← Back to In Support of the Sharia
This content has been automatically translated. View original in Arabic
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah
From the call to apply Sharia, the next topic is the oath to respect the positive constitution. In Egypt, for example, Article 42 of the Constitutional Declaration states: "Every member of the People's Assembly and the Shura Council shall, before commencing his duties, take the following oath before his Council: I swear by Allah the Almighty that I will faithfully preserve the integrity of the homeland and the republican system, that I will safeguard the interests of the people, and that I will respect the constitution and the law."
Of course, the last constitution is the 1971 constitution, which has undergone numerous amendments, and then the Constitutional Declaration and its appendices. Let us now look at some articles from the declaration in its latest form, which the Islamic MPs swore to respect.
Article 1: It states: "The Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic state based on citizenship." Therefore, the system is democratic and based on making legislation for the parliament, not for Allah. It is based on citizenship, so there is no consideration for religion in the rights and duties of ruling by the Sharia. Consequently, the constitution allows a Christian or an apostate to hold rule or judgment, despite the legal consensus on the impermissibility of that.
This blatant contradiction is confirmed again by Article 7, which states: "All citizens are equal before the law and enjoy equal public rights and duties without discrimination based on sex, origin, language, religion, or creed." No discrimination.
We will skip Article 2 and return to it later, and move on to Article 3. Article 3 states: "Sovereignty belongs to the people alone, who are the source of all authorities," meaning legislative, executive, and judicial authorities. This article confirms that sovereignty is not for the Sharia and submission is not to Allah, but the people are the ones who legislate for themselves and are independent in the right to legislate without Allah, the Almighty.
Article 33 states: "The People's Assembly shall, upon its election, assume legislative authority." Therefore, this is a fourth confirmation that the legislator is not the Lord of the people, glorified be He, but the people and those who represent them.
Brothers, these articles are the cornerstones of the democratic system, the pillars of the religion of democracy that contradicts the religion of Allah the Almighty, who says: {Or have they partners who have legislated for them of the religion that which Allah has not permitted} [Al-Shura: 21], and who says: {Then We have put you on a clear way of the command, so follow it and do not follow the desires of those who do not know} [Al-Jathiya: 18].
The rule of the people and the parliament is following the desires of humans who, if they are cut off from revelation, do not know. This is the constitution that the Islamic deputy swears to respect, meaning the implication of his oath: I swear by Allah the Almighty that I will respect making legislation for the people instead of Allah the Almighty. An oath by Allah to respect a religion other than the religion of Allah, an oath by Allah to respect associating humans with Allah in one of His attributes of divinity and lordship, which is legislation and the obligation to obey this legislation. This is the implication of the oath, but the Islamic parliamentarians have approved the Constitutional Declaration and agreed to it in this form, and Allah is the one sought for help.
And this demand for the oath is a strange contradiction in the religion of democracy, for it prevents the deputy from belonging to a religious party or raising a religious slogan in his campaign, then to ensure democracy's commitment to itself by the deputy, it makes him take a religious oath.
Someone may say: But Article 2 of the Egyptian constitution itself, as well as the Constitutional Declaration, states that "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language, and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation." We say, brothers: this article is dead, shackled, and cast aside. Why?
Let us first examine the text of the article clause by clause, separate from the constitution, then place it in the context of the Egyptian constitution to see if this article conforms to the religion of Allah the Almighty.
First, the text of the article: "The religion is Islam." If we file a complaint against him in the courts, can you convince them, even if they search this statement from his identity, that he cannot inherit because a disbeliever does not inherit a Muslim? No, you cannot. If he wants to marry a Muslim woman, will the state prevent him? The state will not prevent him. Why all of this? Because the religion of this man is officially Islam with the state. In fact, if you accuse him of disbelief and apostasy and file a defamation lawsuit against you, he may win the case. The state that insists that the religion of this man is officially Islam is the same state that writes in its constitution "Islam is the religion of the state." And the meaning of the word "religion" in the identity of this man is like its meaning in the constitution. Therefore, this clause carries no legislative or non-legislative importance.
The second part of the article: "And the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation." If we know that referring legislation to Allah is part of the oneness of Lordship and the oneness of divinity, as we have mentioned before, then the exact meaning of this article is: Allah is the main deity, or there is no main deity except Allah. This does not differ much from the logic of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic period, where they saw that Allah is the main deity but with other gods, seek refuge in Allah. Allah says: {That is because when Allah Alone is invoked, you disbelieve, and when partners are associated with Him, you believe. So the judgment is with the Most High, the Most Great.} [Ghafir: 12].
If called to the arbitration of Sharia alone, they refused and said that it is necessary to associate other sources with it. And if Allah alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter recoil, and if those other than Him are mentioned, they rejoice. This text "the main source" means that the principles of Sharia are presented along with other legislations before the legislative parliament that claims for itself an attribute of the attributes of Lordship and divinity. The parliament then selects from Sharia what it likes and rejects what it does not like, and selects from non-Sharia human laws what it sees as more appropriate than Sharia in some aspects. This is the association of other sources with Allah in legislation, and Allah is the richest of partners, and He is the one who says: {And let him not associate in the judgment with Him anyone.} [Al-Kahf: 26].
If someone says: Why does this phrase not carry the benefit of other sources in what the Sharia has not ruled on? They take from the rulings of Islamic Sharia within other legislations, so does that make their ruling Islamic? This was regarding the phrase "the main source of legislation."
Is the matter ended at this point? No, but delving deeper into misguidance, the article says: "The principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation." What are the principles of Sharia according to them? Justice, mercy, generosity, tolerance, progress, advancement, civilization, preservation of life and property. These are also the principles declared by Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Baha'i, Qadianism, socialism, and communism. A vague text that neither fattens nor satisfies hunger. And when the text was proposed to be changed to "the rulings of Islamic Sharia," some strict Islamists objected to leaving matters vague and fluid, and it is the same faction that said: "We only seek to apply the principles of Sharia that do not exceed the fingers of one hand."
Therefore, in this article: "Islam is the religion of the state and the Arabic language is its official language and the principles of Islamic Sharia are the main source of legislation," the word "religion" has no meaning or effect, nor does the word "principles" have any meaning or effect, nor does the phrase "the main source of legislation" mean the exclusivity of Allah with the right of legislation. Therefore, we have shown that the makers of the constitution have woven the second article in its three parts to prevent the application of Sharia and to remain mere decoration of speech that throws dust in the eyes and laughs at the jaws.
Someone will say: You have missed a very important fact, what is it? That the Supreme Constitutional Court issued a decision that gives this article its importance so that if the Islamists exploit it well, it will Islamize the constitution and the law in fact. What is this decision? This decision is: "It is not permissible for a legislative text to contradict the definitive legislative rulings in their establishment and meaning."
I say, my brothers: We have not missed that, but this decision has no value at all. Why? This is what we will know in the next episode, God willing, when we put the second article in the context of the Egyptian constitution to see that this article is not suitable for a drowning man to hold onto, and to see the extent of the negligence or negligence that has affected Islamic parliamentary work.
Conclusion of the episode: The text of the second article of the Egyptian constitution is vague and includes the association of humans in legislation with Allah.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah.