Last Update 14:18
Sunday, 18 November 2018

What was religion doing in the debate on Egypt's Constitutional amendments?

Saturday's referendum concerned articles of the constitution related to presidential elections, the presidential term and emergency law. How, then, did religion come to dominate the debate, and influence the voting?

Salma Shukrallah and Yassin Gaber, Tuesday 22 Mar 2011
Salafi woman votes
A Salafist woman after voting "yes" in referendum on constitutional amendments
Share/Bookmark
Views: 8048
Share/Bookmark
Views: 8048

After the victory for the “Yes” camp, many are wondering whether this was a consequence of the religious sway of Islamists and Salafists.

Egypt, which held its first referendum in 1956 after the collapse of the monarchy, held its 22nd and what many are calling its freest, fairest referendum on Saturday.

The proposed constitutional amendments put to the vote largely dealt with the articles of the 1971 constitution pertaining to presidential elections and the president’s term in office.

There was no mention of the notorious Article 2, amended by President Anwar Al-Sadat through an earlier referendum in 1980, which states that "Islam is the religion of the State, Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”

Nevertheless, Article 2 soon became central to the countrywide debate over the amendments. Along with the heated, albeit misplaced, talk on Article 2 came a term which though recognisable in academic halls and Islamic orthodox circles was largely absent from public debate.

The imposition of Article 2 on the debate was for the most part the handiwork of the Salafist movement, which proliferated and grew in influence within Egypt during the last years of Mubarak's rule, receiving considerable support and sustenance from state bodies, particularly the infamous State Security Service, according to experts on the Islamist movement. The Salafi movement, according to experts, was an answer to the Mubarak regime's prayers. The Salafi doctrine prohibits any political opposition to a Muslim ruler, and thereby provided the Mubarak regime with an excellent Islamist alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood, which that regime considered the most potent threat to its continued sway.

On the other hand, Salafists hold with one of the most strict and literalist interpretations of Islamic doctrine; they advocate the full veil, and have been largely responsible for its spreading during the past few years; Salafi men are for the most part bearded, and dress in Galabyias or Afghani-style shirts. More serious, however, is the open hostility with which Salafists hold non-Muslims, particularly Egypt's large Coptic community, estimated at some 10 million. This latter feature of Egyptian Salafism is said to have been supported and promoted by the State Security Service, which used anti-Coptic incitement both as an ideal instrument of distraction, as well as to keep the increasingly restive Coptic community in line.

Salafists were among the fiercest advocates of the "Yes" vote, declaring it a religious duty for all Muslims, portraying the "No" campaigners as Christian and secularist "enemies of Islam".

Adverts and statements began popping up in newspapers, on television and in fliers urging pious Muslims to vote “Yes”.

One advertisement campaign, printed in the Al-Ahram daily on 16 March on behalf of the Shari'a Association for Worker Cooperation through the Quran and Sunnah, stated simply that the January 25 revolution was a gift from God which needed to be protected. The advert continued: “The entire leadership of the association considers it to be an Islamic duty that every Egyptian voice his/her agreement to the amendments as a first step towards the later formulation of a complete constitution. Gradual reform cannot be rejected by any sane person. We see giving up on this duty as a negative thing rejected by Islam.”

In a statement published on Twitter on Monday, former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency and presidential hopeful Mohamed El-Baradei remarked on the same advert: “Ad on 1st page of Al-Ahram by religious group claiming Yes vote is a ‘religious duty’. Something sinister is going on!”

The Sharia Association is widely considered to be a Salafist organisation, providing social, medical and educational services to less affluent communities. The campaign does not connect the group's political choice with its charitable work; rather it plays on the notion of religious duty and the threat of apostasy.

After decades of repression, politically active groups, including Islamists and those considered to be Salafists, are beginning to enjoy unprecedented liberties after the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak.

While some, namely the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), have long been active under Mubarak’s regime, others have recently entered or re-entered political life. The Islamic Group (Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiyya) has just been revived after many of its leaders were released, following decades of imprisonment.

Suspicions of mounting fanaticism have been on the rise, especially after the release of Aboud and Tarek El-Zomor, members of the Islamic Group involved in the 1981 assassination of President Sadat. The fear was amplified during the referendum, especially after the discourse over the “Yes” or “No” vote took a religious turn.

Although religion was not the only argument marshalled by those defending the “Yes” vote, the widespread notion that it was “un-Islamic” to vote “No” angered many and heightened existing fears that Islamists and Salafists were pushing their agendas through religious manipulation instead of political participation.

It is, however, worth nothing that in Alexandria, considered the Muslim Brotherhood’s stronghold, the referendum showed a split of almost 60-40 per cent in favour of the "Yes" vote. This is surprisingly lower than the expected figures and the national results at 77-23 per cent in favour of “Yes”.

Nonetheless, cases of attacks on “No” supporters and campaigners have been reported. Rasha Azab, a “No” campaigner, says: “We were attacked by Salafists during a rally in Maadi; they accused us of wanting to remove the second article of the constitution by convincing people to vote ‘No’.”

Others, however, had more frightening stories of violent attacks and assaults. Gamila Ismail, Ghad party member and former Parliamentary candidate, said she was attacked in Aswan by “bearded thugs” on motorcycles who tried to smash her car.

Arwa Marei, another “No” campaigner said: “I was distributing flyers in front of a polling station in Imbaba when two Muslim Brotherhood members approached me, trying to change my mind; when they realised that I was not going to, they asked me to stop trying to influence people’s decisions and said they would report me to the head of the electoral committee. They went into the polling station and came back without him, but with a third man who started shouting at me, took the flyers I had and tore them apart; he then grabbed me by my clothes. Some of the passersby interfered and released me.”

Marei also added that when asked by a taxi driver what her vote would be she responded “No” to which he replied, “You would then be supporting our foes (read: Christians)” – the cab driver had surmised she was a Muslim from her veil. When Marei argued with him about that statement, he asked her to get out of the taxi.

Nevertheless, the Brotherhood denies any involvement in such acts. Mohamed Osman, member of the Brotherhood and the Revolution Youth Coalition, stressed: “We have been participating in elections since the forties, and it was we who were the most assaulted for decades. We should not be confused with other Islamist groups. There are Islamist groups that have for years now been completely isolated and are politically inexperienced. We haven’t used Article 2 in any of our campaigns. The debate over the referendum made it seem as though it was a split between the progressive forces and the Islamist forces and this is not true.”

Ibrahim El-Hudaybi, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, believes that the use of ideological weapons was rife on both sides. When asked about the Salafists, he replied that they were answering unasked questions. “It was a procedural question which both sides approached as an ideological one...it shouldn’t have been.”

El-Hudaybi emphasised that the Brotherhood discussed the amendments from a procedural angle. “Some did use religion but not the leadership,” he stated, adding that some within the Islamist organisation voted “No”.

Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's
Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
10



Merill
14-09-2011 03:50pm
2-
0+
Islam v. state
Islam comes from God, democracy is man-made. Democracy means the rule of the Majority...so how about if 51% of the people decide that God is dead or that adultery is fine, or that Israel has the right to exterminate all Palestinians? you see, morality must always come first, regardless of a people's conference. Basic morality should never be subject to the whims people. in short, Islam is the bedrock upon which society is based, without Islam Egypt is nothing.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
9



geek_girl_JW
30-04-2011 07:14pm
0-
0+
politics
The Great Prophet Jesus said, "my kingdom is no part of this world." He refused to get involved in the political and military structures of his day. His teachings emphasized love of neighbor, including strangers and those of different ethnic backgrounds and races. Who is living this way? geek_girl_JW@yahoo.com
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
8



Brett
25-03-2011 12:17am
0-
2+
Freedom
Equality is the key to freedom. If, under Shari'a, A devout Muslim is equal under the law to an Atheist or Jew. Then by all means yes. If, under Shari'a there is no Qisas (equality) then Egypt is not free and the revolution is poisoned from the beginning. It is no longer a democracy - but an oligarchy of the Islamists and no equal rights for it's people. Representation of the majority with rights for the minority. Voter intimidation should be jailable or treasonable.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
7



George
24-03-2011 08:37am
0-
1+
Democracy
In Egypt or anywhere, religion must disappear in order for democracy to prevail. There's no sense talking about it with the majority injecting religion in every aspect of people's lives. Practice religion in houses of worship and at your own home, period. Otherwise, it's Islamic dictatorship in the works and that's worse than Mubarak's. Until this happen, any efforts for a real democracy is a waste.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
6



George
24-03-2011 08:00am
0-
0+
Democracy
In Egypt or anywhere, religion must disappear in order for democracy to prevail. There's no sense talking about it with the majority injecting religion in every aspect of people's lives. Practice religion in houses of worship and at your own home, period. Otherwise, it's Islamic dictatorship in the works and that's worse than Mubarak's. Until this happen, any efforts for a real democracy is a waste.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
5



George
24-03-2011 07:10am
0-
0+
Democracy
In Egypt or anywhere, religion must disappear in order for democracy to prevail. There's no sense talking about it with the majority injecting religion in every aspect of people's lives. Practice religion in houses of worship and at your own home, period. Otherwise, it's Islamic dictatorship in the works and that's worse than Mubarak's. Until this happen, any efforts for a real democracy is a waste.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
4



Elkaren
23-03-2011 04:27pm
0-
2+
Electoral Freedom.
Exchanging religious tyranny for political tyranny will satisfy no one and leave the Nation divided. Islam has become a tool for oppression and power and has abandoned spirituality but it would actually flourish as Mohammed intended in a secular society because there can never be, or ever have been, true belief where there is coercion.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
3



Helen Boctor
23-03-2011 12:03pm
0-
2+
Egypt & constitutional amendments
Religion & Democracy preach two different things! Can't combine religion & politics - if a religious state is desired then let's not talk about democracy!!
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
2



Waleed
22-03-2011 07:28pm
0-
0+
City versus rural
It is very important to note (what the article mentioned) regarding the 60-40 (or close to) split seen in a number of cities versus the larger split 80-20 seen in rural areas. This could be because of the conservative/NDP forces in the Egyptian society and/or religious influence of linking any change in the constitution to article 2. This means that there is a sizable portion of society that has been revolutionized and wants change towards more freedom. Going back to the city vote, the question remains how many of the 60% are for change but disagreed procedurally (we all know friends who voted yes but they are for change) and how many are for the status quo? I thing we need polling organizations to tells us what is going on inside this 60% group to start with and then in the rural areas as well. Whatever it is freedom is on the way.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
1



Hany
22-03-2011 06:31pm
0-
0+
Politics
if the the end justifies the means, then next time the 'NO' camp will use similar fear campaigns. It is obvious that after decades of dictatorship, maturity is lacked in campaigning or voting. I am totally convinced that those who used the dirty scare tacticts to promote 'YES' are not going to become honest once and if they get the power they will continue in deciept and lies.
Email
 
Name
 
Comment's Title
 
Comment
Latest

© 2010 Ahram Online.