Obama Admin Refuses To Criticize Egypt’s New Islamist-Written Constitution That Allows Slavery, Criminalizes Blasphemy, Doesn’t Protect Christians
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is declining to criticize Egypt’s draft constitution despite spirited internal debate over whether the document adequately protects women, religious minorities and dissenting voices.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland lamented the lack of consensus in Egypt’s constitution-writing process. She says how people in Egypt view the draft is most important.
If Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi approves the constitution, it goes to a national referendum.
Nuland’s restraint didn’t reflect the views of all in the administration.
U.S. officials said there were internal debates over whether to criticize the draft constitution for limiting freedom of expression, failing to grant freedom of worship, criminalizing blasphemy and eroding women’s rights guarantees.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.Here are some examples of this Sharia Sewer of a Constitution:
CAIRO (AP) — An Islamist-dominated panel is voting on Egypt’s draft constitution, the country’s first charter after the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak. The draft largely reflects the conservative vision of the Islamists, with articles that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities and civil liberties in general.
Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.
Here are some of the disputed articles:
- As in past constitutions, the new draft says that the “principles of Islamic law” will be the basis of law. Previously, the term “principles” allowed wide leeway in interpreting Shariah. But in the draft, a separate new article is added that seeks to define “principles” by pointing to particular theological doctrines and their rules. That could give Islamists the tool for insisting on stricter implementation of rulings of Shariah.
- A new article states that Egypt’s most respected Islamic institution, Al-Azhar, must be consulted on any matters related to Shariah, a measure critics fear will lead to oversight of legislation by clerics.
- An article underlines that the state will protect “the true nature of the Egyptian family … and promote its morals and values,” phrasing that is vague and suggests state control over the contents of such arts forms as books and films.
- The draft contains no article specifically establishing equality between men and women because of disputes over the phrasing. However, it maintains that a woman must balance her duties toward family and outside work, suggesting that she can be held accountable if her public role conflicts with her family duties. No such article is mentioned for men.
- An article bans insulting or defaming the prophet and messengers, but is vague about what constitutes an insult, raising concerns of restrictions to freedom of expression.Keep reading…
That's Democracy, my friends.
From Will at THE OTHER NEWS:
By Andrew Bostom.Theodore Roosevelt penned these remarkably prescient words in a 1911 letter to his longtime correspondent and friend, Sir George Otto Trevelyan, reflecting upon Roosevelt’s post-presidency visit to Cairo, Egypt, the previous year.
The real strength of the Nationalist movement in Egypt…lay not with these Levantines of the café but with the mass of practically unchanged bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian, and a return to all the violence and corruption which festered under the old-style Moslem rule, whether Asiatic or African.Roosevelt’s concerns about the recrudescence of “old-style Moslem rule,” that is, a totalitarian Sharia (Islamic law) not reshaped or constrained by Western law, may now be fully realized a century later.
Less than two years after the forced abdication of Egyptian President Mubarak, we appear to be witnessing the ultimate triumph of the electoral ascendancy of vox populi, mainstream Egyptian Islamic parties, most prominently, the Muslim Brotherhood. Muhammad Morsi, the Brotherhood’s freely-elected Presidential candidate, has successfully outmaneuvered a minority coalition of secular-leaning Muslims, and Christians, to orchestrate the passage of a more robustly Sharia-complaint Egyptian constitution.
Given President Obama’s repeated admonitions (as reported here, and here) that Mubarak relinquish power, immediately, during early, February, 2011, this prior, Tuesday, May 19, 2009, confidential assessment of Mubarak by then US Ambassador to Egypt Margaret Scobey, raises profound questions about US actions which facilitated his removal, and the subsequent triumph of Egypt’s Sharia supremacists.
Hmmm.........Obama: "The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam".Read the full story here.
Salafi-jihadi sheikh Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti said: "Sheikh Hazem [Abu Isma'il] will never be able to implement Allah's shari'a by means of these elections that perpetuate democracy, and I believe that many of the sheikhs who ruled [that people must] vote for him would agree with us that democracy and Islam are incompatible."
Several days after the publication of Al-Shinqiti's response,Salafi-Jihadi Cleric Abu Basir Al-Tartusi posted on his website his "Islamic-political article," in which he outlined his position on elections, this time supporting his arguments with abundant proofs from the Islamic sources. The following are the main points of the article:
The Constitution Must Include an Ironclad Stipulation that the Islamic Shari'a is the Sole Source for Legislation.
Al-Tartusi explained that it was this reasoning that led him to call upon the Egyptians to support Hazem Abu Isma'il for president, "especially since the other candidates have many bad qualities that [could] lead Egypt and its people to disaster and destruction." It would not be wise of the mujahideen, who carried out the revolution and made so many sacrifices, to abandon the scene to "men of evil" and let them reap the fruits of the revolution and lead the country as they please, Al-Tartusi adds. However, he stresses that monotheism is inviolable and that realizing it is the supreme goal, and that all available and legitimate means must be used to in order to fully implement the laws of the shari'a in the Muslim lands. To this end, he says, these laws must be anchored in an ironclad constitutional clause stipulating that "the Islamic shari'a is the sole source for legislation."Such a clause guarantees that "everyone will act under the umbrella of the shari'a, and that shameful and forbidden phenomena that [currently taint] the parliament's actions will be eliminated. Once this happens, all the people will be able to take part in the elections."
Addressing the accusation that he had changed his mind about democracy, Al-Tartusi states: "I have not changed my mind one whit. I continue to pursue my truth, the same truth I have known since I reached the age of reason... In my previous essays and studies, I repeatedly addressed [the issue of] democracy, its meanings and the dangers it poses...This essay briefly revisits this question and presents my position [on it]."
Democracy Stipulates that Man Is Above Allah – Which Is Blatant Heresy; However, Adopting Some of the Mechanisms that Democracy Uses Is Not Heresy "Democracy has two [main] components.
[The component] that defines it as an ideology, religion and philosophy stipulates that man is above Allah and that his will and power supersede the will and power of Allah... This is the main and most important component [of democracy], and it is blatant heresy. Whoever accepts it is outside the fold of Islam... The U.S. and the [other] Western countries want to export this aspect of democracy to the Muslim states, because if it takes root in the hearts of the Muslims, it will distance them from their faith and religion... and also because... it will weaken them, increase their humiliation, and increase their dependence on the U.S. and the West.
"The second component of democracy is its tools and administrative mechanisms, such as elections, voting, government turnover, freedom of speech and criticism, public oversight of the leadership, etc... Whoever adopts this aspect of democracy alone is not a heretic... [However], it is inappropriate to call him a democrat... Such a person may be right in some ways and wrong in others, depending on how he uses these tools...
"[Procedures such as] elections, voting, public oversight of the leadership, and the demand that the leadership be accountable for negligence are not the [essence] of democracy, as some claim, but are mere tools on which that democracy relies... Democracy and the democratic regimes have no monopoly over these tools, because dictatorial regimes use them too. Each regime employs these tools and adapts them to its [particular] character, goals, policies and ambitions – and that is why, in many cases, these tools do not accurately reflect the will of the people or meet the people's needs... "The U.S. and the Western countries are very careful not to export this aspect of democracy [i.e. the tools] to the Muslim lands... out of fear that [the people] will elect a government or a regime that is not to their liking, or leaders who will not serve their interests in the region... Therefore, in order to prevent this, they frequently interfere [in the affairs of Muslim countries], and use the numerous effective tools at their disposal to improve the chances of some group or party they like, at the expense of some group or party they do not like... That is why they often support dictatorial regimes, [even] while calling for democracy..."