By Hossam Badrawi – Al-Masry Al-Youm –
In a time when politics and religion overlap and roles are being reshaped within Egypt’s institutions, there is an urgent need to reaffirm the constitutional principles that the Egyptian people adopted in the aftermath of their revolution.
The preamble of Egypt’s 2014 Constitution clearly states: “Egypt is a modern civil democratic state.” (*) This is not just a rhetorical flourish. It is a foundational vision that affirms that the highest reference in governance and legislation is the constitution and the law—not fatwas or religious rulings, no matter the stature of those who issue them.
A striking paradox in Egypt’s political scene is this: while the state publicly raises the banner of hostility to the Muslim Brotherhood as a political faction, it simultaneously adopts many of the Brotherhood’s and Salafists’ core ideas. The conflict seems not to be with the ideology itself, but with who occupies power. This contradiction plants a dangerous duality in society: official rhetoric declares war on political Islam, while state policies nourish its tributaries in education, culture, and religion.
The religious establishment has now become a legal guardian over opinion: no intellectual or jurist thinker can express a view on religion unless filtered through the “Council of Senior Scholars”—an entity created by the Brotherhood in the 2012 Constitution. It was retained despite being opaque, with citizens knowing neither its members nor its selection process. Ironically, this council has become a supreme censor of thought in a country that for centuries was a beacon of independent religious reasoning.
At the same time, many media figures with clear, former ties to the Brotherhood are being promoted into influential positions shaping public opinion.
Recently, the Ministry of Endowments has even acted like a political partner in inaugurating projects, with its minister carried on shoulders as though a political leader.
From the space of free thought to a laboratory of obedience, the entry point is education. The most dangerous development is the re-religionization of education through rote learning and obedience. Instead of fostering critical thinking and providing space for languages, sciences, and technology, religion is imposed as a pass/fail subject in high school, with no sound pedagogical justification. Education’s mission has shifted from cultivating independent minds to producing submissive ones.
Even more alarming is the call to spread thousands of kuttabs (traditional Qur’anic schools) for preschool children—the most crucial stage of mental formation. This replaces imagination and curiosity with rote memorization, closing the door early to seeds of criticism or creativity. It is a disguised return to the Brotherhood’s project: a generation that obeys before it thinks.
Teachers at this stage are the most important in shaping the future. Yet surprisingly, this responsibility has been handed to clerics rather than trained educators.
The contradiction grows sharper when religion is used in official discourse to cloak decisions and conflicts with sacredness. Here, the line between a civil state and a theocratic one vanishes, and Brotherhood/Salafist thinking reappears as a shadow that legitimizes rule—even if the declared enemy is that very current. The reality is that this is a postponed battle with oneself.
This is not mere misjudgment, but the deep infiltration of Brotherhood/Salafist thought under the state’s umbrella. It is a contradiction that threatens Egypt’s cultural and political future. The real battle is not with a banned organization but with the ideas that have seeped into politics, education, and media.
In a civil state, sovereignty belongs to the people, legislation to their representatives, and reference to the law—not fatwas. Any attempt to reproduce a form of “Guardianship of the Jurist” (wilayat al-faqih) under new institutional guise is a breach of the constitutional contract and a retreat from the gains of the modern state.
Civility does not mean hostility to religion. It means separating the religious from the legislative, while respecting religion as an ethical and cultural source—not as a tool to legislate or enforce laws. Reviving the role of scholars in spiritual guidance is commendable, but only within constitutional boundaries. No institution—religious or otherwise—should overstep its role to impose guardianship over thought, education, or law.
The true guarantor of legal reference in Egypt is adherence to the Constitution, respect for the Constitutional Court, and a clear distinction between what belongs to God and what belongs to governance by people.
A key principle of a civil state is that it does not mix religion with politics. Nor does it oppose religion; rather, it values religion’s role in building morals, inspiring work, achievement, and progress. What a civil state rejects is the instrumentalization of religion for political ends. Such use undermines pluralism and transforms religion into a source of dispute and worldly interests rather than sacred values.
We must not forget that Egypt has 18 million Christians, and that the Copts are not a minority but a principal component of society’s fabric.
Why then do we need a civil constitution, as envisioned for the future and embedded in constitutional philosophy? Because rotation of power, oversight of state institutions, and balance of powers safeguard both society and individuals. No ruling “in God’s name” via intermediaries who place themselves as agents between a person and their Lord. No infiltration of a single-minded Salafist/Brotherhood ideology into the state. No person or group group to place themselves above periodic constitutional accountability and be subject to the rotation of power. No unchecked domination of society under any pretext.
There are moments in nations’ histories that warn of danger—not for novelty, but for blind repetition.
What we see in Egypt today, with the absence of genuine civil alternatives, leads inevitably toward religious rule with Islamist coloration—funded, organized internationally, and, sadly, at times backed by Western intelligence services.
This is no sudden crisis, but a slow descent into tragedy. And we do not want chaos, nor a repeat of the experiences that once dragged the country into decline.
________________
(*) CS Note: The author seems to deliberately ignore Article II of the Constitution (“Islam is the Religion of the State, and Principles of Sharia are the principal source of legislation“) to emphasize his point about the threats to the civility of the state..
Translated from:
