http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/1005/op2.htm
1 - 7 July 2010 Issue No. 1005 Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 Democracy, religion and the state Once again, the blurred grounds between spiritual and worldly authority in Egypt has come into focus, writes Abdel-Moneim Said -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can a country fully democratise without resolving the question of the relationship between religion and the state? This is not an issue of whether people should or should not be religious. Personal faith and the right to practise it are beyond question. Moreover, in a country like Egypt, where religion is as old and deep as history, religion is the backbone of popular culture. However, religion and the state is another matter entirely. That is the nexus that establishes the relationship between the public and the private sphere, between secular and religious authorities and, hence, between civil legislation and ecclesiastic decree. One can only be constantly amazed at how often democracy advocates and aspirants find a way to skirt around this crucial issue, even at those moments when democratic and theocratic principles clash most glaringly. One such instance occurred last week, during an interview on ON TV's "Manchette" programme with Suad Saleh, professor of comparative jurisprudence and member of the International Federation of Muslim Ulemas. Aired on Sunday 20 June, the interview stirred intense debate on the question of the relationship between religion and the state. Interestingly, this controversial interview occurred the day after Saleh joined the liberal Wafd Party because of the civilised way it held its internal elections and because, according to her, it was the only party that could serve as a platform -- through its religious and women's affairs committee -- for her to reach out to and speak for the "downtrodden" Egyptian people. More remarkably yet, the interview occurred only five days after a speech she delivered during a seminar organised by the International League of Al-Azhar Graduates, in which she said that a woman had the right to become president now that the age of the caliphate was over. But apparently her newfound liberalism only stretches so far. When the interviewer, Gaber Al-Qarmouti, asked her whether the same right should be extended to Christians she responded with a categorical "No". "God will never give unbelievers a way [to gain mastery] over believers," she said, quoting the Quran (Surat Al-Nesaa: 101). She continued: "Muslims must have authority over unbelievers, not the reverse. This is why God permitted Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women and not non-Muslim men to marry Muslim women. Just as the man has authority over the woman in marriage, so too should the superior religion prevail over the inferior one." Naturally, the next question was whether this was not inconsistent with the principles of the secularist Wafd Party, which subscribes to the concept of equality between all citizens, regardless of whether they are Muslim or Christian, or male or female. The Al-Azhar scholar responded that although the party was secularist in its orientation, it was not a heretic party. It did not deny the existence of God and the fact that there is only one God and that Mohamed is His prophet. The Wafd Party newspaper also featured serious religious articles, she said. She went on to liken her position to that of Pope Shenouda, Patriarch of the See of St Mark, who rejected the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling obliging the church to issue marriage permits to divorcees. Just as the pope defended his refusal on the basis of biblical strictures, she adhered to the strictures of her religion, such as the one set down in the Quranic verse cited above. Saleh's remarks triggered an outpouring of diverse responses on the programme and elsewhere in the media. In general, reactions against her position fell into three main trends. One body of opinion rested its case on the first article of the constitution, which states: "The Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic state founded upon the concept of citizenship. The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work towards the realisation of its comprehensive unity." According to the constitutionally enshrined principle of equal citizenship -- advocates of this trend argued -- any citizen, whether Christian or Muslim, or man or woman, has the right to become president. Other commentators went further to suggest that the main reason why this type of controversy keeps surfacing from time to time resides in Article 2 of the constitution that states, "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. Islamic jurisprudence is the principle source of legislation." The solution they propose is to abolish this article. This, they argue, would have positive repercussions on the public sphere, at least insofar as it would curtail the further re-emergence of crises centring on the relationship between religion and the state. The separation of religion from civil authorities would mean, above all, that the presidency would be open to the person most qualified for that position, regardless of that individual's religion or gender. The third trend was to hone in on Saleh's classification of Christians as heretics. Proponents of this trend hold that no one who believes in one God should be branded a heretic and that the Quranic verse she cited should be interpreted in this light. Accordingly, all Egyptian citizens would have the right to stand for any public office in application of the constitutionally enshrined principle of equal citizenship. Of particular interest, here, are the divergent reactions within the Wafd Party itself towards the ideas aired by Saleh. One camp lashed out at her views and insisted that she draw a line between her religious outlook and the political outlook of the party she had just joined. Since it was established, the Wafd Party had always subscribed to the principle of equal citizenship between Muslims and Christians and men and women, especially on the question of eligibility for high office. The other camp attempted to play down the implications of Saleh's remarks. Members of this camp held that the substance of her interview was not political but rather religious and connected with her field of expertise. Therefore, there was no conflict with the party's principles and general outlook, which prevail over the individual opinions of its members. At the same time, they added, such diversity of opinion gives the party a special gleam of vitality. But reactions to the Saleh interview did not stop there. Another set of comments focussed not so much on the substance of her remarks as on their impact on the political climate that has just entered an electoral season that began with the mid-term Shura Council elections at the beginning of this month. On the one hand, there are those who reproached the new Wafd Party member for her imprudence. She should have avoided falling into the trap of speaking about such sensitive subjects and in a manner that contradicted the core principles of the party she had just joined. Some went further to accuse her of staging a publicity stunt. Others pointed their fingers at the habit some media outlets have of sensationalising such sensitive issues and, wittingly or not, feeding the extremist ideas of certain groups that don a liberal façade. Meanwhile, others have spoken of taking legal action against Saleh on the charge of stirring sectarian strife that would threaten national unity. Many representatives of religious institutions and political forces also entered the fray. A Muslim Brotherhood member who is currently serving in the People's Assembly stepped forward to state that there should be nothing to prevent a Christian from becoming president since that office is concerned with secular affairs. He grounded his opinion in the following Quranic verse (Surat Younis: 99) : "If thy Lord had so willed, all on earth would have believed, together; So would you then constrain people until they become believers?" Saleh had this to say to her critics. She was in no position to judge whether or not a person was a believer. At the same time, she would never have joined a party that opposed her religious beliefs. So as far as she is concerned, the matter is closed and she continues to subscribe to the opinions she aired. But the matter is not closed as far as Egypt is concerned. The controversy and the central ambiguity in our political system remains standing. More importantly, as far as we are concerned, this matter puts democratic forces before a crucial test. Their challenge is to apply considerable thought and sensitivity not into the question of equal citizenship, which is a prerequisite for any democracy, but to the handling of religious texts in a manner that, on the one hand, reaffirms their spirit of magnanimity and tolerance, and on the other affirms the demands and circumstances of the times.
