the media covered, the text on Article 2 gained sweeping consensus, with most members agreeing that Al-Azhar must remain the sole reference on Islamic Sharia.”

Abdel-Meguid indicated that the Supervisory Agencies Committee achieved great progress by underlining that several economic and political institutions must be independent of any official control in order not to be toys in the hands of changing governments. “These include the Central Bank of Egypt; the Central Auditing Agency; the National Council for Human Rights and Citizenship; the National Media Council; the National Commission on Fighting Corruption; and the Higher Election Commission.”

Abdel-Meguid also disclosed that the Proposals, Dialogue and Communication Committee made intensive contacts with several groups, such as the revolutionary youth movements, university students, professional syndicates and provincial governorates, to explore their views about the new constitution.

The meeting of the committees 15 July will come just two days before Cairo’s Administrative Court is scheduled to rule on appeals filed against the Constituent Assembly. If the court decides to invalidate the assembly, a new one would be formed, this time by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) in accordance with the 17 June addendum to the Constitutional Declaration. Several secular forces decided to boycott the assembly’s meetings until the court gives a final say on appeals.

Abdel Meguid concluded by indicating that a meeting of the assembly’s executive board would be held on Sunday to review reports prepared by the different committees on their progress in drafting articles of the new constitution.

He said the committee tasked with the wording of the constitution as a whole will be formed during the assembly’s meeting on Wednesday 18 July.

 

Thanks for that Abu. I was fearing yet another possibility of a Sharia-dominated world.

 

Thanks for that.