MEMBERS of Al-Azhar's Senior Scholars Board (SSB) have again rejected the draft bonds (sukuk) law for its disagreement with Shari'a (Islamic Law) and for violating the national interest in the opinion of Al-Azhar. Under the leadership of the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb, the SSB affirmed the need to amend many of the articles included in the law to cope with the rules of the Shari'a and achieve the national interest. This is the second time, Al-Azhar has rejected the draft law related to bonds – the Government wishes to issue to overcome the deep budget deficit it is suffering. The Government wants to have the law endorsed because, in its opinion, bonds would yield huge financial returns. The different political powers, backed by a strong public opinion, have opposed the draft law, on the grounds that these bonds (sukuk) can possibly enable Arab or foreign investors to have control over a giant project such as the Suez Canal. However, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) Government and Shura Council insist on issuing this law, motivated by the belief that the bond law will be part of the solution to the financial and economic problems the country faces. Accordingly, some MB members say the SSB opinion, in this respect, is not binding to the Shura Council (the upper house of parliament), now fully entrusted with legislation till the new house of deputies is elected. Al-Azhar responded by warning that issuing such a law with full disregard to SSB amendments would mean having a law violates the Shari'a. This is not the first attempt to turn against some of the articles of the new constitution that aim to issue and endorse a law by the Islamist-dominated Shura Council. Instead, the Shura Council tried to issue an election law despite reservations made by the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC) over some of its articles. Shura Council members said that inspecting the opinion of the SCC over the political laws doesn't condition committing the parliament to endorse all amendments suggested by the court to make it constitutional. This proves the need for amending the new constitution that was written and endorsed after a big rush from the MB regime to end with a product that has articles which are unclear in their meaning or have double interpretations. Otherwise, we would continue running in place for a long time without having any new laws issued or endorsed without raising wide debate over its legality or constitutionality.
