Constitutional discrimination?

It would be more judicious to look beyond the Constitution's declaration of Islam as Egypt's state religion and source of legislation than be weighed down in semantics on the path to a free nation

A remarkable statement was issued by the spiritual leaders of Egypt's churches about Article 2 of the Constitution, urging for it not to be amended and supporting a democratic civic state.
Article 2 was amended by President Sadat in 1980 to state that Islam is the religion of the state and that Sharia (Islamic law) is the main source of legislation. Before that, Islamic Sharia was one of the main sources of legislation not the main source of legislation. Sadat did not intend to take the amendment of Article 2 literally, but by changing the Constitution he was trying to outdo his Islamist foes whose power had grown at the time.
Sadat was assassinated at the hands of the Islamists and Egypt has since changed extensively, but Article 2 as amended by Sadat remains. What Sadat thought was a manoeuvre to circumvent the Islamists has become an asset for them which they will not rescind. The majority of average Muslims in Egypt do not uphold Article 2 literally but hold on to its symbolic value. Their opinion and feelings should be respected, which is what the statement by the leaders of the Egyptian churches did in a way, demonstrating sound political and patriotic sense.
The statement by Egyptian churches clearly states the position of Christians in Egypt regarding Article 2 and removes them from the ongoing debate about it. There will continue to be forces who demand that Article 2 is amended, as is their right, and some Coptic Christians will also adopt this position as private Egyptian citizens who have the right to express their opinion, but not as representatives of Egyptian churches or the majority of Egyptian Christians.
Article 2 of the Constitution may remain as it is and the Christians of Egypt would be guaranteed all the rights of citizenship; but it may be amended and Christians are subjected to true discrimination. It is not about the text but how it is interpreted. In a society which is peppered with fanatics, Copts and many others will be subjected to discrimination regardless of the text of the Constitution. Meanwhile, in a society which embraces pluralism and freedom of opinion and worship, Article 2 as it stands would be interpreted in a way which guarantees all Egyptians equal rights irrespective of their faith.
That is the truth of the matter. So let's close the door on the debate about Article 2 of the Constitution, and focus our efforts instead on spreading the values of freedom, equality, justice and citizenship. That is the truer, stronger and more effective guarantee than a text in the Constitution.