In Egypt: A Catastrophe May Be On The Way

On Thursday, November 22, President Morsi issued a decree.  That was no ordinary decree.  He called it "a constitutional decree" which, in effect, put him above the law.  In the absence of a constitution, Morsi declared that until the new constitution is drafted and ratified, his writ is law.  With that, the first popularly elected President of Egypt, a historic byproduct of the January 25, 2011 revolution, in effect, became both the executive and legislative branches of Government.  As to the third branch, the judiciary, it was neutralized -no judicial review of his decrees.

Guess who got angry, in fact very angry, without the benefit of anger-management -the judges.  They declared a strike.  Courts were closed, except for chambers dealing with issues which cannot wait.  With that, nearly all other professional associations, including the medical, press, and Bar Associations, went also on strike.  Millions poured in Tahrir and similar public squares to denounce their new President whose roots lie deep in the Muslim Brotherhood.  Some of the demonstrators went as far as calling him "Mussolini."  Others called him "the new Pharaoh."

What is this all about? Prime Minister Qandeel warns "Either we build.  Or we shed blood."  President Morsi addresses the nation soothingly saying: "I am the President of all Egyptians.  My decree is only for 2 to 4 months.  It will end with the adoption of the new constitution."  Dr. El-Baradei, the oracle for democracy in Egypt announces "A constitution which is rushed out from the Constituent Assembly will be worth the refuse basket."  Farouk Gouida, the great intellectual posits that "the Egyptian public shall never again condone any form of the old authoritarianism."  And the Chief Editor of Al-Ahram, the official newspaper of the Egyptian government, Abdel-Nasser Salamah, headlines on November 30: "The Egyptian situation may be decided by the intervention of the armed forces."  This means a military coup against the New Egypt.

A catastrophe may be on its way.  A possible civil war threat hangs over the blue skies of Egypt.

It all began with the Islamists winning 70% of the seats in the post-Mubarak freely-elected Parliament.  Of those, 50% for the Muslim Brotherhood -a middle of the road Islamist movement, and 20% for the Salafis, an extreme Islamist group which is heavily influenced by Saudi Arabia's wahabbism.  The rest of the seats were won by the liberal parties which include the Copts.

Enters the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC), towards which the Islamists, including President Morsi, harbor deep mistrust.  These venerable judges were not only Mubarak appointees.  Their rulings were like high bumps on the Islamists' road to pre-eminence in the governance of the new Egypt.  The SCC, finding a technical fault in the elections of the lower house of Parliament, (seats which were to be filled by individuals were grabbed by political parities) dissolved Parliament, except for the upper house (the Shoura).

But with Morsi now at the Presidential Palace in Cairo, he refused to accept that judicial activism.  So he called the dissolved Chamber into a 20 minute session for one purpose: to have it vote a transfer of legislative power to him temporarily pending: drafting of the new constitution; voting on it in a referendum; the re-constitution of a new parliament; the definition of the role of the judiciary as a third branch of a democratic system of government.

These moves were not immediately challenged by Egypt's judiciary which, in the new Egypt, has begun to flex its muscles, the muscles of a truly independent judiciary.  But the judiciary was not yet done with the Islamists in the new Egypt.  The judges had the Constituent Assembly (CA) in their cross-hairs.  The battle between the Islamists and the secularists was being waged by the convenient proxy of the judiciary.  The CA was dissolved by the SCC before, but its successor CA was handpicked by the Islamists.

The secularists in the new CA (the committee of 100) were the auxiliaries of the SCC.  Their lower number on the CA was magnified by a greater clout in Tahrir Square.  Thus while the battles of drafting raged on within the confines of the CA, the secularists decided to try to paralyze its rush to the production of a pro-Islamist constitution.  They walked out of the meetings of the CA, depriving it at one point, of 25% of its membership.

But a quorum stayed on the job: Article 2 provided that "the principles" of Islamic Law (Sharia) were a principal source of legislation.  The Salafis grumbled.  "The principles" is a term that does not provide for textual adherence to Islamic law.  But the Muslim Brothers in the CA, supported by the secularists including the copts and women, ignored that militant fringe.  And Al-Azhar which is represented on the CA gave the secularist wing in the CA a big boost.  After all, Al-Azhar stand is that "Islam does not recognize a state based solely on religion."

Now the Supreme Constitutional Court was getting ready to stop the Constituent Assembly in its tracks.  By now, the defections from the CA have reached 30%, and the SCC was aiming at dissolving that body, in order to clear the way for the selection by the Shoura (the only Chamber of Parliament which was left standing) of a new body to draft the new constitution.

In that chaotic inter-institutional environment, Morsi, fearful of the void (no Lower Parliamentary Chamber; no constitution) went for an over-reach- a "constitutional declaration." And Egypt exploded, in spite of Morsi's explanation that he only intended to bring the transition to a close.  Poetically, he intoned, that it was "a difficult birth from the womb of an ancient nation."

He and the Islamists felt that rushing the draft of the new constitution by the existing CA was the only dam to forestall the mighty waves for the soul of Egypt.  On November 30, the battle lines were more than lines in the sand.  The judiciary, faced with that grand play for power by Morsi and the Constituent Assembly, decided to close down the courts.  Millions poured out on the streets screaming "IRHAL" (Leave) to Morsi, and the violent competition for the soul of Egypt, either secularist or Islamist, was on. "The Great Explosion" was already happening.  The millions, from the two opposing forces, were back in Tahrir and in many other squares all over that historic land.  And soon flames enveloped many centers of the Muslim Brotherhood.

"The rapacious appropriation of power," the anti-Morsi forces declared, "shall not be allowed to stand."

At Crossroads in Egypt: One Sign Reads: "To All Directions;" The Other Sign Reads: "To All Other Directions"

President Morsi now has it all: Executive, legislative and ... not judiciary, but something else called "absence of judicial review."  It happened on Thursday, Nov. 22, a day when the whole world was grateful for that Gaza cease fire.  Morsi, the engineer and the first elected president of Egypt since the birth of ancient Egypt, has, with the US managed to stop, at least for now, the senseless carnage between Gazans and Israelis.  During those anxious hours of negotiations, the world looked at Morsi as the voice of reason.  President Obama spoke to him at length concluding: that man with roots in the Muslim Brotherhood was indeed a pragmatist.  The accolades from all over the world rained on Morsi once the fighting stopped.

Then came Thursday, Nov. 22, a fateful day in Egypt's halting march towards democracy: Morsi promulgating a decree granting himself broad powers.  Before that decree was issued, the sign reading "To All Directions" signaled a deadlock in the efforts to draft a new constitution.  After the issuance of that decree, the sign reading "To All Other Directions" signaled the unknown.

The dilemma is rooted in the following facts: a split between the Islamists who control the majority of parliamentary seats and the secularists; the haggling in the constituent assembly (the Assembly of 100) over the few yet-to-be-drafted articles of the constitution, resulting in the withdrawal of most of the secularists, including the Copts, from those deliberations (about 25% of the membership); and the fear that the Supreme Constitutional Court, whose judges are hold-over Mubarak appointees, was poised to dissolve that constitutional assembly. Members of that Assembly were chosen by the Islamists-dominated and now dissolved parliament.

Was Morsi correct in issuing that decree?  "Correct" is a subjective term which is subject to all kinds of interpretations.  Those who support Morsi say: that decree is an emergency enactment of limited duration ending with the plebiscite on a new constitution and the setting up of a new parliament vested with full legislative powers.

Morsi opponents claim that Morsi, using his accolades for his role in the Gaza crisis, is assassinating democracy, tipping the delicate scales in favor of the Islamists in whose ideology his roots run deep, and is anointing himself as the new Pharaoh.

Perhaps the reality is buried under a ton of rhetoric and counter-rhetoric.  In spite of that situation, a central fact emerges: the two sides of that schism fear a return to the past leading to an early abortion of the January 25 Revolution.  However, each side wants to own that revolution, interpreting its progress on the basis of its ideological perspective.

There is another central fact in the battle of reading the signs at that historic Egyptian crossroads.  There is no love lost between Morsi and the Supreme Constitutional Court.  That Court had dissolved Parliament, only to have Morsi reconvene it for 20 minutes to have it grant him "temporary" legislative powers.  Ancillary to the suspected powers of the Supreme Constitutional Court was the suspicion towards the Public Prosecutor, Abdel Meguid Mahmoud, for failing to win stronger sentences against Mubarak and his associates.

So now, President Morsi, who had returned the army to its barracks, has, through the November 23 decree, freed himself, his decrees and the constituent assembly from judicial oversight.  Free at last?  Not so fast.  The battle between the Islamists and the secularists, signalling an open wound in the Egyptian body politic has begun to intensify.  Tahrir Square is again the huge podium from which arguments and counter arguments, as well as rocks, tear gas canisters, and more dangerous projectiles, are exchanged.

In response to those who say that Morsi abhors judicial independence, we find Morsi appointing a new Public Prosecutor, Talaat Ibrahim Abdullah, a former leader of the movement for judicial independence under Mubarak.

To those in Egypt who say that Morsi now represents a continuation of the 60 years of dictatorship under which Egypt has suffered, Morsi has addressed his nation on Nov. 23 saying "my actions are for the protection of that revolution."

As the counter-Morsi protesters burned down Muslim Brotherhood offices in Alexandria and elsewhere, in response to the frightening amassing of powers in the hands of one man, Morsi, he responds that he was "the President of all Egyptians."

The masses, while pleased with Morsi's plans to retry Mubarak and his cohorts (against the principles of "res judicata" -the thing has been decided), the opponents still scream that "Morsi wants to make of himself a God."

Al-Sharkawi of Cairo University, an advisor to Morsi says: "This is mainly a political conflict.  Egypt needs to move forward.  The life of that decree is from 2 to 4 months.  Egypt cannot wait anymore.  The judiciary did no reflect the will of the people."

For now, I tend to agree.  But I was educated in Egypt until the age of 24.  There I learnt from my Scottish professors at Zagazig High School in the Province of Sharkiah, a British adage: "Nothing is more permanent that the temporary."

From the Pharmacy to the Papacy: Pope Theodoros II of Alexandria

His sure medicine is a dose of love and an equal measure of unity.  That is the prescription of His Holiness Pope Theodoros, the 118th Pope of the venerable Orthodox Church of Egypt.  He comes to the headship of a very historic Church in the annals of Christendom the first church after Christ.  Elevated to that exalted position by a unique election system which goes back 2000 years (a process of selection followed by drawing a lot among four clergymen), the new Pope inherits the mantle of the great Pope Shenouda III.

The date of his elevation to the Papacy  was November 4, 2012, his 60th birthday.  His Egypt has changed since the revolution of January 25, 2011.  A historic change has come to his land, the land of the Copts (Egypt), and so his message is a mixture of love, the creed of that Church which boasts of having the hiding place of the Holy family in Old Cairo, and unity, which has become quite elusive in this age of rage.

Theodoros II has a 1975 baccalaureate in pharmacy from the University of Alexandria.  This was followed, ten years later, by a World Health Fellowship from the UK.  For His Holiness, it was an 1985 double graduation.  In that year, he was also able to graduate from the Coptic Clerical College in Egypt.  After a period of seclusion as a monk at the Anba Bishoy Convent in Wadi Al-Natroun in 1986 in the western desert, he was ordained a Coptic priest in 1989.  Within 8 years thereafter, he became a Bishop.

This new spiritual leader, whose original name was Wagih Sobhi Baqi Soliman, had a father who was a land surveyor.  The family kept on moving in Egypt from east (Mansourah), to south (Souhag), to west (Damanhour).  It was as if fate was offering the future Pope a broad look at his beloved Egypt.

On this Pope's shoulders lie the new burdens of remelding the Coptic community into one community with their Muslim brethren.  It is not by numbers or a ratio of one Copt to 10 Muslims, forming the demography of 90 millions, the largest Arab State.  It is by the shared history which began in the 8th Century since the time of Amre lbn Elass led the Muslims westward from Palestine into the Nile Valley.  The new arrivals were under strict instructions from Khaliph Omar who, from Medina in what is now Saudi Arabia, ordered them in no uncertain terms: "No forced conversion.  And learn from your brothers, the Copts."

This eventuated into Egypt becoming a model for the Islamic Law persistent call for diversity and respect for the other.  But the ill wind of extremism, which cloaked itself in an Islamic garb, began as of the Khomeni revolution in Iran to blow westward blanketing Egypt in its path.  Those ominous developments ignored the great patriotic stance of the Coptic church in regard to Egypt's gradual liberation from Great Britain in 1919, 1936, 1946, and in 1954 when the British troops evacuated Egypt.

With incidents of conflict between the Copts and the Muslims multiplying in Egypt, the call of the new Pope for national unity acquires added significance.  After all, his great predecessor, Pope Shenouda III, was described as "Egypt's safety valve."  In the same vein, Pope Theodoros sees in Egypt's Coptic heritage an avenue for preserving, through his medicine of love, a great antidote to Egypt's inter-religious anxieties.

"The Egyptian Coptic Church, "the new Pope declared," is a model for all churches, and for the Egyptian Community, in regard to the separation between State and Church."

Obama's Four More Years: The New Egypt Reacts

They proudly call him "the black American President."  They devote to his success miles and miles of print.  They attend in droves the celebrations held at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.  They openly show great relief for Romney's exist.  Why?

Interest in America and its ways has never been more palpable.  This phenomenon is fully shared by both the Islamists and the secularists.  It is an interest which reflects general hope in a reinvigorated American involvement in the New Egypt, economically, educationally, technologically and in selected areas of foreign policy, especially in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  "Hope and Change," borrowed from Obama, has become an Egyptian mantra.  Egyptian resentment toward America's support for Mubarak has practically dissipated.

Cairo's attitude toward Russia has sunk to a new low.  The New Egypt feels abhorrence toward Moscow's support for the Assad regime in Syria.  In this regard, Egypt, historically, has always looked west, not east.  Contemporary Egypt was first developed by the French as of the early 19th century.

Egypt, taking a brief holiday from the woes of its transition from dictatorship to democracy, celebrated the onset of Obama's second term in adulatory terms.  They highlighted Obama's call for healing the wounds of the bitter presidential campaign.  "Tahrir" wishes that a similar reconciliation would be possible with the remnants of the Mubarak regime.

Cairo saw humility in Obama's declaration in his victory speech in Chicago that he had become "a better President."  It wishes that its leaders would show the same strength of character.  Though the challenges facing Washington, D.C. and Cairo may not be the same, but the Egyptians perceive in Obama's reference to "the challenges ahead" a reflection of what their new leaders keep on repeating.

Even Romney's speech conceding defeat and wishing Obama's success in the coming four years was a reminder to Egypt that it does not yet posses this tradition of congratulating your adversary.

There is also in Cairo that sense of quick pride in the enhanced importance of the minorities in America.  The Egyptians also saw in the small margin of victory for Obama a reflection of what happened in the competition between Morsi and Shafik in June for the post of the presidency.

As to the expected "gridlock" in U.S. governance, well, that is nothing new to Cairo.  This is although the Egyptian gridlock has different poles.  In Cairo, it is between the judiciary and the other branches of government.

What did the New Egypt fear in Romney?  First, they do not know Romney.  Romney did not even define himself.  Romney was defined by his adversaries.  Second, they were hostile to his references to the rise of the Islamists to power as "chaos in the Middle East."  The Egyptians also saw in Romney a man of war.  In Obama, they saw a man of peace, especially as regards Iran.

It also greatly helps that Obama's middle name is "Hussein."

The Difficult Birth of the Egyptian Constitution: Will a Caesarian Be Necessary?

The noise inside the meetings of the Constituent Assembly and outside goes on.  It is truly a difficult birth for the new Constitution of post-dictatorship Egypt.  It is a struggle for the soul of the January 25 Revolution.  That soul is basically whether Egypt shall be secular, Islamist or a combination of both.  I am betting on the third alternative.  And nearly 90 million Egyptians are watching very closely.  So is the rest of the Arab world and beyond.

What is the problem?  Who are the actors?  Which articles have emerged from the Assembly's Drafting Committee only to be opposed by the Governance Committee?  And who will arbitrate between the factions and under what authority?  Could the judiciary step in?

These questions would have never arisen if the popular parliamentary elections in which 70% of the huge electorate of 53 million did not produce an Islamist majority of 70%. But they did, and 70% of the parliamentary seats were gobbled up by the Islamist parties with 50% for the Muslim Brotherhood, and 20% for the Salafis.

The heart of the battle is Article 2 which is being copied from the old Constitution of 1971.  It refers to "the principals" of Sharia being the principle source of legislation.  The Islamists, especially the Salafis, are opposed, since the term "principles" is ill defined.  Dr. Issam Dirbalah, the President of The Shura of Al-Jamaah Al-Islamia expressed on October 25 his opposition in these words: "It is obligatory to provide a clear definition of that term and then place it in a separate article."

Confronting that call of Dr. Dirbalah, the independent Cairo daily "Al-Sabah," delegitimated the entire Constituent Assembly.  Its executive editor, Wael Lotfi said: "History shall remember that that Assembly has no legitimacy, either constitutionally, or politically, or morally...It consists of a small group of Muslim Brothers and their allies."

In response, the Editor-in-Chief of "Freedom and Justice," the mouthpiece of the Muslim Brotherhood party countered: "Our national duty enjoins us to urge our brothers who constitute the liberal and leftist currents to apologize to the Egyptian people for their attempts to impede the building of the State's institutions."

In spite of its centrality to the warring factions, Article 2 is not the only subject of contention.  There are of course the articles dealing with the President's powers and prerogatives, the rights of minorities especially the Copts, gender equality, the independence of the judiciary and broad civic and individual rights.  All these articles are now thrown for a historic public debate in the streets of the new Egypt, before the final text is brought before the entire electorate for approval in a referendum.

This is the first time ever in the very long history of Egypt to have the public at large debate its national charter, its Constitution.  It is also the first time that one hundred and one civic society organizations call for the incorporation into the yet-to-be approved Constitution of an article dealing with the role of civil society in the drafting of the new Constitution.  Athenian form of democracy being practiced in Egypt across the Mediterranean from Greece!!

But the secularists resorted to what amounts to an overreach.  They instituted a case before the Administrative Law court challenging the legality of the institution and composition of the Constituent Assembly.  The court issued a ruling referring the case to a higher court, the Supreme Constitutional Court.  Well, this is the very court whose judges were hand-picked by Mubarak.  But strange things happens in any revolution or transitional period in any State in post World War II.

The referral of that case to a higher court was seen by the Islamists as a victory - a victory through delay.  The Assembly now could rush its work towards completion before the Supreme Constitutional Court would be ready to dispose of that historic case.  This is although the Constituent Assembly is still grappling with the draft articles dealing with several important issues, such as Article 36 which guarantees gender equality.  This formulation is inherited from the Sadat-era Constitution of 1971.  Even the Salafis are content with that Constitutional inheritance because the article ends with words to the effect that equality should be observed in a way not contradicting to Islamic Law.  The secularists want these words removed.

The issues do not just end there.  There are supplementary articles dealing with the rights of women, the child and the family - the family being the core of society.  Emphasis is made on mutual observance of the rights and obligations of a husband and a wife towards one another.

These are matters of crucial importance to the new Egypt and beyond.  Problems surrounding that birth abound.  Perhaps a Caeserian might be needed!!  One thing is certain: In about two months from now, the Egyptians will see the birth of a new dawn through a new text of their new Constitution.

Democracy and Faith: Not for Foreign Exportation, Dictation or Reinterpretation

Look it up in any dictionary!!  I did, in English, French, Spanish and Arabic.  No precise definition, except for the generic terms: "by the people."  So please stay away from imposing any definition, except "by the people" on that term.  Your yardstick should not be one measuring various shapes, forms and practices which, by historic necessity, change from one environment to another.

The Arab Spring is giving birth to democracies; that is to say again "government by the people" at various stages of maturation.  Take Egypt, for example, demographically at least, the center of the Arab world.  Democracy is moving by baby steps.  Messy steps, yes.  Backward to the old bad days of dictatorship, the phenomenon of absolute rule, no.

Therefore, if you believe that absolute rule is oppressive due to its suppression of human rights, as in the days of the Nasser/Sadat/Mubarak, whom would you prefer: Mubarak, the secularist dictator, or Morsi, the so-called Islamist, the democratically-elected President of Egypt?  Before you answer this question, use your "rule by the people" yardstick.

If you throw "stability" in the mix, you, as some commentators are prone to do, might say: "Mubarak was an age of stability."  Really?  What kind of stability, and for whom, and through whom?  If you mean by stability, tranquility and predictability, so is the nearest cemetery.  The people of Egypt voted for Morsi.

They have never voted in a fair and open election, not run by "the Ruling Party" since 1950.  After 62 years, they, through the chaos of Tahrir Square, toppled Mubarak, put him judicially in jail for his abuse of power and elected Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood.  You may then argue that only 50% of the Egyptian electorate of 53 million men and women voted.  And I would say: In any democratic practice, the result is decided by those who are "present and voting."  There is no vote for the so-called silent 50%.  They chose not to have a voice.  And that was a run-off, preceded by 70% + participation which narrowed the field to two candidates: Shafik, the military man (a holdover from Mubarak days -rule by the Air Force pilots), and the Islamist, Morsi.  Shafik lost; Morsi won.

Was that a victory for Islamism in Egypt?  Yes it was.  Is this good or bad?  It was good for the principle of democracy.  This is providing that: (a) secularity in Egypt is not smothered; (b) minority rights pertaining to the Copts, women, bedouins of Sinai, and Nubians of upper (southern) Egypt are respected; (c) all forms of freedoms of expression in dress, art, film, songs, dance and theater are protected; (d) international treaties are respected; (e) opposition parties, whose number exceed 30, exercise the freedom to organize and to voice their views of the conduct of their government (the heart of "by the people");  (f) rebuild the economy, through investment, indigenous and foreign, trade and tourism; (g) keep the Salafis away from trying to impose their nearly 1500 years of interpretation of Sharia, which has never stopped to evolve, towards accommodating "the public good" at any given time; (h) maintaining the principle of sovereignty by not being subservient to special interests, domestic or foreign; and last but not least (i) safeguarding the core of democratic rule through respecting the Constitution which is now being drafted by the Constituent Assembly, especially the peaceful rotation of power through the voice of the people, freely expressed in open and fair elections.

Have I exhausted all criteria?  No.  The list is open and can go on and on, without forgetting the principles of "judicial independence," of the dictum issued by Al-Azhar, namely that "Islam does not recognize a State based solely on religion."  And this is where Sharia and the US Constitution converge (the First Amendment on the separation between State and religion).  I had the opportunity of stating that convergence at a panel organized in New York City at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in 2006 by the American Bar Association which dealt with "Law and Religion."

The two values, the State, underpinned by democracy, and religion, are not mutually antagonistic.  For each of  them serves the people within its own domain.  Mixing between the two is not only confusing.  It is also combustible as it leads to a sinister form of racism, discrimination, hate, and unchannelled rage.  Yet they both share one common characteristic: they issue from their own environment, and defy dictation and/or definition from the outside.

Mahmoud v. Morsi: "The Battle of the Camels"

Mahmoud (Egypt's Chief Prosecutor, Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud) and Morsi (Egypt's President Mohamed Morsi) are battling it out.  Morsi has ordered Mahmoud out of his job and to the Vatican, as Egypt's Ambassador.  Mahmoud is refusing on the grounds of judicial independence, and Morsi is sticking to his authority, as the democratically-elected President who has been on the job for a little more than 100 days.

Now Tahrir has again been engulfed in demonstrations, led by the two factions: pro-Morsi and anti-Morsi.  In essence, the Mahmoud v. Morsi is the straw which broke the camel's (Morsi's) back.  The Chief Prosecutor has just exonerated the symbols of the defunct Mubarak regime from any wrong-doing in early February 2011 in what has entered the annals of the Egyptian Revolution of January 25, 2011 as the "Battle of the Camels."

In that engagement, as the Mubarak regime was fighting for its life of 32 years of outright dictatorship, the Tahrir demonstrators were suddenly and brutally attacked by Mubarak thugs.  The attackers descended upon the pro-democracy demonstrators, riding camels, horses, and horse-driven carts.  The attackers brandished swords, knives, and long bamboo sticks in a hopeless last-minute gasp to enable Mubarak to hold on to his dictatorial power.

The Battle of the Camels of February 2011 was quickly and decisively settled in favor of the pro-democracy movement, though after suffering fatalities and injuries.  There was no assistance from the security forces which have fled Tahrir.  When I was in Cairo shortly afterwards, I was told by some eyewitnesses that the role of the Muslim Brothers in vanquishing the pro-Mubarak mounted attackers was crucial.  They were experts in street combat, tightly organized, highly motivated, and fearless as they brought horses and camels down with their mercenary riders.

Confessions documented that "the Battle of the Camels" was ordered by the former Presidents of the two Chambers of the then-Parliament: Fathi Sorour, of the People's Assembly, and Safwat El-Sherif, of the upper Chamber, the Shura Council.  Both men are now in the Tora jail, south of Cairo, having been inculpated on charges of corruption.  Their alleged roles in "the Battle of the Camels" were still pending investigations on the more serious charges of killing and maiming peaceful demonstrators.

Out of a sudden, the Chief Prosecutor, Abdel-Meguid Mahmoud, declared those prominent figures innocent of wrong-doing in "the Battle of the Camels," a development which caused popular uproar and precipitated the attempted dismissal by President Morsi of the Chief Prosecutor.

While the highly secular Egyptian judiciary sided with Mahmoud, the President's supporters, especially the Islamists, saw in that verdict the continuing influence of the "foloul" -the remnants of the Mubarak regime who  were already pre-maturely celebrating that verdict in the Tora prison.

In reality, Mahmoud v. Morsi, is a larger battle between the Islamists and most of the secularists.  The majority of the occupants of the senior ranks of the judiciary and the Prosecutor's Office are holdovers from the Mubarak regime.  Confronted by the Morsi presidential decision of terminating his high profile position, Mahmoud cited a law barring the President from firing him.  To many Egyptian observers, the struggle which is now taking place between Mahmoud and the President is highly politicized.  During the Mubarak era, the judiciary was Mubarak's cat's paw in subduing the Muslim Brotherhood from whose ranks Morsi has emerged to win the presidency of Egypt last June.

Dr. Essam Al-Erian, who heads the "Freedom and Justice" Party of the Muslim Brotherhood called Mahmoud's ruling "very dangerous."  He also called upon Morsi to convene the Presidential Council (advisors to Morsi) to examine the political implications of declaring the wrong-doers innocent.

The Salafis also called on the President to order "the retrial of the killers of the demonstrators."  They, together with the Muslim Brotherhood, are accusing the investigators of not examining the totality of the evidence.

In this campaign of attacking the Chief Prosecutor, they were joined by a large segment of the secularists, especially "The Popular Current." (P.C.)  The P.C. claimed that not all evidence inculpating those who ordered the mounted attackers in "the Battle of the Camels" into battle was presented.  They went as far as describing that episode as "a massacre."  The P.C., together with "the Youth of April 6," called for parliamentary intervention to overturn Mahmoud's ruling.

More importantly, a prominent member of the Constituent Assembly which is still drafting the new Egyptian Constitution, Mahmoud El-Said, declared, "The blood of the martyrs shall not be spelled in vain."  Contributing to this argument, the spokesman for "The General Union for the Revolution," Mustafa Younes El-Nagmi, called upon Morsi to prevent those accused of fomenting "the Battle of the Camels," from leaving Egypt pending a retrial.

In the meantime, Tahrir is witnessing clashes between the pre-Morsi and the anti-Morsi forces (the latter campaigning against the rise of Islamism in Egypt).  The sad result so far has been nearly a 100 demonstrators being injured.

The saga of "The Battle of the Camels" of February 2 and 3, 2011 is not over yet.  The mass exoneration of 24 suspects accused of committing those atrocities is indeed the straw which broke the camel's back.  Even the Director General of the Presidential Office, Ahmed Abdel-Atti, confessed that "the general situation in Egypt is perplexing and is difficult to separate its intertwined components one from another."

The New Egypt "Oktoberfest": A Parade of Ills and Attempted Solutions

There is hardly an easy transition from dictatorship to the magical world of democracy.  After the "Silence of the Lambs," for sixty years, the lid is off that boiling pot of discontent.  So if you wish to observe a unique Oktoberfest, we suggest that you don't go to Munich.  Your destination, we propose, should be Cairo.  There you will find a nation of 90 million being reborn, with all the attendant noises of a difficult birth.

The parade which you shall witness is that of ills and attempted solutions.

First you shall observe a bunch of drummers obstructing major railway junctions demanding higher pay.  Under Mubarak, security forces, backed up by a mighty military, would have been on the scene, breaking those demonstrations up, notwithstanding the number of human casualties.  But in the New Egypt, democracy calls first for negotiations which may or may not be backed up by a measured level of force.  The historic love for Mother Egypt - "Mother of the World" - would be invoked, and the drums, drummers, and throngs of discontented workers would eventually go home.

Next you shall hear armored personnel vehicles rumbling towards Northern Sinai in pursuit of bedouin marauders who, under Mubarak, have been marginalized.  The result of 30 years of neglect is that plundering and attacks on army posts and natural gas pipelines have become a way of life.  These events do not permit of negotiations, as security in Sinai is not only an internal issue; it is also a transborder headache.  Thus force is applauded, including capital punishment for the loss of innocent lives.  However, force only without more cannot solve an endemic problem stretched over a vast frontier.  So at the end of the columns of military might, comes in the parade a big sign raised by the first Sinai dweller to be appointed Deputy-Governor for North Sinai.  His name is Dr. Adel Qatamesh, who declares:

"We hope to restore Sinai to its natural place in Egypt's priorities.  We shall develop its huge natural resources in accordance with well developed plans.  Sinai possesses huge potentialities which have been neglected for far too long.  We intend to recreate in Sinai an engine for economic development for all of Egypt.  Unlimited jobs will be created."

Our parade of ills proceeds along a twisting road of hopes, struggles, expectations, and a big dose of hyperbole.  This time, the parade's segment is made of representatives of more than 25 liberal and secular parties.  They have been largely squeezed out of central stage by the unique device of fair elections.  The Islamists, both the moderate Muslim Brotherhood, and the ultras, called the Salafis, registered majoritarian gains in Parliament.  This sector of the parade is fronted by "the April 6 Movement," "the Free Egyptians," "the Popular Current," and "the Constitution Party."  What do they want?  Political Diversity!!  What do they mean by that?  The creation of an accountability lobby to keep the Islamists under secular scrutiny.

Now, with the sun setting down over the Great Pyramids of Giza west of Cairo, our parade of ills and proposed solutions accelerates its pace.

• The Constituent Assembly which is still in the midst of drafting a new Constitution is under continuous criticism.  The screams mix and mingle around some of the new articles dealing with: Sharia being "a primary" (not the primary) source of legislation; Al-Azhar's restoration to its traditional independence as the main source of interpretation of questions of Islamic faith; the renaming of the upper house of Parliament "the Senate," to replace "The Shura Council" (a nod toward secularity); and the judicial mechanism for suing the State (i.e. appealing Government executive decisions).

• The journalists want to draft a code of ethics to be administered by a National Information Authority.

• The Labor Unions gushing forth with several grievances, including the quickening pace of privatization of inherited public sector establishments.

• Then comes thousands of children seeking proper school buildings for their proper education, instead of tents set up in certain localities because of lack of funds.

The parade of ills goes on.  But it seems to roll by in a diminished state of agitation.  Hope in the New Egypt springs eternal.  As Egypt struggles through its difficult transition, including combating corruption and insecurity on the streets, a new spirit of this Egyptian Oktoberfest asserts itself:

National reconciliation including President Morsi honoring the late President Sadat posthumously. It was under the military regimes of sixty years, including the Sadat era, that the Muslim Brotherhood of which President Morsi was a presidential candidate, suffered the unmitigated pain of suppression.  The Mandela pattern of national reconciliation seems to accord more with the spirit of historic Egypt.

The Freedom of Expression: A Clash of Interpretations

It is English common law - and plain human logic: You are in a crowded theater.  Some idiot stands up and yells out a falsehood: "Fire!! Fire!!"  The audience panics and rushes aimlessly in every direction, seeking an exit.  As they run for their lives, they trample under foot several others.  Death and injuries occur.  Was that free speech?  No!!  The perpetrator, if found, would be led away by the police on criminal charges!!

A rabid anti-semite scrawls on the tombstones of a Jewish cemetery in Queens, Long Island, the despicable swastika.  Was that free speech?  No.  It is an incitement to hatred!!

A KKK clansman, under the cover of night, burns a cross on the lawn of an Afro-American family to express his racist hate for the blacks moving in his neighborhood.  Is that an exercise of his constitutional right under the First Amendment which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press..."

That offending clansman cannot get away with it under the cover of this first article of the American Bill of Rights.  Why?  An incitement to racial hatred in a society which prides itself on diversity.

A woman, during the 2008 presidential campaign (Obama vs. McCain) tells Senator McCain why she was going to vote for him and against Obama.  "He (meaning Obama) is an Arab!!"  McCain disagrees with her at a minimum level.  "He is not an Arab?!," he admonishes.  McCain's message would have been a great lesson in American diversity had he added: "So what if he was an Arab?!!"

A bunch of criminals orchestrate the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.  A great U.S. (and world) Ambassador, Chris Stevens, together with three other U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel, are martyred.  Does that inconsequential little nothing of a video insulting the Prophet Muhammad, put together by a renegade Copt who is now back in jail for parole violation, reason enough for that heinous crime?  Absolutely no.

That video, together with the satire expressed about Muhammad in the weekly French "Charlie Hebdo," resulted in ugly upheavals in more than 2 dozens of States, Members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  In these rage-full demonstrations, people died, property was destroyed, U.S. flags were burned, and a price of $100,000 was placed on the head of the video producer by a Pakistani cabinet member.  Did the provocative causes justify those dastardly effects?  No.  They simply painted Islam with a color with which it had absolutely no relationship.

What we are faced with today on a world scale is a very ominous clash of ideas competing for interpretation.  For the Muslims, the provocations which, since 9/11, took the form of a patriotic response to those events, are manifestations of anti-Islamism.  For the West, especially in the U.S., they are protected speech by individuals over whose actions the government hand is stayed.

The two sides are reading the same events, but justifying their responses on the basis of a variety of different texts, different value systems, different historic traditions, and different historical experiences.

To an American, the U.S. Constitution has settled the case in favor of the freedom of expression.  President Obama affirmed those beliefs when he told the UN General Assembly 67th session on September 25, 2012:

"I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video.  The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.  Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.  Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs."

But the Muslim world is reading a different text.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29, paragraph 2, states:

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

The Muslim world is also turning to Al-Azhar's historic document of January 11, 2012 which, in my blog of January 24, 2012, I described it as "The Egyptian Magna Carta."  In addressing the "Freedom of Thought and Expression," Al-Azhar, as per my words in that blog:

"describes this freedom as being at the root of all freedoms, as is manifest in the utilization of all means of expression in writing, artistic production and digitized outreach.  It encompasses the right to assembly, to the establishment of parties and other civil society organizations, freedom of the printed, audio, visual and digital press as well as access to information necessary for informed consent.

This freedom, the Charter cautions, does not include the right to inciting violence, sectarian discord or radical calls for discrimination.  It quotes the maxim of the great historical Muslim scholars which states: "My view is correct but is subject to error, and the opposing view is wrong but is subject to rectification." 

On the day following Obama's speech at the UN, Egypt's President Morsi, in a clash of interpretation of the freedom of expression, told the same General Assembly in Arabic, translated by me into English as follows:

"Egypt respects the freedom of expression.  By that we mean an expression which is not exploited to incite hatred for anyone.  It is not the freedom of expression which targets for attack a particular religion or a particular culture.  A freedom of expression which confronts extremism and violence.  It is not the freedom of expression which enshrines ignorance and denigrates others.  But, at the same time, we stand firmly against the use of violence as a means of expressing rejection of these imbecilities."

Again in connection with making fun of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, a general call issued forth calling for a Trial of Muhammad World Day.  The Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Aly Gomaa, a renowned leader of moderation in Islam, condemned that call as well as the video produced in California.  An American newspaper charged Gomaa of incitement to violence and terrorism.  And in response, Gomaa publicly denied that false charge and called on the UN to enact an international instrument criminalizing attacks on any religion and on its symbols.

So goes the clash of interpretations of the valued principle of freedom of expression. Who is right and who is wrong?  This is an impossible question to answer in any definitive manner.

However, the long range response might be for world leaders, educators and foundations to encourage learning about and respect for all faiths, cultures and values.  There is also a crying need for mass knowledge of foreign languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu.  We need to bring our continents closer together through all types of exchanges, trade, tourism and the performing arts.

From the point of view of one of the newly democratically elected Arab presidents, President Moncef Marzouki of Tunisia, a Salafi is as dangerous to world peace as is a westerner ridiculing Islam.

The Mountain and the Ram

There is an Arab poem about an angry ram.  The poem narrates that a ram has somehow perceived a mountain to be its enemy.  So it kept on attacking that mountain till the ram's horns were broken.  The messages you cannot punish someone or something by losing a part of your body without in the least harming your adversary.

How does this poem apply to the endless saga of denigrating Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam to which millions of Muslims respond by angry demonstrations?  I wonder if the Muslim demonstrators were to respond in more peaceful ways, whether the defamers, cartoonists or film makers, might give up on the stupid blackart of insulting the Prophet!!

Were this miraculously to happen, the poem would fit perfectly:  The denigrators would be the angry ram whose horns would be broken as it keeps on attacking the mountain (the Prophet Muhammad) without getting any rise from the Muslims.

Thus to the Muslims I say: "Don't get angry!!  Get even!!"  I know that this may be nearly impossible.  Muslims are enjoined by their faith to believe in all God's prophets, in all scriptures, and to respect other faiths.  The Quran, in chapter 16, verse 36, states: "And verily, we have raised in every nation a messenger, proclaiming: Serve Allah and shun false gods."

So it is out of the question for a Muslim to depict either Moses or Jesus in a disrespectful way.  After all, in a secular sense, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were all born and ministered in the same region.  In that sense, the three of them may be regarded as "compatriots"!!  "Getting even" in the context of insulting either Moses or Jesus is therefore out of the question for Muslims.

So let us think of other ways to "get even" without being destructive.  How about giving up on endless demonstrations, with their attendant destructive consequences, including disruption of international relationships, and get in the film industry?  Make a good film about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, that crazy Egyptian Copt with a police record in California, and depict him as the buffoon he really is!!  Write a good script for that movie, hire some gifted actors and actresses (do not forget memorable songs) and call the film:  "The Abbasiyah Graduate!!"  (Abbasiyah in Cairo is the equivalent of the Bellevue hospital for the mentally-disturbed in New York City).

Now dub the film in several languages and market it everywhere.  I am almost sure that the film would draw millions to the box office as a form of revenge, and lots of money would be made for charitable causes.  Basseley's puny 14-minute video would be eclipsed, and "The Abbasiyah Graduate" would stigmatize that idiot for a long time.

The same may be done to the French editor of the weekly "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris.  There are millions of Muslims in Europe, especially in France, who would love to fund that "Get even" enterprise.  Crowds would have fun, money would be made, France would not need to close all its missions and schools in 20 Muslim countries for fear of violence, and that ignorant editor would live in infamy pour sa vie!!

Yes, the Muslims are angry at the video and the caricatures insulting the Prophet of 1.5 billion Muslims.  How about "Getting even" by also putting forth the great story of Muhammad's message, in print, online and in all types of visual imagery?  In my weekly seminar on "Islamic Law in the 21st Century" which I teach as an adjunct professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City, I, in 15 minutes out of 2 hours summed up that message as follows:

Muhammad's message advocated freedom of conscience; rule by consultation and consensus; justice in governance; the rights of women as equal partners in society; respect for contracts; mercy towards the weak; freedom from enslavement; amity towards non-Muslims; freedom from fear; the importance of education; and the value of truth and honesty.  To the Muslims, mankind is one in, God.

Friday, a day of prayer, has become a day of rage.  About that day's group prayer: the Quran in chapter 67, verse No. 10, says, "When the prayer is ended, then disperse in the land and seek Allah's bounty."  Seeking that bounty is the essence of "sustainable development."  It is not to be sought in endless destruction.  In Islam, piety and working for the commonweal go hand in hand.

In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood's political party "Freedom and Justice" has called for the enactment of an international law "for the protection of religious symbols."  Good!!  In my humble estimation as an attorney, that call would need decades for its implementation. Here are some of the reasons:

Where are we going to get a broad international consensus regarding: (a) What is a religious symbol?; (b) What do we mean by protection?; (c) Who will do the protection if not sovereign States within their own boundaries?; (d) To what extent can we differentiate between symbols and practices?; (e) How would this protection affect the laws in some European countries against the Niqab and veil in public places?; (f) Is the minaret a universally-acceptable religious symbol?; (g) Would such a law affect the freedom of expression enactments including the 1966 U.N. Convention on Civil and Political rights?; (h) How could a case be constructed and brought before a court of law of competent jurisdiction?; (i) Who might the plaintiff be and what injury could that plaintiff prove to have suffered?; and (j) What is the sentencing range and what form of compensation?

Am I complicating things?  Yes. Because I am looking at an issue which is very complex. 

Only by education, and cool-headedness could we shrink this problem.  Getting angry is understandable.  Getting destructive of life and property is not.  Fighting a wrong with wrong is not a solution.  For a Muslim faced with such provocations, it is better to be the mountain, not the ram.  Turn the whole episode into a farce, a spectacle of the absurd.  Put Terry Jones, the Quran burner, on a broom with a cone over his empty head, flying one way into an eternal sunset as the wicked male witch of the west..  Lighten up!! Make your tormentors the laughing stock of this world of rage!!

When Ignorance of Values Prevails Catastrophic Tragedies Occur

Out of a small church in Gainesville, Florida, came Pastor Terry Jones.  Consumed with ignorance about Islam, he judges it, not by its moderation and universalism.  He sees it through the prism of Bin Laden, the huge tragedy of 9/11, and the cutters of hands and legs in Northern Mali.  To Jones, the Quran, the holy book for 1.5 billion Muslims, is a book of evil.  Burning it at his church of only 300 congregants, is both a religious and a patriotic duty.

In his ignorance, as he burnt his copy of the Quran, inflaming passions of both Muslims and Americans, he incinerated also a central part of his own faith.  For the Quran, in its full recognition of both the Torah and the New Testament, glorifies the name of Jesus 25 times, and the name of the virgin Mary 34 times -the only mention of a woman in more than six thousand verses.

Nor did Pastor Jones presumably know that among the 6487 volumes which Thomas Jefferson sold to the Library of Congress, was his own two-volume English translation of the Quran which the Muslims revere as God's (in Arabic, Allah) words revealed to Muhammad.  The cover of that historic text reads: "The Koran: Commonly Called 'The Alcoran of Mohammed,' Translated into English immediately from the Original Arabic."  Jefferson had purchased his Quran in the 1780's in response to the conflict between the US and the "Barbary States" of North Africa -today Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.

From Jones, past forward to the American-made video entitled "The Innocence of Muslims."  It ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad and caused the senseless killing of a distinguished U.S. diplomat, Ambassador Chris Stevens, at the US Consulate in Benghazi, together with 3 other fine US foreign service officers, and several Libyan security guards.  But the catastrophe did not stop there.  Between September 18 and September 21, a mere four-day period of Muslim rage at that video, the capitals and other cities in 22 States, from Morocco to Indonesia, have been rocked by attacks on American missions, and violent clashes between the police and enraged Muslim demonstrators.

This is a real anti-American tsunami engulfing two dozen countries, some of which have just emerged from the reign of brutal dictatorships and are now governed by Islamic-oriented regimes.  Their sense of euphoria has outpaced their ability to grow in to governance.  Nor have they mastered yet how to balance between internal pressures, and external needs for assistance from the outside world, especially the USA.  Even without that video, the Arab street in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain is not yet safe.  And the Syrian civil war with nearly 25000 dead, and a huge number of Syrians living in tents outside Syria as refugees, has transformed Syria into a huge patch of killing fields.

The video producers are an Egyptian Coptic rabble rouser with a police record, named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a gas station owner.  His co-schemer is a man by the name of Steve Klein, an insurance salesman.  Justifying the production of that incendiary film, Klein is reported to have said that the intent of the film was to get extremist Muslims to stop killing.  The coptic church in the US has denounced that hallucinating video.

When it comes to Egypt, the tragedy assumes gargantuan proportions.  Egypt's new partnership with the US is still in its infancy.  President Morsi is US-educated and educator, and two of his sons are US citizens.  Under his leadership, the Muslim Brotherhood, which had put him forward as its presidential candidate, is kept at a healthy distance.  His Government, headed by Hesham Qandeel, is made largely of technocrats.

But when the Egyptian mob (the Muslim Brotherhood did not take part), angered by that video, replaced the US flag over the Cairo Embassy by a black flag of the Salafis, Morsi was a bit late in condemning that attack.  Balancing between the internal constituency and the need for US assistance and friendship is an art which apparently needs time for Morsi to master.

Two-hundred and twenty Egyptians including 20 security officers were injured at the Embassy's perimeter.  Twenty-four person were arrested.  Egyptian tanks surrounded the US Embassy for protection.  As Morsi, prompted by President Obama, denounced the violence, his Prime Minister Qandeel declared on September 13 that Egypt's highest national interest was being harmed.  Only then did the flame subside, and the "Million demonstrators" did not materialize in Tahrir.

The ignorance of values also extends to the Muslim World, now fully enraged by the attacks on the Prophet Muhammed.  When lecturing one day at the Cairo University School of  Law on the tragedy of 9/11, I discovered from the questions that many still felt that that criminal acts could not have been perpetrated by Muslims.  In the new Arab World, with its rediscovered freedoms, I wonder how many people are familiar with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, especially with its reference to "the freedom of speech, or the press."

Their experience is that government can suppress both, and they demand that Washington D.C. should suppress that video.  But how can it do so?  The new authority over that video is Google.  And Google is not beholden to the U.S. Government.  With the video being disseminated by YouTube, its owner Google has blocked access to it in only Egypt and Libya.  Here Google misses a main tenet: hate speech is defined by it as against individuals, not against groups.  Since the video mocks Islam but not Muslims, Google believes that it falls within its guidelines.  An aspect of ignorance: In Islam, Muslims, those who submit their will to God, are one with their faith.  There cannot be any Muslims without Islam.

OK!!  Turning to the Muslims, one could see in those combustible demonstrations an element of ignorance of the Quran, the primary source of Islamic law.  Several verses in the Quran call for giving a cold shoulder to that video which is based on both malice and ignorance.  By all means, hold the Prophet Muhammed close and dear.  But also remember God's words revealed to him-May Peace Be Upon Him.  To the likes of Terry Jones, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula and Steve Klein and their ilk, remember what Allah says in the Quran regarding dealing with those who are ignorant of or inimical to Islam and the Muslims.

In the Quran, Chapter No. 7, Verse No. 199 says: "Keep to forgiveness (O Muhammed) and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant"
And the Quran, Chapter No. 25, verse No. 63 says: "and when the foolish ones address them (the Muslims) they answer: Peace."

It is a pity that we in the 21st century, do not have a Geneva Convention making insulting any faith an international crime (Prime Minister Qandeel has called for that).  It is even a greater pity that a bunch of hoodlums in Florida and California can ignite such havoc across the globe.  It is even the greatest pity that when ignorance of values prevail, catastrophic tragedies occur.  May the souls of these four diplomats who were killed (martyred) in Benghazi rest in heavenly peace.  International law calls them "protected persons."  Now in their heavenly abode, they, by the grace of God, are eternally "protected."

Without Fanfare Egypt Resumes Its Regional Leadership Role

One of the most memorable songs of the Broadway Musical, "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying" is "I believe in You!!"  In it, the singer, down on his luck for a long time, looks at himself in the mirror and sings that song of self-assurance.  The Egyptian Revolution of January 25, 2011 is a historical musical of self-assurance.

Yes, the economy is in tatters; women and copts are still concerned about their civil rights in an Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is ascendant; the bedouins in Sinai are restless; tourism is only a trickle; and the infrastructure has been crumbling for a long time.

But____But this is not a permanent scene.  The potential is quite different.  Egypt's huge demographics (nearly 90 million) will gradually have their impact on development.  The marginalized bedouins of Sinai top the list for infrastructure enhancement.  The crowded Nile valley will systematically be drained from human congestion, eastward to Sinai and westward to the great western desert all the way to the Libyan border.  The problem of sharing the Nile waters between nine riparian States will be solved through renegotiation of the Treaty of 1929.  In all of this, the security of the Egyptian street is being ensured.

Of equal importance, the Hisham Qandeel Government is seeking economic and financial and technological partnership everywhere - from the shores of the Red Sea and the Gulf, to China, Japan and Australia, to the US and the European Union.  President Morsi's first trip outside of Egypt was to China where cooperation agreements for $6 billion were concluded.

Nearly simultaneously, large business delegations organized by the U.S. Government and the Chamber of Commerce representing fifty U.S. corporations, descended upon Cairo.  They have their aspirations as well as their concerns.  These concerns revolved around Egyptian bureaucratic barriers inherited from the past and impeding foreign investments.  And the Morsi regime was ready to oblige.  The U.S. Government, encouraged by the present progress toward democracy, was also keen on reducing Cairo's debt to Washington, D.C. by $1 billion, coupled with other grants and debt rescheduling.

Moreover, the International Monetary Fund moved in the same direction of helping the Egyptian economy.  Until now, negotiations are proceeding between the Egyptian government and the IMF regarding Egypt's request for a $4.8 billion loan.  Judging by the past performance of the IMF (who can forget the 1977 bread riots during the Sadat regime because of the stringent demands of the IMF?), opposition arose against the IMF loan project.  Leading the popular charge against dealing with the IMF was the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).  The FJP was calling on Prime Minister Qandeel not to proceed with those negotiations until all "internal alternatives" are exhausted.  A romantic idea, in the face of the realities of present day Egypt!!  Thus the opposition was ignored, especially when the Islamic concept of "necessity" was invoked as a response to silence that criticism.

In the midst of this euphoria, Egypt's march towards democracy was being assisted by civil rights organizations.  Among those NGOs was the National Council for Human Rights which submitted to the new Justice Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Makki, no less than ten proposed bills.  All of those proposals aimed at enhancing personal freedoms and civil rights.  Topping these proposals were: a unified law for the construction of places of worship: mosques, churches and synagogues; a law governing NGO's; a law on the freedom of assembly and the right to peaceful demonstration.

Included in that bundle of proposed laws was a bill dealing with equal opportunity and non-discrimination.  It provided for non-discrimination on the basis of religion, language, gender or social status in education and employment.  Violators, the bill stated, would be punished by 6 months to a year of imprisonment, together with monetary fines reaching up to two-hundred thousand Egyptian pounds ($34 thousand).

As to family values as advocated by some members of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as extolling women subservience to men, this advocacy is expected to go nowhere.  A non-starter!!  For the first popular demonstration in Cairo in the 1860's was the historic march by women during which they ripped the veils off their faces and trampled them under foot.

The new Egypt is finding its post-revolutionary feet internally and regionally.  Its natural leadership role is being resumed without fanfare.  In Iran, the only regional ally of the killer regime of Bashar Al-Assad of Syria, President Morsi, at the meeting of the non-aligned States, called on Al-Assad to step down.  In the context of the newly-found freedoms of the Arab masses, consultations regarding a sub-regional alliance of post-dictatorship States are taking place.  The deal with Egypt, Libya and Tunisia which are a geographic continuum from west of Gaza to eastern Algeria.

A new Arab world is being born, with Cairo, the headquarters of the League of Arab States, is showing the way towards internal development and external independence from the sway of big powers.  Egypt seems to be looking at itself in the mirror, singing out, despite its present difficulties, "I believe in you!!"

Ending the Nasser Coup of July 23, 1952 By a Soft Coup of August 12, 2012

On August 12, 2012, President Morsi of Egypt ended the military hegemony over Egypt which began with the Nasser coup of 60 years ago.  The Nasser coup ended the monarchy in Egypt; the Morsi soft coup began the Second Egyptian Republic on a sound footing.  The action by Morsi, by which he ousted Field Marshall Tantawi from his post as Defense Minister, and General Anan from his post as Chief of Staff, marked the real return of Egypt to civilian rule.

Since the Nasser coup, the armed forces have controlled the destiny of Egypt in every walk of national life.  Decisions on war and peace, foreign policy and development, agricultural reform and industrial transformation, were dictated from above.  Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak, in succession, held unchallenged sway over Egypt.  Meaningful opposition, in any form, did not exist.  The word of the President (El-Rais) was the final word, and the successive constitutions were no more than words on paper.  Two of the great institutions of Egypt, the judiciary and Al-Azhar became mere government departments.  A big chunk of the economy, perhaps 30% of the GDP, became the preserve of the armed forces.  Accountability and oversight with regard to the armed forces were non-existing.

Since the fall of Mubarak on February 11, 2011, Field Marshall Tantawi, as head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), ruled Egypt.  With the election of Mohamed Morsi in June, 2012, as President of Egypt, the SCAF, on June 30, nominally turned over its powers to the Morsi regime.  However, prior to the election of Morsi, the SCAF dissolved Parliament, arrogated to itself powers which normally would have devolved upon the President, and insulated the military budget and the armed forces economic preserve from civilian oversight.  Egypt's new President was expected to be largely a mere figure head.

But Morsi had other plans.  He ordered the dissolved Parliament into a brief session for the purpose of bestowing upon him legislative powers, pending elections for a new Parliament.  And he, in the manner of non-confrontational challenges, gave the Constituent Assembly brief deadlines for the completion of drafting Egypt's new constitution.  His choice of a Prime Minister (Dr. Qandeel was so anointed) signaled his preference for a technocratic administration and for some distancing from the Muslim Brotherhood where he had his political upbringing.  At the table of the Qandeel Cabinet, Tantawi sat as Defense Minister, but not for long.

Then came the tragic events of the Sinai massacre of August 5, in which 16 Egyptian soldiers lost their lives.  But the massacre also gave Morsi the chance to cut the power of the military down to size.

The Sinai massacre was a huge embarrassment to the military and to the intelligence.  Morsi wasted no time to rid Egypt of the last vestiges of the Nasser Coup of 1952 through those forced retirements.  Even before the dismissal of Tantawi and Anan and other top military brass from their posts, the voices of the millions had arisen in Tahrir Square: "Down Down with the Military."  Keen on affording the old military guard a soft landing, Morsi invited both Tantawi and Anan to serve in his Presidential Council, and gave them the highest decorations for services rendered to Egypt.

Reactions to the soft coup were immediate and positive.  The replacements of the retired military top brass came from the ranks of a younger generation.  The post of Defense Minister was given to General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi.  Huge crowds went to public squares to demonstrate in favor of having the military establishment accountable to civilian rule.  To those masses supporting Morsi's decisions, the Sinai massacre was attributed to a military which was distracted by its undue involvement in political affairs.

The soft coup had other far reaching ramifications: the constitutional amendments which had been put into effect by SCAF were abolished.  The Minister of Justice, Ahmed Makki provided a legal justification.  He said: "The President's decision in this regard draws its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the people who chose him to be President.  He shall exercise legislative powers until a new Parliament is elected.  The Presidential executive decrees shall be subject to review by the new Parliament."  

Minister Makki also declared another important measure to insure judicial independence. His declaration in that respect was to transfer Judicial Inspection from his own ministry to the Egyptian Supreme Judicial Council.  The Egyptian judicial establishment was gleeful.  The soft coup expressed itself in other various ways.  The January 25 Revolution seemed to have found its true path which began in Tahrir Square, Cairo, which is bounded on one side by the great Egyptian Museum.  From the windows of that historic Museum, the mummies of the great Pharaohs of Egypt seemed to look upon the youth of the New Egypt smiling.

The Sinai Massacre and the World of the Underground

In the annals of the Egyptian Revolution, Sunday, August 5, 2012, shall remain a day of infamy.  Jihadists, said to be Palestinians, attacked an Egyptian army garrison based in Rafah at the border between Egypt and Gaza.  It was a sneak attack with assault weapons, at the time when those Egyptian military sat at sunset for the break of their fast during this month of Ramadan.

The devastating ambush resulted in the death of 16 army personnel, including officers and the wounding of 7 others.  The ostensible purpose of the treacherous attack inside Sinai, Egypt, was to strike at Israeli positions through Gaza.  The Jihadist endeavor was foiled, but it unleashed a host of consequences which shall surely redefine a series of relationships.  It could be said that, in a domino-like style, the affected network of relationships includes those between: The Morsi regime and the Hamas authorities in Gaza; the Egyptian-Israeli collaboration under the terms of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of March 1979; the delicate balance of power between the civilian Morsi regime and the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF); and the outlook of the Egyptian masses upon the rule by their Islamist-oriented government.

The most immediate result of the Sinai massacre is the remilitarization of Sinai and the development of its infrastructure.  Sinai is Asian Egypt and its security and Egyptian sovereignty over it trigger huge reaction by the Egyptian masses towards any perceived weakening thereof.

As typical of the Egyptian Revolution so far, the pendulum can swing abruptly from one extreme to the other.  Until the Sinai massacre took place, the most important concerns for the new Egypt were the economy and security on the Egyptian street.  But after August 5, security from external threats trumped concern for Egypt's present economic woes.

In that context, easing passage by the Gazans into Egypt was seen as a threat.  President Morsi and the Qandeel cabinet were lambasted in the Egyptian street for being soft on the Gaza Palestinians.  The shared Islamist orientation between Cairo and Gaza was blamed for the Sinai massacre.  The masses yelled for closing the official entrance checkpoints between Sinai and Gaza.  The armed forces were called upon to destroy all tunnels dug up clandestinely by the Palestinians to overcome the hardships imposed upon the Gaza inhabitants by the Israeli blockade.  But the tunnels became new underground highways for smuggling weapons, jihadists, commercial items including cars from Egypt into Gaza.

Thus Egypt, following the Sinai massacre, began to look hard at its security from brother Arab terrorists and from any military intervention from the outside into the suddenly-constructed program to overcome lawlessness in Sinai.  The calls for a cooperative review by both Egypt and Israel of the security protocols annexed to the 1979 Peace Treaty became vociferous.  They made the strengthening of the might of the Egyptian army, security and police units, in order to effectively decimate the pockets of anarchy and terrorism, a primordial necessity.  New areas of cooperation on the Israel/Gaza/Sinai borders may have been grudgingly opened up by the very events that caused all of Egypt to mourn its martyrs.

As the funerals for the massacred 16 Egyptian army personnel proceeded all over Egypt, most of the mourners showed hostility toward the new rulers of Egypt, excepting the military.  Prime Minister Qandeel was booed as he finished praying for the dead; President Morsi cancelled his appearance at the main military/civilian funeral; flags were lowered at half mast all over Egypt for the 3-day period of official mourning; each Governerate which lost someone in the Sinai massacre had provincial funerals and counted their martyrs as victims of the treachery of Palestinian jihadists.

While the Gaza administration declared that "the liberation of Palestine cannot come at the expense of Egypt's security," the Egyptian airforce scrambled its fighter jets and gunship helicopters which took to the air to bomb and strike suspected pockets of terrorism and anarchy in Sinai.  As they seethed with rage, the Egyptians applauded the show of force.  The flow of Libyan arms to the Palestinians in the east became a focus of attention by the huge Egyptian military establishment.

Suspicion of the ultimate objectives of the Palestinian jihadists was fueled by all kinds of rumors: some said: Those elements were keen on destabilizing the new Egypt which they wanted to be dragged into an unwanted war with Israel.  Others devined that the goal was to declare Sinai an Islamic Emirate.

The first page of Al-Ahram newspaper, the oldest Egyptian daily (first issue is dated August 5, 1876) of August 10, 2012, headlines: "Destruction of 150 tunnels.  Liquidation of 60 Terrorists."  The government bedouim informants estimate that there are 1200 tunnels.  Welcome to the dark world of the Sinai underground, where the owner of each tunnel is called "the King," and the tunnel supervisor is called "the Prince."  This is an Egypt which is largely unknown even to its people.  Now the battle against "the underground" has begun, and the nation has risen up insisting on avenging the victims of the Sinai massacre.

Dahshoor, Giza Governorate, Egypt, and the New Egypt

Dahshoor is south of Giza, which is west and south of Cairo.  If the name of Giza stands for the greatness of ancient Egypt as symbolized by the great Pyramids, Dahshoor, one of the villages of that Governorate, shall always stand for the decline of modern Egypt as symbolized by the Muslim-Coptic clashes of recent days.  Those clashes epitomize the civilizational wreckage bequeathed to the new Egypt by 60 years of military dictatorship.

Sameh and Wael Youssef are two Coptic brothers who own a cleaner shop in Dahshoor.  Emad Ramadah Daher, a Muslim client brought a shirt to their shop for cleaning and ironing.  Due to equipment malfunction, the shirt was damaged by burning.  Soon, the Daher shirt accidental burning blossomed into a violent confrontation between the Muslims and Copts of Dahshoor.  In turn, this led to the burning of the house and shop of the Youssef family at the hands of Muslim hooligans.  Molotov cocktails were the weapon of choice.

Coptic families fled for dear life, and Dahshoor entered the annals of ignorance, bigotry and ethnic tensions, the wounds of which shall obviously take years to heal.

The Dahshoor events took place on July 25, eliciting formal statements from the Giza Coptic Diocese and from the Egyptian Government, from President Morsi down to top police officers of the Giza Governorate.

The Diocese, in its traditional efforts to foster normalcy between Muslims and Copts, stressed the efforts of the police and security forces at containing the crisis, and at apprehending the wrong-doers.  Yet the Giza Diocese could not avoid measuring the depth of the Dahshoor crisis.

So its statement pointed to the burning and looting not only of the house and shop of the Youssef family.  It went on to describe how other Coptic homes were torched, how the Coptic church in Dahshoor was vandalized, and how other shops owned by Copts, including a jewelry store and a soft drinks shops were also attacked.

Such acts were perpetrated following the burial of a Muslim victim of these riots who had died as a result of his being accidentally hit by a stray molotov cocktail..  The statement ended by appealing to the Government to bolster security in the area, to bring the outlaws to justice, and to apply the force of law equally to all.  Property losses have been estimated in the millions of Egyptian pounds.

For his part, President Mohamed Morsi said, through his official spokesman, that the law shall be applied to all malfeasants.  The goal, he stressed, was to maintain the customary harmony and amity between Egypt's Muslims (approximately 90% of the population) and Copts (10%).

And Mostafa Bakri, a former member of the Egyptian Parliament (now dissolved), described the Dahshoor sectarian upheaval as resulting from a vast conspiracy intended to destabilize the new Egypt.  He estimated the number of Coptic families who fled Dahshoor and its environs, at 120 Coptic households.  On his Twitter, Bakri posed a central question which must be on the minds of all fair minded Egyptians:


"There is a vast difference between freedom and anarchy.  For how long must Egypt await the arrival of a savior?  Anarchy must be arrested, otherwise Egypt might become a failed State.  If anarchy, such as what happened in Dahshoor, persists, together with the present economic free fall, the door shall be wide open for a revolt by the hungry hordes which shall devour everything in Egypt."

HERE COMES A LANTERN: Kandeel (means lantern) is now Prime Minister

Dr. Hesham Kandeel is now PM of the new Egypt.  Chosen by President Mohamed Morsi for that post, he is a technocrat of 50 years of age.  Like Morsi, he is an engineer, with extensive training in the U.S.  As promised by Morsi, Kandeel was picked up from outside the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood.

One of the gravest problems facing Egypt is the possible reduction of its quota from the water of the Nile.  That quota was set by a treaty concluded in 1929 when Egypt was a semi-protectorate of Great Britain which had a final say not only in Egypt, but also in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.

The Blue Nile runs from Ethiopia through the Sudan causing the great annual flood in Egypt; the White Nile runs from Lake Victoria, Uganda, also through the Sudan, up north.

From Khartoum, the Sudan, the two rivers combine in the majestic Nile River which empties in the Mediterranean after leaving its bounty to give life to Egypt.  Now 7 African States, which are also Nile reparians, having become independent since the 1960's, demand a revision of that treaty.  They aim at benefiting from better quotas of the waters of the mighty Nile.  So far Egypt and the Sudan have been reluctant; but their stance cannot possibly trump agreed needs of these sister States for more Nile water for development.

Against this complex watery background, the selection of Dr. Kandeel to lead the first Egyptian Cabinet, following the heady days of the January 25, 2011 revolution, assumes special significance.  He has been the Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources in the interim cabinet of Dr. El-Ganzoury.  Africa, the NileValley, and infrastructure are expected to become new ministerial portfolios in the about to be announced Kandeel Cabinet.

Comments by politicians, academics and the youth made to various Arabic language media reflect enthusiasm for the emerging character of the Kandeel Cabinet.  Prominent among those are statements made by Dr. Mustafa Elwi, distinguished professor in the Cairo University Faculty of Economics and Political Science.

Dr. Elwi stresses the importance of the technocratic nature of the new Cabinet with ministers chosen, not on the basis of political or party considerations.  The main criterion for selection, he pointed out, should be meritocracy which is the only way to lift the new Egypt out of the present primal chaos.

In the same vein, the liberals represented by Al-Wafd party, which is much older than the Muslim Brotherhood, gave an unqualified support to a Cabinet of technocrats.  In this respect, Al-Wafd party expressed its good wishes to Kandeel whose Cabinet is expected to include at least one Coptic minister, the present Minister of Tourism, Munir Fakhr El-Din, a member of the Wafd.

The burdens of the new Cabinet, which is expected to include a broad spectrum of a variety of Egyptian parties, forces, and organizations, cannot be underestimated.  Its most pressing problems are the economy and the restoration of tranquility and peace to the Egyptian street.

As to the issue of relations with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), an active process of dialogue and consultation is afoot since June 30.  That is the date when SCAF handed most of the reigns of power to the newly-elected President of Egypt, Dr. Morsi.  Here the main issues of these consultations between the civilian administration and the SCAF are the selection of the Minister of Defense, the degree of scrutiny over the military budget, the SCAF's concern for the balance of powers between the three branches of government, and the continued secularity of the new Egypt.

A few hours from the posting of this blog, the new Cabinet of Kandeel would have taken the oath of office before President Morsi.  Following that historic event, a new Presidential Advisory Council would also be declared.  It is expected to include a leading Coptic political thinker, Samir Morkos, in a newly created position of decision-making, called Assistant President.

The new Egypt is finally taking shape.  A Kandeel (a lantern) is throwing some light into the fog which has enveloped the country since January 25, 2011.  Said Prime Minister Kandeel (not Kandil):  "My Cabinet shall be an integrated team, and shall include at least one woman.  The new ministerial portfolio on the Nile Valley is directly related to our national security."

AL-WASAT (Middle of the Road): Egypt's New Ideology Between Islamism and Cosmopolitanism

President Morsi seems to have 82 million advisors!!  They constitute the entire population of Egypt, as per the recent census.  We have here a bit of exaggeration intended to depict the advisories  avalanche which continues to swamp the Presidential palace.

There is a historic Arab proverb that says: "The best position is the Middle."  This is backed up by a peasant adage which advises the holder of a club to show his non-threatening intentions by "Hold your club from the middle."  This preference for the "Middle of the Road" is also reflected religiously in the Quran where, in describing Muslims, it says: "You are a middle-road nation: ummattan wasatan."

Unfortunately this centrism has been buried under the tsunami of Islamic militancy.  Under Islamic Sharia (Law), jihad does not mean aggression.  It means either fighting inner negative urges to do bad things, or self-defense when aggressed against territorially.  The maniacs who perpetrated 9/11 have been terribly misguided.  In Islam, war cannot be for aggression; only for self-defense.

In post-Mubarak Egypt, the forces of 38 organizations, movements, political parties and others are vying for prominence.  The spectrum stretches from the Salafis, the extreme Muslim right, to the socialists and Nasserites, on the left.  The Muslim Brotherhood had moved inexorably from the right to the center to accommodate Egypt's cosmopolitanism which is watched over by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).

Handing power over on June 30 to the newly-elected President Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, does not mean a full isolation of the military from governance.  The return to the barracks is so far only symbolic.  The Turkish model of the army being the protector of the secularism of the State since 1923, is indelibly imprinted in the minds of SCAF which commands vast human and economic resources.  In a recent statement by Field Marshall Tantawi, while ordering disbanding the Islamist-led Parliament, he followed up by saying: "We shall never allow Egypt to fall in the hands of one faction."  It was a clear signal to the Brotherhood: Don't push us too far!!

Signals pointing to centrism, middle of the road, cosmopolitanism as a guiding principle in post-Mubarak Egypt are multiplying.  Here are some of these road signs as gleaned from the Egyptian street and the Arabic-language media.

• A new Egyptian party, crystallizing the middle of the road ideology, has been formed.  Its name is "AL-WASAT" (Middle of the Road).
• Al-Azhar has regained its dynamic role in declaring that moderation is its historic creed.  In this case, moderation and inclusiveness go hand in hand.  Al-Azhar insists on having the Copts and women play energetic roles in shaping the future of Egypt.
• President Morsi referred to the Court of Cassation the SCAF decision to disband the Egyptian Parliament, together with his decree defying that ban.  This case of a ban and counter-ban began with a judgment by the Supreme Constitutional Court which cast doubts on the constitutionality of the laws under which Parliament was elected.  Legal experts, reflecting the Egyptian mentality of moderation, predicted that Cassation and the Constitutional Courts shall never stand in defiance of one another.  These experts reasoned that Morsi's decree is an executive order and, as such, is referable to Cassation, while the Constitutional Court judgment did not call for the dissolution of Parliament.
• Only 50% of eligible voters cast their votes in the run-off for the Office of President (Morsi v. Shafik), with Morsi getting slightly more than half of these votes.  Absence of a landslide.  Thus towing the line in the middle of the road in presiding over Egypt is a natural course of action.
• A huge conference on the ideology and the merits of the "Middle of the Road" was held in Cairo where Al-Azhar played a prominent role.
• The constituent Assembly which is charged with drafting the Egyptian Constitution is said to be keeping unchanged the text of Article 2 of the 1971 Egyptian Constitution.  This article states interalia that the "principles of Sharia are the primary source of legislation."  Principles are not legal provisions.  They are only guidelines.  
• The Salafi attempts to make Sharia the only source of legislation have faltered as those attempts were totally rebuffed by the Rector of Al-Azhar, Dr. Ahmed El-Tayib.  His declaration was met with enthusiastic approval by both the Muslim Brotherhood, the Copts and women.  The first part of that Article reads "Islam is the official religion of the State, and the Arabic language is its official language."

AL-WASAT IS EGYPT'S ROAD TO RECONSTRUCTION AND RECOVERY FROM SIXTY YEARS OF MILITARY DICTATORSHIP WHICH BEGAN ON JULY 23, 1952 BY COLONEL NASSER.  THAT DARK PERIOD IS NOW OVER!!

Mirror Mirror on the Wall: WHO IS THE FAIREST OF THEM ALL? The Court, the Palace or the Barracks?

The grade is a passing grade, but there are no flying colors!!

The month of June 2012 witnessed three historic events in Cairo:

First: The Supreme Constitutional Court issued a judgment casting constitutional doubts upon the legal basis for electing one-third of the lower house of Parliament. In Egypt there are three high court systems: The Supreme Constitutional is charged with reviewing the constitutionality of laws; the Court of Cassation is the highest court of appeal from judgments rendered by lower courts; and High Administrative Court is a court of appeal from administrative, executive decisions taken by any government administrative authority.

Second: On the basis of the decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court, whose judges are all appointees of the defunct Mubarak regime, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) dissolved the Islamist-led Parliament. That was before SCAF, as per its prior pledge, surrendered all of its executive powers on June 30 to the newly-elected President, Dr. Muhammad Morsi.

Third: With the departure of SCAF from governance, which it assumed since the ouster of Mubarak, President Morsi issued a presidential decree calling the dissolved Parliament into session. By that decree, the President, who ran in the May elections as the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, nullified SCAF's order of parliamentary dissolution. Simultaneously, Morsi's decree put the legality of the judgment of the Supreme Constitutional Court in doubt.

So who is the fairest of them all? The Constitutional Court, the presidential decree, or the SCAF order of dissolution? To answer these questions, a million people marched, each to his or her tune; countless constitutional lawyers entered the fray; and writers, most of whom seem to have little training in conflict of laws, penned down long opinions about who is legally right and who is legally wrong; and judges, in a country where the judiciary since the days of the pharaohs are nearly at par with religious authorities, got also in the act.

While the SCAF maintained discreet silence except to admonish that no one was above the law, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed its earlier judgment. But Morsi, in an attempt to soften the blow of his decree, said through a spokesman that his decree is intended to find a legal mechanism for putting the contested judgment into operation.

Responding to the presidential decree, 347 members of the People's Assembly, the lower house convened in their chamber for only 20 minutes, while 161 members did not show up. Gavelling the lower house into session, Dr. El-Katatni, its spokesman/presiding officer/Islamist, the House referred the controversial judgment to the Court of Cassation to determine "the mechanism for implementing the Constitutional Court decision."  Then it adjourned, after transferring its legislative powers to Morsi pending Cassation's decision (Egypt's permanent constitution is still being drafted).

The move thus accomplished a number of primary objectives of the Morsi Administration: it bestowed on Morsi temporary legislative authority. A banned House of Representatives cannot legislate while its legitimacy is in doubt. It also manifested at least a pro forma respect for the judiciary and the laws. It reframed the judicial question into one of separation of powers -the Constitutional Court cannot dissolve Parliament, a co-equal branch of government. More importantly it tended to clarify the fog surrounding the decision of the Constitutional Court. The decision did not call for the dissolution of Parliament. It had merely put in question the legality of electing one-third of the membership which had been allocated to individual (non-party affiliated) candidates, a restriction which apparently was not observed by the political parties.

So who is for Morsi's decree and who is against it? Of course, the Islamists (70% of seats -both Brotherhood and Salafis) were supportive. Cassation, they maintained, has jurisdiction over questions of legality of parliamentary representation. Liberals and others derided the reconvening of the House of Representatives asserting that the Constitutional Court decision is final, non-appealable; and that that judgment needs no clarification of implementation mechanism. Amongst them was Dr. Yehia El-Gamal, the former Deputy Prime Minister of Egypt after the fall of Mubarak.

In a colorful interview with one of Egypt's popular TV channels, Dr. El-Gamal, who is considered one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in the Arab world, quipped: "Parliament is dead. Even President Morsi cannot bring the dead back to life!!!"