Egypt's constitution

by laurie-line.g on October 10, 2013 - 8:57am


My article is about Article 219 in the 2012 Constitution because it is about Sharia, a controversial subject. This article imposes the point of view that people have different interpretations of Sharia. Some feel it is against woman rights and it is insinuating that everyone is an enemy of Islam if they don’t want this article in the 2012 Constitution or if they do Sharia in a different ways. In fact, they are not foes, but they don’t want the Constitution to tell them how to do Sharia, they want liberty and respect for all the interpretations.



I think that article 219 should not appear in the 2012 Constitution because it obligates Islamists to do Sharia as the Constitution interprets it. Islamists have no liberty to do it in another way without treating them as extremists, an enemy of Islam. I think it is sad because the liberties of these persons are threatened by an Article in the Constitution. This Constitution should not be about religion: it should be neutral.


Discussion questions

  1. Do you think it is right to tell how they should see Sharia?
  2. Is it important secularism in government institutions?
  3. If this situation were in Quebec, do you think that it would be accepted as an Article of the Constitution?



Why people are they so late in their opinion? We are in 2013 and human rights should be offered for everyone. It's something that we should have as a right, a priority, not something that has to be controlled by the government or the Sharia. I don't think that Sharia should take place of the government to make respect of which laws should be followed.

About the author