The conference of "The Right of Expression," organized by Egypt’s Assembly for Culture and Dialogue and which took place in the last two days, witnessed great controversies among intellectuals and men of law concerning the ideas Salah Eissa, the Editor-in-chief of Al-Qahira Magazine, introduced. Eissa introduced ideas pertaining to religious and national constant principles and some other opinions that had to do with Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu-Zeid, who is now living in Holland after a court ordered him and his wife to be separated because of his writings, which the court believed touched upon Islam and its constant principles.
The differences among the intellectuals were very clear to an extent that made Dr. Mohammed Selim Al-Awa, the head of Egypt’s Assembly for Culture and Dialogue, say at the end of the conference that its aim was not unifying opinions but rather making those who differ in opinion talk together under one roof. He added "We held the conference as we believe in the right of everyone to have a different opinion."
The controversy started when Salah Eissa said that he did not agree with the fact that there were national constant ideas in Egypt. His argument was the change of some national and political principles. According to him, from the 1950s till 1970s, the Palestinian issue was looked upon as the central Arab issue and reconciliation with Israel was considered as treason. Now, however, still according to him, the collective agreement on this changed after the peace treaty Sadat signed with Israel. Those who initiated the peace treaty came to think of the reconciliation with Israel as a kind of nationalism. They also came to describe those who believe in a different opinion as being backward. This is in addition to the fact that all the official Arabian systems came to acknowledge Israel [as a state].
Eissa differentiated between what he described as the constant and common [principles], saying that the nation has the second kind only as it consists of intellectual, political and religious groups that differ in their beliefs and political and religious tendencies. He argues that the complete freedom of the market is one of the constant principles of the communists, the state’s intervention in the economy is a socialist constant principle, Islamic unity is one of the constant principles of the Muslim Brotherhood and the principle of one nation for all is one of the Marxists’.
Eissa called for all Egyptians to have a dialogue with the aim of forming a new social contract, according to which a state based on patriotism, democracy, secularism and social justice is to be founded. He explained that what he meant by a secular state was a state where people legislate [laws] for themselves by themselves, according to what they believe suits their time. But, without violating the content of religious legislation. He pointed out that a democratic state should not have an ideology because having an ideology means persecuting those following different ideologies.
He asked the Islamic trend to formulate the possibility of its existence on the map of a civil and democratic state. He asked them to make this formulation a positive one, especially when matters are related to the freedom of belief and some other issues pertaining to political thinking.
He criticized what he called the general attitude of the national group which aims at making each political group impose its will on the other groups, under the slogan of the nation’s constant principles.
The well-known Islamic lawyer Mohammed Salim Al-Awa responded to Eissa, stressing that no change has or will occur to the nation’s constant principles concerning acknowledging Israel or having peace with it. The change, according to him, was only in the government’s formal way of dealing with it. However, the national case did not change. It was the means of resistance that changed.
Al-Awa supported those who said that disbelieving in God is a guaranteed right. However, the normalization with Israel is a behavior that should not be adopted or allowed. His argument was that believing or disbelieving in God is a mere personal matter between man and God and no one can prohibit it. However, normalization is a behavior that affects the whole national group and the one who adopts it betrays his country and nation. Al-Awa explained that he was not asking to abolish treaties or stop negotiations. However, he called for making the Arab governments do what they want and letting the Arab peoples do what they want.
He pointed out that the fact that there was more than one religion does not mean there was variety in the constant principles but it rather enriches them. He added that in Islam there are constant principles about Jews in their capacity as followers of a heavenly religion. However, there are no constant principles in Islam about Zionism or Jews in Israel.
For his part, Amin Howeidi, the former minister of defense and the former head of the general intelligence, stressed that freedom was needed, still there is no such unlimited freedom. However, there are red lines that should not be transgressed.
Engineer Abu Al-Ala Madi, the deputy of the founder of Al-Wast Party, refused the idea of establishing a secular state among religious people like Egyptians. He said that constant national principles were there.
Engineer Mohammed Al-Saman, the secretary of the Engineers’ Syndicate and a Brotherhood member, said that if secularism means putting a religious institution like the Azhar and the church away from ruling, it was welcomed. However, if it meant, as it was known, putting religion aside, it was rejected by all.
Dr. Magdi Qarqar, the assistant secretary of the Labor Party, criticized Eissa’s opinion that there were no constant national principles. He said that such an opinion ended with having a dialogue with one’s self not with others. He added that secularism knows nothing about the intentions of religious laws.
Islamic thinker Mohammed Omara, touched upon the issue of creativity and the constant religious principles, at the beginning of the conference. He said that there was no religious or philosophical trend without constant principles. He pointed out that there is enlightenment in Islam. However, it is always keeping its [Islam] constant principles with it [enlightenment]. He stressed that enlightenment does not mean change. It is, for the West, the culture that revolves around man in his capacity as a human being and not around God or man, who is God’s creation and His successor [the Arabic word used is ’khalifa’, perhaps representative is more accurate in this context] on earth. He pointed out that such cultures separate between earth and heaven and cut all relationships with tradition, especially religious tradition.
Dr. Hassan Taleb, a professor at Helwan University, asked about the reason behind the fact that people came to fear creativity, pointing out that such things were going very smoothly when the Islamic civilization was at its peak. He added that there were many poets like Abu-Nawas, in the Islamic era, and no one accused them of atheism.
As for the issue of Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zeid, it divided the intellectuals, participating in the conference, into three groups. The first group rejected his ideas and his return to Egypt, the second rejected his ideas and call for his return and the third rejected his ideas and accepted his return to discuss these ideas with him.
The controversy over the issue of Nasr Abu-Zeid started when lawyer Tharwat Al-Kharabwi pointed out that the case of Abu-Zeid was the reason behind issuing the Hisba law. He said that this law contradicted the Islamic constant principles and the constitutional texts. Al-Kharabwi was talking about the legislative regulations that organize the freedom of expression.
However, lawyer Abdullah Khalil, a former member in the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, considered Al-Kharabwi’s link between the case of Abu-Zeid and the Hisba law a kind of recalling old cases having to do with terrorizing intellectuals. In addition, Khalil launched an attack against the Islamic Research Institute, saying that it made many unknown writers becoming well-known after confiscating their books. He added that the case of Nasr Abu-Zeid was a settlement of an old account and that a certain "lobby" fabricated the case to settle certain conflicts. Khalil asked Islamists not to force the court into the field of conflicts and of what he described as political polarization.
Al-Kharabwi answered back saying that it never happened that the Islamic research Institute confiscated any book because the role of the institute, according to the law of the Azhar, was to give reports about any book that touches upon Islam. According to him, it was the general prosecution and not the Islamic Research Institute that had the authority to confiscate any book. He added that the role the Azhar plays and that which is played by the Institute are sometimes mixed up on purpose. He elaborated saying that those who believe in the theory of absenting religion are the ones who fill the world with their shouts if the Institute passes an opinion on any book to say that the Institute has confiscated it.
The Brotherhood member, Farid Abdel-Khaleq said that the Islamic Shari’a [law] is based on mind. However, any ijthad [Independent judgment in legal or theological questions based on interpretation and application of the four fundamentals of religion] that contradicts any constant text, should be faced. Abu Al-Ala Madi asked for being united behind real issues that are based on common principles between all. He said "I thought the file of the case of Nasr Abu-Zeid was closed." Dr. Saleem Al-Awa ended the discussion by stressing that Abu-Zeid’s case re-opened a lot of the wounds of Egyptian society that should be over. He added "We are not against Abu-Zeid as a person. We just differ with him concerning some of his opinions. We welcome him to come back to Egypt."
Al-Awa attracted attention to the most dangerous thing in the case of Abu-Zeid being giving the administrative authority the chance to intervene in the affairs of the judicial one-a thing which he described as the biggest "disaster."
Counselor Yehya Al-Rifa’ai, the honorable head of the Judges’ Club, pointed out that many redundant discussions about the case of Nasr Abu-Zeid were taking place, although the court had put an end to it. He added that the government supported Abu-Zeid by issuing the Hisba law to help him. He was of the opinion that the Hisba law contradicts the constitution saying that the Ministry of Justice was behind many of the constitutional problems that Egypt is living. He stressed that the ruling in the case of Abu-Zeid was, after all, handed down by the court of Cassation. The court said that he was an apostate and no one is allowed to comment on the decision of the court of Cassation.
Al-Rifa’ai criticized the states’ attitude towards judicial decisions. He said that our legislative authority is totally separated from the people and their will, stressing that the government’s disrespect for the court’s decisions means that it has lost its legality.
He added that any final ruling, even if it contradicted the law, should be applied. The final ruling according to him was the end of any conflict. After that final decision, ruling will be by force-the thing that means destroying the state and its laws.
Fakri Al-Gazar, a former member of the People’s Assembly, was of the opinion that the Emergency Law was behind any relapse in Egyptian society. He said that this law abolished 90% of human rights. Abdel-Azzem Al-Magharbi, the head of the parliamentary assembly of the Nasserist party, said "We will object against the Emergency Law till it is canceled."
Dr. Salim Al-Awa pointed out that the Emergency Law had been examined, over many years, by the Supreme Constitutional Court and that the ball was now in the ground of the Constitutional Court.
Dr. Wahid Abdel-Mageed, the general coordinator of the conference, commented on the many controversies the conference witnessed saying, "These controversies do not cause any depression because they do not mean that there are divisions and many cultures and reference points. However, our aim is to reach a general understanding of the relationship between the freedom of expression and what may be agreed upon of the constant principles of that nation."
Abdel-Mageed added that the constant principles of the nation change according to the way they are formulated. There are general constant principles that govern us, regardless of the names by which we may call them. He expressed the opinion that the absence of restrictions on freedom in society turns it into a wilderness. He stressed that the issue was much more simple than the way they had handled it. He pointed out that there was a collective agreement over Israel being the first common enemy, something that is considered to be one of the national constant principles. In addition, no one can treat the conflict with Israel as if it is not there.
