A parliamentary debate on Sunday night was managed so as to divert an attack on Al-Azhar by Muslim Brotherhood MPs. Gamal Essam El-Din reports The Group of 17, a coalition of 17 Islamist members of parliament acting under the umbrella of the banned Muslim Brotherhood, was dealt a blow in parliament this week. On Sunday, just two days before parliament adjourns for its summer recess, the Brotherhood's 17 MPs failed to win the People's Assembly's approval for discussing an interpellation (a question that must be answered by cabinet ministers). It concerned an array of administrative and financial irregularities allegedly committed by senior officials and clerics of the highest religious authority for Sunni Muslims, Al-Azhar. Prime Minister Atef Ebeid, in his capacity as state minister of Al-Azhar affairs, was expected to respond to the interpellation. The defeat came when deputies of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) launched a counter attack against the Brotherhood's interpellation. The NDP MPs, led by the chairman of parliament's religious committee and the former Minister of Awqaf (religious endowments) Mohamed Ali Mahgoub, closed ranks to prevent a discussion aimed at bringing Al- Azhar under any kind of critical scrutiny. Mahgoub said Al-Azhar, the bastion of Islam in the world, should not be the subject of a parliamentary interpellation. "Interpellation is a basic supervisory tool aimed at pointing accusing fingers at officials and bringing them under sharp scrutiny," El- Mahgoub told parliament. In this context, El-Mahgoub added, "it is unacceptable to direct an interpellation against Al- Azhar because this could cause a lot of unjustified mischief and defame this deeply and widely respected religious institution." Supporting the NDP's counter- attack, El-Mahgoub suggested that the Brotherhood's interpellation be first discussed by a special fact-finding commission. The suggestion gained the immediate approval of the majority of NDP deputies. The ad hoc commission will include members of parliament's committees on religious affairs, education and the budget. It will debate the interpellation in a series of closed meetings. At the end of the debate, the commission will submit a report for open discussion at a plenary Assembly meeting. The anti-Al-Azhar interpellation, submitted by the Brotherhood MP, Ali Laban, was directed at Ebeid who would have had to respond to a string of alleged administrative, legal and financial offences at Al-Azhar. Laban's interpellation, alongside two others, was first presented to the Assembly on 27 April. At that time, Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Kamal El-Shazli said the government had no objection to discussing Laban's interpellation. The basic rule in parliament, however, is that just one interpellation be discussed every month. A total of 25 interpellations have so far been submitted, only nine of which have been discussed. Brotherhood MPs were, therefore, surprised to find last Saturday that their anti-Al-Azhar interpellation was listed on the Assembly's schedule of debates. This was unusual since the Assembly's steering office (composed of the Assembly's chairman and his two deputies) usually gives priority to interpellations presented at an earlier date. Laban's had been submitted very late. This led Ayman Nour, an independent MP, to ask why his interpellation on banking corruption had been ignored although it was presented at a much earlier date than Laban's. Responding, Sorour said the Assembly's steering office had given priority to Laban's interpellation "because another 18 MPs also have questions and requests for information to direct to the prime minister on Al-Azhar. All of these cannot be ignored because they now reflect a parliamentary demand to open an inquiry into Al- Azhar affairs." The Brothers' initial euphoria, however, quickly turned sour. No sooner had Laban been given the floor to deliver his interpellation, than he was interrupted by Sorour. Sorour said: "I have first to give the floor to Mohamed El- Mahgoub." This changed the course of the debate into what seemed to be a pre-arranged scenario. Mohamed El-Mahgoub said Laban's interpellation should not be discussed because of its form and content. "The prime minister cannot be questioned on the charges contained in this interpellation because they extend to include what it calls 'educational offences in teaching Al-Azhar's curriculum'. The prime minister has no responsibility in formulating this curriculum," El-Mahgoub said. Sorour then allowed two MPs, who were objecting to discussing Laban's interpellation, and two others in favour of it, to speak. El-Mahgoub was supported by Abdel-Rahman El-Adawi, an appointed MP and an Azharite cleric, and Hazem Hamadi, an NDP MP and former police officer. El-Adawi said he had no doubt that the interpellation sought to address some irregularities and achieve reform. "But the problem is that issues related to Al-Azhar must not be discussed in the open. This would set a dangerous precedent and give rise to rumours in the Arab and Muslim world about Al-Azhar," El-Adawi said. Hamadi said Al-Azhar was the beacon of Islam in Egypt and the whole world. "It is not acceptable to direct charges against this towering beacon in open debates. This is extremely dangerous at a time when Islam is facing attacks in Europe and America. I support El- Mahgoub's suggestion that this interpellation be discussed in closed meetings," Hamadi said. Two of the Brotherhood's MPs, Mohamed Mursi and Akram El- Sha'er were in favour of discussing Laban's interpellation. Mursi said the interpellation was not aimed at criticising the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Mohamed Sayed or embarrassing Prime Minister Ebeid. "We respect them both deeply. The interpellation is simply aimed at bringing some policies adopted by Al-Azhar under scrutiny," Mursi said. This, he added, does not go against Islam or defame Al-Azhar. "This is in line with Islam because the Prophet Mohamed himself urged Muslims to bring their practices under objective scrutiny at all times." El-Sha'er said Laban's interpellation sought to turn Al- Azhar into a fully independent religious institution. "The prime minister has a lot of responsibilities to bear. He should not any longer have the post of state minister for Al-Azhar affairs. This is necessary for reforming Al-Azhar," El-Sha'er said. When Laban was finally given the floor, he said more than 200 documents corroborated the charges contained in his interpellation. "My colleagues advised me not to show them to the government ahead of the interpellation, but I decided to show them to the prime minister to demonstrate we do not have sinister intentions towards Al- Azhar," Laban said. Laban added that his interpellation did not aim at hurting or the other clerics of Al-Azhar. He said, however, that it was not ideal that the prime minister be politically responsible for the affairs of Al-Azhar. "I hope that a special minister will be appointed for running the affairs of Al- Azhar because this great religious institution is collapsing through carelessness and small budget allocations," he said. The debate ended with the Brotherhood MPs opting not to escalate matters. Instead, they agreed that the interpellation be referred to a fact-finding commission, but on the condition that its debate of the matter be concluded as soon as possible. Sorour vowed that the commission's expected report would be discussed in a plenary session at the nearest possible date. On 12 June, the Assembly's Proposals and Complaints Committee rejected a draft law that proposed to make the office of Al-Azhar's Grand Sheikh an elected one. The draft was also submitted by Laban. Al-Azhar's deputy sheikh argued that it did not make a great difference whether the Grand Sheikh of Al- Azhar were appointed or elected.
