CAIRO - The successive events, which took place in Egypt during the last few weeks, since the People's Assembly (Lower Parliamentary House) was formed, force one to continue debating the different political events on religious grounds. Why not, when the majority of the Parliamentary seats are occupied by Islamists who insist on drawing up the new constitution of Egypt according to their vision and to limit legislation to the rules of the Islamic Shari'a (religious law). The most significant of these events that hit Egypt was the sudden lifting of a travel ban issued by the legislative authority on some 19 American activists on trial in the case of illegal foreign funding of civil society. Though the shocking release of the foreign activists was carried out under the nose of the ruling military council and with the suspected clandestine scheming of the head of the Court of Appeal, Judge Abdel-Mu'ez Ibrahim, Parliament decided to summon the Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri and some of his ministers to reveal facts round the deal made between the Egyptian authorities and the US to have this case end in such shameful way. This meeting was scheduled to be held on March 11, which was yesterday. As this article is being written before that date, the writer does not know what will be the results of the meeting and if the parliamentarians would really give vote of no confidence against Ganzouri's government as they have threatened to do. Whether this case will be utilised by Parliament, especially its majority of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) to dissolve the Ganzouri government and form a new one with FJP majority or not, the crux is as follows. Questioning el-Ganzouri and any other official other than a member of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and Judge Ibrahim should be considered as a political hypocrisy that should not be practised by a political party of religious principles. It is true that el-Ganzouri had previously issued some zealous statements over this case noting that Egypt would never bow to any pressure and it is also true that it was Minister of International Co-operation Fayza Abul Naga that enthusiastically opened the file of foreign funding of non-governmental organisations. Nevertheless, one could not give them the responsibility of taking such a shocking decision allowing travel of the foreign suspects while the latter were still on trial. Meanwhile, Parliament could question Abul Naga about the veracity of this case and whether these organisations committed violations or not, especially given that she filled the media with accusations against those activists. These included that they were conspiring against the country's security and aiming to divide it into four or five states. As the case was referred to court, the Prosecutor General should be questioned about the evidence he holds against those activists and the foreign groups. Most importantly, SCAF should be questioned about on what grounds it issued such a decision and the role it played in raising this issue and then closing it in such a miserable and harmful way that has had a negative impact on the image of Egypt and its judiciary. The People's Assembly that was formed and is working according to the constitutional declaration issued by SCAF after the March referendum, might not possess the authority to summon the head of SCAF or any of its members to question them over this case. However, it is unacceptable, still, to search for scapegoats to assume responsibility for this scandal. Another significant event has taken place in the country and raised questions on the standards by which some persons were chosen to represent the people in Parliament. This event is related to the parliamentarian Anwar el-Belkimi who undertook plastic surgery to improve the appearance of his nose and then claimed that he had been subjected to armed robbery and beaten up by his assailants causing his broken nose. As the event took place shortly after the armed attack on the car of presidential hopeful Abdel-Moneim Abul Fetouh , the public believed el-Belkimi's story, until the plastic surgeon refuted his account and revealed the lie of the MP who belongs to the Salafists' party An-Nur, considered as the most extreme political Islamists in the political street now in Egypt. After some denials, the man was obliged to tell the truth and so was forced to resign from Parliament after being expelled from the party. An-Nur party did well by expelling the man for lying to the people. Previously, the party had expressed an apology for a statement made by another member in Parliament, who affirmed that teaching the English language in Egyptian schools is a cultural invasion that must be fought! This parliamentarian revealed not only his narrow mindedness but also ignorance of the Islamic teachings that encourage learning overseas, even if in China, as the Prophet Mohamed {PBUH) once recommended to his followers in a hadith (saying and traditions of the Prophet). So how could one seek to study in a foreign country such as China or any other without learning its language? Moreover, being Muslim doesn't mean cutting oneself off from the world but interacting and co-operating with all nations and cultures, as realised and applied by the early Muslims many centuries ago. Though, the Egyptian society has become accustomed to hearing such strange extremist ideas from some members of the Islamist movements, it was very shocking to hear such a notion from a man who is supposed to represent the people in the legislative institution, namely Parliament. Here lies the responsibility of An-Nur and the other religious parties, which had not made a good selection of their members as parliamentary candidates. Instead of selecting wise and influential persons up to this prestigious position, they eager to collect as many parliamentary seats as possible with candidates competing in every constituency, even though it was a new political party with insufficient candidates of the requester political calibre. An-Nur was very keen to compete with the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party in gaining as many seats as possible. It managed to occupy one-quarter of the parliamentary seats, thanks to the propaganda that its members being religious persons should be trusted by the public. Their plans proved successful in this stage. However, the bad performance of its members in and outside Parliament will surely influence its image in at the public eye so that its candidates will find difficulty in gaining this large number of seats at any coming parliament. The scandal of el-Belkimi in particular will continue to deeply harm the Islamists. They seem very committed to the old traditions followed by the early Muslims but not really committed to the good morals of Islam as the Prophet Mohamed preached, the first of these is never to lie under any circumstances. As long as the Islamists insist on mixing religion and politics, they should consider the good morals and religious ethics Muslims should follow while playing politics and, therefore give up hypocrisy and lies, and be up to their responsibility as representatives of the people and the apparent image of Islam.
