Last Update 19:5
Saturday, 19 October 2019

Egypt is a civil state, and its citizens are Muslims

Egypt was and will continue to be a civil state in which everyone is equal before the law; however, the new constitution should not aim to terminate the significant role of religion or the army

Hassan Abou Taleb , Thursday 7 Nov 2013
Views: 2422
Views: 2422

It seems that some members of Egypt's 50-member constitution drafting committee, as well as a large portion of the ruling elite, do not understand the concept of a "civil state." This has caused considerable confusion for the average Egyptian.

The idea of a civil state has been used by Egyptian secular elites as a blanket term in opposition to a religious state or a state run by the military. The excessive use of civil state rhetoric makes it appear as if Egyptians are simultaneously at war with religion and with the armed forces.

I was particularly disturbed by some of the comments made by Dr. Hazem El-Beblawi during his visit to the United Arab Emirates. He claimed, for example, that the 25 January revolution had put an end to military rule in Egypt once and for all, and thus the return to military rule would harm the army first and foremost.

I was also disturbed by the statements made by Mr. Mohamed Salmawy about the current constitutional draft, which he said would terminate the rule of religion and the army. I understand that most Egyptians, myself included, do not support conventional military rule wherein army generals assume full control of the state's political operations and the distribution of national resources. However, I think it is a radical misrepresentation to suggest that we are all in agreement over the necessity of eliminating religion from the public sphere.

In response to Dr. El-Beblawi's aforementioned remarks, with regard to the appropriate role of the military in Egyptian politics, one may wonder whether there was military rule in Egypt before the 25 January revolution. If Mubarak, as a member of the Armed Forces, was Egypt's president for three decades, does that mean that Egypt was under the control of the military for his entire reign? I would argue that Egypt was not under military rule even if there was a former military officer in the presidential chair. The fact that Mubarak or Gamal Abdel Nasser belonged to the armed forces does not mean that they formed military-run states.

In the initial years following the 1952 revolution, military presence did prevail in the general political scene, but it did not restrict the diverse roles of civilians -- be it economists, manufacturers, engineers, contractors, scholars or media professionals -- and their diverse intellectual orientations. As Nasser's political regime extended its rule, the military's role in the political process shrunk naturally before disappearing after the 1967 defeat in the Arab-Israeli War. Though the army maintained a special status in state institutions, the state was predominantly civil.

Even the retired military officers that became governors or directors of companies and public institutions under Nasser's leadership were appointed based on their experience and qualifications, not because they were army representatives. In addition, the appointment of former military generals to positions outside military institutions challenged them to view things as civilians rather than soldiers. They were clearly committed to state laws and regulations set by the executive legislators. This was hardly military rule.

If anyone objects to the nomination of an army officer for the presidency or parliament, they should say so openly. There is no need to shuffle cards or distort historical facts. Courage is a treasure, and our current revolutionary circumstances allow for that and more.

Egypt was and will continue to be a civil state in the conventional sense. That is, all Egyptian citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or gender, are equal before the Constitution and the law. This equality is especially important with regard to positions within state institutions; all citizens should be afforded equal opportunity to participate and hold positions of power in government. So, just as we value judges, diplomats, and academics, what right do we have to devalue and exclude military and security personnel should they choose to lawfully engage in political work after they have left their former occupations?

With regard to the role of religion in Egyptian politics, no one could, in good faith, deny the significant role that religion -- be it Islam, Christianity, or Judaism -- plays in the hearts of Egyptians. Anyone who would deny this is out of touch with the Egyptian people. It is delusional to think that a new constitution that does not acknowledge the important role of religion in Egypt could be successful. There is no reason to begin a losing battle against Egypt's Islamic identity. A more realistic and honest constitution would reflect the reality of Egyptians' heritage, history and current aspirations, without overriding their rights, particularly those that ensure freedom of religion. The constitution should also regulate public religious practice to ensure that is it not monopolized by any particular individual, institution or group, in a way that allows room for the new voices that these changing times require.

As has been mentioned, the civil state is related to legal equality, which is the essence of citizenship. In this sense, Islam was a pioneer of the civil state, for there is no system of priesthood in it. The respect that the majority of Muslims have for individual religious clerics and their teachings is an appreciation of knowledge and advice, not of the person himself. The concepts derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah (sayings and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed), distinct from the ideologies of changing political currents, have dictated equality between all men. According to the Qur'an, judgment and punishment should be reserved for Judgment Day before God.

Short link:


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.

Nabih Ahmed
08-11-2013 08:54pm
what if a majority of the people chose Islam?
Yes, there should be no discrimination among citizens based on religion. However, the citizens ought to be given the right to choose their political system. If they choose Islam, it is their right.
Comment's Title
12-11-2013 07:42pm
dear Ahmed ahmadi ,you seem so blind....i'm pity you , believe what you want...
Ahmed Ahmadi
11-11-2013 09:23pm
Islam is the final testament to mankind.
Chico: you don't seem to be Muslim. You seem to know so little about Islam. Islam is a political system based on sura.
10-11-2013 11:23pm
wake up
Islam is not a political system...wake up

Glen Parry
08-11-2013 06:41pm
Very Unfortunate Title
Although the author is at pains to state that all are equal, regardless of religion, within Egypt, his title gives the impression that only those who follow Islam are entitled to call themselves full citizens. Such a notion is clearly at odds with a truly civil society, in which citizens are free to practice their religion as a personal relationship with Allah/God and emphasises why it is better to remove religion from politics altogether. Surely the aim of any civil constitution should be to create a state in which one can truly state that, "Egypt is a civil state and its citizens are Egyptians"?
Comment's Title
12-11-2013 12:44am
The problem is fascist secularism
Problems facing Muslim countries stem precisely from the fact that Muslims are not allowed to choose. Just look at Algeria. Egypt, Syria. Whenever the Islamists win election, the treacherous armed forces move to foil democracy.
Ahmed Husni
11-11-2013 09:29pm
Maybe Christianity is a private matter, but not Islam
Democracia: you are not Muslim, I suppose. Aren't you? Hence you have no right to tell Muslims what to believe and what not to believe. And Islam is not a private matter. It is away of life.
11-11-2013 04:01pm
Very poor...
Hello Edwards! You say Muslims are Muslims first and then Egyptians? Hm, then the catastrophic situation in this country (and many other Islamic countries) is no wonder, if you (or all Muslims) put your private religion over common interests of the society or the nation. Very poor opinion...
Edwards Salem
08-11-2013 09:00pm
I am Muslim first and foremost
Glen: Millions of Egyptian Copts define themselves as Christian first and Egyptian a distant second. Muslims have the right to define themselves as Muslims first and Egyptian second.
Hassan Rashed, Cairo
08-11-2013 08:49pm
Freedom of religion needs to be defined
Yes, but for Muslims, religion is more than a personal relation with God. Islam is Sharia also, and Muslims can't fully practice their faith if not given the chance to be ruled by laws compatible with their faith. In the final analysis, secularism is not part of Islam

George Maher, Imbaba, Cairo
08-11-2013 02:15am
No Freedom of religion to Muslims!
The author has failed to acknowledge that banning Islamic parties is incompatibe with articles in the constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion. How can a Muslim citizen practice his faith if he or she is denied the chance of electing political parties that best reflect his value system?
Comment's Title
08-11-2013 09:28pm
Dear Ikwanist troll disguised in a fake Christian name: do you know the notion that religion and politics/state are two parallel lines which never meet? We are not in the Middle Age, religious parties are nowadays out of the trend, because the awareness of the people is growing up. However, you say that this doesn't allow a Muslim to practice his faith. Please answer: Has somebody created a law to ban you to go to the mosque and pray?

Jack Nasser
08-11-2013 02:04am
Arab secularism means hostility to Islam
There can be no truly civil state under secularism which in the Arab world means hostility to religion, specifically Islam. For example, Arab seecularism opposes the formation of political parties based on Islam but allows them if based on atheism or Communism or any other non-Islamist ideology.
Comment's Title

© 2010 Ahram Online.