When I mentioned in my last article in Al-Ahram Weekly on 9 March that the new Egyptian constitution provided in Article 2 that the principles of Islamic Sharia were the main source of legislation, and that might cause a debacle for the Egyptian courts, I did not mean that this provision was the only one that revealed the intention of the Brotherhood-led government to apply a Machiavellian notion that “the ends justify the means”. The fact is that the said article also provides that Islam is the official religion of the state. It reveals that the classic Western principle of separation of church and state does not apply to Islamic countries. This is not because citizens of those countries are not religious, which is not true, but because it is a violation of the human rights of their citizens minorities who do not embrace the same religion of the state. So that provision discriminates against our Christian and Jewish minorities. Islamic groups use a misguided interpretation of the Sharia and claim that they are its custodian, thus establishing a system of clergy that was unknown during the life of the Prophet Mohamed and his four pious successors, Al-khulafaa Al-Rashedoun. The said provision also contradicts with the preamble of the constitution where it says in section “Firstly” that “The people are the source of powers, establish them, and they earn their legitimacy from them.” There are, actually, other provisions in the constitution that show many loopholes and contradictions with other provisions that would be subject to Brotherhood and other Islamic groups' literal interpretations. Although there is a rift between the Brotherhood and the Salafis, who are considered ultra-conservative Islamists, and who are following the ideology of the Salafist sect of Saudi Arabia, it was beyond anyone's imagination that the Brotherhood, in their intent to hold on to the governance in Egypt, would become Salafis themselves. I am referring to reports by local and international media about a declaration that the Brotherhood issued 13 March expressing its objection to the proposed United Nations declaration regarding violence against women. The declaration, as reported, asserted that marriage is not a partnership and wives should be obedient to their husbands, even in a matter of sex. A wife, the declaration states, has no right to legally complain if she would be subject to rape by her husband, who should not be punished as if the rape were perpetrated by a stranger. Does the Brotherhood consider an incest rape by a father or a brother is not equal to a rape committed by a stranger where the sentence in Egyptian criminal law could rise to life in prison? By this way the statement considers the wife a sex object and she should be punished by rape if she is not in a mood to have sex with her husband. Where in Sharia allows this barbaric behaviour against wives, a behaviour that is against human rights universally protected? Pakinam Al-Sharkawi, one of President Morsi's advisers who was recently reported to be appointed deputy prime minister, represented Egypt at the United Nations commission in New York on violence against women. In an interview with The New York Times, she was reported to distance President Morsi from the Brotherhood's declaration. “The Brotherhood does not speak for the president,” she said. She argued that the president has resigned from the Brotherhood, but that the president, she added, remained a leader in its political party, thus insinuating that the party has not been following the Brotherhood's ideology. She emphasised that the Brotherhood was not the presidency's institution, and it was not an official entity. By this Al-Sharkawi acknowledged that the Brotherhood was outlawed. Why hasn't President Morsi issued an order to prevent the Brotherhood from operating? How could a lawless group be as influential as is the Brotherhood? Al-Sharkawi's argument contradicts the public understanding that President Morsi is still affiliated with the Brotherhood, being a leader of its political party, and is listening to directions by the group's supreme guide. Furthermore, she was aware of the awkwardness the declaration had caused the president who has been, as the Times reported, trying to present himself as a kind of new, moderate Western-friendly Islamist. The statement by the Brotherhood on husbands' treatment of their wives is a clear violation of women's human rights and of the principles declared in the Egyptian constitution's preamble. In section “Thirdly”, the preamble emphasised that “Dignity of the individual is rooted in the nation's dignity, and there is no dignity for a nation that doesn't honour the woman, as women are sisters of men, and partners in gains and national responsibilities.” The reader may notice that the constitution honours all women — married and single. How can the constitution connect the dignity of the nation to honouring women while the Brotherhood claims that a woman can be raped by her husband? How would any president or king be proud to say to his acquaintances that he had raped his wife who is also honoured by the nation? How would the American people feel if they heard that their president had raped his wife? What honour is left for a woman if her husband is allowed to legally rape her? I cannot quite believe how quickly the Brotherhood has repudiated what it had written in the constitution. Some observers were right in saying that Islamic groups have been concerned about their sex life and have their brains in the lower parts of their bodies. Surely the Brotherhood forgot or is trying not to listen to Islam's instruction to men to be passionate to their wives and to use foreplay before sex, and to give them the same satisfaction that they expect from their wives. The Brotherhood also wants airport officials not to allow wives to leave the country without written permission from their husbands, thus going back to the situation before former president Anwar Al-Sadat promulgated a law that removed the ban. That means a woman member of the Cabinet or an undersecretary or a female Supreme Court justice cannot travel unless permitted by her husband. It is true that in a few instances the Quran makes a difference between males and females, such as in matters of inheritance. The Quran provides that women in the family are given a share of inheritance lower than that of men. A widow is given one forth of her husband's estate if they have no children, but she would inherit one eighth if there are children, while the husband's share in his wife's estate is one half if there are no children and one quarter if there are children. A female's daughter of the deceased would be given half of her brother's share. Both shares combined would be bigger than their mother's who was the queen of the house during her husband's life. Islamic scholars attribute giving the female in the family less than the male to Islamic traditions that the male member in the family has a moral obligation to look after the financial well-being of his mother and sisters, bearing in mind that the daughters of the deceased will eventually get married and her husband will be responsible for her financial wellbeing. In our modern and material world, it is not always the case. There is evidence that not all male persons care about the wellbeing of their mothers and/or their sisters, and instead they may treat them badly. Furthermore, millions of women now have undergraduate and graduate college degrees and constitute a high percentage of the labour force, even in Egypt. Many of them have ascended to high positions, up to a cabinet minister portfolio in the government and executive positions in the private sector. Due to the continuing rise of the cost of living, it became a tradition that wives share their husbands' financial responsibilities. The fact is, as a matter of necessity and changing of circumstances, old Islamic traditions have been fading into the background in the face of modern life. That applies to all nations on earth. As I explained in one of my articles last year in the Weekly, the prophet expected that and encouraged jurists to find solutions to new problems by issuing new opinion (ijtihad) on problems that have no solution in the Quran or the prophet's sunna. That was followed by the prophet's four pious successors after his death. Necessities also made Muslim jurists resort to other sources of Sharia, such as al-qyas (precedents) and ijmaul-umma (unanimous agreement of the community). Although all these sources are recognised by all four schools of the Sunni sect, the Salafis only recognise the Quran and the prophet's sunna as sources of Sharia. Imagine the debacle that would exist by making Sharia the state's religion and main source for legislation. Most disturbing than the Brotherhood becoming ultra-Salafis, it has been reported that the Brotherhood are planning to create a group similar to that in Saudi Arabia to force the people to observe the rules of Sharia by giving the group what is called in the Egyptian law of criminal procedures “the power of judicial arrest”. It has been reported that the Egyptian prosecutor general, a Brotherhood member appointed by President Morsi, has pointed out that Article 37 of the said law provides for that power. This is not true. Actually, that article doesn't speak about the power of judicial arrest. It only authorises any one who saw on the spot a person committing a felony (ginaya) or a misdemeanour (gonha) that allows provisional detention pending a trial to arrest the wrongdoer and deliver him to the nearest policeman without need for a subpoena to arrest him as required by the law. According to Article 40 of the said law, the person who conducts the arrest should treat the arrested person with dignity and it forbids the arresting person from hurting the wrongdoer physically or psychologically. Because the law does not require the arresting person to have knowledge of the law, it is left to the court to decide on the legality of the arrest. The power of judicial arrest has been given by Article 23 of the law of criminal procedure to members of the Prosecutor-General Department, who are actually members of the judiciary, and to a long list of certain government officials within the range of their jobs: such as police officers (lieutenants and above — in the United States and some other countries the regular policeman is called police officer, but lieutenants and above are referred to by their ranks), constables, heads of police precincts, chiefs of security in the country's governorates, heads of government railway stations and some other officials. The wrongdoer should be referred to court for trial as soon as possible, unless the court extends his provisional detention until further investigations are complete. Granting this power must be by law. Egyptian newspapers recently reported that a man kidnapped a child in a countryside city; presumably he was going to demand ransom — something repeated by armed thugs in the last two years. In the absence of security forces, some of the local community attacked the kidnapper, beat him and hanged him on a column in the street. That means that those who hung the kidnapper followed the Brotherhood precept of taking the law into their own hands, even while the Brotherhood has no standing upon which to formulate or pass laws. The incident was also against the requirements of the law of criminal procedures, and implicitly challenge President Morsi's authority as the head of state. One can sympathise with local people trying to rescue a child from kidnapping by thugs. But this cannot be the way to secure the country. Such responses only happen where no system of law exists, and they should not be encouraged. If President Morsi does not act immediately to prevent the Brotherhood and the people from challenging his governance powers, things will get out of hand. He has the duty to put the police back in the street, armed with automatic rifles and other equipment if need be, and to give them better wages and training to how to deal with demonstrators. He is undoubtedly the main reason for the continuing state of chaos in the country. Inaction by Morsi to end the state of chaos and to fulfil his promises to the nation, and to respect and protect constitutional rights, make him the source of the country's problems. The promises he first declared were heralded by citizens as a good start and served to elevate expectations that were not realised. His duty now is to repent and repair.
