On the State of Egypt (19 page)

First, Egyptian history shows that sectarian strife spreads during times of national frustration. At the beginning of the twentieth century Egyptians went through a phase of despair because of the British occupation and this soon turned into a shameful bout of sectarian conflict (British fingers meddled, as usual), which reached its peak between 1908 and 1911. But as soon as the 1919 uprising happened, everyone united behind it. In fact some Copts, such as Father Sergius, had been advocates of conflict but at the time of the uprising became the fiercest defenders of national unity. There is plenty of frustration, repression, poverty, and injustice in Egypt now, and all these factors push Egyptians toward sectarian hostility, just as they push Egyptians toward violence, crime, and sexual harassment.

Second, in 1923, when Copts rejected sectarian privileges, despite the British occupation Egypt was fighting to set up a democratic secular state in which all citizens would be equal before the law. There was a tolerant Egyptian reading of Islam, the foundations of which were laid by the reformist imam, Mohamed Abduh (1849–1905), who was able to liberate the minds of Egyptians from superstition and extremism. Egypt witnessed a true renaissance in all spheres of activity, such as education for women, theater, cinema, and literature. But since the end of the 1970s, Egypt has come to know another understanding of Islam: the extreme Salafist Wahhabi ideology that Egyptian jurists have termed “the law of the Bedouin.” Several factors contributed to the spread of the Wahhabi ideology, primarily the rise in oil prices after the 1973 war, which gave Salafist organizations unprecedented financial resources that they used to propagate their ideas in Egypt and the rest of the world. Then millions of Egyptians went to work in the Gulf states and came back years later steeped in Wahhabi ideas. This ideology also spread under the proven sponsorship of Egyptian state security agencies, which always treated Salafist sheikhs with great tolerance—the opposite of the severe repression to which they subject the Muslim Brotherhood. The reason for this is that Salafist Wahhabism helps to underpin despotic government, as it urges Muslims to obey the ruler and forbids rebellion against him as long as he remains Muslim. The problem is that Wahhabi ideas convey a vision that is hostile to civilization in the true sense of the word, because if they prevailed, art would be
haram
, along with music, singing, cinema, theater, and literature, too. The Wahhabi ideology imposes on women seclusion behind the face-veil or the Turkish burka, which Egyptian women threw off a hundred years ago. It states clearly that democracy is
haram
because it means government by the people while the Wahhabis want to apply God’s law (in the way they want, of course).

The gravest aspect of the Salafist Wahhabi ideology is that it completely undermines the concept of citizenship. In Wahhabis’ eyes, Copts are not citizens but
dhimmis
(protected non-Muslims), a defeated and subordinate minority in a country conquered by Muslims. They are also seen as infidels and polytheists prone to hating Islam and conspiring against it. It is forbidden to celebrate their religious holidays or help them build churches because these are not places of worship but places where polytheism is practiced. In the view of the Wahhabis, Christians cannot hold office or lead armies, which implies that they have no loyalty to the nation. Anyone who follows the portrayal of Copts on dozens of satellite channels and Salafist websites is bound to be saddened. These forums, followed by millions of Egyptians daily, openly declare their hatred of Copts and contempt for them. Often they call on Muslims to boycott them. There are countless examples, but I will cite here what I read on the well-known Salafist website, “Guardians of the Faith,” which devoted a whole article to the subject, “Why Muslims Are Superior to Copts.” “Being a Muslim girl whose role models are the wives of the Prophet, who were required to wear the
hijab
, is better than being a Christian girl, whose role models are whores,” it says. “Being a Muslim who fights to defend his honor and his faith is better than being a Christian who steals, rapes, and kills children,” it adds. “Being a Muslim whose role models are Muhammad and his companions is better than being a Christian whose role models are Paul the Liar and the whoremongering prophets.” As this enmity toward Copts spreads, is it not natural, even inevitable, that it should end in attacks on them?

Third, the virus of extremism has spread from Muslims to Copts, generations of whom have grown up in isolation from society, and some Copts are implicated in the same discourse of extremism and hatred. The best-known is Father Zakaria Boutros, who is dedicated to contesting Islam and insulting Muslims (I have no doubt the Church could silence him immediately if it wanted to). The Church has undertaken to protect the Copts but it has made them more isolated and has changed from being a spiritual authority into being a political party that negotiates in the name of the Coptic people (think about the significance of that expression). Out of fear at the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood the Church has announced, though its senior officials, that it fully accepts the idea of President Mubarak passing on the presidency to his son, Gamal. This attitude, besides being incompatible with the great patriotic record of the Church, does the greatest damage to the Copts because it gives the impression that they are working for the Egyptian regime against the rest of the Egyptians. Similarly, some diaspora Copts have apparently learned none of the lessons of history and have decided to throw all their weight behind foreign powers that have never wanted good for Egypt and that have always raised the slogan of protecting minorities as a pretext for their colonial ambitions. Diaspora Copts have demands, most of which are just, but unfortunately they are completely sectarian, in the sense that they want to solve Copts’ problems in isolation from the problems of the nation. Diaspora Copts today are doing the opposite of what their illustrious ancestors did when they rejected proportional representation in 1923. They are not demanding justice and freedom for all Egyptians but insist on obtaining sectarian privileges for themselves alone, as though they were telling the Egyptian regime: “Give us Copts the privileges we demand, then do what you want with other Egyptians. That’s none of our business.”

There’s only one way to see the horrific massacre at Nag’ Hammadi: Egyptian citizens were killed on a religious holiday as they were coming out from prayers. The innocents who were killed as they exchanged holiday greetings were Egyptians like me and you. They lived with us, fought alongside us, and defended the country with their blood. They were Egyptians who speak, think, and dream, just like us. They are us, and those who killed them are not those who pulled the triggers. What killed them was a corrupt and despotic regime that subjugates Egyptians, plunders their wealth, and drives them to despair, extremism, and violence.

Democracy is the solution.

January 11, 2010

Can President Obama Save the Copts?

T
he United States Commission on International Religious Freedom is visiting Egypt this week. The commission consists of nine members, all of them prominent figures in the defense of freedoms. The U.S. president chooses three members, congressional leaders from the ruling party choose two members, and leaders from the other party choose the remaining four. The mandate of this commission is to monitor freedom of religion, thought, and belief, as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It does not impose sanctions on countries that violate public freedoms but it does issue recommendations that are supposed to be taken into account in formulating U.S. foreign policy. According to newspaper reports, the commission’s visit to Cairo had already been organized but it takes on special importance now, in the aftermath of the horrendous Nag’ Hammadi massacre in which six innocent Copts and a Muslim policeman were killed at random as they were coming out of church on Christmas Eve. In fact the commission’s visit at this time raises more than one issue.

First, any investigation or inquiry by a government commission from another country is a flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the country where the inquiry takes place. Egypt, at least officially, is not a U.S. state or possession, so the commission cannot grant itself the authority to investigate in Egypt. We wonder what would happen if the Egyptian parliament set up a commission to investigate the war crimes U.S. troops commit in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo. Would the U.S. administration agree to receive the Egyptian commission and allow it to carry out its inquiry? Unfortunately the answer is obvious. The sad thing is that the Egyptian government plays the national sovereignty card selectively and tendentiously. When Egyptians call for independent international election observers so that elections are not rigged in the usual manner, the Egyptian government forcefully rejects the idea on the grounds of national sovereignty. When the Egyptian government joins Israel in besieging one and half million people in Gaza and the people under siege try to cross into Egypt to save their lives by buying basic needs, the Egyptian government blocks them and orders troops to open fire on them, again on the grounds of national sovereignty. Then Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit shouts out, “If a Palestinian crosses the border, I’ll break his leg.” But in the case of the U.S. freedoms commissioners, who are now touring Egypt freely from north to south and making inquiries into Egyptian affairs, neither Aboul Gheit nor anyone else can say a single word objecting to their presence.

Second, the purported objectives of this commission are fine and noble but, as always happens with U.S. foreign policy, there is a vast gap between the mission statement and its implementation. The president of the commission, Felice Gaer, is one of the biggest and most prominent supporters of Israel in the United States and has a long history of defending Zionism, to the extent that she has accused international organizations, including the United Nations, of pursuing unjust and biased policies against Israel. I really cannot understand how Ms. Gaer can reconcile her defense of human rights with her defense of Israeli policies. What does she think of burning children with phosphorus, cluster, and napalm bombs? Israel has committed such crimes continuously, starting with the Bahr al-Baqar massacre in Egypt, the Qana massacre, and to the recent massacre in Gaza. Does Ms. Gaer think that burning the skin of Arab children with internationally prohibited weapons is compatible with the principles of the human rights she defends in her commission?

Third, if the commission is interested in the persecution of Copts in Egypt, we ask whether the commissioners are interested in Copts in defense of human rights or because Copts are Christians. If it is in defense of human rights, then we would remind you that tens of thousands of young Islamists in Egypt have been living for years in the dark depths of detention camps without trial or charge, and many of them have received several court rulings in favor of their release, which the Egyptian government has not carried out and never will. Why doesn’t the commission defend the right of these detainees to justice and freedom? Do they not have the same human rights as the Copts? And what does the commission think of the crimes—rape, killing of civilians, and torture—attributed to U.S. soldiers in Iraq? Has it had time to investigate these crimes? I advise the freedoms commission to travel immediately from Cairo to Nigeria, where reports say sectarian massacres have led to the deaths of dozens of innocent people, mainly Muslims. Here I will cite a report by a respected impartial international organization, Human Rights Watch, which says:

Groups of armed men attacked the largely Muslim population of Kuru Karama around 10 a.m. on January 19, 2010. After surrounding the town, they hunted down and attacked Muslim residents, some of whom had sought refuge in homes and a local mosque, killing many as they tried to flee and burning many others alive.

What does the distinguished commission think of this massacre? Is it compatible with human rights?

Fourth, can one take a fragmentary approach to defending human rights? Can one defend only the rights of Christians in a country governed by a despotic regime through an emergency law, rigging elections, repression, and detention camps? The answer is obvious. Human rights are never divisible, but U.S. foreign policy as usual is contradictory and hypocritical. The U.S. administration, in order to protect its interests and the interests of Israel, provides complete backing to the worst despotic rulers in the Arab world and turns a blind eye to the crimes they commit against their own people, but at the same time it sends commissions to investigate the persecution of Copts.

Fifth, what happened on Christmas Eve in Nag’ Hammadi was a horrendous sectarian massacre that shook all of Egypt, and Copts have a right to be angry and to demand everything that would prevent its repetition. But they have to remember two things. First, the Egyptian regime that has failed to protect Copts is the same regime the Coptic Church supports with all its strength, to the extent that Pope Shenouda and senior church leaders have clearly announced more than once that they would welcome President Mubarak passing on the presidency of Egypt to his son, Gamal (as though Egypt were a poultry farm). Second, it is natural and legitimate that Copts inside Egypt and abroad should protest against the massacre, but to call in western countries and ask them to intervene is unacceptable conduct that could push Coptic anger beyond its legitimate limits. I do not believe that the conscience of any Egyptian patriot, whether Muslim or Christian, would allow him or her to invite foreign powers to intervene in Egypt, however grave the injustices Egyptians suffer and however much they oppose the regime in power. Egyptians are all persecuted. Millions of poor people in Egypt are deprived of freedom, justice, dignity, and the rights to work, housing, and healthcare. It is true that the Copts suffer a double injustice, once as Egyptians and again as Copts, but the legitimate demands of Copts cannot be met separately from the demands of the nation. We cannot demand justice for Copts alone, excluding other Egyptians. Those Copts who seek protection through foreign powers are committing a serious mistake that will tarnish the image of all Copts and suggest that they are agents of foreign powers. However much some Copts seek the help of President Obama or other western leaders, they will never obtain their rights through foreign intervention, because what governs western policy is interests rather than principles, and the history of western states is replete with examples of total political iniquity. One might recall the shah of Iran, who lived his whole life as a servant to the interests of the United States, yet the U.S. abandoned him in one day and left him alone to face his destiny in the deluge of the Iranian revolution.