Women's status, unrest in Cairo, and weakened protest rights

The Muslim Brotherhood has responded negatively to a newly ratified United Nations (UN) declaration, which seeks to end violence against women. They reject the declaration deeming it as misleading and deceptive and stating that it contradicts the principles of Islam and would destroy society. The National Council for Women (NCW) has dismissed the Brotherhood’s statements insisting the declaration advocates for law enforcement to execute plan to combat violence, while stressing equality in education, health, and human rights. Further, they state the claims made by the brotherhood that it violates Sharia are a “misuse of religion, and an attempt to tarnish the UN’s image in order to quash women’s rights.” Other groups see the “showdown” between the two groups as a stage due to Egypt signing the declaration, meaning the ruling party (Brotherhood) signed it, keeping appearances both internationally and locally.   Is the Brotherhood feigning a feud with the women’s council? By Dalia Rabie March 25, 2013)

The "Strong Egypt" Party launched an initiative in January called “Transportation that respects women” in an effort to alleviate sexual assault and other issues women face while in public. The microbuses are provided to offer an alternative to public transportation system that “is failing to provide a basic, respectable method of transport that meet women’s needs.” In a study conducted in Cairo and Monufiya universities, 68% of women said they had been subjected to either physical or verbal abuse. Private taxis are too expensive so many women are happy this new alternative is available to reduce the risk of harassment. However, some women’s-rights groups are concerned that it encourages gender discrimination and only treats the symptom of an overarching problem. ( Women only: Will a segregated transport system solve or perpetuate a problem? by Heba Helmy March 27, 2013) 

Meanwhile, two years after the revolution, street violence remains high, and the rule of law seems weak. 

At least 90 people were injured during clashes on Friday the 22^nd between Muslim Brotherhood supporters and opponents. The opponents ransacked three of the brotherhood’s offices including their headquarters in Cairo. The Brotherhood’s spokesman said opponents attacked women who were holding mother's day commencements. Riot police defended the headquarters but did not interfere to break up the sides a few blocks away. The opposition demanded Morsi to be tried for the killings of protestors just like Mubarak. (Dozens injured as clashes erupt in Egypt  by Al Jazeera March 22, 2013)

Last week, a new round of clashes erupted in cities in northern Egypt, and protestors rallied in Cairo in the latest demonstrations against President Morsi. The clashes in Alexandria occurred between citizens, those who supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who oppose the group. At another location, anti-government protestors threw stones at offices that used to be home to the Brotherhood’s office before it was stormed a few weeks back. This halted train traffic for a few hours. In the Nile River Delta, protestors and riot police clashed in front of the office of Prosecutor General Talaat Abdullah. Early this week, Egypt’s prosecutor general issued warrants for five of Egypt’s most prominent advocates stating they instigated the violence over the past few months where hundreds have been injured. A few weeks ago members of the Brotherhood beat activists, including women, who were spray-painting anti-brotherhood graffiti outside their headquarters. Earlier this week, Morsi gave a speech calling his opposition thugs and warned foreign nations that are interfering in their domestic issues. “No one in our neighborhood wants this nation to stand on its feet. I will cut off any finger that meddles in Egypt.” ( Protestors rally in Cairo, clashes erupt in 2 other Egyptian cities in latest wave of unrest by Mohammed Khalil March 29, 2013)

Despite this tough talk by Morsi about foreign meddling, perhaps Morsi should work on cleaning his own house. 

Amnesty International is criticizing the Egyptian government for failing to protect Coptic Christians, the largest minority group in the country. There has been a rise in tension in religious communities and authorities have done little to relieve it. In February a Muslim woman was reported “missing” and accused a church of converting her to Christianity. Protest erupted demanding she be returned and the Coptic Christians leave the community. “Let the Christians die from fear” were common chants that were paired with anti-Christian leaflets distributed throughout public areas. After a week of protest and violence (shut down Christian stores and beat anyone who resisted), on March 25, a large group of Muslim men threw Molotov cocktails inside a Christian church and set fire the local priest’s car. Muslim and Christian elders met for a “reconciliation meeting” which agreements to allow Christian stores to reopen and for the missing woman to be returned by April 24 were made. Amnesty International state the response is poor and “reconciliation” should not be a replacement for prosecution of offenders of sectarian violence.    (Amnesty Slams Morsy for failing to protect Copts by Egypt Independent March 27, 2013)

Freedom of speech is increasingly restricted in Egypt. A draft that restricts the right to demonstrate has been approved by the Shura Council. The bill prohibits citizens from organizing protests that “pose a risk to the nation’s security.” To enforce this law, the police must approve all demonstrations three days in advance. All demonstrations must be 200 meters away from all governmental building. Anyone who violates this law will be sentenced to prison and a hefty fine.   (Shura Council passes law curbing protest rights Egypt Independent March 26, 2013)

  ~WMB

Troubles with the Egyptian Constituent Assembly

Friday of Islamic Sharia in Tahrir Square. Photo Credit Al Masry Al Youm.

The Constituent Assembly is the somewhat difficult name for the group of Egyptians tasked with writing the Constitution for this emergent democracy.

On Sunday, several leftist and liberal members withdrew from the Constituent Assembly. Further, Coptic Orthodox Pope Bishop Pachomius announced the withdrawal of three Christian members from the CA on Saturday. I am of two minds about this. First, I can see that maybe some of them feel they are participating in a fundamentally flawed process. Principles aside, they risk handing the task over to conservative Islamists, which will result in a document not widely accepted by the entire Egyptian population, particularly the educated population.

Salafis in the CA wanted to replace the idea of "Sharia principles" with the idea of "Sharia provisions," which would leave less open to interpretation in the Constitution, and might usher in a Sunni theocracy of sorts.

Christians and liberals are protesting what they see as an "Islamic" Constitution.  They are also concerned about the far reaching powers granted to the Executive by the Constitutional draft. Further, there is concern that the way the draft is currently written, it would preclude a civil state. The Church has said that the withdrawal of the Christian members of the CA is final.

~WMB

First draft of new Egyptian Constitution released

Egypt's Constituent Assembly announced this Wednesday that it has finished the first draft of the new Egyptian Constitution. They released an unfinished draft to the Egyptian public on Wednesday, and encouraged public debate regarding the document. The draft leaves key questions unanswered. No sections address the future role of the military, for example. Egy[t Releases partial draft of new constitution, Abigail Hauslohner, Washington Post.

The Constituent Assembly comprises 100 persons. It is generally viewed as being dominated by Islamists. Only 7 women were chosen to take part in the 100 member Constituent Assembly.

Egyptians will have an opportunity to vote yes, or no to the entire constitution. They will not have an opportunity to disapprove individual articles. Parliamentary elections are scheduled to take place within two months of the national referendum on the new constitution, which is scheduled for the end of the year. Reading the MorsiMeter, Issandr El Amrani, The New York Times.

The current draft divides power between a president, and a prime minister representing a parliamentary majority. The Egyptian Parliament will consist of two chambers, the People's Assembly and the Shura Council.

The draft limits gender equality to the extent that it interferes with "the rulings of the Islamic Sharia," according to the Washington Post. Al Masry Al Youm reports that the wording may pave the way for fresh attacks on women's rights.

Osman El Sharnoubi of Al Ahram writes that Article 9 stipulates citizens' religious freedom. Christians are a small minority in Egypt, and the members of the Bahai faith are not recognized by the Egyptian state, leading to discrimination in the most basic aspects of life. 

The current draft eliminates the role of the state a protector of religious freedoms, limiting religious freedom  in comparison with the 1971 version of the constitution. However, human rights lawyer Ahmed Seif El Islam states that the new constitution appears to guarantee freedom for Abrahamic religions to build places of worship. This would assist Shiite, Jewish and Christian Egyptians in their efforts to build houses of worship, but would do nothing to assist the Bahai, or Buddhists. Egyptian Constitution offers fewer religious freedoms, El Sharnoubi, Al Ahram. 

Does Shariah Allow Women to Vote?

 Women voters stand in line to cast their ballot in Egypt's first major democratic vote, the Constitutional Referendum, 2011. Photo Credit: the author.

Sometimes I can see what people are interested in by what they type into search engines in order to get to my site. This morning, I saw the following question: Does Shariah allow women to vote? This is an interesting question. Again, we must make the distinction between Shariah, and fiqh, which is Islamic Jurisprudence as applied.

I think that we should start this inquiry with reflections upon the words of Arzu Merali, the Director of Research for the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Writing in The Guardian, she notes that neither men nor women could vote under Mullah Omar's regime in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar was the spiritual leader of the Taliban, and was Afghanistan's "head of state," from 1996 to 2001. She makes the important point that the cruel excesses and limitations upon womens' rights in Taliban-led Afghanistan must be seen as an indictment of the Taliban's prejudices, and cultural views, not an indictment of Islam.

By the way, I myself am not a practicing Muslim. I am a practicing Presbyterian and sometimes Unitarian Universalist. However, I have a deep respect for many of the world's great religions, including Islam, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism. Zakat, which is a pillar of Islam, is basically tithing. Ramadan, which is a pillar of Islam, is basically a more rigorous version of Lent. Accordingly, do not interpret my words as an attempt to convert you. Rather, interpret my words as an attempt to "get it right."

Saraji Umm Zaid, writing at modernmuslima, makes a very important point. She notes that we must respect Shariah, but that we should not fall into the trap of focusing on the "virtues of the Ideal Place of Women in Ideal Islam." Rather, we must confront the reality on the ground. It is not enough, she argues, to simply place all the negative aspects of how women are treated in predominantly Muslim societies, on "culture." She notes that among conservative Muslims,

[] there is a resounding silence when the issue being raised is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), honor killings, forced marriages, the unequal application of hadd punishments on women, or the denial of education to girls and women. 

Saraji Umm Zaid urges the average Muslim to petition governments, and urge for change against these practices. She states that Muslims can no longer afford to be silent about human rights abuses, especially those committed against women, in the name of Islam. I provide a long quote from her here, because her words are simply brilliant:

Prophet Mohammed, sallalahu aleyhi wa salaam, was mocked and assaulted because of his strong and courageous stance on the status of women.  He came with a message that lifted women up and gave them dignity.  Fourteen hundred years later, we have descended back into the dark pit of Jahiliya, and Muslim women around the world find themselves cast into the same slavery that the Prophet, sallalahu aleyhi wa salaam, was sent to liberate them from.

It does not make you a "radical feminist" to decry honor killings and volunteer for peaceful campaigns to educate and change laws.  Raising your voice against Female Genital Mutilation does not mean you want to "undermine Islam."  To the contrary, working against these injustices in the way of Allah is a manifestation of the desire to uplift Islam and the Muslim people.

When the Taliban decided to deny education to any girl over a certain age, it is the conservative Muslims, the ones who profess adherence to "Qur'an and Sunnah" that should have spoken the loudest against this.  The longer we stay silent, the more people, both Muslim and non Muslim, will begin to equate "Shar'ia" with the oppression of women.

Returning to the topic of voting, the teachings of Islam, according to Jamal A. Badawi, author of "The Status of Women in Islam," Al-lttihad, Vol. 8, No. 2, Sha'ban 1391/Sept 1971, informs us that Islam gives women the right of election, as well as of nomination to political offices. Women have the right to participate in political affairs and the Holy Quran gives examples of women who participated in political discussions and even argued with the Prophet Mohammed (See Qur'an 58: 14 and 60: 10-12).

Interestingly, Pakistan, a predominantly Muslim country, has had a woman head of state, Benazir Bhutto, and several other prominent female politicians. According to Saimah Ashraf, women in Pakistan are allowed to drive, vote, attend co-educational universities, and hold paying jobs.That being said, life in Pakistan is not very pleasant for women, as there are honor killings and high rates of violence against women there, but that is another topic.

Certainly, women just voted in the last referendum here in Egypt, and the Egyptian legal system is based in part on Shariah. The Parliament in Egypt is currently suspended, so no women or men are serving in it. The country is being run by the SCAF, which appears to be composed entirely of men. There is certainly a lot of room to expand the role and influence of women in Egypt now that the country is in the process of forming new political parties.

The right to vote was established in Iran in 1963. Iran has a very high number of women in Parliament, and women form more than half the entering class in Iran's universities according to Simin Royanian as well as an article in the BBC by Roxana Saberi. According to that article Women in Iran's Parliament are very active, and women also serve in local government. However, in Iran, women cannot be judges, and have many social rights restricted. President Ahmadinejad is quite conservative on the role of women, and wants them home with their families.There is a lot of room for improvement on the political role of women in Iran. According to Raz Zimmt, writing about Iran's parliamentary elections, currently only eight women have been elected in the 8th Majlis (elected in March 2008), in comparison to four women in the first, second, and third Majlis; nine in the fourth Majlis; 14 in the fifth and sixth Majlis sessions; and 13 in the seventh.

I have not had time to review the situation of women and the vote in Saudi Arabia, but this quick survey indicates that under Shariah, women certainly have the right to vote, and in many countries that are governed by Islamic Jurisprudence, women have that right as well. 


I would like to leave you with some wise words from Dr. Christina Jones, a professor of Law from Germany with expertise in Islamic Law:

I would like to leave you with the following proposition: It is possible to use Islamic law in the interests of women's rights. It is possible to combine the very best for women from all of the interpretations of the Quranic text. The decision to do this is political.

Shariah in Egypt and elsewhere part two

 Veiled woman with child attends a political rally about the Egyptian Constitution. Location, Tahrir Square, Cairo, Egypt. Photo Credit, the author.

According to Toni Johnson of the Council on Foreign Relations, Shariah guides "all aspects of Muslim life, including daily life, familial and religious obligations, and financial obligations." It is derived mainly from the Holy Quran and the Sunna, the path and practices of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

However, given that I am in Cairo, I decided to go to the source. Al Azhar University, located in Cairo, is Sunni Islam's foremost seat of learning. It is one of the world's oldest universities.  Al Azhar teaches Shariah, among other things. According to scholar Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, one must separate Islam from the cultural practices of a given country. For example, Islam insists on the free consent of bride and groom, so would in theory make arranged marriages illegal. Saudi Arabia forbids women from driving cars in that country, but according to scholar Maqsood, this "bizarre law has nothing to do with Islam." Afghani girls were cruelly banned from education under the Taliban, yet Islam encourages all Muslims to seek knowledge from cradle to grave, from every source possible.

In November, a law was passed in Oklahoma barring Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic Law (which my previous post establishes is actually fiqh, not Shariah) when deciding cases. US District Court Judge Vicki Miles LeGrange suspended the measure until a November 22, 2010 hearing. Amazingly, Fox News coverage of this story gets it right. They state "the implementation [of shariah] varies widely."

I think, my friends, that this is the point. Just as Christian pastors and priests vary in their interpretation of what Christianity requires, so to do Muslim clerics vary in their interpretation of what Islam requires. Indeed, this is the problem. Regardless of what the Holy Quran actually says, some countries have mixed in their intolerant, misogynist cultures, and used those cultural reasons to disenfranchise women. It is the implementation of the law we must resist, not Islam itself.

The Quran does advocate modest dress for both men and women. However, the interpretation of what is required varies widely. In Indonesia, most women do not veil. In Egypt, practicing Muslim women may wear no head covering, a Hijab covering the hair, or Nekab, covering everything but the eyes.  According to Maqsood, only one verse in the Quran refers to the veiling of women, and that is in regard to the wives of the Prophet Mohammad, whose wives were to wear Hijab in the presence of male guests.

Indeed, Proverbs, Chapter 1, (King James Version) which is part of the Old Testament, a text respected and revered by Christians, Jews and Muslims instructs us to seek wisdom, justice, judgment and equity.

1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;

2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;

3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

4 To give subtlety to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
Let us educate ourselves on this matter of Shariah, before we make hasty and intolerant judgments.

WMB

Initial Thoughts on Shariah Law, Women, and the Muslim Brotherhood

Dear readers

My students had a lively debate in my leadership class yesterday about whether Shariah humiliates women. (By the way, and importantly, they suggested the topic, and they voted on it. It was not my idea).  I learned a lot. Let me just start by saying that I do not know the answer to this question. But since I am a "lifelong learner" I am ready to study up on it. My biggest reaction to the debate was pleasure that all the students were extremely well prepared. I also was extremely relieved that no blood was on the floor by the end of the debate.

First of all, I learned that Shariah is based on the Holy Quran and the Sunna.

One side of the debate made a very persuasive case that the Holy Quran has a progressive stance on the rights of women in society and in the family. The other side of the debate made an equally persuasive case that Shariah, as actually implemented in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan, and to a certain extent Egypt, severely and unfairly restricts the rights of women.

This topic is of interest to both Egyptians, and those who follow Egyptian politics because the policies of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB's) proposed  Freedom and Justice Party are to be based on Shariah ("Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party to be based on Islamic Law," Al Masry Al Youm English, February 23, 2011)  At least four Islamic political parties are likely to be formed in the wake of Egypt's uprising. ("Muslim Brotherhood to Establish Freedom and Justice Party, Al Masry Al Youm English, February 21, 2011) The Freedom and Justice Party is scheduled to officially begin on June 17, 2011. ("Brotherhood Expects Political Party to Be Active by June," Al Masry Al Youm English, May 18, 2011)

A thoughtful article, "Why Shariah?" by Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law Professor, in the New York Times (March 16, 2008) makes the following point.

One reason for the divergence between Western and Muslim views of Shariah is that we are not all using the word to mean the same thing. Although it is commonplace to use the word “Shariah” and the phrase “Islamic law” interchangeably, this prosaic English translation does not capture the full set of associations that the term “Shariah” conjures for the believer. Shariah, properly understood, is not just a set of legal rules. To believing Muslims, it is something deeper and higher, infused with moral and metaphysical purpose. At its core, Shariah represents the idea that all human beings — and all human governments — are subject to justice under the law.

In fact, “Shariah” is not the word traditionally used in Arabic to refer to the processes of Islamic legal reasoning or the rulings produced through it: that word is fiqh, meaning something like Islamic jurisprudence. The word “Shariah” connotes a connection to the divine, a set of unchanging beliefs and principles that order life in accordance with God’s will. Westerners typically imagine that Shariah advocates simply want to use the Koran as their legal code. But the reality is much more complicated. Islamist politicians tend to be very vague about exactly what it would mean for Shariah to be the source for the law of the land — and with good reason, because just adopting such a principle would not determine how the legal system would actually operate.


My students made some interesting points. One team pointed out that there are varying interpretations and applications of shariah, which allow some disturbing behavior towards women. For example, the law in Saudi Arabia, which the Saudi Government claims is based in sharia, allows amputation, and stoning for various violations of the law. In Iran, my students argue, a woman is wholly the possession of her husband. In Saudi Arabia, women may not drive, unless they are accompanied by an employee or close male relative. In Afghanistan, they argued, only 5% of women can read and write, and young women are married off early for the bride price.

The other side argued persuasively that in fact these governments are not following the true Shariah. The true Shariah, they argue, protects the role of women. The Quran elevated the status of women, who were subjected to infanticide in the Arab desert 1400 years ago at the dawn of Islam. Islam came to address the wrongs committed against women. Men at the time could marry as many women as they chose. Islam limited men to four wives, who must be cared for in equal measure. In addition, my students pointed out, it is the case that women in Britain and America could not own property until the early 1900s. How can Shariah humiliate women, when it has always allowed women to own property? They noted that Shariah states that gender is recognized in the Holy Quran, and that a woman's personhood is respected. According to my students, Islam honors mothers, and protects the rights of the wife in divorce and marriage.

Fiqh, or Islamic Jurisprudence, my students argued echoing Feldman, although they had not read him, should not be confused with Shariah. The Islamic Jurisprudence applied in Taliban run Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, they stated, is not Shariah. Those governments are mixing culture, and their own internalized sexism, with Shariah. Feldman makes an argument that supports this position, saying that the governments in these countries are not adequately limited by Islamic scholars, and thus, behave somewhat arbitrarily. He states:

But if Shariah is popular among many Muslims in large part because of its historical association with the rule of law, can it actually do the same work today? Here there is reason for caution and skepticism. The problem is that the traditional Islamic constitution rested on a balance of powers between a ruler subject to law and a class of scholars who interpreted and administered that law. The governments of most contemporary majority-Muslim states, however, have lost these features. Rulers govern as if they were above the law, not subject to it, and the scholars who once wielded so much influence are much reduced in status. If they have judicial posts at all, it is usually as judges in the family-law courts.


In other words, the problem is that traditionally, Islamic scholars had significant social power. They could control arbitrary or unjust rulers and protect the people. Unfortunately, these scholars have lost their social position in the modern world, and have thus lost the ability to ensure that Shariah is applied in accordance with the consensus of Quranic law. For Shariah to be applied properly, there would have to be an effort to rebalance the power of the Islamic scholar in order to reinstate their ability to restrain the executive, like a kind of "Supreme Court." In the absence of these balancing institutions, Feldman and my students argue, the Saudi state, for example, has imposed extreme restrictions on the actions of women that arguably many Islamic scholars would argue are in conflict with the intention of the Quran.

Anyway, this is a very difficult topic. I am not suggesting an answer. I am just trying to become literate about it. I hope you found my musings informative. These are my thoughts for today. Lots to think about. WMB

Reformer from Muslim Brotherhood: Talk by Dr. Abdel Moneim Abol Fottoh

Dear Readers, I attended a talk by Dr. Abol Fottoh today. There was no simultaneous translation. A student translated for me. So this is not verbatim, but gives you a good gist of what was said. It was a very long talk, so this is just an excerpt. Dr. Abol Fottoh is known as a reformist within the Muslim Brotherhood. He has resigned from that party, and is planning to start his own party, known as Egypt's Renaissance. For more about him, read here . WMB

"Islam provides general laws, not specific ones. Egypt needs freedom for everyone. We should not force people to obey Islam. We give them advice. We would not do like Gulf Countries when they force people to wear the veil. This is against freedom."

"Islam provides general rules. The government should represent the majority of the people and do what they want. They underestimated Al Azhar {editors note, Al Azhar is an educational institute in Egypt. It was founded in 970 A.D. It is the chief Centre for Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic Learning.  The University's mission includes the propagation of Islamic Culture and Religion} They did not give it its proper position. It could act as a ministry that shows whether someone is following Islam. Those who think people are religious extremists should try to balance them, bring them to reason, not judge them or punish them."

"El Azhar is also a place where they educate people. Someone wanted to study music. Dr. Fottoh says that is fine. It is nice and acceptable. Music is art. If it is classy, music is fine. {Some Muslims think Music is forbidden} Just do not abuse the music. Do not play innappropriate music. Do not play innappropriate songs that are meaningless." [Fottoh does not say he would ban this bad music, but he is against it] "The main purpose of art and literature is to enrich the human soul. But art these days is meaningless and useless."

[Fottoh would not order all women to wear the veil, but he would advise them to do so] "But, I will not ask all girls to wear the veil. France should not ban hijab. People have a right to wear hijab. But Iran should also not make people wear hijab, people have a right not to wear it."

"The Turkish model is secular, but it is not against religion. It does not prevent people from being religious. Being secular is about freedom. They [probably referring to recent SCAF ban on religious parties] cannot ban religion."

"Parliament originally comes from society. It represents society. We can argue in Parliament about a social issue like homosexuality. They would not agree on something against society. They would not accept it. It is not acceptable in society to have homosexuality, it is taboo. So, in the Parliament they cannot accept it."

"Will the Muslim Brotherhood be participating in politics? There are different groups, Salafists, sunnis. All Muslims have the same Muslim thought. Forcing people in the name or religion is not allowed. All of Egypt should represent itself, not a certain group or party. There are over 200 political parties right now {They are incredibly weak}. Eventually, there will be three or four who dominate. A certain party will be in charge until then. There are extreme religious people in Egypt. They want that Sharia laws will be applied. It is in human nature that people will be divided by religion, politics, gender. We should accept different points of view. This will make society stronger. Variety will make us stronger. We need competition in a good way.  Al-Ikhwān [Muslim Brotherhood] is not a political party. It is an Islamic Movement that demands improvements to the country. Any Islamic movement is not concerned about politics."

"We only had a few weeks to decide whether to change the Constitution. It is not the Army's job to rule the country. The change in the Constitution should have taken more time.  Perhpas two years, to choose what changes to make or not make. The previous system considered Al-Ikhwān a competitor. In the previous system, I wanted to compete with honest and fair people, not corrupted ones. We were only allowed to vote yes or no on the Constitution. Neither yes or no meant radical changes. This vote was not reasonable. We should have been allowed to ask for a totally new Constitution."

"Q: Why is there a crisis of trust between the people and Al-Ikhwān? A: Movements are from the people. A percentage does not agree with what the Brotherhood thinks. That does not mean that all of Egypt is against the movement. In 1984 the Brotherhood entered the parliamentary elections. Some of the Brotherhood saw corruption, and did not want to be part of a corrupt system."

Mohammed El Baradei: We are born with a call for freedom

Dear Readers

Sorry to gush, but today I met Mohamed El Baradei, Nobel Prize Winner, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and revolutionary. One of the really cool things about my current job is that I work with Dr. Laila El Baradei, who is the sister of MEB. I attended a lecture today organized by students. It was called the Leadership for Education and Development Program. The theme was "Political Activism." Mohamed El Baradei was one of the speakers. Here are the best effort I could make of notes from this event. The event was in Arabic, so I listened to the translator. Notes are mostly verbatim, but some places I summarize. These are indicated by [..] Cheers, WMB

Here is the very short Al Masry Al Youm article about it El Baradei calls for 50 strong civil consultative council.

"We do respect the Army's role because it was the protector of the revolution. Today, the Army could appoint a consultative council to help it govern. Transparency is the road to Democracy."

"Do we have the kind of parties that enrich the debate? No, we do not. It does not matter if we have a parliamentary or a presidential system. There is no perfect democracy in the world. Every day, we learn something new. It is so important to be critical, to think critically. The important thing is that you think. This is something the previous regime killed in us."

"[Law must change with the times] In the US, in 1954 they said segregation was constitutional. The Highest Court said segregation was constitutional. The same court in the 1970s said we need integration. In terms of politics in Egypt, we need a coalition. We don't necessarily want a proportional system if it will result in distortion. We want everyone to be represented. The electorate should feel you represent their interests."

"The recent law requiring that a party have 5000 signatures from 29 governorates and publish in two state owned papers is an obstruction. Each of these signatures must be publicly notarized.: This is an obstruction, an impediment. [The new parties should be allowed] Before we promulgate the laws, we need the laws to reflect the views of the people. We are still holding the old mindset. The laws are not like the scripture, or the Bible. We should be able to change. Do not restrict freedom of association."

"Democracy means respect of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. The judiciary must be independent. Open the windows of democracy for freedom. Give the people the right to debate."

"In the 1971 Constitution, it said freedom of religious affiliation or belief is absolute."

"One half of Egyptians are below the poverty line. People went to the referendum because for the first time, they felt their voice was heard. One year when I finished working at the agency [IAEA] I defended the right of the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in politics. Each citizen should have the same rights or duties. Turkey has an Islami party but the country is completely secular. [This is the model we should follow] No one should impose his or her religious affiliation on anyone else."

"The youth are ready to hold office. I visited all the Eastern European states, their leaders are young, between 30 and 40."

"In a press conference, I said Egypt would live in this malady unless Mubarak was tried, or left the country. We should start with the head of corruption who is the former president.  There are 500 prominent figures who should be tried. Does it make sense that we have a camel battle during the Black Wednesday of the revolution? We err, but we need to learn from our mistakes. The only perfection is in God."

"The characteristic of democracy is that we do not need to take rushed decision. Take a slow decision with many views considered. I live near the pyramid side. I look at the luxurious buildings, and then the slum areas. We do a lot of injustice. How do we reduce the gap of poor and rich? We need access to education and health care. You have to know your budget, and allocate appropriately. The AUC graduates knowledgeable people. They need to help the poor. The short term goals of the country should be

• Education
• Health
• Housing
• Food

"We lack credibility with the people. If you are planting your fields, ensure a minimal level of food security. Our priorities today [must be to] build the Egyptian human being. [Help people] to live a decent life. I met John Kerry. I said that the money you spend on terrorism is squandered. The human being, when he loses hope in life, bombs himself. Help the young people meet their aspirations, and they will not be terrorists."

"Can we say that whole nationalities should be denied entry to Egypt? We should think rationally. In the past it used to take us a year to get a visa to Western countries. [We should not repeat that mistake]."

"The constitutional referendum was controversial. It was not proceeded by national dialogue. Would I have prevented [unclear] from seeking the presidency because his wife was French? No. We should think about what we are saying."

"I hope that we continue to put our faith in the Army. I do not object to the army itself, but rather to the Army as the [essence] of the state. Should we have mandatory military service? Obligatory enrollment in the Army for three years? All these issues are subject to discussion. The Army, Police Officers and Judiciary should vote. [They have not in the past] Maybe mandatory service is good, but we should discuss this. Maybe we need a reserve, or a volunteer service. I cannot give you the answer, but we need to have a public discussion of these issues."

"42% of Egyptians live under the poverty line, but realistically,90 percent of Egyptians are poor. We must guarantee people a free and dignified life. In 2010 the minimum wage was 35 LE  a month (about 7 dollars) Now it is 400 LE (about 80 dollars). The Editor in Chief of a Government Newspaper was making One million pounds a month (A lot, 250,000 dollars) It is not that the country is poor, but we need to redistribute the wealth."

"Article 2 of the Constitution. There is a great sensitivity to this. Article 2 does reflect Islamic principles. Equality and Justice are also Islamic principles. It is about the interpretation of the article. Let us focus on the real problems facing Egypt. I was in Cuba. The education rate there is 100% despite the American embargo of forty years. Castro's son chaired a program at UNESCO on how to reach out to people in villages to educate them."

Question from Audience: Do you think that Egyptian people are politically mature enough for democracy?
Answer. "The elite in Egypt has been polarized. But now, people are excited about the chance to vote. Many people voted in the referendum even though they were not well informed. [This is okay, people will learn as they exercise their right to vote.] Democracy is freedom and social justice. We are born with a call for freedom. It is inherent in us."

QFA: What should the position of the New Egypt be towards Israel? Answer: "Israel marginalized the Palestinians. The Arab World did not deal with the issue. There is no balance of power. Israel will come to us when Arab states become strong. Iran and Turkey are two strong states. A strong state is measured by what you contribute to world civilization. The Palestinian problem will not be solved in a military way. In the 40s, we had the Arab League. Recently, Arab regimes have become a joke."

QFA: Should we have a parliamentary or presidential system? Answer: "We need a popular consensus. We need an alternative to the authoritarian example. India is progressing ahead because it is a democracy. Unleash the powers and freedom of the human being."

QFA: Do you believe that Egypt can become an Islamic State? Answer: "We are always talking about mottos and slogans. Does religious reference mean we have divine and lofty values? Yes. If we believe in the true spirit of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, we must have good intentions. I met the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama says that prayer should be linked to action. Islam says that also. It is better to do an action, then spend the day in the mosque praying. When we speak of this political coalition [that should rule Egypt.] We should solve these problems within a humanitarian framework."