<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<atom:link href="http://freemuslims.org/feed.php" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
<title>Blog feed (RSS 2.0)</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org</link>
<item>
<title>Don&#039;t Blame Jews or Palestinians: Accept them!</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=740</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=740</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[

Don't
Blame
Jews
or
Palestinians:
The
Path
to
Equal
Rights
and
Lasting
Peace

In
the
ongoing
conflict
between
Palestinians
and
Israelis,
there's
a
deeply
troubling
tendency
to
cast
blame
on
one
side
or
the
other,
painting
the
entire
situation
as
an
issue
where
one
group
is
entirely
responsible
for
the
suffering
of
the
other.
This
mentality
is
dangerous,
perpetuating
division,
demonization,
and,
ultimately,
a
lack
of
genuine
solutions.
To
move
toward
peace
and
coexistence,
we
must
reject
the
narrative
that
either
Jews
or
Palestinians
are
solely
to
blame
for
the
situation-and
instead
embrace
the
idea
that
both
groups
share
the
land
of
Israel-Palestine
as
equals.

One
of
the
most
harmful
and
dangerous
aspects
of
the
conflict
is
the
tendency
to
point
fingers.
The
extremists
on
both
sides-whether
they
are
advocates
for
Israel
or
vocal
supporters
of
Palestine-seem
to
find
comfort
in
demonizing
the
other
group,
painting
them
as
entirely
responsible
for
the
suffering
of
their
own
people.
The
rhetoric
often
escalates
to
dangerous
levels,
where
the
realities
of
human
suffering
are
forgotten
in
the
rush
to
assign
blame.
A
disturbing
example
of
this
is
when
Israeli
Prime
Minister
Benjamin
Netanyahu
outrageously
suggested
that
Palestinians
were
responsible
for
the
Holocaust,
an
atrocity
committed
by
Nazi
Germany.
This
type
of
deflection
and
distortion
serves
to
dehumanize
the
other
side,
making
it
easier
to
justify
violence
or
oppression.

Similarly,
there
are
those
who
try
to
deny
the
historical
and
cultural
ties
that
both
Jews
and
Palestinians
have
to
the
land
known
as
Israel
and
Palestine.
On
one
hand,
some
Jewish
Israelis
argue
that
Palestine
was
empty
when
Jews
began
arriving
to
establish
Israel,
asserting
that
Palestinians
are
newcomers
who
arrived
in
search
of
work.
This
narrative
not
only
distorts
history,
but
it
also
seeks
to
erase
the
long-standing
presence
of
Palestinians
in
the
land.
Palestinians
have
lived
in
the
region
for
thousands
of
years.
While
they
may
have
adopted
Arabic
over
time,
they
are
not
recent
migrants
but
natives
of
the
land.

On
the
other
hand,
some
supporters
of
Palestine
argue
that
Jews
have
no
rightful
claim
to
the
land,
asserting
that
most
of
the
Jews
who
settled
in
Israel
were
of
Khazar
descent
and
not
native
to
the
region.
This,
too,
is
a
false
narrative.
Jews
have
deep
historical,
cultural,
and
spiritual
ties
to
Israel-Palestine,
and
for
many,
Jerusalem
is
the
very
heart
of
their
identity.
To
deny
this
attachment
is
to
ignore
centuries
of
Jewish
connection
to
the
land.

These
attempts
to
erase
the
other's
history
are
not
only
misleading
but
counterproductive
to
the
cause
of
peace.
If
we
are
ever
to
reach
a
just
and
lasting
solution,
we
must
start
with
the
understanding
that
both
Jews
and
Palestinians
are
native
to
the
land
known
as
Israel
and
Palestine.
This
understanding
is
crucial
because
it
shifts
the
conversation
from
one
of
exclusion
and
division
to
one
of
inclusion
and
mutual
respect.

The
only
realistic
path
forward
is
the
recognition
of
equal
rights
for
both
Palestinians
and
Israelis.
A
two-state
solution
has
proven
elusive
for
decades,
with
little
progress
made
toward
an
enduring
peace.
Instead
of
continuing
to
search
for
ways
to
divide
the
land
and
the
people,
we
must
embrace
the
idea
of
a
single,
democratic
state
where
both
Jews
and
Palestinians
live
as
equal
citizens,
with
equal
rights
and
protections
under
the
law.
This
"equal
rights
solution,"
also
known
as
the
one-state
solution,
offers
the
most
hope
for
peace
and
justice
for
all
people
in
the
region.

In
this
vision,
Jews
and
Palestinians
would
not
be
locked
into
separate
states
or
territories,
constantly
at
odds
with
each
other.
Instead,
they
would
coexist
in
one
unified
country,
with
full
legal
and
civil
rights
for
everyone,
regardless
of
ethnicity
or
religion.
This
does
not
mean
the
erasure
of
cultural
identities
or
the
denial
of
religious
freedoms.
It
means
building
a
society
based
on
equality,
where
the
human
dignity
of
both
Palestinians
and
Israelis
is
respected.

The
narrative
of
blame
and
division
must
give
way
to
a
vision
of
shared
justice.
For
peace
to
be
achieved,
it's
essential
that
both
sides
recognize
the
inherent
humanity
and
rights
of
the
other.
Rather
than
continuing
to
point
fingers
at
each
other,
the
focus
should
shift
to
how
both
groups
can
live
together
in
harmony,
as
equals
in
their
shared
homeland.
The
only
path
to
peace
is
through
mutual
respect,
understanding,
and
a
commitment
to
the
equal
rights
of
all.

Until
both
Palestinians
and
Israelis
accept
this
fundamental
truth,
the
conflict
will
continue
to
drag
on,
perpetuating
more
suffering
for
both
peoples.
The
time
for
division
and
blame
is
over.
The
time
for
equal
rights
and
shared
peace
has
arrived.
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Only Way Forward: Equal Rights for Palestinians and Israelis</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=739</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=739</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[

The
Only
Way
Forward:
Equal
Rights
for
Palestinians
and
Israelis

The
Israeli-Palestinian
conflict,
which
has
raged
for
over
a
century,
remains
one
of
the
most
contentious
and
heartbreaking
struggles
in
the
world
today.
Many
have
attempted
to
find
solutions,
but
one
thing
is
clear:
the
only
way
forward
for
lasting
peace
is
a
solution
based
on
equality
whereby
Palestinians
and
Israelis
share
a
united
country
as
equal
citizens.
The
"Equal
Rights
Solution"
is
not
only
the
most
viable
path
to
peace
but
also
the
only
proven
approach
that
has
worked
in
other
struggles
for
justice
and
equality.


The
Legacy
of
Inequality

When
Israel
declared
itself
a
state
in
1948,
it
did
so
at
the
expense
of
the
Palestinian
people.
Hundreds
of
Palestinian
villages
were
destroyed,
and
hundreds
of
thousands
of
Palestinians
were
forced
to
leave
their
homes
and
land.
This
event
created
a
refugee
crisis
that
still
reverberates
today.
Many
Palestinians
who
fled
in
1948
did
not
forget
their
homes-nor
did
their
children
or
grandchildren.
Yet,
Israel,
hoping
time
would
make
them
forget,
refused
to
allow
Palestinian
refugees
to
return,
denying
them
basic
rights,
including
the
right
to
return
to
their
ancestral
homes.

As
decades
passed,
Palestinian
resistance
did
not
fade
away.
Instead,
it
has
evolved
into
a
persistent
fight
for
justice.
And
with
each
new
generation,
the
demand
for
equal
rights
and
the
recognition
of
Palestinians
as
full
citizens
has
only
grown
stronger.


Four
Categories
of
Palestinians:
A
Divided
Society

Today,
the
Israeli
government
maintains
a
deeply
segregated
society,
dividing
Palestinians
into
four
categories,
each
with
a
different
level
of
rights
and
freedoms.



Palestinians
with
Israeli
Citizenship:
These
Palestinians
have
the
most
rights,
including
freedom
of
movement,
access
to
employment,
and
the
ability
to
vote.
However,
they
still
face
systemic
discrimination
in
many
aspects
of
life,
including
in
education,
housing,
and
employment.


Palestinians
in
Jerusalem:
While
they
are
legal
residents
of
Israel,
they
are
not
citizens
and
have
fewer
rights
than
Palestinian
citizens
of
Israel.
Their
residency
status
can
be
revoked,
leaving
them
vulnerable.


Palestinians
in
the
West
Bank:
These
individuals
are
neither
citizens
nor
residents
of
Israel.
They
live
under
military
occupation
with
limited
freedom
of
movement
and
are
subject
to
Israeli
military
laws
rather
than
civil
law.


Palestinians
in
Gaza:
Living
under
a
blockade,
Palestinians
in
Gaza
experience
the
most
extreme
conditions.
They
are
not
citizens
or
residents
of
Israel
and
have
virtually
no
freedom
of
movement
or
employment
opportunities.
Gaza
has
often
been
described
as
an
"open-air
prison."


Interestingly,
the
Palestinians
with
the
most
rights-those
with
Israeli
citizenship-are
also
the
least
likely
to
engage
in
violence
against
Israelis.
Meanwhile,
the
situation
in
Gaza,
where
Palestinians
have
the
fewest
rights,
has
become
the
most
violent.
This
stark
difference
demonstrates
that
inequality
and
repression
breed
resentment
and
conflict.
The
more
rights
and
freedoms
Palestinians
are
granted,
the
more
peaceful
and
cooperative
they
tend
to
be.


The
Solution:
Equal
Rights

The
core
issue
of
the
Israeli-Palestinian
conflict
is

not
about
religion
or
ethnicity
but
about
basic
human
rights.
The
divide
between
Jews
and
Palestinians
is
fundamentally
a
divide
between
equal
and
unequal
treatment.
While
various
solutions
have
been
proposed
over
the
years,
including
the
much-discussed
two-state
solution,
none
have
addressed
the
root
cause
of
the
conflict:
inequality.

The

Equal
Rights
Solution-which
is
also
called
the
"One
State
Solution"-is
the
only
viable
path
to
peace.
In
this
model,
Jews
and
Palestinians
would
live
as
equal
citizens
within
the
same
state.
Whether
through
a
unitary
state
with
one
person,
one
vote
or
through
a
federation
where
both
peoples
share
power
equally,
the
key
is
equality.

This
approach
addresses
the
reality
that
Palestinians
will
never
accept
second-class
citizenship.
They
will
never
accept
being
treated
as
lesser
people
or
being
denied
the
same
rights
that
Jews
enjoy.
As
we've
seen
in
history,
when
any
group
is
marginalized
or
oppressed,
resistance
is
inevitable.
It
is
not
a
question
of
if,
but
when,
the
marginalized
group
will
rise
up.


A
Parallels
to
the
Civil
Rights
Struggle
in
the
U.S.
and
South
Africa

The
struggle
for
Palestinian
equality
is
strikingly
similar
to
the
struggles
for
civil
rights
and
justice
faced
by
African
Americans
in
the
United
States
and
black
South
Africans
under
apartheid.
Both
the
African
American
civil
rights
movement
and
the
anti-apartheid
struggle
in
South
Africa
were,
at
their
core,
about
demanding
equal
rights
and
an
end
to
institutionalized
racism.
In
both
cases,
the
oppressed
group
fought
for
the
right
to
live
as
equals
in
the
societies
they
had
been
excluded
from.

In
the
case
of
South
Africa,
it
was
only
when
the
apartheid
system
was
dismantled
and
black
South
Africans
were
granted
equal
rights
that
peace
began
to
emerge.
Similarly,
in
the
United
States,
the
civil
rights
movement
did
not
end
with
token
gestures
or
partial
equality;
it
succeeded
only
when
African
Americans
were
granted
full
citizenship
and
the
rights
that
should
have
been
theirs
all
along.
In
both
cases,
the
demands
for
equality
and
justice
could
not
be
ignored
forever,
and
peace
only
came
when
true
equality
was
achieved.


Human
Rights
Watch
and
B'Tselem:
Apartheid
State

Recent
reports
from
leading
human
rights
organizations,
such
as

Human
Rights
Watch
and

B'Tselem,
have
drawn
a
stark
comparison
between
Israel's
treatment
of
Palestinians
and
South
Africa's
apartheid
regime.
These
organizations
have
described
Israel
as
an
apartheid
state,
citing
practices
like
the
systematic
eviction
of
Palestinians
from
their
homes,
the
lack
of
equal
access
to
resources,
and
the
denial
of
basic
civil
rights
to
Palestinians.

The
inequality
faced
by
Palestinians
is
not
just
a
legal
issue-it
is
a
moral
one.
If
Israel
continues
to
deny
Palestinians
equal
rights,
it
will
not
achieve
peace.
The
situation
will
only
worsen,
as
it
did
in
South
Africa
and
the
United
States.
The
forced
separation
and
discrimination
will
eventually
fuel
more
anger,
more
resistance,
and
more
violence.


Moving
Toward
Peace

Israel
faces
a
critical
choice:
it
can
continue
with
the
status
quo,
clinging
to
a
system
of
segregation
and
inequality,
or
it
can
embrace
a
new
future
based
on
equal
rights
for
all
its
citizens.
The
struggle
for
equality
is
not
just
a
Palestinian
cause-it
is
a
universal
human
cause.
Israel
must
acknowledge
that
no
group
of
people,
whether
Palestinian
or
Jewish,
will
ever
accept
living
under
a
system
of
apartheid.
Inequality
does
not
work,
and
it
will
never
work.

It
is
time
for
Israel
to
realize
that
peace
can
only
be
achieved
when
Palestinians
are
granted
the
same
rights,
protections,
and
opportunities
as
Jews.
The
world
has
seen
how
the
struggle
for
equality
has
succeeded
in
other
places.
There
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
the
path
to
peace
in
Israel-Palestine
will
be
any
different.
Only
through
equality
can
Israel
and
Palestine
hope
for
a
future
of
peace,
justice,
and
shared
prosperity.


For
Israel-Palestine,
Equal
Rights
=
Peace.

 

By
Kamal
Nawash
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>   Israel Must End Racial Segregation for the sake of Peace</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=738</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=738</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[
Peace
through
Equality

A
just
and
lasting
peace
for
both
Israelis
and
Palestinians
hinges
on
the
principle
of
equality-where
both
communities
are
granted
the
same
rights,
opportunities,
and
freedoms,
regardless
of
ethnicity,
religion,
or
history.
The
best
way
to
achieve
this
peace
is
through
a
unitary
state
or
federation,
where
Israel
and
Palestine
are
united
into
one
country
where
all
citizens,
including
Palestinians
and
Israelis,
live
as
equals
under
the
same
laws.

Equality
is
not
a
new
or
foreign
concept
in
the
struggle
for
justice.
Throughout
history,
marginalized
groups
have
fought
for
basic
human
rights,
and
their
successes
show
that
equality
is
not
just
a
moral
ideal,
but
a
practical
solution
to
peace
and
stability.
In
the
United
States,
African
Americans
fought
for
desegregation,
civil
rights,
and
equality
before
the
law.
As
Martin
Luther
King
Jr.
famously
said,
"Injustice
anywhere
is
a
threat
to
justice
everywhere."
The
same
logic
applies
to
the
situation
in
Israel
and
Palestine.
When
one
group
is
treated
as
second-class
citizens,
or
is
excluded
from
full
participation
in
society,
peace
is
impossible.

One
compelling
example
of
this
is
the
division
of
Palestinians
into
four
distinct
categories
under
Israeli
law.
Those
who
hold
Israeli
citizenship,
such
as
Palestinians
in
the
Galilee,
enjoy
the
most
rights,
including
the
right
to
vote
and
run
for
office.
They
can
live
and
work
freely
in
Israel.
These
rights
allow
them
to
coexist
with
Jewish
Israelis
peacefully.
However,
Palestinians
in
Jerusalem,
though
residents,
are
not
full
citizens,
and
face
restrictions
on
movement,
access
to
resources,
and
participation
in
political
life.
Palestinians
in
the
West
Bank
and
Gaza
face
even
worse
conditions,
with
restricted
mobility,
fewer
resources,
and
a
constant
state
of
segregation
and
violence.
The
West
Bank
is
encircled
by
a
wall,
and
Gaza
is
subject
to
an
ongoing
blockade.
This
fragmentation,
and
the
unequal
distribution
of
rights,
creates
a
constant
state
of
tension
and
conflict.
As
Nelson
Mandela
once
said,
"To
deny
people
their
human
rights
is
to
challenge
their
very
humanity."
Palestinians
in
Gaza,
who
live
under
the
least
favorable
conditions,
suffer
the
most,
and
this
has
led
to
repeated
cycles
of
violence.

On
the
other
hand,
the
peaceful
coexistence
between
Palestinian
citizens
of
Israel
and
Jewish
Israelis
demonstrates
the
power
of
equality.
When
both
groups
are
given
equal
rights,
they
are
able
to
coexist
peacefully,
despite
deep
historical
and
cultural
differences.
It
is
crucial
to
note
that
in
regions
where
inequality
and
segregation
exist,
such
as
Gaza,
conflict
and
violence
thrive.
As
Mahatma
Gandhi
put
it,
"An
eye
for
an
eye
only
ends
up
making
the
whole
world
blind."
The
cycle
of
violence
between
Israel
and
Gaza
will
only
continue
as
long
as
one
group
is
denied
equality.

Kamal
Nawash
has
emphasized
that
peace
cannot
be
achieved
through
mere
coexistence
under
inequality,
but
through
a
shared
vision
of
equality
and
justice.
In
his
writings,
Nawash
advocates
for
a
"unitary
state"
solution,
where
Palestinians
and
Israelis
live
together
as
equal
citizens.
He
suggests
that
such
a
state
would
foster
stability,
security,
and
prosperity
for
both
peoples,
ensuring
that
the
mistakes
of
segregation
and
discrimination
do
not
continue
to
divide
the
land.

Just
as
desegregation
was
essential
to
peace
in
the
United
States,
so
too
is
the
end
of
racial
and
legal
segregation
in
Israel
and
Palestine.
When
laws
discriminate
based
on
ethnicity
or
religion,
peace
becomes
a
distant
hope.
By
offering
equal
rights
to
all
citizens-regardless
of
whether
they
are
Jewish
or
Palestinian-Israel
can
not
only
create
peace
with
Palestinians
but
also
with
itself.
A
unified,
democratic
state
with
equal
rights
for
all
citizens
would
prevent
the
violence,
unrest,
and
constant
state
of
war
that
currently
exists
in
Gaza.
It
would
also
serve
as
a
model
for
the
world,
showing
that
peace
can
only
come
when
all
people
are
granted
equality
before
the
law.

In
conclusion,
a
unitary
state
or
federation
based
on
equality
is
the
only
viable
path
forward
for
Israelis
and
Palestinians.
By
embracing
the
principle
of
equal
rights,
as
we
have
seen
in
the
civil
rights
struggles
of
African
Americans
and
the
teachings
of
leaders
like
Mandela,
Gandhi,
and
Martin
Luther
King
Jr.,
peace
and
justice
can
be
achieved.
True
peace
comes
not
from
a
fragmented,
divided
system
of
different
laws
for
different
people,
but
from
a
shared
commitment
to
equality
and
mutual
respect.
 Equality
is
a
solution.

 

Kamal
Nawash
is
an
American
lawyer
from
Jerusalem.
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Muslims Must Protect Arab and Middle Eastern Christians</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=407</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=407</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[  Muslims Must Protect Arab Christians
 By Kamal Nawash
 The last 10 years have not been easy for Arab &amp; Middle Eastern Christians. Numerous events, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Israel's continuous killing of Palestinians with the perceived support of the United States, have inspired the belief ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>A Christian&#039;s Perspective on Israel-Palestine</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=337</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=337</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 13:51:35 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Pastor Howard Gardner
Bel Air Assembly of God

Friends, please understand from the start that I Have no background in either law, political science, business or economics. Please keep that in mind as you review this article and anticipate that there may be points that I make which will be highly naive ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Proposal for Ending the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=332</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=332</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 13 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[

UNITED
STATES
OF
ISRAEL/PALESTINE


Preamble

This
is
a
road
map
for
creating
a
Union
of
Israel-Palestine.
This
proposal
gives
Israelis
and
Palestinians
most
of
what
they
would
have
if
they
had
separate
countries
but
organized
to
function
as
a
united
country
that
guarantees
security
and
prosperity
for
Jews
and
Palestinians.
The
basis
of
this
union
is
a
federation
like
the
United
States
of
America
that
ensures
a
Jewish
state
and
a
Palestinian
state
joined
together
based
on
equal
rights.

Currently,
there
are
approximately
six
million
Jews
and
six
million
Palestinians
in
Israel-Palestine.
 However,
most
Palestinians
are
not
citizens
of
Israel.
 They
are
stateless
and
deprived
of
equal
rights.

When
Israel
became
a
state
in
1948,
it
demolished
most
Palestinian
towns
and
forced
most
Palestinians
out
of
their
homes.
 Israeli
leaders
at
the
time
believed
that
if
Israel
prevented
Palestinians
from
returning
to
their
homes
their
children
would
eventually
forget
about
Palestine.
 
Israel's
plan
failed.
The
latest
war
on
Gaza
has
revealed
that
not
only
did
Palestinian
children
not
forget
about
Palestine,
but
Israel
is
now
fighting
the
grandchildren
of
those
Palestinians
who
were
forced
out
of
their
homes.
Consequently,
Israel
will
have
to
accept
the
reality
that
Palestinians
will
never
forget
about
Palestine
and
Israel
will
have
to
make
peace
with
Palestinians
by
accepting
them
as
equal
citizens
of
Israel-Palestine
and
both
Jews
and
Palestinians
will
have
to
accept
that
Palestinians
and
Jews
are
native
to
Palestine-Israel.


ROADMAP
TO
A
SHARED
FUTURE.

This
Roadmap
envisions
one
country
designed
as
a
federation
of
two
States,
Israel,
and
Palestine,
where
each
State
contributes
50%
to
the
federal
parliament
regardless
of
population.

This
road
map
envisions
two
people
sharing
one
united
country
where
each
side
is
guaranteed
equality,
freedom,
civil
rights,
and
security.
 The
reference
to

"States"
means
two
sovereign
entities
like
New
York
and
New
Jersey
linked
together
to
form
one
country
like
the
United
States
of
America.


PHYSICAL
AND
POLITICAL
BOUNDARIES

There
shall
be
no
physical
barriers
between
states.
However,
the
administration
of
a
federation
requires
legal
boundaries
to
determine
the
jurisdiction
of
the
State
government.

As
to
the
boundaries
of
the
states,
this
should
be
easy
to
agree
on
since
boundaries
do
not
impact
freedom
of
movement,
commerce,
or
where
people
choose
to
live.
 As
a
default
solution,
the
boundaries
may
be
the
1967
lines.
The
borders
may
also
be
based
on
demographics,
but
this
proposal
envisions
a
country
where
the
states
have
a
substantial
number
of
people
from
the
other
side
living
in
it.
 For
example,
all
the
settlers
should
remain
in
Palestine
and
all
Palestinians
in
Israel
should
remain
part
of
Israel.

FEDERAL,
STATE
AND
LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS


Federal

The
federal
parliament
shall
be
divided
50/50
regardless
of
population,
(like
the
U.S.
Senate).
Israel
and
Palestine
will
each
contribute
50%
to
the
federal
parliament
regardless
of
which
State
Jews
and
Palestinians
choose
to
live
in.
 The
purpose
of
the
50/50
split
is
to
provide
each
side
with
security,
equality
and
to
make
certain
that
the
legislature
will
not
discriminate
against
a
particular
state
or
group,
and
to
legislate
for
the
benefit
of
the
country.

The
federal
government
shall
have
specific
authority
that
is
given
to
it
by
the
constitution.
It
should
not
interfere
with
state
governments
but
will
guarantee
certain
fundamental
rights
for
all
people.
Thus,
the
federal
government
could
prevent
Israel
or
Palestine
from
passing
laws
that
discriminate
against
people
because
of
their
religion,
race,
or
gender.

The
Federal
government
shall
also
use
its
resources
to
assist
Palestine
in
building
its
infrastructure
and
implementing
projects
to
connect
the
highways,
railways,
and
other
infrastructure
of
Israel
and
Palestine.


State
Government

All
citizens
of
a
state
shall
have
the
right
to
vote
and
run
for
public
office.
The
state
government
shall
be
responsible
for
the
general
welfare
of
its
residents.
 State
governments
shall
have
authority
over
all
issues
that
concern
their
residents
but
don't
violate
federal
law.


Municipalities

As
to
municipal
elections,
they
will
be
based
on
one
person/one
vote.
Municipal
districts
may
be
created
around
specific
community
concentrations.
For
example,
Jews
who
live
in
Bethlehem
or
Palestinians
who
live
in
Tel
Aviv
shall
have
the
right
to
vote
and
run
for
municipal
elections
regardless
of
their
religion.
However,
community
concentrations
such
as
the
Har
Homa
Jewish
settlement
which
falls
within
the
jurisdiction
of
Bethlehem
or
Beit
Sahour
may
become
their
municipality.
 The
idea
here
is
to
give
Jewish
and
Palestinian
communities
most
of
what
they
want
if
they
do
not
violate
the
rights
of
others.
 
Municipal
governments
may
not
discriminate
against
residents
based
on
religion,
ethnicity,
or
gender.
Municipalities
must
provide
all
residents
with
equal
services.


President
or
Prime
Minster

The
federal
Prime
Minister
may
be
selected
by
the
federal
parliament.
 Having
the
parliament
make
the
selection
is
appropriate
because
a
50/50
parliament
is
more
likely
to
produce
a
leader
who
will
strive
to
serve
all
the
people.
However,
the
same
may
be
accomplished
by
electing
the
prime
minister
by
a
popular
vote
of
the
entire
country.


Jerusalem

Jerusalem
shall
be
the
Capital
of
Israel-Palestine
and
there
shall
be
no
restrictions
on
the
number
of
people
who
travel,
visit,
or
reside
in
Jerusalem.


POLICE


Federal
Police

The
federal
police
shall
have
specific
federal
jurisdiction
throughout
the
entire
country
and
shall
enforce
laws
that
are
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
federal
government.
The
federal
government
shall
recruit
and
train
federal
police
from
both
communities
in
substantially
equal
numbers.
In
addition
to
federal
jurisdiction,
the
federal
police
shall
prevent
attacks
against
any
religious
community,
group,
or
ethnicity
and
ensure
free
and
fair
commerce
throughout
the
country.

STATE
POLICE
AND
MUNICIPAL
POLICE

State
police
shall
have
general
police
powers
with
jurisdiction
over
the
entire
state.
 Municipal
police
shall
have
general
police
powers
delegated
by
the
state.


Federal
Military

The
federal
government
shall
have
exclusive
authority
to
establish
a
military
to
defend
the
Union
of
Israel-Palestine.
 The
federal
government
shall
recruit
military
personnel
in
equal
numbers
if
possible.


RIGHT
OF
RETURN
IS
A
BIRTHRIGHT

Every
Jew
and
every
Palestinian
in
the
world
shall
have
a
birthright
to
return
to
the
Union
of
Israel-Palestine.
 The
federation
shall
accept
the
return
of
all
Jews
and
Palestinians
from
all
over
the
world.


Economy

There
shall
be
NO
restrictions
on
interstate
commerce
within
the
federation.
 No
State
may
favor
its
industry
to
the
detriment
of
the
industry
of
the
other
State.
No
State
may
restrict
the
flow
of
goods
from
the
other
State
or
tax
goods
from
the
other
State
differently
than
it
taxes
goods
of
its
own
State.

The
Union
of
Israel-Palestine
shall
have
the
same
currency,
no
tariffs,
and
free
trade.
The
federal
government
shall
have
exclusive
jurisdiction
to
regulate
interstate
commerce.



Courts
and
state/federal
law

The
States
may
use
religion
as
a
basis
for
law
such
as
family
law.
 However,
a
State
may
not
compel
religious-based
laws
on
any
resident
of
the
State.
Each
resident
of
each
State
shall
have
the
right
to
opt
out
of
religious
laws
and
rely
on
secular
laws
by
seeking
the
jurisdiction
of
the
federal
courts.

The
federal
courts
shall
have
parallel
jurisdiction
to
State
courts,
but
the
federal
courts
shall
only
apply
secular
law
which
is
the
law
of
the
federal
government.
The
residents
of
the
federation
shall
have
the
right
to
submit
their
legal
matters
to
the
State
courts
or
the
federal
courts.
For
example,
a
Muslim,
Christian,
or
Jew
who
wants
a
divorce
may
file
in
State
court
which
may
apply
Islamic,
Christian,
or
Jewish
law.
However,
if
she
wants
to
submit
her
dispute
to
the
secular
federal
court,
she
shall
have
that
right.


COMPENSATION
AND
REPARATION

To
help
Palestinians
reverse
the
loss
from
being
evicted
from
their
homes
the
federal
government
must
contribute
to
building
the
infrastructure
of
the
West
Bank
and
Gaza.
The
federation
must
assist
in
developing
the
Palestinian
areas
on
par
with
Jewish
areas.


The
Israeli
state
must
address
neglected
Palestinian
areas
within
Israel.


Conclusion

This
solution
which
is
based
on
equal
rights
for
Jews
and
Palestinians
is
the
only
solution
proven
to
work.
To
illustrate,
consider
that
Israel
divides
Palestinians
into
four
different
categories.
The
first
category
is
for
Palestinians
who
hold
Israeli
citizenship.
Those
Palestinians
have
the
most
rights
in
Israel-Palestine.
The
second
category
is
those
Palestinians
who
live
in
Jerusalem.
They
are
not
citizens
of
Israel
but
are
legal
residents.
They
have
fewer
rights
than
Palestinians
who
are
citizens
of
Israel,
but
they
have
freedom
of
movement.
The
third
category
is
for
Palestinians
who
live
in
the
Westbank.
They
are
neither
citizens
nor
residents
of
Israel
and
have
limited
freedom
of
movement.
The
fourth
category
is
for
those
Palestinians
who
live
in
Gaza.
They
are
not
citizens
or
residents
of
Israel,
and
they
have
no
freedom
of
movement
and
their
living
situation
is
described
as
an
open-air
prison.
Today,
the
best
coexistence
between
Israelis
and
Palestinians
is
found
among
those
who
hold
Israeli
citizenship,
and
who
have
freedom
of
movement
and
freedom
of
employment.
The
worst
relations
are
with
residents
of
Gaza
who
have
no
rights
in
Israel
even
though
80%
of
Gazans
originate
from
Israel
but
were
forced
out
in
1948.
Thus,
there
is
a
relationship
between
the
rights
and
equality
that
Israel
gives
Palestinians
and
how
Palestinians
respond
to
Israel.
It
is
no
coincidence
that
the
Palestinians
with
the
most
rights
in
Israel
are
NOT
throwing
rocks
or
rockets
at
Israelis.


 

Kamal
Nawash

www.nawashlaw.com

202-776-7191

 
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>An American Citizen Everywhere in the World BUT the State of Israel</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=312</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=312</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ I have been an American citizen since 1996.
My husband, also an American citizen, and I have been married and living in Michigan for over 16 years.
My son and daughter, ages 14 &amp; 13, respectively, were both born in Michigan.
Though I was born in Palestine and do cherish my heritage, ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Egypt&#039;s Draft Constitution Part One: Religion And State</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=290</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=290</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ MEMRI
  Introduction
 In the past two weeks, Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi has accelerated the process of approval of the new Egyptian draft constitution. On December 1, 2012, following marathon meetings of the Constituent Assembly, he announced that the draft would be put to public referendum in two weeks' ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Egypt&#039;s Draft Constitution Part THREE: Presidential Powers, Status Of Military And Judiciary, Civil Freedoms</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=288</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=288</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[
MEMRI


Introduction

Previous
reports
in
MEMRI's
series
on
Egypt's
draft
constitution
dealt
with
the
controversial
articles
regarding
the
relations
of
religion
and
state
in
Egypt.[1]
The
present
installment
addresses
the
other
central
issues
that
have
triggered
public
criticism
of
the
draft
constitution,
which
is
to
be
brought
to
referendum
on
December
15,
2012.[2]

A.
Presidential
Powers
-
Compared
to
the
1971
constitution,
and
compared
to
the
sweeping
powers
assumed
by
President
Muhammad
Mursi
in
recent
weeks,[3]
the
present
draft
constitution
does
restrict
the
president's
powers,
as
many
Egyptians
had
hoped
it
would
after
the
January
25,
2011
revolution.
For
example,
the
draft
constitution
limits
the
president
to
two
four-year
terms
in
office
(Article
133),
unlike
the
previous
constitution,
which
did
not
set
any
limits
on
presidential
tenure.
Moreover,
unlike
the
previous
constitution,
the
new
one
does
not
permit
the
president
to
dissolve
the
parliament
at
will,
but
only
by
referendum
(127),
and
the
president
is
no
longer
authorized
to
declare
a
state
of
emergency
of
unlimited
duration
(148).
Also,
the
prosecution
of
a
president
is
possible
under
certain
conditions
involving
suspicion
of
criminal
activity
or
treason
(152).

However,
many
of
those
opposed
to
the
constitution
claim
that
it
still
leaves
the
president
with
excessive
powers[4]
that
do
not
exist
in
other
presidential
regimes
around
the
world.
For
example,
some
pointed
out
that
according
to
the
draft
constitution,
the
president
appoints
the
prosecutor-general
(173),[5]
as
well
as
the
heads
of
the
bodies
charged
with
supervising
the
president
himself
(202).[6]
It
was
also
noted
that,
unlike
in
the
previous
constitution,
the
president
appoints
the
judges
of
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
(176)[7]
and
must
approve
every
law
legislated
by
parliament
(104).

Unlike
in
the
past,
the
president
is
no
longer
entitled
to
appoint
some
30%
of
the
members
of
the
Shura
Council,
but
still
has
the
right
to
appoint
up
to
10%
of
them
(Article
128).


[8]
It
was
also
noted
that
the
article
authorizing
the
president
to
appoint
and
dismiss
civil
and
military
personnel
(147)
virtually
enables
him
to
fire
6,000,000
civil
servants
and
replace
them
with
appointees
of
his
own
choosing,[9]
and
that
the
new
constitution,
unlike
the
previous
one,
does
not
require
him
to
appoint
a
vice
president.


B.
Human
Rights
and
Liberties
-
Like
the
previous
constitution,

the
new
draft
constitution
enjoins
the
state
to
guarantee
liberties
such
as
freedom
of
speech
and
opinion
(45),
congregation
(53),
and
movement
(42),
and
human
rights,
such
as
the
right
to
live
in
dignity
(31),
and
the
right
to
employment
(64)
and
education
(58).
Moreover,
the
new
draft
constitution
guarantees
some
rights
and
liberties
that
were
not
mentioned
in
the
previous
constitution,
such
as
the
right
to
demonstrate
(50),
freedom
of
information
(47),
the
right
to
establish
NGOs
(51)
and
newspapers
(49),
and
the
restriction
of
media
censorship
to
wartime
only
(48)
(unlike
the
previous
constitution,
which
enabled
censorship
as
part
of
a
state
of
emergency
as
well).
The
new
draft
also
determines
that
prisons
will
be
monitored
(37),
and
forbids
prisoner
torture
(36).

On
the
other
hand,
to
the
chargin
of
human
rights
organizations
and
liberal
circles
in
Egypt,
the
draft
constitution
does
not
include
any
expression
of
commitment
to
international
conventions
on
human
rights
and
liberties.[10]
The
detractors
of
the
draft
constitution
also
point
out
that
it
permits
the
shutdown
of
NGOs
(51)
and
newspapers
(48)
by
court
order,
and
that,
unlike
the
former
constitution,
it
includes
no
explicit
clause
on
gender
equality,
and
no
explicit
ban
on
discrimination
against
religion
minorities
or
women;
instead,
it
includes
only
a
general
clause
calling
for
equality
among
citizens
and
prohibiting
discrimination
(33).
In
fact,
the
new
constitution
opens
the
door
to
discrimination
against
non-Sunni
Muslims,
including
Shi'ites,
by
stating
that
Sunni
Muslim
jurisprudence
is
the
primary
source
of
legislation
(219).

It
also
restricts
freedom
of
religious
worship
to
members
of
the
monotheistic
faiths
(43).


C.
Status
of
the
Military
-
The
previous
constitution
did
not
address
military
legislation
and
budget,
and
whether
civilians
may
be
tried
in
military
courts.
Popular
demands
to
address
these
issues
in
the
new
constitution
arose
after
Mubarak's
ouster,
during
the
rule
of
the
Supreme
Council
of
the
Armed
Forces
(SCAF),
which
sought
to
establish
the
military's
supremacy
in
the
constitution,
as
reflected
in
the
Constitutional
Principles
document
drafted
by
its
deputy
prime
minister,
Dr.
'Ali
Al-Silmi,
in
November
2011.

Articles
9
and
10
of
that
document
granted
the
SCAF
the
exclusive
right
to
handle
the
affairs
of
the
military
and
its
budget,
and
the
authority
to
veto
any
legislation
pertaining
to
the
armed
forces.[11]
This
document,
which
sparked
widespread
criticism
and
was
abandoned
with
the
appointment
of
a
new
government,
triggered
public
demands
to
restrict
the
military's
authority
in
the
new
constitution.

The
draft
constitution
indeed
addresses
the
controversial
issues.

It
does
not
grant
the
military
exclusive
authority
over
its
own

affairs,
yet
it
does
grant
it
substantial
independence
and
influence
regarding
military
decision-making.
It
determines
that
the
military
budget
will
not
be
debated
by
the
parliament,
which
handles
the
rest
of
the
national
budget,
but
rather
by
the
National
Defense
Council
-
which
includes
the
president,
the
heads
of
parliament,
the
head
of
intelligence,
the
chief
of
staff,
and
the
heads
of
the
sea,
air,
land,
and
operations
branches
of
the
military
(197).
The
president
must
also
consult
this
body
before
declaring
war
(146),
and
the
parliament
must
consult
it
regarding
any
legislation
related
to
the
military
(197)
-
two
provisions
that
did
not
exist
in
the
previous
constitution.
Furthermore,
the
draft
constitution
enables
the
prosecution
of
civilians
in
military
courts
in
cases
of
offenses
"that
harm
the
armed
forces"
(198);
and,
following
pressure
from
the
military
delegates
to
the
Constituent
Assembly,
articles
relating
to
the
military
judiciary
system
remain
under
the
section
dealing
with
the
military,
as
opposed
to
the
general
judiciary
section
(198).


D.
Status
of
the
Judiciary
-
Like
the
previous
constitution,
the
current
draft
is
committed
to
preserving
the
independence
and
autonomy
of
the
judiciary
(168).
However,
there
are
several
new
key
articles
that
have
been
met
with
outrage
among
many
judges
in
Egypt,
especially
those
of
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court,
particularly
the
one
authorizing
the
president
to
appoint
the
prosecutor-general
(173),
as
well
as
the
justices
of
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
its
elf,
including
its
Chief
Justice
(176).
This
article
overrides
a
law
set
forth
by
the
SCAF
after
the
revolution
that
determined
that
the
head
of
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
would
be
elected
by
a
general
assembly
of
judges.[12]
In
addition,
the
draft
constitution
includes
several
articles
that
directly
challenge
the
authority
of
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court,
in
that
they
override
previous
rulings
by
this
court.

For
example,
it
determines
that
members
of
the
National
Democratic
Party
(NDP)
-
the
ruling
party
during
the
Mubarak
era
-
are
banned
from
serving
in
public
office
for
10
years
(232),
while
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
ruled
that
this
law
contravened
the
equality
clause
of
the
constitution
and
that
it
should
be
applied
only
to
members
of
the
previous
regime
found
guilty
of
corruption.[13]
Furthermore,
the
new
draft
determines
that
the
parliamentary
elections
will
continue
to
include
candidates
from
party
lists
alongside
independent
candidates
(231)
-
a
system
that
enabled
the
Muslim
Brotherhood
(MB)
to
win
a
majority
of
seats
in
the
previous
People's
Assembly,
and
which
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
ruled
unconstitutional,
leading
to
the
disbanding
of
this
assembly.[14]
In
response
to
the
criticism
of
the
draft
constitution,
its
proponents,
chiefly
the
MB,
underscored
its
advantages
by
focusing
on
articles
likely
to
appeal
to
the
general
public
-
such
as
the
articles
limiting
presidential
authorities
-
while
downplaying
its
controversial
articles.
For
example,
in
his
December
1,
2012
speech,
in
which
he
called
for
a
referendum
,
Mursi
said:
"For
the
first
time
in
Egypt's
history,
the
constitution
supports
the
people's
will
and
limits
the
powers
of
the
president...
who
can
no
longer
dissolve
the
parliament
[at
will],
but
only
by
referendum."[15]
At
a
gathering
intended
to
educate
the
public
on
the
new
constitution,
the
MB's
secretary-general
in
Giza,
Dr.
Hilmi
Al-Gazzar,
explained
that
the
president
will
no
longer
be
entitled
to
declare
a
state
of
emergency
or
a
war
without
the
approval
of
parliament.[16]
Yet
another
example
of
this
focus
was
an
informational
video
posted
on
the
MB's
official
website
which
explains
in
simple
language
the
constitutional
articles
dealing
with
salary
caps
for
senior
officials,
workers'
right
to
strike,
and
social
security
and
various
other
services.

The
website
also
posted
reports
listing
the
articles
that
improve
the
people's
lot.
One
such
report,
by
Muhammad
Kamal,
lists
41
articles
dealing
with

ensuring
social
justice.[17]


Egyptian
Legal
Expert:
There
Is
Nothing
New
In
The


Draft
Constitution

In
an
article
titled
"Ten
Reasons
To
Oppose
The
Constitution
Draft
Proposal,"
published
in
the
independent
Egyptian
daily

Al-Shurouq,
Egyptian
economist
and
legal
expert
Ziyad
Bahaa
Al-Din,
a
former
member
of
the
People's
Assembly
and
a
present
member
of
the
Egyptian
Democratic
Party,
outlined
the
main
public
criticisms
of
the
above-mentioned
constitutional
articles.
Bahaa
Al-Din
harshly
decried
the
way
in
which
the
Islamic
majority
in
the
Constituent
Assembly
had
hijacked
this
assembly
and
then
finalized
and
approved
the
draft
with
lightning
speed.
He
added
that
the
draft
was
being
imposed
upon
the
people,
and
had
come
to
symbolize
schism
and
the
trampling
of
the
rule
of
law,
concluding:
"The
way
this
constitution
has
been
forced
upon
society,
and
the
claim
that
we
must
choose
between
accepting
it
and
living
under
a
tyrannical
constitutional
declaration,
is
reason
enough
to
object
to
it."
The
following
are
excerpts
from
his
article:[18]

"I
really
tried
to
examine
the
draft
constitution
through
the
eyes
of
someone
who
sees
the
glass
as
half
full,
not
half
empty.
But,
sadly,
I
eventually
found
myself
forced
to
reject
it,
for
10
main
reasons:

"First,
the
debate
on
the
Islamic
shari'a
was
unfortunately
presented
as
a
debate
on
the
value
of
the
shari'a
itself,
or
[on
the
value]
of
faith,
while
it
is
[actually]
a
purely
legal
question:
will
legislation
remain
in
the
hands
of
the
elected
parliament
and
the
justice
system
in
the
hands
of
the
courts,
or
will
there
be
a
new
source
of
authority
-
Al-Azhar's
Supreme
Council
of
Clerics
-
with
the
dictates
of
shari'a
receiving
specific
legal
recognition?...[19]

"Second,
the
constitution,
which
we
hoped
would
bring
about
clear
achievements
for
the
Egyptian
people
in
terms
of
economic
and
social
rights
and
human
development,
includes
the
usual
flowery
phrases
without
imposing
specific
standards
or
goals
upon
the
state,
and
therefore
offers
[nothing]
new."


Pretty
Words
About
Human
Rights,
But
Devoid
Of
Content

"All
imaginable
rights
were
mentioned
in
the
draft
constitution,
just
as
they
were
in
many
previous
constitutions
-
[including]
education
and
scientific
research
(Articles
59
and
61),
healthcare
(62),
employment
(64),
social
security
(65),
benefits
(66),
housing,
water,
and
food
(68),
and
even
sports
(69),
and
the
care
of
children
(70)
and
the
disabled
(72).
However,
there
is
no
requirement
[that
the
state]
produce
results,
allocate
resources,
or
even
do
anything
more
than
just
talk.
In
my
estimation,
this
part
of
the
constitution,
which
has
not
received
the
[public]
attention
it
deserves,
is
one
of
the
weakest
sections,
because
it
will
not
bring
about
a
noticeable
improvement
in
the
public's
standard
of
living,
and
will
not
meet
its
needs."


The
Draft
Constitution
Does
Not
Ensure
Equality
Or
Prevent
Discrimination
Between
Citizens

"Third,
the
new
draft
constitution
does
not
ensure
equality
among
citizens
or
preclude
discrimination
among
them.
[True,]
Article
6
states
that
'Egypt's
political
system
is
based
upon
citizenship,
under
which
all
citizens
are
equal
in
rights
and
duties';
Article
9
states
that
'the
state
shall
ensure
safety,
security,
and
equal
opportunities
for
all
citizens
without
discrimination';
and
Article
33
stipulates
that
'all
citizens
are
equal
before
the
law.
They
have
equal
public
rights
and
duties
without
discrimination.'[20]

"However,
these
pretty
words
are
empty,
since
the
2012
draft
constitution
does
not
include
a
single
text
that
explicitly
prohibits
discrimination
between
men
and
women
in
rights
and
duties,
jobs,
education,
healthcare
services,
or
benefit
payments.
Nor
does
it
contain
a
single
text
explicitly
prohibiting
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
religion
or
belief.
It
contains
no
explicit
statement
about
the
state's
responsibility
to
end
the
various
kinds
of
discrimination,
or
any
prohibition
against
hatred
and
incitement
on
a
religious
basis.
It
does
not
criminalize
forced
immigration
or
prohibit
collective
punishment,
nor
does
it
defend
cultural
pluralism,
though
Egyptian
society
is
characterized
by
cultural
richness
and
diversity...
The
new
constitution
neither
defends
nor
ensures
equality
between
citizens
because
it
largely
ignores
this
issue,
perhaps
in
order
to
avoid
embarrassment,
or
else
out
of
the
assumption
that
ignoring
it
is
enough
-
when
[the
fact
is
that]
equality
among
the
sons
and
daughters
of
a
nation
is
the
most
important
message
in
all
the
constitutions
of
the
world.

"Fourth,
many
of
the
suggestions
made
by
[various]
professional
unions,
associations,
and
parties
regarding
rights
and
guarantees
they
hoped
would
appear
in
the
constitution
ultimately
went
unheeded.
Sadly,
many
of
those
who
read
the
final
version
of
the
draft
constitution
assess
it
only
according
to
what
they
find
in
it,
and
ignore
what
is
absent
and
could
have
been
included
in
it.
[For
example],
Article
70
on
the
rights
of
the
child
does
not
define
the
age
of
minority
and
does
not
defend
children
[against
abuse]
inside
the
family.
The
constitution
does
not
include
any
text
banning
torture
(Article
36
prohibits
the
torture
of
prisoners,
but
not
of
citizens
in
general).

"In
addition,
[the
Constituent
Assembly]
withdrew
its
original
[intention]
to
ban
imprisoning
[journalists]
for
publication
violations;
nor
does
the
constitution
include
the
proposed
prohibitions
on
human
trafficking,
underage
marriage,
and
the
violation
of
women's
rights.
Additionally,
[the
Constituent
Assembly]
did
not
heed
the
suggestion
to
include
a
clause
guaranteeing
resources
and
services
for
women
in
order
to
help
them
combine
their
roles
in
the
family
and
in
the
[job
market],
and
defending
women
from
violence
and
guaranteeing
their
right
of
inheritance..."


No
Change
Was
Made
To
The
Parliamentary
Election
Process

"Fifth,
turning
to
[the
issue
of]
the
state's
political
system,
we
find
that,
with
regard
to
the
legislative
branch,
the
draft
constitution
leaves
the
[upper
house
of
parliament],
the
Shura
Council,
in
place,
though
[this
body]
is
superfluous
-
especially
since,
according
to
the
draft
constitution,
it
is
elected
by
the
same
procedure
as
the
Senate
[i.e.
the
lower
house
of
parliament,
previously
known
as
the
People's
Assembly].
This
means
that
we
will
have
two
houses
of
parliament,
[both
elected]
in
the
same
way
and
with
more
or
less
identical
authorities,
[except
that]
one
will
convene
in
a
green
hall
and
the
other
in
a
red
hall,
and
the
two
will
doubtless
spend
most
of
their
time
smoothing
out
their
differences
and
debating
rules
that
they
must
agree
on.

"Sixth
and
more
importantly,
the
draft
constitution
includes
a
puzzling
clause
(Article
231),
which
states
that
it
has
suddenly
been
decided,
without
prior
warning,
that
'two
thirds
of
the
seats
[in
the
parliament]
are
to
be
won
by
a
list-based
electoral
system
and
one-third
by
individual
candidacy,
with
parties
and
independent
candidates
allowed
to
run
in
each.'
This
[clause]
is
puzzling
because...
that
was
the
procedure
used
in
this
year's
[People's
Assembly]
election
[held
between
November
2011-January
2012],
which
was
bad
because
it
combined
all
the
drawbacks
of
the
list-based
system
and
all
the
drawbacks
of
the
individual
[candidacy]
system.
Moreover,
this
addition
[to
the
draft
constitution]
was
made
at
the
last
moment,
and
precluded
an
understanding
between
the
political
forces
on
this
issue
[by
preventing]
a
debate
on
it.

"Seventh...
Article
229...
reinstates
the
reservation
of
half
the
seats
in
parliament
for
workers
and
farmers.
But,
since
the
purpose
of
this
article
is
[merely]
to
gain
popular
support
rather
than
to
achieve
useful
results,
[the
article]
defines
'worker'
as
'anyone
who
is
hired
by
another
for
a
fee
or
salary.'
This
basically
refers
to
the
entire
Egyptian
people,
with
the
exception
of
businessmen
and
white
collar
workers..."


Opening
The
Door
To
Reinstating
Military
Courts'
Control
Over
Civil
Society

"Eighth,
when
it
comes
to
the
armed
forces,
the
[Constituent
Assembly]
did
not
realize
all
the
expectations
or
heed
all
the
suggestions
that
were
made
by
the
political
forces
over
the
last
year.
[At
first,]
the
principle
that
civilians
are
not
to
be
tried
in
military
courts
seemed
to
be
taking
root
in
the
[draft]
constitution,
but
then,
along
came
Article
198,
which
ignored
this
and
restored
the
permission
to
try
civilians
in
military
courts
for
offences
against
the
armed
forces
(to
be
defined
in
a
subsequent
law).
It
was
also
stated
that
this
law
(to
be
passed
at
a
later
date)
will
define
the
rest
of
the
authorities
of
the
military
court
system
-
which
opens
the
door
to
restoring
the
control
of
the
military
courts
over
civil
society.

"As
for
the
complicated
issue
of
the
armed
forces'
budget,
and
the
question
of
whether
the
parliament
is
authorized
to
debate
it
as
it
debates
the
state's
budget
as
a
whole,
Article
197
ignores
the
numerous
alternatives
and
impartial
concepts
that
are
used
around
the
world
to
maintain
the
balance
between
considerations
of
national
security
and
the
people's
right
to
oversee
the
national
budget.
[The
Constituent
Assembly]
chose
the
worst
alternative,
granting
sole
authority
to
discuss
the
military
budget
to
the
National
Defense
Council,
which
is
to
include,
from
the
legislative
branch,
only
the
heads
of
the
People's
Assembly
and
the
Shura
Council,
while
the
majority
of
the
members
of
this
council
are
from
the
military
itself.
What
kind
of
oversight
is
this?"


The
President
Still
Has
Absolute
Authority

"Ninth,
regarding
the
president
of
the
republic,
it
is
surprising
to
hear
from
the
defenders
of
the
constitution
that
his
rule
and
authority
are
severely
curtailed.
This
may
be
true,
but
how
do
you
respond
to
the
fact
that,
[according
to
the
draft
constitution,]
the
president
of
the
republic
is
the
head
of
the
executive
branch
(Article
132)?
[Moreover,]
he
appoints
the
prime
minister
(139),
determines
the
country's
general
policy
(140),
is
in
charge
of
defense,
national
security,
and
foreign
policy
(141),
heads
government
meetings
whenever
he
wants
(143),
and
ratifies
international
treaties
(145).
He
is
[also]
the
commander-in-chief
of
the
armed
forces
(146),
and
[may]
appoint
and
dismiss
civil
and
military
personnel
(147),
declare
a
state
of
emergency
(148),
grant
pardons
and
commute
the
prison
sentences
of
convicted
criminals
(149),
and
call
for
referendum
(150).
He
appoints
[up
to]
10%
of
the
Shura
Council
delegates
(129),
as
well
as
the
members
of
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
(176)
and
the
heads
of
all
oversight
mechanisms
(202),
and
he
is
the
head
of
the
National
Security
Council
(193).

"Furthermore,
the
draft
constitution
does
not
require
him
to
appoint
a
vice
president,
so
he
makes
all
these
decisions
without
involving
a
possible
successor.
If
this
is
not
absolute
authority,
what
is?
If
you
require
further
evidence
of
the
expansion
of
the
president's
authority,
look
at
the
government's
powers
(159),
and
you
will
see
that
it
is
devoid
of
means
and
authority
and
is
limited
to
[roles
of]
'collaborating
[with
the
president],'
'directing'
[and]
'preparing'
projects,
and
'following
[them]
up'.
All
these
are
authorities
befitting
the
office
of
the
president
of
the
republic,
not
the
government
that
runs
the
country."


The
Constitution
Is
Being
Forced
Upon
Society

"Tenth,
let
us
set
aside
language
and
look
at
the
conditions
under
which
this
constitution
is
being
issued.
How
can
we
ignore
the
fact
that
it
was
drafted
by
an
assembly
of
questionable
authority,
[since]
the
People's
Assembly
that
appointed
it
has
been
disbanded
by
court
order?
[How
can
we
ignore
the
fact]
that
one
political
faction
insisted
on
controlling
it
from
the
start?
That
all
delegates
of
the
secular
stream
withdrew
from
it
in
protest
over
its
takeover
by
the
[Islamic]
majority?
That
it
was
boycotted
by
Egyptian
churches?
That
two
professional
unions
-
the
Attorneys
Union
and
the
Journalists
Union
-
objected
to
its
activity?
That
the
president
of
the
republic
issued
a
tyrannical
constitutional
declaration
to
bullet-proof
its
makeup
and
its
resolutions?[21]
That
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
was
besieged
so
it
wouldn't
rule
on
it?
And
that
its
final
draft
was
hastily
ratified?

"How
can
we
hold
a
referendum
on
a
constitution
that
was
supposed
to
be
agreed
upon,
when
it
has
[actually]
become
a
symbol
of
schism
and
of
trampling
the
rule
of
law?
The
finished
product
cannot
be
[viewed]
separately
from
the
circumstances
and
method
of
its
issuing.
The
way
this
constitution
has
been
forced
upon
society,
and
the
claim
that
we
must
choose
between
accepting
it
and
living
under
a
tyrannical
constitutional
declaration,
is
reason
enough
to
object
to
it.

"For
these
reasons,
I
call
upon
you
to
reject
the
constitution.
Do
not
believe
that
the
referendum
is
about
choosing
between
a
civil
[state]
and
a
religious
[one]
because,
in
reality,
the
choice
is
between
democracy
and
dictatorship.
Don't
believe
that
consenting
to
this
pathetic
constitution
guarantees
us
stability,
security,
and
economic
prosperity
-
because
the
only
things
that
will
bring
us
closer
to
all
those
[goals]
are
concord
and
unity,
rather
than
division
and
schism.
Do
not
be
afraid
to
object
to
this
constitution
out
of
a
belief
that
[your]
objection
will
lead
to
chaos.
There
are
many
possible
alternatives
that
are
preferable
and
can
lead
to
true
stability.
Do
not
be
afraid
to
object
to
the
constitution,
because
it
essentially
does
not
fit
this
country."


































President
Mursi
sets
the
Egyptian
constitution
in
stone[22]


*L.
Lavi
is
research
fellow
at
MEMRI.

Endnotes:


[1]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
904,

An
Examination
Of
Egypt's
Draft
Constitution
Part
I:
Religion
And
State
-
The
Most
Islamic
Constitution
In
Egypt's
History,
December
3,
2012;
and
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
906,

An
Examination
Of
Egypt's
Draft
Constitution
Part
II:
The
Egyptian
Public
Debate
Over
Religion
And
State,
December
5,
2012.


[2]
This
report
is
based
on
the

latest
draft
constitution
published
on
the

official
website
of
the
Constituent
Assembly
on
November
30,
2012.


[3]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
907,

Egypt
Under
Muslim
Brotherhood
Rule:
The
Constitutional
Declaration
-
Dictatorship
In
The
Name
Of
The
Revolution,
December
7,
2012.


[4]

Al-Shurouq
(Egypt),
December
10,
2012.


[5]

Al-Watan
(Egypt),
December
10,
2012.


[6]

Al-Shurouq
(Egypt),
December
10,
2012.


[7]
Hoqook.com,
October
17,
2012.


[8]
Dawlanews.com,
December
5,
2012.


[9]

Al-Dustour

Al-Asli
(Egypt),
December
4,
2012.


[10]

Al-Shurouq
(Egypt),
December
10,
2012.


[11]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
762,

Egyptian
Deputy
PM's
Document
of
Constitutional
Principles:
An
Attempt
to
Bolster
Military
Supremacy,
Curb
Islamists'
Influence
on
Constitution,
November
16,
2011.


[12]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
October
23,
2012.


[13]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
June
15,
2012.


[14]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
865,

The
Egyptian
Revolution
Is
Only
Starting:
Will
Power
Be
Transferred
From
The
SCAF
To
The
Elected
President
And
Parliament?,
July
30,
2012.


[15]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
December
2,
2012.


[16]
Ikhwanonline.com,
December
4,
2012.


[17]
Ikhwanonline.com,
December
8,
2012.


[18]

Al-Shurouq
(Egypt),
December
5,
2012.


[19]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
904,

An
Examination
Of
Egypt's
Draft
Constitution
Part
I:
Religion
And
State
-
The
Most
Islamic
Constitution
In
Egypt's
History,
December
3,
2012;
and
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
906,

An
Examination
Of
Egypt's
Draft
Constitution
Part
II:
The
Egyptian
Public
Debate
Over
Religion
And
State,
December
5,
2012.


[20]
Translation
of
constitution
articles:
egyptindependent.com,
December
2,
2012.


[21]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
907,

Egypt
Under
Muslim
Brotherhood
Rule:
The
Constitutional
Declaration
-
Dictatorship
In
The
Name
Of
The
Revolution,
December
7,
2012.


[22]
Skynewsarabia.com,
December
4,
2012.

By:
L.
Lavi*
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comparison of Egypt&#039;s suspended and draft constitutions</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=287</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=287</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:18:54 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Comparison of Egypt's suspended and draft
constitutions

Egypt's Islamist-dominated constituent
assembly has approved a controversial draft of the country's new
constitution in a session boycotted by most liberals, secularists
and Christians.
Critics have warned the draft could impose a more Islamic system
on Egypt, and that it fails to guarantee the equality of men and
women.
The BBC News ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Egypt&#039;s Draft Constitution Part TWO: The Egyptian Media Debate Over Religion And State</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=285</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=285</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[
MEMRI


Introduction

On
December
1,
2012,
Egyptian
President
Muhammad
Mursi
announced
that
Egypt's
new
constitution
would
be
put
to
referendum
on
December
15.
The
previous
report
in
this
series[1]
reviewed
Egypt's
past
constitutions
and
the
events
surrounding
the
establishment
of
the
Constituent
Assembly,
and
presented
the
articles
of
the
draft
constitution
pertaining
to
the
status
of
religion
in
Egypt.

The
present
report
is
a
detailed
review
of
the
debate
and
controversy
over
each
of
these
articles.


The
Debate
Regarding
Article
1


Egypt
-
An
"Egyptian
Nation"
Or
"Part
Of
The
Arab
And
Islamic
Nation?"

In
the
1971
constitution,
Article
1
was
phrased
as
follows:
"The
Arab
Republic
of
Egypt
is
a
state
with
a
democratic
system,
based
on
citizenship,
and
the
Egyptian
people
are
a
part
of
the
Arab
nation
working
toward
achieving
its
comprehensive
unity."
This
article
was
changed
in
the
current
draft
constitution,
and
now
reads:
"The
Arab
Republic
of
Egypt
is
an
independent
sovereign
state,
united
and
indivisible,
its
system
democratic.
The
Egyptian
people
are
part
of
the
Arab
and
Islamic
nations,
proud
of
belonging
to
the
Nile
Valley
and
Africa
and
of
its
Asian
reach,
a
positive
participant
in
human
civilization."[2]

This
amendment
is
an
intimation
of
the
Islamization
of
the
constitution.
The
proposal
to
change
the
wording
to
define
the
Egyptian
people
as
part
of
the
Islamic,
and
not
merely
the
Arab,
nation
appears
in
an
article
written
by
Salafi
Sheikh
Yasser
Burhami,
one
of
the
leaders
and
founders
of
the
Al-Da'wa
Al-Salafiyya
movement.
He
wrote
that
this
addition
would
"affirm
the
Egyptian
people's
belonging
to
both
the
Arab
and
the
Islamic
nation,
which
is
enshrined
in
the
hearts
of
all
Egyptians
since
the
Islamic
conquest
of
Egypt
and
to
this
day..."[3]

A
dissenting
opinion
was
heard
in
the
public
discourse,
though
not
in
the
Constituent
Assembly.
In
a
series
of
articles
published
in
the
Egyptian
daily

Al-Ahram,
columnist
Taha
'Abd
Al-'Alim
called
to
define
Egypt
as
an
"Egyptian
nation,"
not
as
Arab
or
Islamic:
"Those
who
criticize
the
[notion]
of
upholding
the
national
Egyptian
identity
are
the
ones
who
support
Arab
identity,
pan-Arabism,
and
Arab
unity...
[and
also]
the
ones
who
support
Islamic
identity,
the
Caliphate
and
Islamic
unity,
who
would
like
[to
restore]
the
Islamic
Caliphate
state...
and
those
who
support
Westernization
and
globalization...
In
actuality,
the
Egyptian
nation
is
an
existing
fact
and
a
tangible
reality,
whereas...
the
call
for
Arab
unity
is
a
possible
future
enterprise...
and
the
call
for
Islamic
unity
is
a
[utopian]
Salafi
enterprise
striving
to
establish
a
global
religious
Caliphate
state,
which
would
subsume
different
and
conflicting
nationalities,
languages,
and
interests."[4]


































"The
Writing
Of
The
Constitution"[5]


Egypt

-
A
"Civil
State"?

The
previous
Egyptian
constitutions
did
not
define
Egypt
as
a
civil
state.
This
amendment
was
the
aspiration
of
liberal-secular
circles
and
Copts,
who
view
it
as
a
guarantee
that
the
Islamic
shari'a
will
not
be
implemented,
that
religion
will
be
separate
from
politics,
and
that
religious
minorities
will
enjoy
equal
rights.
As
early
as
August
2011,
the
Supreme
Council
of
the
Armed
Forces
(SCAF)
attempted
to
ensure
that
Egypt's
definition
as
a
civil
state
would
be
anchored
in
the
constitution,
as
evident
in
the
"Document
of
Constitutional
Principles"
written
by
Dr.
'Ali
Al-Silmi,
then-deputy
prime
minister
for
political
affairs
and
democratization.[6]
However,
the
document
aroused
great
public
opposition
and
sparked
violent
demonstrations,
and
it
was
shelved
when
the
government
was
disbanded
and
a
new
government,
headed
by
Kamal
Al-Ganzouri,
was
established.
With
the
establishment
of
a
Constituent
Assembly
with
an
Islamic
majority,
the
hopes
of
the
liberals
that
Egypt
would
be
defined
as
a
civil
state
were
shattered.

It
should
be
stressed
that
although
most
Islamic
streams
use
the
term
"civil
state"
in
order
to
appear
liberal
in
Western
eyes,
they
express
reservations
about
including
it
in
the
constitution.
The
Salafis
are
adamantly
against
the
addition
of
the
word
"civil"

per
se
to
the
constitution,
owing
to
its
liberal-secularist
connotations.
The
Al-Nour
Party
even
threatened
not
to
vote
for
the
constitution
in
the
referendum
if
this
word
were
included,
making
it
clear
that
it
would
accept
the
addition
only
with
an
accompanying
explanation
that
the
word
was
used
to
mean
"non-military."[7]
The
spokesman
of
the
Al-Gama'a
Al-Islamiyya
party
said
that
his
party
would
not
object
to
the
word
"civil"
if
the
constitution
explicitly
explained
that
it
is
taken
to
mean
"non-theocratic."[8]

The
Muslim
Brotherhood
(MB)
adopted
a
middle-of-the-road
solution
with
regard
to
the
issue
of
the
civil
state.
For
several
years,
they
have
espoused
the
slogan
"a
civil
state
with
an
Islamic
source
of
authority,"
which
also
appears
in
the
platform
of
their
political
party.[9]
Consequently,
they
could
not
object
to
the
use
of
the
concept
in
the
constitution,[10]
but
they
expressed
their
reservations,
saying
that
it
had
gained
a
bad
reputation
in
public
opinion
because
it
had
come
to
denote
the
secularization
of
the
state
and
a
war
against
religion,
and
that
the
concept
of
"civil"
does
not
appear
in
any
other
constitution
in
the
world.[11]

Al-Azhar
opposed
the
use
of
the
word
"civil"
in
the
constitution
because
it
could
be
interpreted
in
a
myriad
of
ways,
and
added
that
the
meaning
of
the
term
as
they
understand
it
is
already
expressed
in
the
constitution,
so
there
is
no
need
to
include
the
explicit
term.
A
spokesman
for
Al-Azhar's
representatives
in
the
Constituent
Assembly
explained
that
Al-Azhar
considers
a
civil
state
to
mean
"a
national,
constitutional,
democratic,
and
modern
state,
which
guarantees
the
Islamic
shari'a
and
whose
source
of
authority
is
Al-Azhar."[12]
It
was
reported
in
the
Egyptian
media
that
the
Sheikh
of
Al-Azhar
had
reached
a
compromise
with
the
Salafis,
according
to
which
the
expression
"Egypt
as
a
civil
state"
would
not
appear
in
the
constitution
and
the
Salafis,
in
return,
would
abandon
their
demand
to
amend
Article
2.[13]


The
Controversy
Over
Article
2

Article
2
of
the
constitution,
which
is
considered
the
main
article
to
define
the
status
of
religion
in
Egypt,
remains
as
it
was
in
the
previous
constitution:
"Islam
is
the
state
religion
[of
Egypt]
and
Arabic
is
the
official
language.
The
principles
of
Islamic
shari'a
are
the
main
source
of
legislation."
The
debate
with
regard
to
this
article
rocked
the
Constituent
Assembly,
and
the
decision
to
leave
it
unchanged,
without
deletion
of
the
word
"principles,"
as
the
Salafis
had
demanded,
was
the
result
of
MB
efforts
to
allay
the
fears
of
many
-
in
Egypt
and
in
the
West
-
that
the
MB
rule
in
Egypt
would
lead
to
the
Islamization
of
the
country.
The
controversy
sharpened
the
differences
between
the
liberal-secular
and
the
Islamic
streams
in
Egypt,
and
also
among
the
different
Islamic
streams,
with
regard
to
the
relation
between
religion
and
state.


The
Minority
Opinion:
Abolish
Article
2

Only
a
few
called
to
abolish
Article
2
altogether,
and
this
demand
did
not
come
to
the
fore
in
the
Constituent
Assembly.
The
Copts
and
the
liberals
in
the
assembly
preferred
to
concentrate
their
efforts
on
struggles
more
likely
to
succeed,
such
as
the
struggle
to
leave
the
article
as
it
is
and
prevent
it
from
being
amended
according
to
the
wishes
of
the
Islamic
majority
in
the
assembly.

However,
calls
to
abolish
the
article
were
heard
in
the
Egyptian
media.
Egyptian
intellectual
'Abd
Al-Mu'ti
Higazi,
for
example,
wrote:
"The
constitution
[should]
recognize
only
common
rights,
which
pertain
equally
to
all
citizens...
Article
[2]
is
not
a
divine
revelation,
but

bida'
[a
prohibited
innovation
that
deviates
from
religious
precepts],
which
is
foreign
to
us
and
was
not
recognized
in
any
of
our
constitutions,
except
for
the
patchwork
constitution
that
we
inherited
from
the
days
of
Mubarak
and
Sadat...
When
[Islamic
factions]
say
that
the
shari'a
is
the
main
source
for
legislation,
they
are
bringing
together
two
parallel
threads
that
could
never
meet,
for
the
shari'a
pertains
to
Muslims
alone,
whereas
legislation
is
the
basic
right
of
all
Egyptians,
since
the
people
is
the
source
of
all
authorities.
How
can
an
Egyptian
who
is
not
Muslim
accept
this
article?
In
fact,
how
can
any
enlightened
Egyptian
[accept
it],
be
he
Muslim
or
non-Muslim?..."[14]

The
coordinator
of
the
Egyptians
Against
Religious
Discrimination
organization,
Muhammad
Mounir
Mugahid,
likewise
called
to
abolish
Article
2,
as
it
appeared
in
the
1971
constitution,
because
it
"provides
constitutional
sanction
for
discriminating
between
citizens
on
a
religious
basis."
He
proposed
an
alternative
phrasing:
"Egyptian
society
is
founded
upon
citizen
rights,
upon
honoring
pluralism
and
dissimilarity,
and
upon
equality
between
citizens.
Arabic
is
the
official
language
of
the
state
and
Islam
is
the
religion
of
the
majority
of
its
people.
The
intentions
of
Islam
stand
alongside
the
values
endorsed
by
humanity
[at
large].
The
conventions
on
human
rights
are
a
main
source
of
legislation..."[15]


The
Salafi
Approach:
Amending
Article
2
To
Mandate
Full
Implementation
Of
Shari'a
Law,
Including
Koranic
Punishments

The
Salafi
parties
Al-Asala
and
Al-Nour,
as
well
as
the
Al-Gama'a
Al-Islamiyya
movement,
advocate
the
full
and
literal
implementation
of
the
laws
of
the
Islamic
shari'a,
including
Koranic
punishments
such
as
cutting
off
the
hands
of
thieves,
stoning
adulterers,
and
flogging
alcohol
imbibers
-
a
radical
approach
that
contravenes
the
international
conventions
on
human
and
citizen
rights.
The
proponents
of
this
approach
made
two
main
suggestions
for
amending
Article
2:

The
first
suggestion,
typical
of
Al-Gama'a
Al-Islamiyya
and
Al-Asala,
is
to
omit
the
word
"principles"
from
the
article,
so
that
it
reads:
"The
Islamic
Sharia
[rather
than
the

principles
of
the
Islamic
shari'a]
is
the
main
source
of
legislation."
Al-Asala
chairman
Dr.
'Adel
Al-'Afifi
even
ruled
that
leaving
the
word
"principles"
in
place
would
be
an
act
of
heresy.
He
wrote
in
the
Egyptian
Islamic
daily

Al-Misriyyoun:
"Is
it
permissible
to
vote
for
a
constitution
that
makes
the
shari'a
only
a
main
source
of
legislation
-
which
means
that
there
can
be
other
sources
of
legislation
alongside
Allah's
shari'a,
with
equal
weight?
Is
it
conceivable
that
some
of
the
directives
of
the
shari'a
will
be
discarded,
and
replaced
with
other
directives,
anchored
in
man-made
laws?
Can
we
cheat
in
implementing
the
shari'a
by
adding
the
word
'principles'...?
There
is
no
disagreement
among
religious
scholars
that
whoever
adopts
another
legislator
in
addition
to
Allah
the
Almighty
and
[grants
him
the
authority]
to
judge,
alongside
the
shari'a
of
Allah
the
Almighty,
is
an
infidel..."[16]

The
second
Salafi
suggestion,
promoted
by
the
Al-Nour
party,
was
to
replace
the
word
"principles"
with
the
word
"directives,"
so
that
the
article
reads:
"The

directives
[emphasis
ours]
of
the
Islamic
Sharia
[rather
than
the

principles
of
the
Islamic
shari'a]
are
the
main
source
of
legislation."
This
means
that
not
only
the
general
spirit
or
the
general
principles
of
the
shari'a
will
be
respected,
but
that
all
of
its
directives
will
be
implemented.[17]
Al-Nour
party
spokesman,
Yusri
Hammad,
explained:
"The
Islamic
shari'a
includes
the
absolute
principles
and
the
shari'a
directives
pertaining
to
all
public
affairs
and
all
aspects
of
life,
without
neglecting
even
the
smallest
detail,
from
the
definition
of
the
tenets
of
the
Islamic
faith
and
the
essence
of
belief
and
worship,
to
laws
pertaining
to
all
aspects
of
life
-
from
laws
on
[issues
of]
family,
divorce,
marriage,
custody,
childrearing
and
inheritance,
to
laws
on
governance,
justice,
shura
and
the
handling
of
state
affairs,
and
also
laws
on
commerce,
buying
and
selling,
possession,
and
maintaining
and
developing
capital.
Moreover,
[the
shari'a]
regulates
the
state's
relations
with
other
states
-
what
is
called
international
relations
-
and
the
rules
of
war
and
peace
according
to
Islam.
It
also
regulates
the
relations
among
the
people
within
the
state.

"Then
there
is
the
[shar'ic]
penal
code,
which
comes
to
protect
society
from
misconduct
by
[some
people],
which
undermines
these
[religious]
principles...
The
punishment
for
stealing
applies
to
the
well-fed
who
intimidated
simple
folk
who
work
hard
all
day
to
earn
a
few
pennies
to
feed
their
families.
The
punishment
for
robbery
applies
to
someone
who
took
up
a
weapon...
to
rob
peaceful
passersby,
mug
women,
or
kill
children
in
a
peace-loving
society
that
seeks
security.
The
punishment
for
adultery
applies
to
someone
who
seduces
a
young
girl
who
could
be
your
daughter
or
sister.
The
[shar'ic
punishments]
are
a
fence
protecting
all
those
living
on
Egyptian
soil,
and
are
not
used
against
honorable
and
peaceful
people
who
respect
the
public's
safety,
property
and
honor..."[18]


The
Middle
Way:
Leaving
Article
2
Unchanged

This
approach,
which
was
insistently
advocated
by
the
Sheikh
of
Al-Azhar,
Dr.
Ahmad
Al-Tayyeb,
was
the
most
common
and
dominant
of
the
three.
Al-Tayyeb
explained
his
approach
in
a
press
conference:
"[Article
2,
in
its
existing
form],
is
a
message
to
the
Egyptian
legislator
that
he
must
base
the
Egyptian
laws,
in
all
branches
of
legislation,
upon
the
laws
of
the
Islamic
shari'a
and
upon
the
familiar
shar'ic
schools
of
thought,
or
else
base
them
upon
the
international
traditions
of
legislation,
as
long
as
the
latter
do
not
contravene
the
shari'a
and
serve
the
public
interest.
The
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
is
the
only
body
authorized
to
assess
whether
laws
are
in
keeping
with
the
constitution
and
to
abolish
any
legal
clause
that
contravenes
the
Islamic
shari'a..."[19]

This

wasati
(middle
way)
approach
aims
to
maintain
the
status
quo
and
the
delicate
balance
between
the
polarized
sectors
of
Egyptian
society,
namely
between
those
who
call
to
abolish
Article
2
altogether
and
the
Salafis
who
wish
to
anchor
the
codification
of
the
shari'a
in
the
constitution.
This
compromise
was
endorsed
not
only
by
Al-Azhar
but
also
by
the
Coptic
Church
and
by
the
majority
of
liberal-secularists,
who
recognized
the
unlikelihood
of
abolishing
the
article
altogether
and
preferred
the
option
of
leaving
it
as
it
is
to
the
option
of
having
it
rephrased
in
more
extremist
terms.
Among
those
who
wished
to
leave
the
article
unchanged
was
also
the
MB,
on
the
grounds
that
changing
it
could
lead
to

fitna
(civil
war)
and
that
the
controversy
over
it
could
tear
the
Constituent
Assembly
apart.[20]
In
its
present
role
as
the
ruling
force
in
Egypt,
the
MB
also
preferred
to
leave
Article
2
intact
in
order
to
calm
the
situation
in
the
country
and
allay
concerns
worldwide
regarding
the
possible
Islamization
of
Egypt
under
its
rule.

This
approach
was
expressed
in
an
article
by
Egyptian
intellectual
Fahmi
Huweidi,
who
belongs
to
the

wasati
stream.
He
wrote:
"[In
drafting
its
new
constitution,
post-revolutionary
Tunisia]
made
do
with
establishing
Islam
as
the
state
religion,
and
steered
clear
of
the
question
of
the
shari'a.
The
head
of
the
Al-Nahda
movement,
Sheikh
Rashed
Al-Ghanoushi,
explained
that
this
phrasing
was
sufficient
indication
of
the
state's
identity
and
religious
affiliation.
He
added
that
the
[Al-Nahda]
movement
sensed
that
the
issue
of
the
shari'a
was
a
delicate
one
with
[various
Tunisian]
elites,
and
therefore
decided
not
to
mention
it
[in
the
constitution],
in
order
to
avoid
controversy
and
maintain
national
unity.

"Al-Ghanoushi
was
reasonable
and
responsible
in
taking
this
political
[decision].
He
read
the
reality
well,
and
gave
priority
to
the
unity
of
the
homeland.
In
contrast,
our
brothers
[in
Egypt]
who
insist
on
removing
the
word
'principles'
[from
Article
2]
and
replacing
it
with
the
word
'directives'
[namely
the
Salafis]
are
thinking
like
preachers
who
are
living
in
the
past
and
have
lost
touch
with
reality
and
with
the
homeland.
The
difference
between
the
two
approaches
is
the
difference
between
open-mindedness
and
intelligence
[on
the
one
hand]
and
blind
narrow-mindedness
[on
the
other].
Practically
speaking,
the
principles
[of
shari'a],
in
the
sense
of
its
overarching
intentions,
are
more
important
than
its
'directives,'
in
the
sense
of
its
details...
Closed-minded
secularism
is
no
different
from
its
equivalent
in
the
Islamic
camp...
There
is
no
difference
between
one
who
insists
on
imposing
the
directives
of
the
shari'a
and
one
who
insists
on
erasing
[Egypt's]
Islamic
identity."[21]

The
MB,
which
advocated
leaving
Article
2
unchanged,
and
opposed
the
November
2012
protests
held
by
Salafis
in
demand
to
implement
the
shari'a,
was
accused
by
many
of
abandoning
the
shari'a.
The
movement
defended
its
stance
in
a
communiqu�
posted
on
its
official
website:
"For
us,
the
shari'a
is
a
complete
way
of
life...
The
penal
code
of
the
shari'a
is
just
and
precise,
for
punishments
are
[only]
applied
after
all
the
conditions
for
proving
[the
perpetrator's
guilt]
are
met.
[However,]
society
must
first
of
all
be
prepared
for
understanding
and
accepting
the
shari'a,
and
must
be
led
gradually
to
its
practical
implementation.
[We]
must
[first]
implement
the
general
intentions
[of
the
shari'a],
which
society
is
in
need
of,
[by]
observing
religion
and
protecting
life,
reason,
capital
and
property,
so
as
to
ensure
the
material
and
mental
security
of
society."

The
communiqu�
clarifies
the
MB's
understanding
of
the
expression
'principles
of
the
shari'a':
"The
shari'a
is
based
on
a
system
of
fundamental
principles
that
are
unique
to
it,
in
contrast
to
all
man-made
laws:
leniency
rather
than
severity;
removing
[the
threat
of]
injustice
and
harm
from
individuals
and
society;
placing
the
public
good
above
the
good
of
the
individual
and
the
avoidance
of
harm
over
the
making
of
profit;
a
balance
between
the
rights
of
the
individual
and
of
society;
and
other
well-known
shar'ic
principles.
Basing
the
laws
[of
the
state
on
these
principles]
guarantees
the
security,
welfare,
and
stability
of
society...
The
Islamic
shari'a
is
the
most
important
issue
we
deal
with
and
aim
to
inculcate
in
society.
Our
brothers
sacrificed
their
lives
and
suffered
in
jail
and
detention
for
many
decades
for
the
sake
of
this
[goal],
so
we
cannot
conceivably
give
up
the
demand
for
this
glorious
shari'a...
The
MB
always
strove
to
grant
the
shari'a
its
rightful
status
in
the
constitution,
so
as
to
enable
parliament
to
codify
the
laws
of
the
Islamic
shari'a,
with
Allah's
help..."[22]


































Woman
carrying
a
placard
saying:
"The
Shari'a
Is
Our
Constitution"[23]


Article
219:
An
Opening
For
The
Implementation
Of
Shari'a

Article
219
was
added
to
the
constitution
as
a
clarification
of
Article
2
in
order
to
satisfy
the
Salafis.
It
states:
"[The
expression]
'principles
of
Islamic
shari'a'
refers
to
the
general
methods
of
juridical
argumentation,
to
fundamental
juridical
rules
and
principles,
and
to
the
[written]
sources
recognized
by
the
Sunni
juridical
schools."
The
purpose
of
this
article
is
to
avoid
narrow
interpretations
of
Article
2,
such
as
the
liberal
interpretation,
according
to
which
the
principles
of
shari'a
are
synonymous
with
universal
principles
of
freedom,
justice,
and
equality,
or
the
interpretation
given
to
it
by
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
in
1996,
according
to
which
future
(but
not
existing)
legislation
must
conform
only
to
the
parts
of
shari'a
whose
validity
is
absolute
and
that
are
not
disputed
among
different
schools
in
Islam.
Article
219,
in
contrast,
gives
Article
2
a
broader
reading,
which
would
enable
the
implementation
of
a
larger
part
of
the
shari'a
and
requiring
legislation
to
conform
to
the
principles
of
Sunni
law
-
although
it
is
unclear
how
broad
the
interpretation
will
actually
be.
The
MB
clarified
that
the
Article
219
refers
to
"everything
stated
in
the
Koran
and
proper
Sunna"
and
"the
foundations
stemming
from
all
the
methods
of
juridical
argumentation
that
are
undisputed
and
fulfill
the
intentions
of
the
shari'a,"
and
that
the
expression
"sources"
refers
to
"the
Koran,
Sunna,

ijma',
and

qiyas."[24]

Article
219
is
meant
to
enable
the
MB
to
counter
the
Salafi
claim
that
it
forewent
the
implementation
of
the
shari'a
by
objecting
to
amending
Article
2,
since
Article
219
opens
the
door
to
the
codification
of
the
shari'a.
Out
of
consideration
for
liberal
circles,
this
article
was
placed
toward
the
end
of
the
constitution,
and
not
immediately
following
Article
2,
in
order
to
indicate
that
it
is
of
lesser
importance.
Therefore,
it
is
still
unclear
how
this
article
will
influence
legislation
in
practice.

The
addition
of
this
article
was
acceptable
to
the
Al-Nour
party,
which
is
represented
in
the
Constituent
Assembly,
but
it
did
not
satisfy
all
the
Salafis.
Thousands
took
to
Al-Tahrir
Square
in
protests
organized
by
Al-Gama'a
Al-Islamiyya
and
the
Salafi
Front
on
three
Fridays
in
November
2012,
protesting
against
Article
2
and
demanding
to
implement
the
shari'a.[25]

Article
219
was
also
criticized
by
liberals,
Copts
and
Shi'ites,
who
see
it
as
an
opening
for
discrimination
against
all
those
who
are
not
Sunni
Muslims.
For
example,
recently
elected
Coptic
Patriarch
Tawadros
II
said
that,
while
he
accepted
Article
2,
Article
219
is
"a
catastrophe
that
transforms
Egypt
from
a
civil
state
to
the
complete
opposite."[26]
Dr.
Khaled
Fahmi,
head
of
the
History
Department
at
the
American
University
in
Cairo,
wrote
on
his
Facebook
page
that
Article
219
discriminates
against
the
Shi'ite
school
of
Islam
and
therefore
violates
the
rights
of
Egypt's
Shi'ite
citizens.[27]

Muhammad
Al-Sayyed
Salim,
a
political
science
lecturer
at
the
University
of
Cairo,
wrote
in

Al-Ahram:
"It
is
unclear
why
the
two
articles
[2
and
219]
were
not
placed
together...
Was
the
idea
to
hide
Article
219
by
putting
it
at
the
end?
We
know
that
there
is
deep
controversy
among
religious
scholars
of
the
various
Sunni
streams
and
schools
of
thought...
regarding
those
fundamental
juridical
principles
and
sources
[mentioned
in
Article
219],
especially
when
it
comes
to
political
matters,
chief
among
them
the
system
of
government.
Can
we
[really]
know
what
the
'fundamental
juridical
rules
and
principles'
and
the
'general
methods
of
juridical
argumentation'
[say]
about
[the
issues
of]

shura
or
the
status
of
women
and
non-Muslims
in
the
political
sphere
or
about
the
international
relations
of
an
Islamic
state?
There
are
deep
disagreements
between
[different]
juridical
schools
of
thought
about
these
issues,
and
deciding
[issues]
based
on
controversial
[opinions]
opens
the
door
to
interpretations
by
[Al-Azhar's]
Supreme
Council
of
Clerics
[a
body
disbanded
by
Gamal
'Abd
Al-Nasser
in
the
1960s
and
reestablished
after
the
2011
revolution],
establishing
them
as
the
rulers
of
society,
like
the
Rule
of
the
Jurisprudent
[in
Iran]..."[28]

It
must
be
noted
that
Article
222
of
the
draft
constitution
states
that
laws
legislated
in
the
past
will
stay
in
effect,
but
can
be
amended
to
conform
to
the
new
constitution.
This
means
that
the
Islamic
camp
may
demand
the
revision
of
existing
laws
in
accordance
with
Article
219.


Article
3:
Religious
Tolerance
Only
Towards
Members
Of
The
Monotheistic
Faiths

Article
3
states:
"The
canon
principles
of
Egyptian
Christians
and
Jews
are
the
main
source
of
legislation
for
their
personal
status
laws,
their
religious
affairs,
and
the
selection
of
their
spiritual
leaders."[29]
Most
Salafi
streams
objected
to
the
addition
of
this
article,
on
grounds
that
the
Islamic
shari'a
guarantees
minority
rights
anyway,
and
therefore,
since
the
shari'a
is
defined
as
the
main
source
of
legislation,
there
is
no
need
for
a
separate
clause
ensuring
their
rights.[30]
Some
even
objected
to
the
mention
of
the
word
"Jews"
in
the
constitution,
claiming
it
might
lead
to
an
increase
in
the
number
of
Jews
in
Egypt
and
to
espionage.[31]

The
MB
and
Al-Azhar,
on
the
other
hand,
were
willing
to
accept
the
addition,
provided
that
it
would
apply
only
to
monotheistic
religions
and
not
to
non-Muslims
in
general,
so
as
to
exclude
groups
they
consider
deviant,
such
as
the
Baha'is,
Buddhists,
Qadianis,
and
Quranists.[32]
This
article
was
meant
to
create
the
impression
of
tolerance
and
to
appease
Copts
who
claim
that
Article
2
could
serve
as
a
basis
for
their
discrimination.

The
Coptic
Church
indeed
accepted
the
article,[33]
but
within
the
Coptic
community
in
Egypt
there
were
those
who
objected
to
it,
on
the
grounds
that
it
is
a
trap
meant
to
get
Copts
to
agree
to
Article
2
while
enabling
the
Muslims
to
boast
of
their
tolerance
towards
the
Copts.
They
added
that
Article
3
would
not
really
end
the
suffering
of
Copts
so
long
as
there
was
no
equality
in
rights
and
duties
among
all
citizens,
due
to
the
status
of
Islam
as
the
state
religion
and
of
the
shari'a
as
the
primary
source
of
legislation.[34]
Some
in
the
Coptic
community
also
explained
that
they
did
not
want
separate
cultural
rights,
but
only
to
be
equal
citizens
and
equal
in
the
eyes
of
the
law.[35]
Another
argument
was
that
Church
laws
are
even
more
restrictive
than
Islamic
law,
especially
in
the
domains
of
inheritance,
as
well
as
the
law
banning
divorce,
except
in
cases
of
adultery.[36]


Article
4:
The
Status
Of
Al-Azhar

Article
4
defines
Al-Azhar
as
"an
encompassing
independent
Islamic
institution,
with
exclusive
autonomy
over
its
own
affairs,
responsible
for
preaching
Islam,
[and
teaching]
theology
and
the
Arabic
language
in
Egypt
and
the
world.
Al-Azhar
Senior
Scholars
are
to
be
consulted
in
matters
pertaining
to
Islamic
law.
The
post
of
Al-Azhar
Grand
Sheikh
is
independent
and
[he]
cannot
be
dismissed.
The
method
of
appointing
the
Grand
Sheikh
from
among
members
of
the
[Supreme
Council
of
Clerics]
is
to
be
determined
by
law.
The
State
shall
ensure
sufficient
funds
for
Al-Azhar
to
achieve
its
objectives.
All
of
the
above
is
subject
to
law
regulations."

[37]

This
article
reflects
the
consensus
regarding
Al-Azhar's
status
in
Egypt,
and
aims
to
establish
that
Al-Azhar
is
no
longer
dependent
on
the
regime
and
that
its
rulings
shall
no
longer
be
influenced
by
political
considerations,
after
previous
regimes
used
it
to
grant
religious
sanction
to
their
policies.
The
article
also
reflects
the
considerable
influence
of
the
MB
on
the
constitution's
language,
since
a
similar
suggestion
to
reestablish
the
Supreme
Council
of
Clerics,
select
the
Sheikh
of
Al-Azhar
from
among
the
members
of
this
body,
and
consult
it
on
matters
of
Islamic
shari'a
appeared
in
the
MB
party's
platform.[38]

This
article
also
reflects
an
attempt
to
find
common
ground
that
would
please
both
the
Salafis
and
those
with
more
liberal
leanings.
At
a
certain
point,
the
Salafis
agreed
with
the
Sheikh
of
Al-Azhar
that
they
would
remove
their
objection
to
the
expression
"principles
of
shari'a"
in
Article
2,
provided
that
Al-Azhar
(rather
that
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court)
would
be
granted
the
sole
authority
to
interpret
"the
principles
of
shari'a."[39]
However,
this
demand
sparked
criticism
among
elements
demanding
the
separation
of
religion
and
state,
since
it
means
vesting
a
religious
body
with
authority
to
influence
legislation.[40]
This
criticism
stems
from
their
fear
of
Egypt
becoming
a
religious
state,
and
the
fear
of
a
future
Salafi
takeover
of
Al-Azhar
and
the
subsequent
radical
Islamist
interpretation
of
"the
principles
of
shari'a."[41]

Tension
between
Al-Azhar
and
the
Salafis
peaked
when
the
Sheikh
of
Al-Azhar
insisted
that
Article
2
remain
as
it
was,
i.e.,
without
an
addition
granting
Al-Azhar
the
sole
authority
to
interpret
"the
principles
of
shari'a."
The
Salafi
parties
-
Al-Nour,
Al-Asala,
and
the
party
of
Al-Gama'a
Al-Islamiyya
-
asked
to
reopen
discussion
on
Article
2,
and
called
on
the
Sheikh
of
Al-Azhar
to
resign,
claiming
that
he
had
backed
down
from
what
had
been
previously
agreed
in
the
Constituent
Assembly
and
that
he
was
undermining
their
efforts
to
defend
the
shari'a.[42]
Ultimately,
Al-Azhar
was
defined
as
a
body
that
"must
be
consulted
on
matters
of
Islamic
shari'a,"
meaning
that
Al-Azhar's
opinion
should
be
sought
in
such
matters,
but
would
not
be
binding.
Article
175
stipulates
that
the
Supreme
Constitutional
Court
has
sole
authority
to
interpret
laws
and
determine
whether
they
conform
to
the
constitution.


Article
5:
Sovereignty
Of
The
People
Or
Sovereignty
Of
God

Article
5
determines
that
"sovereignty
is
for
the
people;
it
is
they
who
exercise
and
protect
it,
and
safeguard
national
unity,
and
they
are
the
source
of
authority,
in
the
manner
specified
in
the
constitution."

[43]
This
article
is
identical
to
Article
3
in
the
previous
constitution,
despite
the
Salafi
pressure
to
replace
"sovereignty
is
for
the
people"
with
"sovereignty
is
for
God."
Dr.
Younis
Makhyoun,
an
official
in
the
Salafi
Al-Nour
party
and
its
representative
in
the
Constituent
Assembly,
explained
the
benefit
of
the
Salafi
demand,
as
he
saw
it:
"The
idea
of
the
sovereignty
of
Allah
prevents
the
sovereignty
of
humans
[in
the
name
of
the
religion].
[This
way]
no
one
can
speak
for
Allah
or
claim
he
is
acting
on
His
behalf..."
Makhyoun
added
that
the
amendment
his
party
proposed
was
meant
to
prevent
a
religious
theocracy
ruled
by
a
person
or
a
body
seeking
to
govern
by
divine
decree.[44]

Most
members
of
the
Constituent
Assembly,
including
from
the
MB,
objected
to
this
proposal,
which
also
sparked
criticism
among
the
public.
For
example,
columnist
Dr.
Osama
Al-Ghazali
Harb
wrote:
"There
is
no
room
for
such
a
proposal.
Sovereignty
is
a
political
and
legal
term...
relating
to
the
supreme
independent
rule
of
the
state,
meaning
a
specific
area
and
a
specific
people.
This
rule
is
not
in
the
hands
of
a
single
ruler
or
tyrant,
or
a
minority
with
a
monopoly,
[so
as
to]
strengthen
the
spirit
of
democracy
and
defend
society
from
the
evils
of
dictatorship
and
tyranny.

"The
concept
of
'sovereignty'
bears
no
relation
to
religion.
Moreover,
forcefully
inserting
God's
name
into
the
concept
[of
sovereignty]
is
a
mistake
that
must
not
be
made,
just
as
the
term
'sovereignty'
does
not
appear
in
the
Koran.
The
most
important
and
logical
reason
for
this
is
that
relations
between
man
and
Allah
are
much
wider,
deeper,
and
more
lofty
than
those
between
ruler
and
subjects.
Relations
between
the
creator
and
his
creations
transcend
the
affinity
to
a
particular
country..."[45]


The
Controversy
Over
Article
6


Egypt
-
A
"Democratic
State"
Or
A
"Shura
State"?

The
first
part
of
Article
6
determines
that
"the
political
system
is
based
on
the
principles
of
democracy
and

shura;
citizenship,
under
which
all
citizens
are
equal
in
rights
and
duties;
multi-party
pluralism;
peaceful
transfer
of
power;
separation
of
powers
and
the
balance
between
them;
the
rule
of
law,
and
respect
for
human
rights
and
freedoms
-
all
as
elaborated
in
the
constitution."[46]

The
language
of
this
article
reflects
an
attempt
to
please
the
Salafis,
who
pressed
for
avoiding
the
use
of
the
term
"democratic
regime"
and
for
replacing
it
with
the
term

shura
(an
Islamic
principle
requiring
the
ruler
to
consult
with
authoritative
advisors,
and
which,
according
to
some
Muslims,
proves
that
the
modern
concept
of
parliament
comes
from
Islam[47]).
At
the
same
time,
this
language
aims
to
please
the
liberals,
who
objected
to
the
reference
to

shura.[48]
The
inclusion
of
both
terms,
suggested
by
the
MB,
represents
a
compromise
between
the
Salafi
and
liberal
approaches.
The
legal
advisor
for
the
MB
party,
Dr.
Ahmed
Abu
Baraka,
said
that
"shura
means
democracy...
and
there
is
no
reason
to
avoid
adding
the
term
because
it
does
not
detract
from
the
meaning
of
democracy
in
any
way
or
from
the
principles
of
the
people's
sovereignty
and
the
rule
of
law."[49]

In
the
eyes
of
the
Salafis,
the
addition
of
"shura"
alongside
"democracy"
distinguishes
Egyptian
democracy,
which
conforms
to
Muslim
traditions,
from
permissive
Western-style
democracy.
The
Al-Nour
party
spokesman
clarified
that

shura
is
"an
Islamic
synonym
for
the
Western
word
'democracy.'
[The
latter
term]
poses
many
dangers
to
Egypt,
since,
in
its
Western
sense,
it
means
the
absolute
sovereignty
of
the
majority's
will,
including...
laxness
regarding
the
tenets
of
the
faith
and
moral
values,
which
has
led
to
the
legalization
of
gay
marriage
in
Western
countries,
[for
example].
Can
we
accept
that
in
Egypt?
The
democracy
we
want
involves
freedoms
and

shura,
as
long
as
they
do
not
contravene
a
divine
text..."[50]

The
addition
of
the
term

shura
sparked
concern
in
secular
and
liberal
circles.
Former
People's
Assembly
member
'Omar
Al-Hamzawi,
who
withdrew
from
the
Constituent
Assembly
in
protest
over
its
Islamic
majority,
wrote:
"Democracy
does
not
stand
in
contradiction
to
[the
notion
of]

shura
in
terms
of
participation,
but
rather
subsumes
it
as
a
basic
component
and
addresses
meanings
and
mechanisms
larger
than
it.
I
see
no
justification
for
the
phrasing
proposed
[by
the
Al-Nour
party].
We
can
make
do
with
the
term
"democratic,"
with
[the
addition]
of
"civil,"
meaning
equal
rights
without
discrimination
and
transfer
of
power
among
elected
citizens
who
manage
public
affairs..."[51]

And
indeed,
the
rest
of
Article
6
comes
to
clarify
that
the
inclusion
of
the
term

shura
does
not
imply
theocratic
rule,
but
rather
a
rule
that
leans
on
the
principle
of
citizenship
-
meaning
equal
rights
and
duties
among
citizens
without
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
religion,
as
well
as
a
rule
based
on
party
pluralism,
the
separation
of
the
powers,
the
rule
of
law,
respecting
human
rights,
and
peaceful
transfer
of
power.


Revoking
The
Ban
On
Establishing
Religious
Parties

The
second
part
of
Article
6
determines
that
"no
political
party
shall
be
formed
that
discriminates
on
the
basis
of
gender,
origin
or
religion."
This
clause
replaces
an
amendment
made
by
Mubarak
to
Article
5
of
the
1971
constitution,
which
used
much
stronger
language,
prohibiting
any
political
activity
or
parties
based
on
religion,
on
a
religious
source
of
authority,
or
on
discrimination.

The
Al-Nour
party
submitted
a
request
to
the
Constituent
Assembly
to
remove
the
ban
on
establishing
religious
parties,
claiming
that
it
contravened
Article
2
of
the
constitution.
The
MB
party
supported
Al-Nour's
request,
claiming
that
Mubarak
had
added
the
prohibition
solely
to
prevent
the
MB
itself
from
establishing
a
party.[52]
On
the
other
hand,
the
head
of
the
left
wing
Al-Tagammu'
party,
Dr.
Rif'at
Sa'id,
objected
to
canceling
the
ban
on
establishing
religious
parties,
on
the
grounds
that
no
party
can
claim
that
its
platform
represents
Islam,
even
if
it
defines
itself
as
having
an
Islamic
source
of
authority,
since
the
various
parties
have
different
views
of
Islam.
He
warned
that
removing
the
ban
could
open
a
Pandora's
box
of
sectarianism
in
Egypt.[53]


































Islamists
in
the
Constituent
Assembly[54]


Article
10:
Women's
Status

Article
10,
pertaining
to
women's
status,
states:
"The
family
is
the
basis
of
the
society
and
is
founded
on
religion,
morality,
and
patriotism.
The
State
is
keen
to
preserve
the
genuine
character
of
the
Egyptian
family,
its
cohesion
and
stability,
and
to
protect
its
moral
values,
all
as
regulated
by
law.
The
State
shall
ensure
maternal
and
child
health
services
free
of
charge,
and
enable
the
reconciliation
between
a
woman's
duties
to
her
family
and
to
her
work.
The
State
shall
provide
special
care
and
protection
to
female
breadwinners,
divorced
women,
and
widows."

[55]

An
earlier
version
of
this
clause
mentioned
the
state's
obligation
to
take
all
steps
to
establish
gender
equality
in
politics,
culture,
the
economy,
society,
and
other
areas,

without
violating
Islamic
shari'a.
However,
despite
being
included
in
the
previous
constitution,
this
phrasing
sparked
outrage
among
women's
rights
and
human
rights
activists.
They
claimed
these
limitations
could
increase
gender
discrimination
in
Egypt,
since
they
might
lead,
for
example,
to
lowering
the
marriage
age
for
girls,
separating
boys
and
girls
in
school,
forcing
female
students
to
wear
head
scarves,
permitting
female
circumcision,
and
forbidding
women
to
run
for
president.[56]
The
Salafis,
for
their
part,
were
unwilling
to
include
an
article
on
gender
equality
without
the
caveat
regarding
conformity
with
the
principles
of
shari'a.
This
eventually
led
to
the
elimination
of
this
clause
from
the
third
draft
of
the
constitution
altogether.
It
should
be
mentioned
that
Article
33
states
that
citizens
are
equal
in
the
eyes
of
the
law
without
discrimination
(though,
unlike
the
previous
constitution,
it
does
not
explicitly
mention
gender
discrimination).
In
addition,
Article
73
outlaws
the
"sex
trade."
However,
the
article
from
the
1971
constitution
ensuring
a
minimal
representation
of
women
in
parliament
was
removed.


































"National
Front
for
Egyptian
Women:
The
women
of
Egypt
call
for
fair
treatment
in
the
constitution."[57]

In
an
article
in
the
independent
Egyptian
daily

Al-Shurouq,
women's
rights
activist
'Izza
Kamel
wrote
that
the
disappointing
language
of
the
article
on
women's
status
does
not
necessarily
stem
from
the
Islamic
character
of
the
Constituent
Assembly,
but
rather
from
the
patriarchal
character
of
Egyptian
society
as
a
whole:
"Patriarchal
thought
still
controls
[all
of]
us
and
the
mentality
of
most
members
of
the
[Constituent]
Assembly,
which,
in
turn,
besieges
the
woman
with
legal,
social
and
religious
restrictions,
and
pushes
her
to
the
margins
of
society.
This
patriarchal
thought
is
not
related
to
the
fundamentalists'
recent
rise
to
power;
it
has
been
ongoing
for
centuries&
Breaking
free
of
the
cycle
of
backwardness
in
which
our
Egyptian
and
Arab
society
is
stuck
-
which
marginalizes
women
and
excludes
them,
and
violates
their
most
fundamental
rights
as
citizens
and
human
being
-
can
only
be
achieved
by
striking
at
the
foundations
of
the
patriarchal
system,
which
is
not
confined
to
the
family,
but
is
a
phenomenon
that
applies
to
society
as
a
whole:
the
family,
the
tribe,
and
the
religious,
cultural,
societal
and
political
state
institutions."[58]

It
should
be
mentioned
that
Salafi
members
of
the
Constituent
Assembly
wanted
the
constitution
to
specify
that
not
only
women's
freedoms
but
most
freedoms
must
conform
to
the
Islamic
shari'a,
including
the
freedoms
of
expression,
congregation,
and
the
press,
and
demanded
not
to
define
them
as
absolute
freedoms.[59]
This
demand
was
not
met
in
full,
but
Article
81
determines
that
"rights
and
freedoms
shall
be
practiced
in
a
manner
not
conflicting
with
the
principles
pertaining
to
State
and
society
included
in
Part
I
of
this
Constitution,"[60]
which
could
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
these
freedoms
must
conform
to
the
principles
of
Islamic
shari'a
as
determined
by
Article
2.


Article
43:
Restricting
Freedom
Of
Worship

Article
43
states:
"Freedom
of
belief
is
an
inviolable
right,
and
the
state
shall
guarantee
the
freedom
to
practice
religious
rites
and
to
establish
places
of
worship
for
the
divine
religions."
This
article,
like
its
equivalent
in
the
previous
constitution
(Article
46),
guarantees
freedom
of
belief.
However,
the
demand
of
human
rights
groups
to
specify
that
freedom
of
belief
is
"absolute"
-
which
would
include
the
freedom
to
convert
from
one
religion
to
the
other,
as
well
as
the
freedom
to
practice
non-monotheistic
religions
-
was
rejected.
Yasser
Burhami,
one
of
the
founders
of
the
Al-Da'wa
Al-Salafiyya
movement,
for
example,
explained
that
"absolute
freedom
of
belief...
includes
devil
and
idol
worship
and
heresy
[ridha]
against
Islam,
which
would
undoubtedly
place
society
in
grave
danger."[61]

Unlike
the
article
dealing
with
freedom
of
belief
and
worship
in
the
previous
constitution,
this
one
restricts
"the
freedom
to
practice
religious
rites"
to
members
of
the
"divine"
(i.e.
monotheistic)
faiths.
Former
People's
Assembly
member
'Omar
Al-Hamzawi
criticized
this
article:
"Freedom
of
belief
is
severely
restricted
in
the
second
sentence
[of
the
article]...
since
freedom
of
belief
is
organically
tied
to
the
freedom
to
practice
religious
rites,
which
in
turn
involves
the
freedom
to
establish
houses
of
worship,
which
must
not
be
restricted
in
a
democratic
constitution
to
members
of
monotheistic
faiths
while
excluding
members
of
[other]
religions..."[62]

Similarly,
Egyptian
author
'Alaa
Al-Aswany
wrote:
"What
if
a
country
with
a
Buddhist
or
Hindu
majority
decided
to
behave
the
same
way
[towards
Muslims]?
What
if
an
Egyptian
living
in
China
or
India,
whether
a
Muslim
or
Copt,
wished
to
pray
but
was
arrested
by
the
authorities
and
told
that
[the
state]
did
not
recognize
Islam
and
Christianity,
just
as
Egypt
refuses
to
recognize
Buddhism
or
Hinduism?
A
state
cannot
be
considered
civilized
so
long
as
it
does
not
permit
its
citizens
unrestricted
freedom
of
worship."[63]


































Islamists
hijack
the
constitutional
article
on
rights
and
freedoms.[64]


Article
44:
Ban
On
Insulting
The
Prophets

Article
44
states
that
"insult
or
abuse
of
all
religious
messengers
and
prophets
shall
be
prohibited,
even
if
implicit."
It
was
the
result
of
a
proposal
by
the
Al-Azhar
representatives
in
the
Constituent
Assembly
to
add
an
article
that
prohibits
insulting
the
divine
essence
and
depicting
the
Prophets,
caliphs,
and
Companions
of
the
Prophet
Muhammad.
This
would
mean
not
only
a
ban
on
cartoons
of
the
Prophet,
etc.,
but
also
on
producing
movies
(including
respectful
ones)
in
which
actors
portray
the
Prophet,
for
example.[65]
This
proposal
received
the
support
of
the
Salafis,
who
saw
it
as
a
way
to
restrict
Shi'ite
worship
in
Egypt,
since
Shi'ite
rituals
involve
worshippers
cursing
the
Companions
of
the
Prophet.
Shi'ites
in
the
country
indeed
opposed
the
proposal,
fearing
it
would
be
used
to
marginalize
them
and
prevent
them
from
establishing
husseiniyahs
(Shi'ite
houses
of
worship).[66]

The
MB
also
supported
Al-Azhar's
proposal.
MB
General
Guide
office
member
'Abd
Al-Rahman
Al-Barr,
who
is
on
the
Constituent
Assembly,
stated
that
Article
44
was
intended
to
"first,
defend
the
people's
[understanding
of]
the
religious
tenets
from
confusion,
and
to
protect
society
from
the
[religious]
flare
ups
that
occur
from
time
to
time;
and
second,
[to
address
the
problem
of]
the
Shi'ites,
who
often
insult
the
Companions
of
the
Prophet
and
the
Mothers
of
the
Believers,
who
are
revered
by
the
Sunnis,
which
can
cause

fitna..."[67]

Liberal
elements,
on
the
other
hand,
expressed
reservations
about
the
proposal.
Former
People's
Assembly
member
'Omar
Al-Hamzawi
wrote:
"The
challenge
that
the
law
will
have
to
[deal
with]
is
how
to
practically
implement
the
ban
on
insulting
religions
without
restricting
freedom
of
expression,
thought
and
creation."[68]
Al-Azhar's
proposal
also
sparked
criticism
among
the
Copt
minority
in
Egypt,
since
it
includes
a
ban
on
the
depiction
of
Jesus,
whom
Islam
considers
a
prophet
(while
the
Coptic
faith
does
not
forbid
depicting
Jesus).
Due
to
this
criticism,
the
language
ultimately
adopted
was
more
moderate
compared
to
Al-Azhar's
initial
proposal,
and
does
not
mention
insulting
the
divine
essence
or
the
Companions
of
the
Prophet.


*
L.
Azuri
is
a
research
fellow
at
MEMRI.

Endnotes:


[1]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
No.904,

An
Examination
Of
Egypt's
Draft
Constitution
Part
I:
Religion
And
State
-
The
Most
Islamic
Constitution
In
Egypt's
History,
December
3,
2012.


[2]
Translation:
Egyptindependent.com,
December
2,
2012.


[3]

www.alnourparty.org,
July
14,
2012.


[4]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
June
30,
2012;
July
7,
2012;
July
14,
2012.


[5]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
April
1,
2012.


[6]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
No.
762,

Egyptian
Deputy
PM's
Document
of
Constitutional
Principles:
An
Attempt
to
Bolster
Military
Supremacy,
Curb
Islamists'
Influence
on
Constitution,
November
16,
2011.


[7]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
2,
2012.


[8]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
1,
2012.


[9]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
No.
753,

Egypt's
Islamic
Camp,
Once
Suppressed
by
Regime,
Now
Taking
Part
in
Shaping
New
Egypt
-
Part
II:
Muslim
Brotherhood
Prepares
for
Parliamentary,
Presidential
Elections,
October
25,
2011.


[10]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
2,
2012.


[11]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
11,
2012.


[12]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
June
29,
2012.


[13]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
6,
2012.


[14]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
July
17,
2012.


[15]

Al-Shurouq
(Egypt),
July
15,
2012.


[16]

Al-Misriyyoun
(Egypt),
July
8,
2012.


[17]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
8,
2012.


[18]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
August
7,
2012.


[19]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
July
15,
2012.


[20]
Ikhwanonline.com,
July
7,
2012.


[21]

Al-Shurouq
(Egypt),
July
8,
2012.


[22]
Ikhwanonline.com,
October
31,
2012.


[23]

Al-Watan
(Egypt),
November
9,
2012.


[24]
Ikhwanonline.com,
October
31,
2012.
"Sunna"
refers
to
the
traditions
describing
the
life
and
sayings
of
the
Prophet
and
his
Companions;
"ijma'"
refers
to
agreed-upon
practices
and
beliefs
that
have
become
rooted
among
Muslims;
"qiyas"
is
logical
inference
based
on
the
Koran
or
Sunna
regarding
matters
that
are
not
explicitly
stated.


[25]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
November
10,
2012.


[26]

Al-Wafd
(Egypt),
November
20,
2012.


[27]

Al-Wafd
(Egypt),
December
3,
2012.


[28]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
December
4,
2012.


[29]
Translation:
egyptindependent.com,
December
2,
2012.


[30]
Hurryh.com,
July
12,
2012.


[31]
Islammemo.cc,
October
16,
2012.


[32]
Hurryh.com,
July
12,
2012.


[33]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
November
14,
2012.


[34]
Ahewar.org,
April
28,
2012.


[35]

Al-Tahrir
(Egypt),
October
28,
2012.


[36]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
July
27,
2012;

Al-Misriyyoun
(Egypt),
August
18,
2012.
Due
to
the
Coptic
ban
on
remarrying,
there
is
a
trend
in
Egypt
of
women
who
covert
to
Islam
in
order
to
get
divorced,
which
often
causes
tension
between
Copts
and
Muslims.
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
693,

In
Egypt,
Muslims'
Attacks
on
Copts
Increase,
June
2,
2011.


[37]
Translation:
egyptindependent.com,
December
2,
2012.


[38]
See
MEMRI
Inquiry
&
Analysis
Series
Report
No.
753,

Egypt's
Islamic
Camp,
Once
Suppressed
by
Regime,
Now
Taking
Part
in
Shaping
New
Egypt
-
Part
II:
Muslim
Brotherhood
Prepares
for
Parliamentary,
Presidential
Elections,
October
25,
2011.


[39]
Islammemo.cc,
July
23,
2012.


[40]

Roz
Al-Yousef
(Egypt),
September
29,
2012;

Al-Musawwar
(Egypt),
August
8,
2012.


[41]

Al-Badil
(Egypt),
July
12,
2012.


[42]
Islammemo.cc,
July
23,
2012.


[43]
Translation:
egyptindependent.com,
December
2,
2012.


[44]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
12,
2012.


[45]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
July
18,
2012.


[46]
Translation:
egyptindependent.com,
December
2,
2012.


[47]
Alnourparty.org,
July
14,
2012.


[48]

Al-Watan
(Egypt),
July
23,
2012.


[49]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
11,
2012.


[50]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
11,
2012.


[51]

Al-Watan
(Egypt),
July
16,
2012.


[52]

Al-Masri
Al-Yawm
(Egypt),
July
16,
2012.


[53]

Al-Ahram
(Egypt),
July
29,
2012.


[54]
Coptstoday.com,
April
5,
2012.


[55]
Translation:
egyptindependent.com,
December
2,
2012.


[56]

Al-Watan
(Egypt),
October
30,
2012.
It
should
be
mentioned
that
several
representatives
from
the
Salafi
Al-Nour
party
in
the
Constituent
Assembly
suggested
lowering
the
marriage
age
of
girls
in
the
constitution
to
nine.
Assembly
member
Yasser
Burhami,
one
of
the
founding
heads
of
the
Al-Da'wa
Al-Salafiyya
movement,
claimed
that
"Islam
did
not
set
a
[minimum]
marriage
age
for
girls.
If
a
girl
can
perform
a
wife's
duties,
she
can
be
married
at
nine
or
10,
as
long
as
her
marriage
does
not
prevent
her
from
completing
her
studies."

Roz
Al-Yousef
(Egypt),
September
22,
2012;

Al-Quds
Al-Arabi
(London),
September
26,
]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Muslims Condemn Anti-Muslim Film &amp; Anti-American Protests</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=248</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=248</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:25:53 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Free Muslims Condemn
Anti-Muslim Film &amp; Anti-American protests


A hateful filmmaker based in California produced a movie attacking
the last prophet of Islam. In one scene, the movie replaces the
instance in which Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel informed
Prophet Mohammad of his mission with a woman asking Mohammad to
stick his head between her ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Muslims to Lead Delegation of Israeli Jews to Gaza</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=166</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=166</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:05:34 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[
Free Muslims to Lead
Delegation of Israeli Jews to Gaza
For the
first time in recent history a delegation of Palestinian Christians
and Muslims traveled to a Jewish settlement in the West Bank to
request that they be given equality and to invite Jews on a path to
a shared future. On December 26, 2011 a ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Muslims&#039; Partner Facilitated Prisoner Exchange Between Hamas and Israel</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=152</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=152</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:56:28 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Muslims Coalition is organizing a unique peace conference in Jerusalem with Gershon Baskin who will co-host the event with Kamal Nawash.
While most people in the United States have never heard of Gershon Basking, he is now a household name in Israel/Palestine.
Dr. Baskin played an important role in facilitating ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Ten years after September 11</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=148</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=148</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 23:27:20 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Ten years after September 11
A Muslim perspective
 
Kamal Nawash
I will never forget the morning of September 11, 2001. My sister was living with me and I had just walked into the living room after getting dressed. My sister was watching the news and she said it appears a plane hit ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Proposal for ending the Palestinian/Israeli conflict--One-state Solution</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=146</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=146</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:29:14 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[UNITED FEDERATION OF
ISRAEL/PALESTINE
.
Proposal for Ending the
Palestinian/Israeli Conflict
.
FOUNDATION FOR OUR PROPOSAL
(Preamble)

By Kamal Nawash

This is a road
map for creating a Union of Israel/Palestine. This plan allows
Israelis and Palestinians to pursue a shared future based on a
bi-national identity with a democracy that ensure security,
equality and self-determination regardless of religion, gender,
race or ethnicity.


Currently,
there are ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Arab Revolution moves to Israel and London</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=145</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=145</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:40:30 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ 
Arab Revolution moves to Israel and London
Kamal Nawash
By now everyone has heard of the Arab Spring.  This is a phenomenon where Arabs have felt empowered to question the authority of their governments which has resulted in the removal of four long time presidents from power and one more ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Muslims Must Protect Arab Christians</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=139</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=139</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:48:46 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[ 
By Imam Kamal Nawash and Pierre Maroun
The last 10 years have not been easy for Arab Christians. Numerous events, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq has inspired the belief that the "Christian West" has declared war on Muslims of the Middle East. Many Muslims see military operations against Muslim ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Let Us Live Together In Israel/Palestine</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=136</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=136</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 29 May 2011 08:50:29 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[by
Kamal Nawash and Yehuda Schwartz
President Obama has publicly announced that Israel should withdraw from Palestinian territories that it conquered in 1967. Not surprisingly, the leaders of Israel and the American Jewish community have quickly announced their opposition. They argue that withdrawing from 1967 Palestinian lands will leave Israel vulnerable while ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>U.S. and Obama&#039;s declining image in Muslim world</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=130</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=130</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 14:02:33 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Free Muslims president, Kamal Nawash, will be discussing the new survey tonight (5/19/11) that finds the rise of pro-democracy movements has not led to an improvement in America's image in the region.

Kamal will be talking about his view on the poll:

Why Muslims don't think Obama has helped the U.S.' reputation
Why ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Miral: a Movie about Israel/Palestine Causes Controversy</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=123</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=123</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:16:24 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Over the last few days, several pro Israel groups, and pro Palestinian groups have contacted the Free Muslims Coalition to support or oppose a new movie called Miral.
On March 15, 2011, the U.N. General Assembly hosted Julian Schnabel's film, "Miral" about a young Palestinian girl growing up in East Jerusalem. ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>THE U.S. SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED IN LIBYA</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=121</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=121</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:27:49 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[By Kamal Nawash
These are new and exciting times in the Middle East and North Africa. The world has witnessed two nonviolent revolutions in Tunis and Egypt that brought down two powerful leaders in a matter of days. Other countries are experiencing similar calls for change and in the case of ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rep. King Hearings on Radicalization of Muslims--How should Muslims respond?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=119</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=119</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:45:52 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[On March 10, 2011, Representative Peter King, R-N.Y., of the Department of Homeland Security Committee will hold hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America. Not surprisingly, most Muslim organizations have accused Representative King of pursuing an anti Muslim agenda and of being a hypocrite since he was a strong ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Egypt, Israel and the Muslim Brotherhood</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=115</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=115</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:53:03 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[To the surprise of everyone, a nonviolent movement was able to topple a modern day pharaoh in Egypt. For that, the Free Muslims Coalition congratulates the Egyptian people.
In assessing the revolution, most experts focused on Mubarak's authoritarian government as the catalyst for the revolution. It is true that Mubarak was ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Israel/Palestine Conflict May Lead to Nuclear War</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=39</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=39</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:05:02 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Once again the Palestinian/Israeli conflict spirals out of control. However, this particular battle has produced circumstantial evidence that the conflict has become more dangerous than ever before. Unless a permanent solution is found soon, the violence may increase in severity until the conflict ends tragically. In the latest fighting, Israel ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Why Barack Won?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=38</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=38</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:08:19 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Warren Buffet recently said "I would rather be lucky than smart." As far as luck goes, Obama has been on the receiving end of unprecedented luck while McCain has been on the receiving end of the kind of luck that would make a grown man cry. I mean... when the ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>The Price of Oil</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=31</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=31</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:24:39 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[No topic is more misunderstood than the price of oil and the oil industry in general. Most politicians and writers, who comment on the recent rise in the price of oil, its causes, and implications, simply have no clue what they are talking about.

The world is not facing an oil ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Arab Country Appoints Jewish woman as US Ambassador</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=28</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=28</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:47:33 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The conservative Arab Kingdom of Bahrain has appointed an Arab Jewish woman as its ambassador to the United States.

This is a remarkable example of traditional Arab tolerance and a sign that hostile relations between Jews and Arabs are beginning to subside. Throughout the last 1400 years Jews have had better ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Who killed Benazir Bhutto?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=27</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=27</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:13:26 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[While there is no conclusive answer to who killed former Pakistani prime minister Bhutto, so far the only claim of responsibility has come from an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, who posted the claim of responsibility on an Italian Web site. Al Qaeda posted the following message: "We terminated the ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>This Christmas Happy Hanukkah and a Prosperous Eid</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=26</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=26</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:48:04 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[This year, the three Abrahamic religions celebrate important holidays in the same month. For Jews, it is Hanukkah, for Christians, it is Christmas and for Muslims, it is the Grand Eid.

The Free Muslims Coalition feel it's important to explain the significance of the three holidays to focus on our commonalities ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>American Muslims, Israel and Suicide Bombings</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=18</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=18</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 16:01:41 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A recent survey by the Pew Research Center about American Muslims was received favorably by many Muslims and apprehensively by many non-Muslims.  
 
The surveys revealed that more than 80% of American Muslims blend comfortably into American society and that they have a broad willingness to adopt American customs, ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Christian Leaders Seek Dialogue with Muslim Leaders</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=21</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=21</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:42:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Muslims Coalition was recently contacted by a Christian Pastor who wrote a letter that he and numerous other Christian leaders want delivered to prominent Muslim religious leaders.  The Christian leaders want their letter to serve as a basis for genuine dialogue.  The Pastor has made it ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Last Chance for Iraq</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=19</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=19</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:24:17 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Recently, several reports by various military experts have painted a grim picture of Iraq.  The assessments differ in key conclusions, however all the experts, including Gen. David Petraeus and former Gen. James Jones agree that Iraqi forces are currently unable to take over security operations from American troops.  ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Muslims Condemn Muslim Cab Drivers who Refuse to Pick Up Alcohol Carrying Passengers</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=17</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=17</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:23:50 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Muslims Coalition, a national Muslims organization, condemns Muslim cab drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who carry alcoholic beverages.

Recently a dispute arose over a large number of Somali taxi cabdrivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport who are refusing to take passengers who carry wine or alcoholic ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Preventing a Repeat of 9-11 from a Muslim Perspective</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=16</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=16</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:20:59 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[In remembrance of the Fifth anniversary of 9-11, www.counterideology.com has produced an anti-terror TV commercial for the Free Muslims Coalition (FMC).  This commercial is based on the belief that the war on terror is an ideological battle and good Muslims are essential to winning this battle.  

In addition ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Will Al-Qauida Strike the United States Again?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=15</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=15</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:14:43 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Authorities in Britain recently announced they had disrupted a major terrorist plot to blow up passenger flights between the United Kingdom and the United States using liquid explosives.

British Police said 21 people had been arrested in England after a long investigation into what was described as a plan for "mass ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Muslims Call for Dismantling of Hezbollah not Destruction of Lebanon</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=14</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=14</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:39:46 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism calls on the United States government to take an active role in limiting the fighting in Lebanon to Hezbollah and for Arab governments to demand that Hezbollah be dismantled. 

Several days ago the Hezbollah militia attacked the Israeli military and kidnapped two soldiers hoping ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>There is NO Military Solution for the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=13</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=13</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:52:16 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[A recent cartoon in the July 7th edition of the Washington Post showed an Israeli and a Palestinian playing tennis but rather than tennis balls they were striking bombs at each other.  In a caption by the Palestinian side of the court are the words "Palestinian reprisals" for the ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Al-Zarqawi is Dead, What is Next?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=12</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=12</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:19:57 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Al-Zarqawi, the most-wanted terrorist in Iraq who waged a relentless campaign of beheadings and suicide bombings, was killed when U.S. warplanes dropped bombs on his hiding place in Baqouba, Iraq. 
In response to his killing, President Bush stated that the elimination of Zarqawi is "a severe blow to al-Qaida" and ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Understanding Saudi Arabia, is it a Friend or Foe?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=11</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=11</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2006 10:35:47 -0400</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[By Kamal Nawash

Since it was discovered that 15 out of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis, every aspect of Saudi Arabia has come under scrutiny by members of the U.S. government, advocacy organizations and members of the media.  Ironically, the increased scrutiny of Saudi Arabia has not brought ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Free Muslims Applaud Release of Afghani who was Sentenced to Death for Converting to Christianity</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=10</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=10</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:58:34 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Note: Islamic scholar, Professor Khaleel Mohammed was consulted on the religious matters discussed, and has provided significant advice and contribution to this statement.

The Free Muslim Coalition is appalled by the decision of the Afghani Attorney General to prosecute Abdul Rahman, under the opaque article 130 of the Afghani constitution, which ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Should the U.S. Allow the Sale of U.S. Ports to Arab Owned Company?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=9</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=9</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:02:27 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[Bush Battles Republican and Democrat over Sale of U.S. Ports to Arabs

The Bush administration recently approved an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in six major American cities.   The sale to a company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is strongly supported by President ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>FMC Condemns Reaction of Muslims to Unfavorable Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=8</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=8</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2006 10:36:13 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Muslims Coalition condemns the reaction of American Muslim Organizations and Muslim governments to the unfavorable depiction of Prophet Mohammad in European News papers.

Protests have spread across the Muslim world over the publication in European news papers of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.  Outrage over the ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>HAMAS Wins Historic Election, What&#039;s Next?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=7</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=7</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:33:35 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[The Free Muslim Coalition applauds President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine and his FATAH party for respecting the results of democracy in light of their substantial losses to the radical Islamic group, HAMAS. 

HAMAS has won a surprise victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections. Early results give Hamas 76 of the 132 ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Solving the Palestinian Israeli Conflict</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=6</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=6</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:57:34 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[No issue has the same global impact as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union twice raised their security alerts and aggressively challenged each other over this conflict. The oil embargo of the 1970s was inspired by the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Numerous militants, terrorist ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Should the U.S. Control Illegal Immigration?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=5</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=5</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:51:24 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[THE Senate is currently debating the most far reaching immigration amnesty in more than a generation.  

The immigration "reform" bill is supported by an unlikely coalition of powerful special interest groups that includes the largest Latino advocacy groups, business lobbies, labor Unions and immigration lawyers among others. On the ... ]]></description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Should the U.S. Leave Iraq?</title>
<link>http://freemuslims.org/blog/index.php?id=4</link>
<guid>http://freemuslims.org/blog/?id=4</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
<description><![CDATA[When Rep. John Murtha said that the United States must leave Iraq immediately he ignited a national debate on whether the U.S. should leave Iraq. Normally, such a statement would not have been noticed, but because Congressman Murtha is a retired Marine colonel who earned a Bronze Star and two ... ]]></description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>