It is indeed difficult, amidst the heat of an intense and immediate battle or conflict to retain objectivity, remain principled, and orient ones thinking as to balance between long-term and supplementing short-term goals. The clashes and political turmoil in Egypt – and their intensity have instantiated this difficulty as Muslims continue to rally in support of Mursi and the draft constitution mainly in response to the fierce response of the Secularist following the November 22 constitutional decree. And of course the perceived victory makes it all the more difficult to critically understand the reality of the scenario.
Few however have critically asked about the structural factors or mechanisms which have perpetually created similar conflict in Egypt. And whether or not the existing political framework under which the constitution is being drafted, is even legitimate. We will argue below, as follows (1) political reform, in this case, legislative reform within the political architecture of ‘the State’ does not bring about a change in the concepts and political principles carried by a society for the state is a reflection and political manifestation of pre-existing ideas. (2) Calls for the implementation and designation of Shariah as a “main source of legislation” fail to acknowledge the reality of the prevailing political system, namely, the overarching Secular fixated framework of which the constitution is merely a product. (3) Designating the “Principles of Shariah” as a “main source of legislation” in a Secular political system in which revelation is not sovereign but rather subordinated to the sovereignty of a political institution – Parliament – is not only at fundamental odds with an Islamic worldview but rationally nonsensical. And (4) the Yes/No dichotomy which had been set up prior to the referendum vote is fallacious in that it assumes a false dichotomy and the jurisprudential principles employed to justify
1- Legislative Reform does not induce Change
Any constitution is the legislative expression and reflection of ideas within a community or political society – the framework of implementation for which is ‘the State’. In other words – ideas adopted by a society produce a constitution and the respective authority which implements its content. And thus, legislative reform does not produce ideas nor does it bring about political change.
What this means is that, any paradigm shift, cannot come through incremental legislative reform for example a Capitalist system cannot be transformed into a Socialist system nor can a Secular system become an Islamic system. Dissolution of the constitution requires dissolution of the political framework which produced it, and the dissolution of that political-framework requires dissolution of the ideas from which it naturally emerged. Constitutions do not produce societies, but rather it is the binding ideas of a society which produce a constitution. A reformation of a constitution merely makes the existing system work better. What Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood fail to realize is that political power is a means and not an ends. Rosa Luxemburg, in her critique of Reformism explains
“Every legal constitution is the product of a revolution. In the history of classes, revolution is the act of political creation, while legislation is the political expression of the life of a society that has already come into being. Work for reform does not contain its own force independent from revolution. During every historic period, work for reforms is carried on only in the direction given to it by the impetus of the last revolution and continues as long as the impulsion from the last revolution continues to make itself felt. Or, to put it more concretely, in each historic period work for reforms is carried on only in the framework of the social form created by the last revolution. Here is the kernel of the problem.”
A common response contends that the Secular factions in Egypt would make the prospects or push for an Islamic system unfeasible at this given time. However, this fails to acknowledge that the Secular factions in Egypt are a minority whose power is only magnified vis-à-vis their hegemony over “reality-defining” institutions like the media. Secondly, preserving a Secular political-framework and failing to explicitly demarcate the conceptual boundaries between Islam and ‘the Secular’ in Egypt will not diminish the scope of those Secular factions in Egypt – if anything, it will only increase and sustain it. As a matter of fact, the very strength of the Secular factions and hybridity of Egypt’s intellectual fabric is a direct result of Egypt’s long-relationship with colonialism, be it through military colonization or more importantly the colonial institutions such as the nation-state.
A chief impediment towards the realization of an Islamic political system is the aura of transcedency it has gained, through “Islamist” discourse over the decades, becoming a sort of Utopian vision and the ultimate expression of an Islamic society. And the ‘State’ is no longer a means or an instrument but rather a sort of Hegelian ‘ends’. Those who are quick to dismiss the notion of introducing an Islamic constitution in Egypt seemingly fail to realize that the polarization between two contending camps during the referendum crisis was between those who sought a more “Islamic” constitution and those who sought a more “Secular” constitution. Supporters and those who rallied around the President did so based on ‘ideological’ affiliations to Islam, and a desire to see Islam being introduced into the political realm. However, the nature and content of this more “Islamic” constitution is a task delegated to their leadership with whom they affiliate based on their Islamic ideological inclinations.
2- The Conceptual Framework of the Constitution is Secular
A Nation-State is essentially the politico-legal expression (‘the State’) of a ‘Nation’ – an identity- whose existence preceded that of ‘the State’. Several elements constitute the ‘identity’ of a Nation, including language, race, and religion. All of which (language, race, and religion) however, are part of the ‘Nation’s narrative. And as such, religion as a secondary characteristic and feature is part of (and not definitive of) a National Identity and subsequently expressed legally through constitution or law. The states identity, principles, and structure is defined in the introductory section of the constitution and is based, as stated above, on Secular paradigms and not revelation despite the fact that it is the identity, principles, and structure of the state which most directly orients and influences not only the actions of the people but also their consciousness and subjectivity.
A reference to the “Principles of Shariah” is thus not an ‘Islamic’ element in a Secular constitution by rather the natural expression of the Nations Secular identity and a domestication of Islam. An explicit example of this is in the draft constitutions introduction which proclaims;
| Constitution of 1971 | Draft Constitution of 2012 |
| Identity of the state: ”The Arab Republic of Egypt is a democratic state based on citizenship.The Egyptian people are part of the Arab Nation and work for the realisation of itscomprehensive unity.” | Identity of the state: “The Arab Republic of Egypt is an independent state with unified sovereignty that cannot be divided. Its system is democratic. The Egyptian nation is a part of the Arabic and Islamic nations (Umma). It is proud to belong to the Basin of the Nile and Africa, as well as of its Asian extensions.” |
Even the most Secular of States, mention ‘State Religion’ or designate the religious affiliations of the heads of state.
Furthermore, the process by which a constitution is reformed and drafted is primarily defined and informed by the conceptual-framework and ideas which underlie ‘the State’ and is in no way absolute. For example in Egypt, the principles of Arabism, Parliamentary Democracy, and Republicanism define both the political architecture of the system, the framework of the constitution and the content of the legislation it implements. As illustrated below, the constitution is embedded within the politico-economic framework of ‘the State’ which itself is the product of a overarching worldview-principles.
(Similarly, the Qur’an and Sunnah define the boundaries of Ijtihaad in Islam and the political architecture of the system which emanates from the Qur’an and Sunnah) And thus the “Islamic” legislation passed in Egypt would be implemented by a Secular political system which is nonsensical. It would seem absurd to suggest that Liberal legislation be implemented within the framework of a Socialist political system. If that were the case for two ‘Secular’ and Eurocentric systems than what would be the case for divine revelatory legislation being subordinated and implemented by a Secular system? Islam, through its holistic worldview and comprehensive revelation provides man with the politico-institutional framework through which Islamic law is implemented and that system is the Khilafah. It is for this reason that the first article in the draft constitution adopted by Hizb ut-Tahrir for the Islamic State is:
“ The Islamic ‘Aqeedah constitutes the foundation of the State. Nothing is permitted to exist in the government’s structure, accountability, or any other aspect connected with the government, that does not take the ‘Aqeedah as its source. The ‘Aqeedah is also the source for the State’s constitution and shar’i canons. Nothing connected to the constitution or canons is permitted to exist unless it emanates from the Islamic ‘Aqeedah.”.
There is a fundamental difference between Islam being part of the constitution and the constitution being based on Islam. It follows that:
(1) The Egyptian Constitution is temporally Relative and not Absolute.
(2) The Qur’an as an epistemic base of knowledge is Absolute by its revelatory nature.
(3) It is thus irrational for the Qur’an to be part of the temporal Egyptian constitution.
Reason, contrary to what the Democratic mimics in the Muslim world might think, does not serve as the epistemic base from which legislative injunctions are derived. The only “reason” which supersedes over the principles of State and the revelatory injunctions of Islam is that of the Descartian “I” i.e. the prevailing reason of the colonizing European man who super-imposed is socio-political and economic models on the Muslim world. Popular sovereignty, Nationalism, and Parliamentary Democracy were all the products of the European man’s revolt against the despotic Church and the absolutization of ‘reason’. A Eurocentric ‘reason’ thus reigns authoritatively superior to the divine ‘will’.
3- Islamic Law and Sovereignty
Establishing an Islamic political system is a means, and not an ends as ‘the State’ is a necessary entity by which the political and social based Islamic legislation is implemented and thus the will of the Absolute creator is sovereign in all domains of life. In other words, the purpose of Shariah and ‘the State’ in Islam is; the preservation of Allah’s sovereignty in the political sphere. Islamic law is however eviscerated of its divine and revelatory nature, more so, of its primary purpose when it loses its sovereignty and its principles are reduced to a “main source of legislation” while sovereignty is held by a Secular parliamentary establishment. The will of the divine, as expressed through Shariah, is subordinated to the will of competing and contending political factions in Parliament. From a rational perspective alone, this is absurd as epistemic authority is, by its very nature, relegated to revelation which emanates from the will of the Absolute as opposed to the limits of our parochial ‘reason’ or the volatile ‘ will of the people’ (i.e. an aggregate of” morally autonomous rational individuals”). The constitution is thus fundamentally flawed, on both a rational and religious basis – and will continue to be so as long as the Secular political architecture and its overarching conceptual-framework is preserved.
Reformist will point to the second, fourth, and other clauses which state that the “Principles of Shariah” are the ‘main’ source of legislation. First and foremost, the architecture of ‘the State’, its conceptual basis, obligations, duties, and legislation are to be, from an Islamic normative perspective all derived from revelation. Legislation and the implementation of law is one dimension of any political system.
Secondly, the “Principles of Shariah” which Article 219 designates as “al-Adilla al-Kuliyya, al-Qawa’id al-Fiqiyya, and al-Qawa’id al-Usuliyyah” are not in themselves sources of legislation but rather they are conceptual tools and modalities used by scholars to understand the nature and dimensions revelatory legislation in a holistic way. Separating the “Principles of Shariah” from the content of Shariah is thus to eviscerate the principles from its content and substance. Not to mention, that these principles are subjective and historically contingent to the factors and environment in which they were developed. Having rendered the “Principles of Shariah” from their content, context, and substance they are then informed and defined by temporal hegemonic political paradigms.
4- False Dichotomies
When confronted with explicit and manifest Qur’anic injunctions of the Absolute political and legislative sovereignty of the Creator – a common retort is to secondary and misplaced Usuli or jurisprudential principles such as the “lesser of two evils”. Both “evils” are products of the same dismal reality with one being slightly less “evil” subjectively of course, than the other. Furthermore, one of these two evils is absolutely unavoidable; there is no third-way, a third option. In the end, they end up legitimizing and preserving the very same political architecture and structural conditions which had produced those two “evils”. The irony being, that by choosing the lesser evil they end up legitimizing the “evil” origins of both. This stems from nothing short of political naivety and superficiality. Seemingly not having learned from the experiences of a revolution which was far more effective than any ‘legitimate channel for participation’ which taught reformist and revolutionaries alike that the options or ‘legitimate channels’ designated by the illegitimate political system are not immutable nor do they serve as the only options for change, if anything, they preserve the status-quo. What is all the more perplexing is the fact that the referendum in Egypt is not over that of an Islamic constitution versus a Secular constitution but rather a Secular constitution which subordinates the sovereignty of the Absolute Creator to that of the Created. And hence the ‘sovereign’ majority will decide whether or not the will of the Absolute is given a secondary status in the newly drafted constitution or no status at all. The rational and religious absurdities of this are quite obvious.
An Alternative Trajectory for Egypt
Economic progress, social cohesion, and political stability are unattainable without political and economic independence. And the key to this politico-economic independence lays in the intellectual liberation through the introduction of a counter-hegemonic alternative to the dismal status-quo in Egypt. Surely, counter-hegemonic alternative would offer nothing but utopian ideals nor does thrive off the exclusionary politics of nationalism but rather a humane, liberating, and practical alternative from which we can derive both a coherent set of political, economic, and principles and also, a politico-economic and social system which embodies this principles. What is needed is a coherent vision and a comprehensive politico-economic program to deal with the deeply-rooted structural problems and contradictions in Egypt’s faltering system. A cosmetic reform under the masquerade of an Islamic-Democratic-Free Market hybrid “Nahda” program as espoused by the Freedom and Justice Party would fall short of the needed radical structural transformations. The necessary trajectory and answer to the crisis lies not too far from the roaring chants and cries of Egypt’s “Islamist” majority – that answer being; a principled and actual articulation and implementation of what revolting populations around the Muslim world are demanding, they want Islam in power, and not Islamist in power.
