← 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, dear beloved.
Nothing changes the reality of the matter for two reasons. We will start with the less important one.
The first reason is that the Constitutional Court kept the concept of Sharia general and undefined, interpreting the Sharia rulings as representing the comprehensive principles and fixed foundations of Islamic Sharia that do not admit of interpretation or alteration.
So, note: "its comprehensive principles and fixed foundations that do not admit of interpretation." If we go back to the word "principles," which we explained its generality in the previous episode, as for the word "fixed," it is from "fixation," meaning it must be definitive. It is known that the secularists and modernists in Egypt have not ceased, with the support of the Egyptian Ministry of Culture, to attack the Prophet's Sunnah and deny its authenticity and validity, in order to conclude from that to leaving the rulings of the Quran without indication. And they know our principle: "If the people of desires argue with you with the Quran, then argue with them with the Sunnah."
We have the Quran and the Sunnah. When the court's decision says: "its fixed foundations," they exclude the Sunnah in the manner of the secularists and modernists. Then, when they say: "do not admit of interpretation," they exclude the Quran, which they interpret in a thousand interpretations far from the Sunnah.
And to add to the misplacement of Sharia, the court stated in its ruling that: "Therefore, it is correct to say that the ijtihad of one of the jurists is not more deserving of following than the ijtihad of another, and perhaps the weakest of opinions in terms of evidence is more suitable for the changing circumstances, even if it is contrary to the opinions on which work has been established for a long time." This text allows reliance on an abnormal opinion contrary to consensus. And when needed, they can of course refer to the opinions of the Shia, relying on what the constitutional advisor Abdul Razzaq Al-Sanhuri said in his book "Al-Wasit in Civil Law": "And the opinion of the Imamiya can be benefited from to a great extent." And the opinion of the Imamiya means the Shia.
After all this, is there a book approved by the Constitutional Court called "The Comprehensive Principles of Islamic Sharia and Its Fixed Foundations That Do Not Admit of Interpretation or Alteration"? Is there a book like this that we can refer to to know what these principles or foundations are? Of course, there is no such book, there is not. The matter is intended to remain vague and general.
It will be said: But it happened that benefit was derived from this decision when it was ruled in favor of employees of EgyptAir after they were dismissed for refusing to serve alcohol. And like other cases, I say to my brothers: Falsehood makes people cling to a false hope so that they remain deceived by it, lost in its alleys, instead of showing them its ugliness so that they despair of it and its alleys and seek the real way out.
Otherwise, what have the Islamist parliamentarians gained from this decision over the past years? Have they been able to Islamize the laws through it? Wasn't the decision present while the liquor stores and brothels were open wide by the force of law? And books are written and the media is filled with mockery of Allah and His Book and His Messenger? And the call is fought and the tunnels are filled on the people of Gaza and Muslim women are delivered to the church? Have the Islamists benefited from the decision of the Constitutional Court in stopping all of this? So why wasn't this article used to nullify these laws that contradict the law of Allah? So, the agreement of a Sharia ruling in an incident or two does not increase but is an exhaustion of the energies of the Islamists and a delusion to them of the existence of hope in the Islamization of reality through the positive constitution.
This was the first reason for our saying that the ruling or decision of the Constitutional Court never helps in the application of Sharia.
The second and more important reason is that the constitution and the Constitutional Court subject Sharia to human rulings. What is applied of the rulings of Sharia is not applied because it is the ruling of Allah, but because the constitution and its court, and then the parliament, have permitted this ruling to be applied. This is not Islamic at all, but it is the deification of humans by making them rulers over the Sharia of the Lord of humans, Glorified and Exalted be He, controlling this Sharia.
Article Two does not present, from the purely constitutional point of view, that it is the ruling of Allah or His Sharia which is irresistible and cannot be questioned, but it presents it as a choice and ruling of the people subject to acceptance, rejection, and amendment, because the authority of the people and the parliament is above the Sharia and ruling over it in the constitution. And it is the right of the parliament to amend it or abolish it at any time when the necessary majority for that is available according to the constitution. Therefore, it was not legislated as an act of worship to Allah and submission to His ruling or surrender to Him and His Sharia, but it was legislated because it agrees with the desire of the parliament and its ruling and choice. So, the constitution subjects Sharia to the whims of humans at all stages.
The constitution subjects Sharia to the whims of humans at all stages:
Article 189 of the 1971 Constitution states: "The President of the Republic and the People's Assembly may request the amendment of one or more articles of the Constitution." This, of course, includes Article Two. Similarly, Article 60 of the Constitutional Declaration suspends the application of the constitution with the approval of the people on it without the slightest obligation to agree with Sharia. Therefore, the constitution does not obligate the permanence of Article Two.
The Constitutional Court decided that the effect of Article Two is limited only to the laws issued after it, as for the old laws, Article Two has no effect on them.
Article Two does not have sovereignty over the rest of the constitution, its effect is limited to laws only and not to the other articles of the constitution. Rather, some of those called constitutional jurists stipulate the restriction of the article of Islamic Sharia with the rest of the constitutional articles contrary to Sharia. Al-Sanhuri said in his Wasit: "It is taken into consideration in adopting the rulings of Islamic jurisprudence the coordination between these rulings and the general principles on which civil legislation is based in its entirety, so it is not permissible to adopt a ruling in Islamic jurisprudence that contradicts one of these principles so that the civil legislation does not lose its consistency and harmony."
And the advisor Hamid Al-Jamal said: "And Article Two cannot be interpreted alone, separated from the other articles in the constitution, including those related to equality and non-discrimination among citizens." That is, if a ruling from the rulings of Allah contradicts a principle of the constitution such as the sovereignty of the people, civil and civic rights, the right of apostasy, and the guardianship of the disbeliever, etc., what is the solution? The solution is to reject the ruling of Allah and apply the ruling of the constitution, as it is not permissible for them to apply the ruling of Allah in this case. A great word that comes out of their mouths.
But they rule by applying the constitution and do not subject their evaluation to any Sharia standards. Therefore, their interpretation of Article Two, which the Islamist parliamentarians rejoiced in, this interpretation is subject to objection and the court may change its opinion and its members may change, and there is nothing that obliges the permanence of its decision as long as the court itself does not take Sharia as a reference, but subjects Sharia to the rules of the positive constitution.
The Second Article has no effect, authority, or sovereignty over the parliament in its process of issuing decisions, nor does it compel it to accept any sharia ruling. If the law to be legislated is a matter of religious obligations, such as the obligation of zakat, then it is the parliament's constitutional right at that time to reject God's ruling according to the majority's opinion. If the majority rejects God's ruling, no one can compel them, not even the constitutional court.
Assuming that the parliament agrees to a ruling from God's rulings, it is not issued unless it is stripped of the characteristic that it is God's ruling and is given the characteristic of being the people's ruling to give it a parliamentary constitutional character. And I repeat again, this is an important point: assuming that the parliament agrees to a ruling from God's rulings, it does not issue this ruling unless it is stripped of the characteristic that it is God's ruling and is given the characteristic of being the people's ruling to give it a parliamentary constitutional character. This is literally the meaning of the Third Article, which states: "Sovereignty belongs to the people alone," and the Twenty-Fourth Article, which states: "Judgments are issued and executed in the name of the people." In the name of the people, meaning because the people wanted it, for in the constitution, it rules not to punish for its ruling.
Advisor Hamid al-Jamal said: "There is an important issue based on the fact that Islamic Sharia is not applied by the force of the constitutional texts but is applied by the will of the Egyptian legislator." This is in Al-Ahram newspaper on Friday, April 1, 2011. That is, it is not applied because it is the law of God, nor because the constitution considered it a source, but what the parliament, the legislator, allows to be applied from it as his ruling, not as the ruling of God. This is the text of the philosophers of the civil state like Thomas Hobbes, who said: "The Holy Scriptures do not become law unless the civil authority makes them so."
The Second Article has no authority over the judges in the courts, but it addresses the legislators in the parliament. With this, the Supreme Constitutional Court issued a fatwa and relied on Article 165 in the constitution, which states: "Judgment in the courts is by law." Similar to it is Article 46 of the Constitutional Declaration, which states: "The judicial authority is independent and is exercised by the courts in their various kinds and degrees, and they issue their judgments according to the law." According to the law. Therefore, any judge is prevented from ruling by the sharia instead of the positive law. In this regard, the incident of the Egyptian judge, Advisor Muhammad Mahmud Ghurab, is known, who ruled with the sharia penalty on a man caught in a state of intoxication on the public road, so his ruling was overturned according to the constitution and he was dismissed from judicial work.
In summary, Islamic Sharia in the Egyptian constitution is not ruling but is ruled. I could not determine its author; I did not find him, and it is a great research of great benefit, one of the finest I have read in terms of its documentation, presentation, and foundation. May God reward its author with the best of rewards. And I advise all my brothers to read it and benefit from its documentary analytical methodology.
This is the Second Article and this is the interpretation of the Constitutional Court for it in the context of the constitution. A restricted, limited, veiled, truncated, hidden, ruled, humble article. While the Sharia of God Almighty is honorable, pure, absolute, clear, and ruling.
Brothers, and I present this article, my soul almost vomited when I saw the audacity of humans towards their Lord, who turn away from the path of God and make it crooked. By God, it is an audacity towards the Sharia of God in its entirety for the least impudent to tamper with it and be arrogant towards it and subject it to human whims in this way. May the curse of God be upon hearts that recoil when God alone is mentioned, and faces that raise their foreheads in rejection of His Sharia, and souls that are humble yet arrogant towards the Lord of Might.
Then what has befallen you, O parliamentary Islamists? Is this the article that you insist on keeping and consider it a red line? Is this the article that you want to activate, not amend? Is this the article that you justify your oath to respect the constitution with? Is this the constitution that some of you call a conservative and good constitution? Is this the constitution that needs only minor amendments?
Is your highest ambition to present God's rulings to the parliament, ruling by ruling, then seek excuses for these rulings from the positive laws, so that the parliamentary owner of the ballot and the excrement listens to this ruling while he is relaxed in his chair, putting one leg over the other, shaking his foot, and yawning? If he does not like God's ruling, he raises his eyebrow and raises his hand in rejection like a dictator ordering the execution of a prisoner. If he agrees, the tongue of the constitution says: not because it is the ruling of God, but because it is the ruling of the parliament.
By God, if there were no harm in your concessions except to degrade the image of the Sharia in this way, it would be enough. The Sharia of God, O parliamentarians, is not applied through a loophole in the constitution and positive laws, so raise it above this vile position. And by God, there is no meaning to clinging to this article, no meaning to clinging to this article, and be patient like those who made humans lords who legislate without God and obedience is due to them by the text of the constitution.
The article and its interpretation did not change anything from the reality of the Egyptian constitution, its masters drafted it and restricted it with its materials to be like a mirage in a valley that the thirsty man thinks is water until he comes to it and does not find anything and finds with God his account, and God is swift in reckoning. Or like darkness in a deep sea, a wave from above it, a cloud, darkness upon darkness, darkness in its text, darkness in its context, darkness in its restriction, darkness in its deficiency, darkness in its activation, if he puts out his hand he can hardly see it, and whoever God does not make for him a light, he will have no light.
In conclusion: the Second Article is present in the constitution in the name of the people and is subject to cancellation, it does not interact with the laws preceding it, it is restricted by the non-sharia articles of the constitution, its interpretation is not subject to sharia bases, it does not compel the parliament to accept a sharia ruling, and if it results in the issuance of a law, it is issued in the name of the people, not because it is the ruling of God.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of God.