The new Egyptian draft constitution deepened the crisis which had been set off by the Constitutional Declaration. Hence, the rush shown by President Muhammad Morsi and the Constituent Assembly to ensure voting over its articles was extremely surprising to say the least. There are many shortcomings in the constitution, whether in terms of the elasticity of its articles, or the ease with which it allowed the eluding of the commitments that these articles impose on the authorities and the unleashing of the hands of sides that should not be interfering in political affairs (i.e. The Senior Scholars Board). This aims at reshaping Egyptian society the way that is wanted by the forces currently in power. For their part, the Egyptian media outlets featured detailed explanations of the great loopholes in the draft, namely the authorities' relations with each other, the retreat of the state's social and developmental role, and its disregard of the basic principle featured in all constitutions around the world, i.e. equality among citizens (at this level, one could refer for example to an article by Ziad Baha'uddin entitled "Ten Reasons to Reject the Constitution" in Al-Shorouk newspaper on 05/12/2012). The masquerade reached its peak when a call was issued for a general referendum over the constitutional draft, only two weeks after it was ratified by the Constituent Assembly. This not only contradicts the necessity for it to be published and shown to the 90 million Egyptians, while waiting for the reactions of the concerned political, economic and social sectors towards it, but also Morsi's pledge to launch wide social dialogue over the constitution once it is ratified by the Constituent Assembly. Nevertheless, this is not the first promise to be broken by the Muslim Brotherhood. But all the legal and procedural shortcomings in the draft constitution remain understandable, along with the militia-like mobilization carried out by the supporters of the MB around the presidential palace to enhance their authority, following the overwhelming Egyptian rise against what was described as being the regime imposed by "Morsi, the unifier of the authorities," in reference to "Menes, the unifier of Egypt," i.e. the Pharaoh who was credited for the unification of the two parts of Ancient Egypt. And it might not be an exaggeration to say that the division witnessed on the Egyptian street today has gone too deep in a land teeming with reasons for conflict, while it would be naïve to underestimate the Muslim Brotherhood's size, power and wide influence. As for the grave political mistakes they committed in the last two years, they do not deny the simple reality that they are strongly present in many vital sectors. But this is one thing, and what they are trying to impose today is a completely different thing. Indeed, the problem being put forward by the Muslim Brotherhood exceeds the constitutional and procedural facets by far, and affects the identity of Egyptian society and Egypt's status in its surroundings and around the world. It even reaches the position that goes against modernity and enlightenment (through the recognition of equality between the citizens, regardless of their religion, color, gender and race), under the pretext of the insistence on a superficial understanding and violation of the orders of Islam and its prohibitions. At this level, one should be aware of a very obvious issue which is getting lost behind the dust of the mudslinging. What is happening today is an apostasy in the accurate meaning of the word. Apostasy marked the recanting of the new values introduced by Islam to the Arabs of the Peninsula, and today, the dark powers are waging an apostasy war – paradoxically in the name of Islam – against the values adopted by wide factions of Egyptians, i.e. social justice, freedom and equality. It is an apostasy in favor of the rule of one authoritarian individual, who is supported by a group that cannot commit any mistakes and whose vision for the people's affairs and concerns is without flaws. It is an apostasy in favor of hostility against intellect, and in favor of the exploitation of the weapon of religion and the monopolization of its interpretation. This strongly leads back to the same question: who is closer to the spirit and reality of Islam? The crowds on Tahrir Square with their healthy – even necessary – diversity, or those trying to impose one opinion, one color and one rhetoric?
