Egypt: Secular State to Religious State Egypt has been well known throughout history for major significant monuments, but in the 1900’s Egypt was under the control of the British. They had one major leader (Nasser) in Egypt who helped Egypt declare their independence from Britain conquest. Gamal Abdel Nasser, who formed and established the Arab Socialist Union (ASU), was the second President of Egypt serving from 1956 until his death. He planned the 1952 overthrow of the monarchy, and was deputy prime minister in the new government. While Nasser was controlling the state of Egypt it was still a secular state, leaving the minority religions under somewhat stable state under the constitution of Egypt. Nasser kept the state secular such as having an one-party system which prevented religious groups like the Muslim Brotherhood from an opportunity to voice their political views. This made the Arab Socialist Union the sole party in parliament under the Nasser era. After the death of Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1970, there was a huge shift once Anwar Sadat seized control as being the secretary of the former Prime Minister Nasser. Anwar Sadat drafted a new constitution, which included the principles of Sharia into the Egyptian constitution. The state changed from being a secular state to becoming a religious state. Anwar Sadat abolished certain views of Nasser, which he did not agree with. He abolished the one party rule, which gave an opportunity to Islamic groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood to influence their ideas politically. Thus, I will analyze Sadat’s ideas for implementing the Sharia into the 1971 constitution with limitations of structuralism triggering the revival of interest in the role of idea in policy analysis. An Ideational Approach is weak to consider viewing the dilemma next to Rational Choice Theory. Anwar Sadat implemented the principles of Sharia for the benefits Egypt would get, as being recognized as an Islamic nation like other Arab countries in the region. The implementation of the Sharia was not in his own intentions of his ideas, but rather to be accommodated with the benefits of having principles of Sharia into the constitution as other neighboring Arab nations. Surrounding factors forced him to make rational choices. His ideas were more of choices of the Arab nationalism, seeking to gain respect to negotiate with other Arab nations. I argue in this paper that Anwar Sadat included the principles of Sharia in the constitution of 1971 through an economic principle that assumes that individuals always make prudent and logical decisions that provides them with the greatest benefit, which are in their highest self-interest (rational choice theory).
ARTICLE 2 OF THE 1971 CONSTITUTION STATES:
Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic law ( Shari’a) are the principal source of legislation.
Brief Overview Islam was identified as the state religion in 1971 in Egypt; the principles of Sharia included in the constitution were more liberal in contrasts to traditional Sharia law diagrams written in other Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia. With Sharia principles implemented, Sadat revived the belief of Islam and used it to unify the Egyptian public. He created Islamic nationalism with Arab nationalism; he influenced the idea of Egyptians as beings Arabs. Thus, this gave the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups who were banned from speaking their political voice (under Nasser) the authority to engage with the Egyptian citizens in public. Anwar allowed for Islam to flourish throughout academia as well as being flashed on television screens across the country. Later in his timeline of Presidency of Egypt, he established a Peace Treaty with Israel. This led to greater ties with the United States leading to the demise of Sadat with death threats. Egypt pushed away from socialist ideas and relations with the Soviet Union/Russia.
IDEATIONAL APPROACH
I find three factors that demonstrate how the ideational approach is a fragile argument compared to the rational choice theory argument. First of all, I will discuss: how peace with Israel contradicted the religion Sadat believed in, how he lost the Muslim Brotherhood’s support, and how he left the Christian minorities and non-Muslims to still live in the land of the pyramids where principles of Sharia existed. Furthermore, he stated in defense to non-Muslims and the Coptic Christians, who accounted for 10-15% of the population at that time (a debated census of the Coptic minority because he failed to give full recognition to the community); “those who wish to practice Islam can go to the mosques, and those who wish to engage in politics may do so through legal institutions” (Hopwood, 117). The statement can be seen through an ideational approach as thus, he is insinuating that individuals are not forced to pray, “wish” means a choice in his context. The constitution at that time stated under Article 40, “all citizens are equal before the law, they have equal public rights and duties without discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, language, religion or creed”. Under Article 2 it stated: Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic law [sharia] are the principal source of legislation. Article 2 revived Islam and its’ school of thought. He implemented the principles of Islam, saying it was sharia but not necessarily committing to fully declaring it. Lastly, as stated in Sharia under the prayer section: Sunni Muslims prayer must be performed at five periods each day. Nonetheless, under Sadat’s rule he never enforced prayer five times a day, but rather if an individual “wishes” to do so, he or she may proceed. The lack of force of the principle of Sharia led to the Muslim Brotherhood (a rising radical Islamic group at the time) losing respect for President Sadat. Issues began to show signs in violence across the country.
IDEATIONAL VIEW OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
The ideational approach can view the lack of implementation of Sharia into Egypt and creating peace with Israel as an unfaithful Muslim to the Quran, which was a red flag in the Muslim Brotherhood’s beliefs. The Muslim Brotherhood thought on the current situation as stated by their leader, Ahmad Shukri Mustafa at the time; “I reject the Egyptian regime and the Egyptian reality in all its aspects since everything in it is in contradiction to the sharia and belongs to heresy… we demand a return to natural simplicity and reject so-called modern progress” (Hopwood, 118). Sadat in 1979 forbade any political party to be formed by a religious sect, but he also sought Islamic legitimacy for his polices. He benefited from his choices, which made the implementation principles of Sharia into the constitution a rational choice. Islamic radicals and the Muslim Brotherhood continuously voiced their opinion saying:
Egypt is an Islamic country, and it is the duty of its guardian to ensure its protection. If he considers that the interest of the Muslims lies in being gentle towards their enemies, this is permissible because he is responsible in matters of peace and war…and more knowledgeable about the affairs of his subjects.. the existence of treaties between Muslims and their enemies is governed by clear regulations established by Islam… The al Azhar ulama are of the opinion that the Egyptian-Israeli treaty was concluded within the context of Islamic judgment. It springs from a position of strength following the waging of the jihad battle and the victory…(Hopwood, 119).
Article 2 prohibits law contrary to the Islamic sharia, any law that restricts the religious freedoms of non-Muslims in Egypt would be rendered unconstitutional simply because Islam guarantees these rights. As Ahmet T. Kuru stated in “religious instruction in Turkey schools is directly related to the state’s desire to control religion and the fact that private religious education is prohibited” would have been a perfect ideational approach for Sadat to take (Kuru, 8). So instead, Sadat did not truly implement the principles of Sharia in the Constitution with allowing private religious education by non-Muslims, such as Coptic Christians Controversy of implementation led to the situation of the Coptic’s.
IDEATIONAL VIEW OF THE COPT’S
Nonetheless, individuals can state that Sadat implemented the principles of Sharia into the Constitution because he was a Muslim man. But he showed sympathy to non-Muslims, especially the Coptic Orthodox Christians. First of all, individuals must understand the history of the Coptic Christians in Egypt. The Coptic Christians made up of 1/6 of the population in Egypt under Sadat’s era. The Coptic’s are the descendants of the first Egyptian converts to Christianity, and therefore are the Pharaonic inhabitants. With the principles of Sharia as the legislature of Egypt, Sadat never protected or had regard towards the Copts, but never abolished or forced the Coptic’s to leave or convert to Islam. So, the state of Egypt named Islam as the religion of the nation but let the Coptic’s believe in their religion and attend church under the Constitution. Anwar Sadat favored Islam and Arabism but never fully committed to being a true man of the Quran. As Sadat was a Muslim man with control of an Islamic state, he was unfaithful to the religion; he was only faithful to the religion when he was gaining self-benefits, such as gaining honor from the 60 or so million Muslims when implementing the Sharia into the legislation of the Constitution but, not because he believed in the Sharia but because he wanted to control Egypt. He gained respect from Islamic nations bordering Egypt with including the principles of Sharia; it was to his self-benefit, not because he was a Muslim believer. The Quran states: “fight them (the disbelievers), Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and give you victory over them and He will heal the hearts of those who believe." (Qur'an 9:14), phrases like these that let Coptic’s be unharmed and living in an Islamic state angered the Muslim Brotherhood and angered surrounding Islamic nation’s. Sadat was shown as hypocrite Muslim based off his actions with never abolishing the Coptic’s.
RATIONAL CHOICE Sadat always referred to the Nasser era as a time of materialism and unbelief, he wanted to show himself as a believing Muslim motivated by love of his fellow men. There were moments when Sadat was looking for acceptance by other nations, or “aid for war”, the Saudi Arabia aid for weapons would only come from a more strict Egyptian Muslim country, hence why he felt the pressure to implement principle of Sharia in the Constitution. In relation, Anthony Gill found in The Political Origins of Religious Liberty that, “Any government policy that imposes a greater cost on an individual or group’s ability to worship needs to be viewed as a decrease in freedom.” With this policy, he received respect from extremely strict Islamic states, assisting his need for aid to go to war with Israel once again. Many Egyptians felt embarrassed losing the war to Israel. Sadat’s objective was to get as much aid as possible, while respecting the people, which most were Muslim; he needed to prove his Muslim ideologies.
RATIONAL CHOICE OF RISING TO POWER In order for Sadat to shift from Vice President to President, he needed the support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic political groups to fight off the Arab Social Union party and its’ officials. Sadat wanted to eliminate the principles and policies of Nasser and input his own, he never agreed with the policies and rule of ex-President of Egypt, Nasser. Sadat gradually released Muslim Brotherhood members from jail, which were imprisoned for an attempted assassination on Nasser during his Presidency. Releasing Muslims Brotherhood members and abolishing the one party rule of Nasser; he gave the leftists Islamic parties the ability to speak on their behalf publicly. Islamic parties competing for office fought off the Arab Social Union party, who attempted to gain control in favor of removing Sadat out of office. In order for Sadat to give the Islamic groups hope, he drafted the principles of Sharia into the Constitution; this adoption gave Islamic groups to believe in him. Sadat used the implementation as a tool to gain full power as President of Egypt. He allowed Islam to be implemented throughout the social media, he wanted to show his appreciation to the Islamic groups. The idea of going to war with Israel gave him an implausible amount of appreciation to the radical Muslims. The famous speech in 1972 from Anwar Sadat stated: “war is now inevitable, whatever the price, whatever the sacrifice, we will not back down, we will not give one centimeter of Arab land” on going to war with Israel. The phrase “Arab land” is what he used to motivate the Egyptians and Arabs around the region to wage war on to Israel. With no hope of a peaceful solution the only option was to prepare for war. Sadat made the initial strategy seem as if he was seeking to gain the land of Israel for his Islamic belief. The Muslim believers in Egypt and in most of the Middle East believed at the time that the land of Israel was taken from Muslims. He created momentum to go to war, from implementing the principles of Sharia into the constitution to show why he wanted the land. His intelligent strategies to convince the other Arab nations to wage war on Israel for the land gained enormous respect from the Arabic speaking states. In his speech Sadat claimed after the war his motives for going to war with Israel was not for land; but to prove to the world how weak the nation of Israel was along with how intelligent his military tactics proved to be. This aspect of implementing the principles of Sharia in the constitution was for gaining control and protection of Egypt, the sake of luring the Arab unity, and luring weapons and aid from other Arab nation’s not from an ideational view of being follower of the Quran.
RATIONAL CHOICE: POPE SHENOUDA III
With the Coptic minority in the absence of appropriate political representation responsibility for voicing Christian concerns on political issues with the Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III showed a great threat to Anwar Sadat. Pope Shenouda III threatened President Sadat when he protested against the Islamization bill of 1977, which would have made conversion from Islam to Christianity punishable by death along the constitutional amendment making Islamic law the principal source of legislation, but never was passed. Pope Shenouda III protested against the Islamization bill and regarded as a political enemy because Sadat believed the Patriarch was responsible for the embarrassing demonstrations against his government's Islamization. The threat Sadat suffered was the same as the statement Anothony Gill quoted in “Rendering unto Caesar”, which stated “the hallmark movement of this period was Accion Catolica, the sectors of the population targeted were university students, middle class youth, urban professional, and urban workers, the first two groups ranked high on the Church’s priority list because they would eventually produce the country’s future leaders” (Gill, 35). In order to silence the Patriarch and improve his own Islamic credentials in the face of mounting Islamic opposition to his regime Sadat chose to take drastic action against the Coptic Pope to protect his self interest which in regards to rational choice theory. The reason why Sadat took such immediate action towards the Pope, was not for the sake of Islam but for the sake of himself remaining in power and continuing his legacy. According to AMcoptic.com, “President Sadat publicly accused Pope Shenouda of being party to a CIA, German Christian Democratic Party and World Council of Churches conspiracy to establish a Christian state in Upper Egypt with its capital at Asyout and charged him with aiding Lebanon's besieged Christian community”. Sadat decreed the dismissal of Shenouda, 160 Christians, including eight bishops and 16 priests, were arrested at the same time for threatening his power. Understanding the implementation of Sharia into the Constitution of 1971 by Sadat was a mechanism he used just as the same mechanism that Pope Shenouda III imposed on his Presidency power of Egypt.
RATIONAL CHOICE: The Yom Kippur War To The Peace Treaty With Israel
The great land of Israel, to the Muslims in the region, such as Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt the Holy land means so much to a believer of the Quran,
“Jerusalem is part of the struggle for Palestine which ensued in the wake of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the British Mandate of 1922. When the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 suggested the internationalization of Jerusalem, both the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine rejected the proposal, the Muslim rejection emanating from the view of Jerusalem as a Muslim religious endowment” (infoplease.com).
As Egypt was the most respected Arabic speaking nation, it would have to show how important Islam meant to Egypt, so war with Israel to regain some parts of the Holy Land was significant. But, before attempting to regain land, Anwar Sadat set to implement the sharia into the constitution as well as creating Islamic schools in Egypt to keep Egypt as the head country in the Arab world. The Yom Kippur War was a victorious war for Anwar Sadat and the fellow Egyptians, which Egypt was viewed as a respectful Islamic nation. As of 1973 Anwar Sadat seemed as a hero and as a Muslim man who implemented principles of Sharia in the constitution because he strongly believed in Islam. Shortly, Sadat created a Peace Treaty with Israel with the influence of the United States of America. The Peace Treaty with Israel was a result of the Camp David Accords
Historic peace accords forged in 1978 between Israel and Egypt at the U.S. presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland. The agreement was signed on March 26, 1979, in Washington, D.C. by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat, with U.S. President Jimmy Carter signing as a witness. Under the pact, which was denounced by other Arab states, Israel agreed to return the Sinai to Egypt, a transfer that was completed in 1982. In a joint letter the two nations also agreed to negotiate Palestinian autonomy measures in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip (infoplease.com).
Egypt became the first Arab country to recognize Israel. Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, which it had taken from Egypt in the Six-Day War of 1967, Sadat agreed to grant Israeli ships access to the Suez Canal. The Arab world reacted angrily to the peace treaty, which it saw as a “betrayal of the Arab cause”, this involved Sadat’s early supporters who guided him in power, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic jihadist groups.
RATIONAL CHOICE: LEFTIST TO FIGHT OFF NASSERISM
Sadat’s biggest change made from the Nasser era was a bow towards the Islamic revival. Sadat softened restrictions on the Muslim Brotherhood, allowing the group to publish a monthly magazine, al-Dawa, which appeared regularly until the 1980’s though he did not allow the group to reconstitution. In 1971, the concentration camps where Islamists were held were closed, and the regime began to gradually release the imprisoned Muslim Brothers, though the organization itself remained illegal; the last of those still behind bars regained their freedom in 1975. Sadat used Islamists, particularly al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya as "useful counterweight" to his Marxist and Arab leftist opposition, creating student groups being particularly vocal and active in universities. Gaining their will to fight off the opposing threat of Sadat with motivation of Shari principles included in the Constitution. Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya grew (in part with help from the Sadat regime) from a minority group to being "in complete control of the universities" with the leftist organizations being driven six feet underground. He ordered Egypt's television to interrupt programs with Salat to call for prayer on the screen five times a day and to increase religious programming. With the changes he gained support of Islamic groups, which helped keep him to influence his Islamic ideologies. Once again the influence of Sharia was to his own benefit for social change that happened to favor the Islamic groups as well. Sadly, Islamists came to bump heads with Sadat who also supported women's rights and opposed compulsory hijab. Most particularly they opposed what they called his "shameful peace with the Jews," the Camp David Accords with Israel. By the late 1970’s Sadat turned against Islamism, and stopped fully implementing Sharia principles, (but still was written in the Constitution).
CONCLUSION
When Sadat truly implemented the principles of Sharia into the constitution no individual would see Sadat create a peace treaty with Israel. The peace treaty with Israel contradicts the commitment of principles of Sharia in the Constitution. He was not a true Muslim in following the Quran but a strong supporter in educating Egyptians on Islam. He made peace with Israel for benefits and closer ties with the United States. He was only looking for personal benefits and gains. It was evident that he had to live up to one of the greatest rulers of the Middle East prior to him, Gamal Abd al Nasser. When he signed the Camp David Accords, he essentially tarnished the Arab identity in the eyes of Islamic Arabic speaking nations (Arab League), which he was the cause of Egypt’s expulsion from the Arab League. The Egyptian people were no longer his. The treaty was signed in resolution of two key components: regaining and keeping the Sinai Peninsula, this created stronger ties with the United States. Sadat appealed to the Soviets to bring pressure on the United States and to provide Egypt with more offensive weapons. The Soviet Union was more interested in maintaining the appearance of détente with the United States than a confrontation in the Middle East; therefore, it rejected Sadat’s demands. Sadat’s response was to abruptly expel approximately 20,000 Soviet advisers from Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood gained momentum through out Egypt by being able to sway their ideologies. They felt that Sadat’s lazy grasp of Islam in the nation was seen as a hypocrite. They were also able to gain a great deal of supporters by providing health clinics and housing and food. In regards the nation became more religious because the Muslim Brotherhood were able to voice out their Islamic ideologies not because Sadat imposed principle of sharia into the constitution as the legislation for the nation. The Rational Choice Theory perfectly depicts how Sadat used the implementation as a sole tool to gain power of Egypt to impose his ideas of how to run the country, he created Peace with Israel when he gained power, if he would have kept his Islamic ideologies, which not involve creating Peace with Israel he would have never been assassinated by an Islamic Jihadist officer nor would he have been seen as a traitor to the Arab countries. His selfish rational choices are what seized him to get Egypt expelled from the Arab League. Nonetheless, the imprisonment of Pope Shenouda III was solely for the sake of protecting his legacy of staying in power in Egypt. The ideational approach is a great argument until the Camp David Accords agreement was signed, after the Camp David Accords agreement the implementation of principles of Sharia into the Constitution was only for Sadat to rise higher than Nasser’s legacy and for changing policies for his own cause. The Peace Treaty is the prime argument I have favored with Rational Choice theory over the Ideational Approach of Sadat implementing the principles of Sharia into the Constitution because he was an individual who followed the Quran as a Muslim. Sadat did change Egypt from a secular state to a religious state after his presence as President of the Egypt for his own selfish desire.
Works Cited
"AMCoptic.com - We Are the Christians of Egypt." AMCoptic.com - We Are the Christians of Egypt. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.
Gill, Anthony James. The Political Origins of Religious Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.
Gill, Anthony James. Rendering Unto Caesar: The Catholic Church and the State I n Latin America. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago, 1998. Print.
Hopwood, Derek. Egypt, Politics and Society, 1945-1981. London: Allen & Unwin, 1982. Print.
Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 10 May 2014
Kuru, Ahmet T. Secularism and State Policies toward Religion: The United States, France, and Turkey. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.
"March 26, 1979 | Israel and Egypt Sign Peace Treaty." The Learning Network March 26 1979 Israel and Egypt Sign Peace Treaty Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.
"The Yom Kippur War: Background & Overview." Background & Overview. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.