On the State of Egypt (14 page)

Second, many of the new preachers rely on exciting the religious feelings of the audience during the program. This climaxes when the preacher starts weeping and makes the audience weep in fear of God. Another contradiction is striking here. Everyone who has appeared on television knows that dealing with the various cameras during the recording session requires preparation and expertise. With full respect, I wonder how the preacher manages to handle simultaneously the strong religious emotions that make him weep and the need to pay attention to the cameras and their movements, which requires him to turn rapidly from one camera to another, based on the instructions of the producer.

Third, the discourse these preachers offer deals only with formalities and rituals: the
hijab
, prayer, fasting, the
hajj
, and the
umra
. Of course I have no objection to that, but they never speak about freedom, justice, or equality—the humane principles Islam was originally revealed to put into practice. The idea they convey to the world is that moral virtues are the only remedy for human suffering, whereas in fact promoting moral virtues is in no way sufficient to bring about justice. The millions of Egyptians who are mired in despair and degradation are first and foremost the victims of a corrupt and oppressive authoritarian system. That is the cause of their misery, and their suffering cannot be ended without a change in their conditions. One of these preachers has coined a well-known saying: “When as many people pray the dawn prayer as go to Friday prayers then Jerusalem will be liberated.” Yet we see the number of people praying in Egypt constantly increasing while they ceaselessly suffer defeat and disaster after defeat and disaster, because God will not change the state we are in unless we work to change it. Prayers alone are not enough.

Fourth, this reading of religion, which absolves the regime in power from its responsibility and makes people live with injustice instead of rising up against it, is exactly what explains why the security agencies favor the new preachers. In his important book,
Zahirat al-du’at al-judud
(The Phenomenon of the New Proselytizers), Professor Wael Lotfi has shown that all of them, without a single exception, operate in full cooperation with the security agencies, in the sense that they agree in advance with security officials on what can be said and what cannot be said, whether on television or in the mosques. All of us remember how these preachers all opposed the demonstrations organized in Egypt in solidarity with the Palestinians and the Iraqis. They called on people, instead of demonstrating, to pray and fast. That’s what their agreement with the security agencies required, and the preacher would pay a high price for any violation of the agreement, ranging from a ban on preaching to expulsion from Egypt, as recently happened to one of them.

Fifth, Muslim jurists disagree on whether it is legitimate to take fees for issuing
fatwas
. Some consider it legitimate as long as the fee comes through the government while others allow it as long as the jurist receives only as much as he and his family need. The famous medieval jurist, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, insisted that anyone who issues
fatwa
s should be rich enough not to need payment. The idea here is that the man of religion is like a judge who adjudicates in disputes and so he should have the same independence as a judge, but many Egyptians, including me, hold it against the ulema of al-Azhar that they are civil servants appointed by the state, which compromises their neutrality and can place them in a predicament if they issue a ruling that contradicts the wishes of the state. We have to extrapolate in the case of the new preachers, who receive their ample income from satellite television channels owned by people or institutions, mostly Saudi—a fact that could definitely affect their neutrality in matters related to the interests of the owners. This was blatantly obvious during the last Israeli war on Lebanon, when most Arabs and Muslims supported Hezbollah and took pride in its triumph, while the position of the traditional Saudi government was against Hezbollah and Iran. This put the new preachers in a difficult position. While Israeli war planes were using bombs that are internationally banned and that burned the skin of Lebanese children, most of the new preachers held their tongues. One of them waited a full three weeks before issuing a bland statement in which, as usual, he called on Muslims to pray. He then described the victims in Lebanon as “the dead,” rather than as “martyrs,” in line with the Saudi attitude toward Shi’ites.

The phenomenon of new preachers in this form plays a fundamental role in holding back the change we look forward to seeing in Egypt. When we ask why Egyptians do not rise up against injustices that would suffice to bring about revolution in some countries, we have to understand that the existence of injustice, or even awareness of injustice, is not enough to bring about revolution. What brings about revolution is awareness of the causes of injustice, so everything that prevents people from being aware of their rights becomes an instrument in the hand of despotism.

Democracy is the solution.

August 2, 2009

What Will Protect the Copts?

F
or years I worked in the same clinic as a Coptic dentist and we quickly became friends. He was a good man, honest in his work and in his dealings with people, but like many Egyptians he was completely detached from public affairs and was not aware of most political events. As far as he was concerned, the limits of the world were his work and his family. Then the last elections came around and I was surprised to find him away from work. When I asked him why, he said he had gone to vote for President Mubarak. I thought that strange and I asked him, “Why did you vote when you know that these elections have been rigged, as usual?” After a brief pause, he answered with his usual candor, “Actually at church they asked us to vote for the president and they organized buses to take us there and bring us back.” I remembered this story when I was reading the recent remarks by Pope Shenouda, who twice in one week has declared his support for Gamal Mubarak as the next president of Egypt. So it’s now clear that the Egyptian Church endorses the idea that President Mubarak’s son, Gamal, should inherit the presidency of our country from his father—a phenomenon that is unique in the history of Egypt and that merits some debate.

First, Pope Shenouda represents a spiritual rather than a political authority as the spiritual head of the Copts and not their political leader. So, with all due respect, I maintain that he is exceeding his authority when he speaks politically on behalf of the Copts, and if we are campaigning to set up a secular state in Egypt in which citizens have full rights regardless of their religion, that requires separating religion from politics—the complete opposite of what Pope Shenouda has done. He has used his religious status to impose his political position on the Copts, thereby usurping their right to express their political opinions, which may not necessarily match his opinion.

Second, no one elected the current regime in Egypt and Egyptians did not choose it through their own free will. The regime took power through repression, detentions, and rigging elections. Through its failed and corrupt policies it has thrown millions of Egyptians into misery. I have no doubt that Pope Shenouda, like all Egyptians, is aware of these facts. I take this opportunity to ask His Grace: Does it conform with the teachings of Christ that you should take the side of a corrupt and oppressive political system against the wishes of the people and their right to choose their rulers, that you should ignore the sufferings of the millions of victims of this regime, including those killed through negligence or corruption and those who live in inhumane conditions? Does it conform to the teachings of Christ that you should agree to the son inheriting the whole country from his father as though Egyptians were livestock or poultry? His Grace the Pope says that he does not support a hereditary system but that he predicts Gamal Mubarak will win the presidential elections. But we ask the Pope: You are well aware that the elections are all rigged, so why have you concealed this fact in your statements? Is hiding these facts in line with the teachings of Christ?

Third, Pope Shenouda is said to support despotism and the inheritance of power out of concern for the Copts, because he is worried that democracy would probably bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. But the truth is that the regime has deliberately exaggerated the role and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood for use as a bogeyman against anyone who calls for democracy, and the more important truth is that despotism will never protect anyone from religious extremism, because religious extremism is one of the symptoms of despotism. Let us recall that at the peak of its power in 1950 the Brotherhood failed to obtain a single seat in parliament in the last free and fair elections before the revolution. The Wafd Party won by a landslide at the time, gaining a majority of seats as usual. The Brotherhood’s electoral successes in recent years were not the result of their popularity but of people staying away from polling stations. If people turned out to vote, the Muslim Brotherhood would never win, but people will take part in elections only if they feel the voting will be free and fair. Fair elections, contrary to the Pope’s fears, are what will eliminate the danger of religious extremism.

Fourth, Copts in Egypt are persecuted. This is a fact that cannot be denied. But Muslims are also persecuted. All the grievances of which the Copts complain are valid, but if they looked around they would discover that these injustices afflict Muslims equally. Most Egyptians are deprived of justice, equality, equal opportunities, humane treatment, and their human rights, because Egyptians cannot take office unless they support the regime in power. There are two ways to relieve the Copts from oppression: either through them joining, as Egyptians, a national movement that seeks to achieve justice for all Egyptians, or through them dealing with the regime as a minority seeking sectarian privileges. This latter option is mistaken and extremely dangerous. Pope Shenouda’s recent position, unfortunately, sends the regime the message that Copts favor despotism and the inheritance of power in exchange for the regime meeting their demands, as though the Pope were saying to President Mubarak, “Give us Copts the privileges we demand and then do what you like with the remaining Egyptians, because they are of no concern to us.”

Fifth, this regrettable position on the part of Pope Shenouda is incompatible with the history of the Church he represents, for the patriotic history of the Copts is a real source of pride for every Egyptian. On the throne now held by Pope Shenouda there once sat a great man by the name of Pope Cyril V, who supported with all his strength the nationalist movement against British occupation and who had himself taken part in the ‘Urabi Rebellion and the 1919 revolution. When nationalist leader Saad Zaghloul was in exile, all Egyptians boycotted the Milner Commission the British government had sent to contain the demands of the revolution. In order to incite sectarian strife, the British occupation appointed a Copt, Youssef Wahba Pasha, as prime minister in place of Saad Zaghloul. The patriotic Church at the time, after a single meeting, issued a statement dissociating itself from the position of Youssef Wahba and asserting that he represented only himself, whereas the Copts, like all other Egyptians, stood with the revolution and its leader. In fact a Coptic student from a wealthy family, Aryan Youssef Saad, threw a bomb at the motorcade of Prime Minister Youssef Wahba to give voice to the nation’s protest at his betrayal. Al-Shorouk recently published the memoirs of Aryan Youssef and I hope Pope Shenouda finds time to read them so that he can be proud, as we are all proud, of the patriotism of the Copts.

Youssef Wahba Pasha was amazed when he discovered that the man who attacked his motorcade was a Copt like him, and he asked, “Why did you do that, clever guy?” Aryan replied without hesitation, “Because you went against the consensus of the nation, Pasha.” Overnight Aryan Youssef became a national hero throughout Egypt, and when he was arrested and detained for questioning, all the officers and policemen referred to him as a hero. Even the prosecutor general, after questioning Aryan on a charge of throwing a bomb at the prime minister’s motorcade, stood up at his desk, shook Aryan’s hand, and embraced him, saying, “May God protect you, my child. You are a patriot who loves Egypt. This Egyptian spirit we must restore today so that we can accomplish what we wish for Egypt and what Egypt deserves of us.” I hope His Grace Pope Shenouda understands that the aim of protecting Copts cannot be achieved by transforming them into a group separate from other Egyptians, in collusion with the despotic regime that oppresses and abuses people. This way of thinking is completely alien to the patriotic history of the Copts.

So what will protect the Copts? That will come about when they consider themselves Egyptians before Christians, and when they understand that their duty as Egyptians is to join the battle for a just state that treats all citizens equally, regardless of their religion. Justice alone will protect the Copts. They cannot demand justice for themselves to the exclusion of others, and they cannot obtain it alone at the expense of the Muslims. Justice must be achieved for all and justice comes about only through democracy, for democracy is the solution.

August 9, 2009

Egypt Sits on the Substitutes’ Bench

I
n the 1980s I obtained a master’s degree in dentistry from the University of Illinois in the United States. The university required graduate students to study a number of subjects and then prepare theses to obtain their degrees. In exceptional circumstances the university would give outstanding students the opportunity to prepare their theses and do coursework at the same time. In the history of the histology department where I was studying, only two students at different times had been able to finish their master’s in one year, and this achievement was greatly admired by all the Americans. These two students were Egyptian and their supervisor, Dr. Abdel Moneim Zaki, was also Egyptian.