The situation in Egypt, after the fall of the dictator has featured a battle between three factions.
The first faction are the old guard from the Mubarak era constituted of the judiciary and members of the military-industrial complex who receive American financial ‘aid’ (bribes).
The second faction are the Liberals and Secularist Egyptians who wish to see a government and law that does not implement one particular ‘religion’ or philosophy – but hiding the fact that they would not really be neutral, and would actually implement the Western ideology of Liberalism, with its philosophic basis of Secular Humanism. This faction is also supported by Egyptian Coptic Christians, who mistakenly believe that a religious based government would oppress them (which should be corrected with better education on the Sharia – for ALL Egyptians, Muslims included).
The third faction are those working for Islamic law and government (pejoratively called ‘Islamists’). These include the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi Al-Noor party.
At first, the (pro-western) Old Guard tried to recreate the same system as like under Mubarak – the Mubarak-appointed Judiciary supported the Military Council (SCAF) to issue decrees granting SCAF the lions share of power, and limiting the role of the new president (who they feared would be an ‘Islamist’); they promoted the pro-Mubarak Shafiq (allowing him to enter the election), and dissolved the popularly ELECTED Shura Council (which consisted of a large majority of Pro-Islamic law politicians – indicating to world what is the people’s choice).
However, when Mursi (formerly from the Muslim Brotherhood) won the election as President, he succeeded in beating Shafiq. In order to continue with the revolution, and freeing the Egyptian people, he succeeded in firing key old guard members of the Military, re-constituting the Shura Council, annulling the SCAF decrees, and making himself temporarily above the authority of the old guard judiciary, to prevent them from eliminating him or blocking his work.
Since the previous Constitution was suspended by the revolution. A new constitutional council was set up to draft a new constitution. The Constitutional council was appointed by election from the Shura Council – which naturally meant that they would consist of more pro-Islamic law politicians, than secularists, liberals and copts.
Mursi suspected that Old Guard judiciary agree with the Secularists that they do not desire to see a constitution more inclined towards Islam – so Mursi quickly rushed through the agreements on a constitution (before the judiciary could dissolve the Constitutional Committee). The constitution is important, as it would act to create an environment that would further the Islamic cause to re-implement the Sharia in Egypt, as well as limit the power of judiciary themselves (who can only judge by the constitution).
However, the Secularist and Liberal faction were unsettled by this, and have tried to organise protests in the tens of thousands to oppose Mursi’s temporary claiming of immunity from the judiciary, and the implementation of the Sharia and Islam in Egypt via the changed constitution.
This exposes the hypocrisy of Secularists and Liberals, who only really like democracy when it suits them, but if it doesn’t support them, then, as the Mohammed ElBaradei says that the “struggle will continue” DESPITE THE REFERENDUM and that the draft constitution “undermines basic freedoms.” (i.e. the constitution is not according to Liberalism). This shows that he would reject it despite what the public may want. So much for supporting Democracy eh?
The Secularists and their allies (the Copts) have tried to delegitimise the new proposed constitution by getting their members of the Constitutional drafting committee to walk out of the committee sessions (yes, all 11 of them – out of total 100). However, these were quickly replaced by pro-Islamic politicians, and the constitution was agreed. The constitution will then go to popular referendum, and Egypt can finally attain some stability and more importantly, make an important step on the road to its true independence from foreign powers, AND foreign ideologies.
The constitution will probably not be the full implementation of the Sharia, nor would an Islamic state be established. However, it represents a significant step forward on the path to one. Although there is some problems with the Muslim Brotherhood’s gradualist methodology to implementing Islam (See Iran for why), we should all hope that with the work of further campaigning and Islamic activism (dawah), this is where the destination lies.
However, we should not be sad that the Secularists walked out of the constitution committee. They naturally belong outside it. A Secularist reading this may say “but a constitution must represent the differing ideas and perspectives of the people”. However, let me ask you this: When the founding fathers of America were drafting the American constitution based upon ‘Freedom’ and ‘no establishment of Church and State’, did they invite Americans who DID NOT believe in the separation of Church and State to have their views represented on the document? Did France invite Monarchists and Papists to have their views represented in the constitution after the French Revolution?
The answer is NO. You see, an ideological constitution is based on either one ideology/way of life, or another. A Liberal constitution WILL NOT TOLERATE a article in itself that is not Liberal. Likewise an Islamic constitution cannot contain an article inside itself that is not derived from Islam, or contradictory to Islam.
A constitution cannot be a slave to two masters. We Muslims cannot be a slave to two masters. It is time we demonstrated to the world, who we serve. Is it the Liberal philosophers of Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Mill, Bentham, Popper, Rawls etc, or the one who created them, and sent us the guidance of Islam?
The Western nations always interfere and insist that after the revolutions in a Muslim country, the people must make their constitutions ‘representative’ of the beliefs and ideas of all the people who reside in those countries. But do we see Western legislators invite communists, Christian Dominionists (theocracts), anarchists, anti-gay campaigners, fascists or nihilists to make amendments to their constitutions to have laws that represent their beliefs, despite the fact that these people exist in Western countries, in sizeable minorities?
The answer is No.
So how can they now tell the Muslim populations of Muslim countries who want Islam, and an Islamic constitution, to invite people who hold ideas incompatible with Islamic government, to be represented on the constitutional committee?
Our answer should be clear to them – followed by directions to the door.
May God hasten Egypt to an Islamic future, of internal peace, justice, equity, war against oppressors, and the re-establishment of Caliphate (Khilafah).
To any Secularists and Liberals reading this, if you want freedom, then it is only submitting to the law of God, that we can become truly Free.
‘Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet…(who) COMMANDS them the good and FORBIDS them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their BURDEN and the SHACKLES which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful’. [Quran 7:157}