statement, that represents the identity. and then the second second really is the positioning of sharia principles, as an identifier for the spirit of the constitution and the spirit of law in the country. and this is very similar to many parties across europe, and even some of the parties in the united states, where there is a good -- there is a value for religion in the state and in the country. and the value here, basically identifies what's right and what's wrong. and basically the framework in which the spirit of the legislation is put into. and this is basically -- this is almost the location of the islamic principles and sharia

principles that exist to identify with the value system. interestingly enough, and this is actually not like my colleagues mentioned here, these are not -- either contradictory to universal accepted values like freedom, justice and democracy, rule of law, et cetera, these are in conformity with sharia. they're not against sharia. and these are similar. and of course, there would be some differences in the value system. but the major investment of the values are already there. but then there is still an extension. and across the islamic civilization, you've seen different manifestations of the applying of the principles in the street. and sometimes it was applied with wisdom, and it was done in the right way, leading to great successes and great contribution to civil yags.

and many times it also was a failed representation. we try to form that basically the implementation of these are a wise implementation, that focuses on the spirit, focuses on the principles, but at the same time respects it, and respects this identity. and we hope that we come up with a formulation, and an alternative to this -- an alternative that actually presents a model in this age and time where there's no conflict between the implementation between islamic and universal values. specifically who would decide this is the parliament. the parliamentary discussions, and not only the parliament but the entire egyptian population. because the constitution is going to be discussed in the assembly with contribution from

everybody. then it will be posed for the parliament for discussion again, and voting. and then it will be turned out to the egyptian people. so the egyptian people will vote on the different items in the constitution. and i don't think there is any -- i think that there will be lots of agreement on these different issues. and as was also mentioned, in actually the majority of them, of the major constitutions, it is in agreement with sharia law that the implementation is the modern implementation. we talk about laws of judging society, laws of organizing the races and between the state and individuals. these -- it is strictly that the laws that are in question lie in two major areas which is basically the social atmosphere, and this is also acceptable, and

most modern communities is related to marriage, divorce, et cetera. and there are some implementations in the penal code that are also of grievous -- many people do not accept it, particularly in western societies, but this discussion is really not there, because there are also conditions for the implementation and acceptance of the penal law that we do not think that it still exists. so it's actually not part of the discussion. it's not part of how it was implemented, or is it implemented. the discussion is really going to be about articles. actually, all articles, you will find a discussion of a modern democratic constitution. >> let me turn attention now to libya. you have two alternatives laid out for you. you have the tunisian, which just says, we'llological on the

people, we don't need it in the constitution. the egyptian says we need it in the constitution and we'll rely on the people. does the hib yan brotherhood have any specific conception of what it wants to see with regard to sharia in the constitution? >>. >> translator: perhaps we are closer to the egyptian model in this regard. because the libyan people -- because the components of the libyan people are 100% muslim. the majority are arabs. and we have the embassy, and the constituents are 5%. and there's great harmony. i personally have lived with several members of the amazeik

minority. therefore, there is no conflict in libyan society. and the majority of the libyans are sunnis. therefore, they don't have the differences that could be present in egypt or tunisia in terms of religion and ideology. surely we have some liberal thoughts. but they also are not similar to what we hear about the liberals in tunisia or egypt. therefore, there is agreement on the political sphere in libya. and it's no longer a polarization between the islamicists and liberals. we don't like this label, because they're all moderate islamists. this is a very important introduction to understand

libyan society. second of all, the islamic reference, or sharia is now a demand for all libyans. it's not restricted to a particular group of the libyans. it doesn't concern the islamists, but it demands by all libyans. but what is our own understanding of this reference. as has already been said, it's the overall intent of the islamic -- of religion which is to establish justice and equality among the people and to defend freedom, even if people have different -- whole different views. therefore, the sharia and our understanding of the sharia is to understand the larger intents and purposes of sharia.

for example, the sharia encourages people to express their views and engage in dialogue, and encourages differences. as we know, we have several islamic traditions that interpreted the sayings of the prophet. and we are in agreement, therefore, there's no justification over differences of our understanding of the sharia. so once again, libyan society is all religious. they're all muslims. and second of all, we don't have the same kind of polarization. almost all libyans are sunnis. old people want the islamic sharia to be their defense. and upon our first celebration of celebrations after the revolution, people demanded that

sharia be adopted as the main source of legislation. once again, i would like to stress that the intent of the sharia was important. >> i hear a common element. that is what i would say is the supreme self-confidence. in two ways. you're all confidence that you represent the islamic and the cultural values in some ways the conservative values, perhaps, although you didn't make reference of that, of your societies. so you go through the democratic process, and the people will voice support for your program. but writing a constitution is not simply about giving voice to the majority, it's also about protecting the individual. i hear confidence there as well. essentially that if you draw on the islamic tradition, you will find material in there in order to regulate relations between the state and the individuals. so that confidence is natural. if you didn't have it, you

wouldn't be islamists, and we wouldn't have invited you here. but there's a whole host of international human rights treaties and conventions and so on, so my question is, to what extent do you expect to draw on those in the constitution-writing process, and even more specifically, if somebody from another political party, a movement, stood up and said, i want to make those documents that we've ratified in our domestic courts, what would you say in response? i'll start with you, because you look surprised. >> no, i'm not surprised. >> translator: we all agree with the islamic tunisian nature, that's fine. we will never see any difference in the international agreements.

we will not throw back from what was. and another thing that might conflict with other islamic identity, we will not adopt. i don't think this is present. in certain details, maybe. we must live this phase that the other world has lived in as a phase. it's not only tunisia, libya or egypt, this concerns all the world. so therefore, we are here in washington, we're not in tunisia or cairo or in libya. this change has not immediately changed in the democratic system. but somehow it will include improvement and moving to accepting all civilizations on which the human civilization has been built on in general.

so we recognize what islamic culture had presented, this islamic civilization also. all values and all positives, of course, there are negative things, and all these values as provided and recognized. so it's not subject to any disputes. so our question is, that we always believe that human values are not things that will be taken on the margins. but it will represent all the civilizations upon which it will be this force. so in the case of sharia, there was talk that what sources to tell us if it's agreements, or sharia that we decided that

legislation is what gives the people to establish several states that respects the citizen, regardless of the politic political leanings. i've purposely not met with -- there are strong messages that are be iing said, that they wil be respected not only as a minority, but at citizens. the picture, or the image that we are trying to build for the country is one segment of the tunisian society that pushes strongly in that direction. i give you one simple example.

today's minister of interior in tunisia is a person who was sentenced to death twice. but he's still alive. he was sentenced to death twice. he also was associated with the red prison things. so he will be taken to make him feel that he will be executed, and back and forth. he spent 17 years, i don't know how much was in singular confinement. he is a minister now. do you think it will not distract from what agreements that will prohibit the violation

of the human rights and torture. the son of this minister stated on the day he was appointed, as i told you, he's a minister now, and he was tortured under the ministry of the interior. so his son said don't go downstairs, go upwards. because there is torture underground. so expect this minister will attempt to take advantage against those who tortured him. he will not do that. i think from that principle of humanity in sharia, are the islamic religion, that respects

all values that we aspire to in tunisia that will respect all tunisian citizens and all minorities. >> i'm going to be obnoxious in trying to pin you down in a very specific way. what i heard from that is, when we make laws in the parliament, we will draw, you didn't say it this way, from the international human rights documents. it will have to go through parliamentary legislation, did i hear that correctly? >> translator: the constitution that is enacted in the transitional phase right now, the agreements will be passed through this parliament, representing the people, to be approved on. so the people and their representatives are the ones who are proved.

they can choose the options from the sharia and humanitarian values that they feel have something in common to all of the mechanisms that contributed to the humanity, and select the principles that they feel are suitable and consistent. >> have they developed human rights instruments? has the libyan muslim brotherhood developed a position on international human rights instruments? >> translator: that's an early question to pose to the islamic brotherhood. we haven't reached that stage yet. but we have principles that i can refer to. and as my brother said here, it

is the islamic reference, and universal human rights conventions that do not conflict with the islamic sharia, or even with the culture of the libyans. but i would like to point out that there are some things that the westerners say based on their own world view. surely there are some minor differences related to culture and tradition. among nations. for example, yesterday i noticed that there's a difference between the american people and the british people. the americans say hi, how are you when they see you, in britain, this is not the case. they say good morning. but the culture of people is that people are to themselves. in libya, people would even try

to offer help. this is a difference. i mean, this relates to the culture of muslims, and arabs. and there's somehow a difference from western culture. and we should not forget this. we have the sharia, we have the universal human rights conventions, and these conventions are no different from the islamic understanding of human rights. when i took refuge in britain and i was being interrogated, i was asked by an interrogator who didn't believe what i was saying. but perhaps when we are talking to our egyptian people, they will think it's a simple issue. people were being killed by the hundreds and that was accepted. therefore, the difference in cultures affects, no doubt, the details and the items that would

be included in the -- >> i want to say about the muslim brotherhood, it didn't have detailed proposals. my response is usually, you haven't read their documents. they go on for page after page. hundreds of pages sometimes. but among those in the party's recent platform, for which it ran in the parliamentary elections, was, if i recall correctly, a review of the international human rights documents. what is the program when it comes to human rights issues? >> all those are good questions. actually, i think the regime, i don't think they respected any. and i don't think he read these agreements. particularly the human rights ones. it's interesting, that they would be proven wrong.

this distinction is actually this. so there is a signing of an agreement and declaration, and the question of actual implementation of these. and i think this is the sentiment that you talk about, so many good things, and you agree with our universal values and freedoms. would he actually do this. and this is an element where we actually need to find a process where we trust -- start building trust between each other. and actually try to help each other. and this is the world view that we would like to live in after we've moved into democracy. and into respect rule of law. we actually need your help. but part of the differences -- and maybe an agreement with some of the countries is, we actually have an internal individual

mechanism to make sure that these rights are actually respected. and this is part of the difference. this is what islam fits into the individual relationship between the person and his lord. basically, you have an instrument here where you make sure that you're not implementing it not only because you rgs of rule of law because of the value, and respect the agreement, but it is actually part of your belief and understanding. you have to do it at an individual level. they exercise an oppressive practice that broke out and changed this conscience. you will find lots of practices, and incidents across the region in violation of human rights, women's rights. also, because the oppression

breeds these kinds of practices. and it's not the religion. the religion breeds love and protection of one another, believes in action and cooperation among one another. i lived in canada for a few years. and the level of interfering dialogue and getting to know the conservative communities is the most please act experience one has had. we have lots of common ground, especially with these organizations and these communities, et cetera, that are not of common grounds between us. and actually, we want to use the treaties and the agreement to ensure the commitment on the political level. we want civic society, and we want to empower civic society as a means of checks and balances to make sure that we don't go beyond these committees. and we want our religion, our islam to play also this role in

making sure that we protect rights and don't -- we want to be equal citizens and exercise and live in a respectable, dignified life. >> again, a follow-up question, are there any of those agreements that the old regime signed, even if it signed insincerely and dishonestly that you want to remove egypt's signature from? >> following the first part of it is, you know, all people, particularly in this transition phase, have the right to review all agreements. all agreements were written in a context that was not krct democ or representative. it is the inherent for the people, all agreements are this. we made the commitment as a party, that we are going to

honor and are committed to the previous -- old previous written agreement. and there is no disagreement between -- there is a right there. but our position as a political party, that egypt's instability, our position that we want to be part of the international community. our position of the party is, we actually want to be a model to implementation of this one. and we want to be the one that respects our identity and respects our tradition. but also is a member of the global community. >> okay. let's now turn it for open questions. we have about 15 minutes left for questions and it looks like we probably have about three hours worth of questions. so i'm actually going to go to the back of the room because i don't want those people to be discriminated against. they're hard to see from up here, so i don't want them to be forgotten. >> i'll just ask one question. >> can you identify yourself, please? >> i'm a student and researcher

from egypt. i was actually here by coincidence and i heard about this, so i came to attend. i'm a member of the party. but i'm planning to revoke my membership once i go back after the latest presidential nomination. my question is simply regarding this whole dilemma about implementing sharia law back in egypt. my question to you, sir, is why all of this about the simple issue, it's actually a yes-or-no answer, because implementing sharia has also some sort of commitment from your side as a party to deliver economic disparity, and sustainable modes of living. to be able to implement the corporate punishments. so let me put this one in arabic.

[ speaking arabic ] [ speaking arabic ] >> translator: why isn't there a response as a party. and to the people and the country. >> right back there. >> my name is ann. i'm also a student here in washington, international relations.

and i have a question for the representative of tunisia. you said you would go along with human rights treaties as long as they confirm with the islamic identity of tunisia. i think you gave examples of for tur, for example, you think both of those say kind of the same thing. and i think you said it was the parliament that decides. but from your point of view, could you give me examples of human rights treaties or specific law that don't go along with an arabic-islamic identity? >> let's go up here. go ahead. from here. yeah. >> i'm with nbc television. my question is for osama al-saghir. you talked about women being represented in parliament, but there is genuine fear that tunisia, which has the most progressive record in the entire arab world when it comes to family law and women, that this law could be reversed. can you assure us this is not

going to be the case? and just a general for all of the panel. it's often said that islamic understands elections from the democratic process. and once they get to power, they refuse to leave. is this a valid criticism? thank you. >> i said three questions. we're going to get one more because the person who worked hardest was marina ottoway and she put me up here. so i owe her. >> thank you very much. we have all of these questions so far. on the constitution of the values. of course, the constitution is also set up of how to go about how it's going to be. but what i want to ask of each of you is, what is going to be the most hotly debated institutional issue in the writing of the constitution? is it whether it is a