WATANI International
26 June 2011
Last Monday in Cairo saw the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, call for a “modern, democratic” and non-religious State in Egypt, where places of worship are protected.
In a news conference broadcast live, the head cleric at Sunni Islam’s foremost centre of religious learning worldwide revealed a document formulated by al-Azhar scholars and Egyptian intellectuals, and entitled “Al-Azhar’s document for the future of Egypt”. The aim, according to the document, is to define “the relationship between Islam and the State in this difficult phase”. The document supports “the establishment of a modern, democratic, constitutional state” based upon the separation of powers and securing equal rights for all citizens, he said. Even though he said the principles of sharia, (Islamic law), should remain “the main source of legislation”, he said Christians and Jews should have their own tribunals to which they can have recourse in cases of personal status issues.
The document acknowledges diversity and pluralism, urges “the protection of places of worship for the followers of the three monotheistic religions” and considers “incitement of discord and racist speech as crimes against the nation”.
On the ground
The move came amid widespread debate about the rising influence of political Islamic movements in Egypt.
The document was widely applauded by the various churches in Egypt.
Member of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church and Archbishop of Beheira, Anba Pachomeus, described the document as an expression of the epitome of wisdom. He told Watani that it promoted social peace, non-discriminative justice, and equality among all Egyptians.
The fact that al-Azhar, the official face of moderate Islam, acknowledges the civil State, Anba Pachomeus said, closes the door before attempts to call for a religious State based upon Islamic teachings. It confirms that Islam allows communities to manage their affairs according to their best interests, and respects pluralism, diversity, and human rights. “If this document is put into action,” Anba Pachomeus said, “it can strongly work to finish off sectarian strife and realise full citizenship rights for all Egyptians.”
Father Rafiq Greiche of the Catholic Church could not agree more. However, he insisted that the real test is whether or not the principles called for by the document can be realised on the ground. “The words are good,” he told Watani, “but we need to see them materialise into actions.”
If al-Azhar succeeds in overcoming the hard line concepts that have come to dominate the Egyptian street, Fr Greiche said, it will have marked a landmark on the road to battling fanaticism. It is obvious the venerable stronghold of moderate Islam has taken a significant step towards challenging the rampant interpretation of Islamic texts according to the whims of fanatics.
No other religion?
“The Evangelical Church has applauded the document,” the Reverend Rifaat Fikry of the Evangelical Synod said, “but the document only mentioned the three monotheistic religions. It made no mention of other religions, even though freedom of belief should have been honoured and respected for the members of any faith.” In total agreement was Emad Gad of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
Rev Fikry, together with Fr Greiche, approved the stipulation that, even though the principles of sharia should remain “the main source of legislation”, Christians and Jews should have recourse to their own legislation in cases of personal status issues. Both demanded that this stipulation should be included in the second article of the Constitution, but Rev Fikry suggested that it should not be restricted to personal status issues, but should be included among the sources of legislation. These sources, he said, ought to be the wider general values of religions and the codes of human rights.
The document comes at a time when it is most needed, according to Rev Fikry. Political Islamic movements are on the rise, and hard-line Islamists are vocal about their call to implement ultra-conservative Islam, of “possessing the land then applying hudoud (Islamic penalties such as cutting a thief’s hand, whipping adulterers and stoning adultresses). “Egypt was in dire need of al-Azhar’s moderate voice,” he said.
Moderate vs hardline
The problem, according to Emad Gad, is that al-Azhar’s moderate Islamic view has been receding before the more hard-line versions Islam that have succeeded in dominating the Egyptian street. Al-Azhar’s recent document, Mr Gad told Watani, might have come too late. He thought it quite likely that the hardliners would resort to violence in their expected conflict with moderate Azharis.
For his part, the lawyer and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) member Sobhy Saleh did not appear too keen on the al-Azhar document. “It brings nothing new,” he said. “This is standard Sunni Islamic thought, and is the thought adopted by the MB. As to total equality as exemplified by having a Copt or a woman for president, it is up to Egyptian voters to settle that.”
The Islamic scholar Sheikh Youssef al-Badry described the document as “a national document that is in total agreement with Islamic sharia in that it respects the faiths mentioned in Islam. Especially where Christians are concerned, Sheikh Badry told Watani, countless churches were built under Islamic rule. This should mean that today, he said, al-Azhar and the Church are in agreement, and should thus work to settle whatever problems come up between them.
Sheikh Badry, however, rejected the idea that the Constitution may stipulate any main source of legislation other than Islamic sharia. “Islam itself guarantees the protection and the rights of those who belong to other faiths,” he said.
Muslim Coptic effort
“I have never seen al-Azhar that innovative and creative for the past 15 years,” glowed Ahmed Sameeh of al-Andalus Centre for Tolerance. Especially considering that the recent document, which promoted diversity, pluralism, and freedom of belief, was the outcome of the joint efforts of Muslim and Coptic intellectuals and rights activists.
Mr Sameeh expressed his wariness, however, that the “fanatics within the walls of al-Azhar” would rally against the document or would even resort to accusing moderate Azharis of being “the remnants of the pre-revolutionary regime” in order to defeat the document.
It would be excellent, Mr Sameeh said, if a similar document would be issued by the church to secure the civil nature of Egypt’s future. Better still, he said, a joint document to this effect may be issued by al-Azhar and the Church, which could definitely block the way before revisionist fatwas and edicts that call for a religious State.