Mohamed A. Arafa

Whither Egypt? Against Religious Fascism and Legal Authoritarianism: Pure Revolution, Popular Coup, or a Military Coup D’État?

One important question has been raised since the now-removed Islamist President Mohammad Morsi took the office of the Republic on June 30, 2012: will Egypt be an Islamic State with legislation based onIslamic (Sharia) Law? Egyptian people expel the accusations proliferated by extremist streams and radical Islamists that the concept of a “civil (secular) State” is anti-religious or that it interests only the prosperous minority. Such untrue discourse and dialogue by extremists misinforms the folks, as the human logic and knowledge shows that a State which is based on just laws, fair statutes, and respect for human rights is not antagonistic to religion, and is in the public interest of the whole community. Furthermore, playing on religious sentimentalities by saying that God’s (Allah’s) sovereignty — as argued by some rigid classical religious jurists — rather than the people destabilizes the legal institutions and main foundations of the modern democratic civil state by adopting and codifying theocratic and radical notions takes Egypt back into the Dark Ages. Accordingly, this opens the door to complicated issues in constitutional litigation, and the enactment and repeal of legal rulings according to religious interpretations based on misunderstanding of the principles of divine sovereignty in Islamic law. In this domain, the conflation of Islam and Islamism has permeated the interpretation of Egypt’s ethnic and personal character, leading one legal and political scholar to label the Muslim Brotherhood as “the Muslims” or “Islamic” while calling their opponents “non-Islamic.” Islamism is considered a vague politicization of a specific religious attitude throughout the Middle Eastern Arabian World and cannot be associated with Islam as a belief or faith. The Egyptian Government, along with Egyptians, are in favor of having a place in a civil democratic Egypt for quiet, peaceful Islamists who would not want to change the State’s national character and the form of its government into an Islamic religious theocracy. The scuffle to define and explain the concept of “Islam” in Egypt has a long legal and constitutional history as those who favor political Islam square off against those who prefer a more secular-oriented form of government. Generally speaking, the state’s main obligation in any country is to preserve public order and protect and defend its national citizens. This duty is generally difficult to harmonize with the accountability of any non-state dynamic. To further illustrate the far-reaching effects of the June 30 and July 3 events, this Article contains four parts including the introduction. Part two provides a concise framework establishing the theoretical and ethical underpinnings of Egyptian politics. Then, part three discusses the definition of the relevant religious laws and legislation in Egypt and how they can be enacted under Islamic law in the light of the flexible Sharia’s definition and interpretation, especially within the new provisions of the 2014 Constitution. This Article concludes in part four by arguing that talks about Islam, Islamism, and political Islam are understood only as discourse about power, and always will impede any regime [tyrannical and autonomous] that does not generate a place for its survival. What Egypt essentially needs at the present status quo — more than anything else — is an Islamic resurgence and religious revival in the light of an innovative reinterpretation of Islam [Islamic law] and its teachings as a dialogue of freedom and liberty. Whatever the ultimate aftermath is in Egypt, it will cause undulations that will resonate throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Insights on Divine (Islamic) Law: Islamophobia versus Terrorism, DeathPenalty and Transitional Justice, Quo Vadis?

One of the main essentials that humanists should do fine to lengthen a supporting and inspiring hand to those millions of Muslims who discard bin Laden’s mentality on brand of angry, revengeful political policy and welcome them affectionately and gently into the modern world. It is just important do even better if we work hard to eliminate political, economic, and social inequalities to authorize the immobilized, nourish the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, teach and educate the young, and heal the sick.

The Unexpected Trials Of Egyptian Leaders: Is It a Question of Law or Politics?

At the risk of sounding apathetic and unenthusiastic, it should be noted that in every revolution the best day is the day on which the revolution is acknowledged and declared a success. From that point, on it goes mostly downhill because the accumulated problems of the past come rushing to the fore, demanding instant resolution, with anger, frustration, disappointment, and hope all mixed together and competing for attention. It always takes time for revolutions to simmer down and for life to fall into a normal routine. As is generally well-known, revolutions are never tidy; instead, they are messy, chaotic, and unpredictable. Hopes are frequently destroyed — though some remain — and the reality of the situation and an appreciation for what needs to be done makes for a rude awakening. The magical days in January 2011 and June 30, when Egyptians from all walks of life came together in Tahrir (“Liberation”) Square to demand the end of Mubarak and Morsi’s presidency have long passed. But the memory of those days will remain in the nostalgia of Egyptians. It was a glorious period for the entire world to witness. Tahrir Square was a revealing and dramatic look at the revolution that transformed the modern history of one of the world’s oldest civilizations. But the revolutionary light has been turned off in Tahrir Square and the extraordinary feeling of elation of people from many diverse backgrounds has faded away after the seemingly impossible dream of removing Hosni Mubarak from the presidency was achieved. The challenges ahead are not likely to diminish these hopes. But then, many a revolution have been taken over or co-opted by others, and the peoples’ hopes are crushed and dashed. This is the unfortunate case of Egypt’s “revolution” of January 2011. Democracy as a process may have succeeded, but freedom, human rights, and the rule of law will surely be lost. These trials are Egypt’s most significant step yet toward establishing the principle that “no leader is above the law.” It is obvious that the outcome of the Mubarak and Morsi trials were not to satisfy the general public, and it is feared that a backlash against the judiciary will occur. Already the integrity and independence of the judiciary is being questioned by many sectors of the Egyptian public. The danger is likely to be that demands for such trials shall constrain judicial processes, reduce the rights of the defendants, and have serious harmful effects on the rule of law in Egypt. Not to be overlooked, Mubarak and Morsi’s trial will have significant physiological and sociological effects on the Egyptian people and Arabs throughout the region, and send a clear message that rule of man has ended and rule of law has returned. Historically, Morsi and his predecessors were regarded as untouchable and irreproachable pharaohs who governed the country with absolute power. Yet, this mode of governance, which has existed in Egypt and the Arab world thus far, could end with outcome of Mubarak and Morsi’s trials. “It is unclear what the social impact of these trials will be, but it is [likely] that it will contribute to a shift in the Egyptian and Arab psyche that had always revered authority, shunned dissent, and rejected the questioning or criticism of those elders who wielded power.” One should bear in mind that the Islamic model of leadership emphasizes “khuluq” or behaving ethically towards all (Muslims and non-Muslims) alike. Firmly grounded by his faith in God, and mindful of his role as a trustee, a Muslim leader is expected to be just, behave righteously, strive towards self-improvement, and never break his word. He is to consult with others, especially in areas where he is not competent. He is expected to bear adversity patiently, and remain forever humble. Hopefully, historians and political analysts will record the significance of these trials. It was the first time that a two head of state was forced to resign by peaceful popular demand and was put on trial for at least some of his faults and misdeeds.For the lawyers and policymakers working on the front lines of this issue today, it is important to recognize the current debates which still open the floor and the door for help to develop the norms that will guide and bind the national and global community in its response to this sort of liability in the future. Correspondingly, a coherent national and international solution for this sort of responsibility in the light of global implications not only in Egypt but throughout the whole Middle East is a sector ripe for reform for the so-called “The Arab Storm not Spring.” When all is said and done, some will say the glass is half full while others will say it is half empty. The author believes the glass to be half full. The uprising has achieved some successes but Egypt has a long way to go, not only to achieve democracy and the rule of law, but also to attain economic development and to regain its place as the leader of the Arab World and an important contributor to peace and stability in the region.

Battling Corruption within a Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy

The following analysis falls into three sections. Having established the conceptual and ethical groundwork in Part One, Part Two contains an analysis of CSR principles. Part Three examines the role of CSR in battling unethical behavior, especially corruption, through anti-corruption policies and other measures for combating this phenomenon with particular emphasis on the 2003 United Nations (U.N.) Convention against Corruption. To clarify the analysis, this article focuses on the following two sets of inquiries: First, are corporations cognizant of the relevant anti-corruption conventions and soft-law instruments? How do they perceive these measures? What impact, if any, have these conventions had on companies? Have corporations adjusted or changed their behavior as a result? Second, have corporations voluntarily adopted codes of conduct or other internal measures that promote CSR? Do these measures include a commitment to confronting bribery or corrupt behavior internally and on the part of their agents and those in their supply chain? Is CSR a useful and effective tool in tackling corruption generally? If so, to what extent? This Note concludes in Part Four by arguing that CSR should be a priority among practitioners in fighting unethical corporate behavior.“The advent of globalization has brought about unprecedented changes in the pace and nature of business practices in both the community market place and the work place. In the context of an evermore connected and inter-reliant world, intense demand for economic growth pressures societies to address myriad environmental, economic, social, and health issues facing populations, businesses, and governments.”Nothing erodes sustainable economic development more than corruption. Given its systemic pervasiveness, the private sector plays a critical role and has a vested interest in assuming social as well as economic responsibility. Though implementation rests firmly in the hands of national governments, corporations cannot ignore their critical role in creating a sustainable anti-corruption initiative. Looking ahead, companies face several challenges.However, the private sector can generate viable solutions to fight corruption by serving as a role model to the larger business community. Through collaboration with government and civil society in knowledge-sharing forums, through creation of an ethical corporate culture via increased responsibilities, and through innovative solutions to reduce the risk of corruption in corporate governance, the private sector can make a significant impact. CSR practitioners must prioritize the battle against corruption. It is important to focus on specific goals and policies and build upon the current mechanisms developed by the international community, especially the U.N. Convention.The CSR movement possesses the potential to strengthen commitments made by state parties by developing model theories into everyday business practice. Therefore, it should be concerned with protecting and promoting integrity, stability, and good governance while encouraging the disruption and control of serious crime. Through such commitments, states will increase the well being of their national economies, institutions and enterprises and promote a better understanding of the real and practical risks facing business today.

Criminal Complicity - Accomplice Criminal Liability to the Criminal Offences 'A Comparative Analysis Between the Egyptian Criminal Law System and the Criminal Law System of the United States of America'

Complicity is a broad doctrine that imposes criminal responsibility on individuals for a crime committed by someone else, usually because these secondary actors have intentionally helped or encouraged the primary actor to commit the crime.However, complicity also imposes responsibility based on other criminal law doctrines, such as conspiracy. In that regard, conspiracy differs from accomplice liability. In most jurisdictions, a person may be held accountable for the conduct of a co-conspirator who commits a crime in furtherance of their agreement. In the latter case, the mere existence of the conspiracy is sufficient to justify liability for the other’s conduct; therefore, assistance in commission of the crime is not required. The relevant difference between conspiracy and accomplice liability is that, while an agreement is an essential element of the crime of conspiracy, aid sufficient for accomplice liability may be given without any agreement between the parties. Accordingly, conspiracy has been adjudged a separate and distinct offense from that of aiding and abetting since it involves the additional element of preconcert and connivance not necessarily inherent in the mere joint activity common in adding and abetting.On the other hand, the concept of personal liability with regard to the accomplice liability as distinguished from vicarious liability is deeply rooted in criminal law jurisprudence. In this respect, The Anglo-American courts impute the acts of the primary party to the secondary actor. That means, once a person becomes an accomplice of another, his identity as a person subject to criminal punishment is subsumed in that of the primary party. In this research paper, we will focus on a form of complicity called accessorial or accomplice liability looking at this both legal concept as it is understood both in Egypt and in the United States. In general, individuals who help another person to commit a crime are accessories or accomplices to that offense and also liable for its commission. Moreover, statutes and case law will use terms like “aid, abet, assist, solicit…etc.”to describe the various sorts of conduct that can generate accomplice liability. There are, however,differences between the -Egyptian and American legal systems- in how they determine accomplice liability and punish those who are found to be complicit.