Giving statements requires being logical and fluent, and everything that lacks reason and does not reveal a truth is not a statement, even in signed by a hundred "intellectuals"!!, whether headed or not headed by Said Al-Naggar [Al-Naggar means the carpenter], the blacksmith, or even Said the car-repairman... When this statement is about an incident as big as the one of Al-Kosheh, and is published in the first pages of two newspapers of which one is of an old political party (Al-Wafd) [Editor: Al-Wafd did not publish the statement signed by the one hundred intellectuals], and the other is a Ta’ifiyya [word play with fitna ta’ifiyya, religious strife. This is in reference to Watani, the Coptic weekly in Egypt] newspaper playing destructive games, this gathering of poles apart needs to stop.
The first thing to seize one’s attention in this statement/hoax is its abuse of the word intellectual, since it is issued and signed by a group of people many of which have no importance in our intellectual reality. There is a need to add a detailed résumé of each so the statement can make the required reaction when read. If this is not possible, most of their personal identification numbers should have been typed as well, to prevent cheating as in political elections. Despite the fact that those who adopted the statement/hoax tried to collect signatures that represent the Egyptian national powers, the list did not contain any names from the Islamist movement with all its different groups. This happened even though Islam (God forbid!) became the reason behind the strife, as some of the people who signed on this statement/hoax regard things.
The Islamist groups were not the only parties ignored, there were also parties from the nationalist movement who have a positive attitude towards the religion and civilization of Islam. However, the major scandal was ignoring a number of Coptic figures who have an evident role nationally for the same reason. Although the statement/hoax claims that it is trying to establish a counter-ideology for the one of exclusion, which of course is the most dangerous cause for strife, all the figures calling for reconciliation between the nation and its heritage were excluded [from the list of signatories].
Studying the names leads to a feeling that the circle in which this destructive secret organization is moving is to some extent small. It is a necessity to admit that there are names to raise question marks among those hundred. For example:
Dr. Mahmoud Abdel-Fadeel, a leftist economist-thinker with no doubt as concerning his patriotism. It is strange for his name to appear - for the first time - linked to this political attitude.
Dr. Younan Rizq, a respectable historian whose writing reflects a respectable nationalist attitude. He was never religiously-biased in his intellectual or political contributions, which are generally rare [the author means Dr. Rizq’s political activities]. We hope that his signing this statement is an exceptional case, not a change in his attitude, especially with the previous cases of this transformation from nationalism to Coptic Ta’ifiyya [it is the same word play as with the ’ta’ifiya paper’ above. It could mean religious bigotry of Copts] within the Coptic group [Editor: the author probably means those who stress their Coptic identity. It is also a wordplay. There is the Gama’at al-Islamiya. Here the paper speaks about the Gama’at al-Qibtiya, in other words suggesting these are extremist as also the Gama’at al-Islamiya are extremists].
Journalist Yehia Qallash, a Nasserist figure with political and syndicate activities that are worth praising. Further he belongs to a generation from the Naserist movement that reintroduced the collision that Abdel-Nasser’s era had with the biggest Islamist group [the Muslim Brotherhood] as a political conflict whose parties bear their responsibility before history, not as a negative attitude of Islam. If we add [rather compare] that to the statement - to which we will come later -, [one will find] his adoption of the statement a big question mark that needs an answer from him.
As for Sayyed Al-Qimni, his signature on this statement is a big surprise - a bad one of course. What is his interest that the followers of these religions to have a good or bad relationship, considering his known attitudes to religious issues.[Editor: the surprise is probably because Sayyed Al-Qimni is a secular thinker]
About the Statement:
The statement was published on the first page of Watani newspaper, and was preceded with a foreword from which is this quotation: "... the agreement that these incidents which resemble a strange phenomenon to the Egyptian people is an internal affair. It’s solution is the responsibility of the people of this country". This is nice but: Firstly, it is not the attitude of Watani. Secondly and more importantly: This sentence cannot come in the statement. Its content does not fit in the statement. This is a dangerous situation because whoever wrote the statement said nothing about giving the problem [of Al-Kosheh] an external dimension. In addition, some of the people who signed the statement declared that they were sorry that the European Union did not issue sanctions against Egypt because of the incident of Al-Kosheh. Moving from the foreword to the statement, we note the following:
[Firstly,] according to the statement, the incidents of Al-Kosheh was the result of many reasons "that cannot be new. The town of Al-Kosheh is similar to 50 other towns that witnessed similar incidents between 1971 and 2000. We are talking about a phenomenon growing throughout the last three decades."
Okay, this is correct but it is not the whole truth. The most important change during the period defined by the statement is the cultural and economical transformation led by Sadat towards the Arabic culture and the market economy [The translator has reservations against "the transformation led by Sadat towards the Arabic culture. It may be true that Egyptian citizen started having more relations with (other) Arab countries, for example working there. However, Sadat did not lead this move]. Is there any causal relation between the two phenomena? On the level of the Coptic group [Gama’at al-Qibtiya], this is the period of Pope Shenouda’s [tenure of office]. Does his tenure as Pope have a role in the beginning of the phenomenon? The statement defines the starting year of Fitna Ta’ifiyya [civil disorder between followers of different religions] incidents. It mentions that 1972 [the year] of the famous incident of Al-Khanka witnessed also ten other similar incidents in Egypt. Did such incidents happen like this without order in different places in a single year?
Secondly, The locations of these incidents, listed by the statement, all share a relatively high Coptic density, a fact that drives the honest researcher to investigate the effect of this factor in producing or developing the phenomenon. The pre-made replies and statements are not a sincere description. They are an attempt to establish a certain picture in minds, a non-ethical brainwash not to cold-bloodedly get involved in by any "intellectuals"!!
Thirdly, stressing the incident of Al-Khanka has its reasons. However, speaking only about the parliamentary report prepared by the committee headed by Dr. Gamal Al-Oteifi is not explained. It offers one side of the truth and counts solely on it. There are other statements among which is the novel of [Mohammed Hassanein] Heikal "Fi Kharif Al-Ghadab" ["In the autumn of fury"] about the roots and details of the incidents, and he was then close to the decision-making circles [President Sadat]. There are other narrations from the church. Of these the most important one reveals the role of Pope Shenouda in this disaster. In his book "Al-Haqa’iqa Al-Khafiyya fi Al-Kanisa Al-Qibtiyya" ["The hidden facts of the Coptic Church"], on page 27, Qummus [Archpriest] Andraus Aziz writes: "We have lived together, Muslims and Christians, on the land of this country for thousands of years. Together in good and evil, one hand. If there were disagreements between brothers, they are also solved between them, without strangers knowing anything about it. Despite all that, something unprecedentedly strange throughout the history of the church happened in the incident of Al-Khanka. The head of the church ordered the priests saying: "How many are you?! One hundred and sixty. I want you to return sixteen. The rest of you lay on the ground and be martyrs..." One of the priests asked him: "Why do not you come with us and lay on the ground and be our first martyr?"" The quotation requires no further comment, especially since the incidents of Al-Khanka were triggered by Pope Shenouda’s attempt to build a church without permission from the state.
The language of the statement/hoax seems neutral and objective. However, the truth is completely opposite to that. It says: "Incidents generally do not exceed what happened in Al-Kosheh, disagreements among villagers that are quickly transformed into a fight then to collective violence that drags in thousands of Muslim and Coptic peasants." In another context in the same statement: "There is no doubt that a number of these incidents throughout the previous three decades were intended and deliberated by terrorist elements... There is no doubt that a number of these elements were also blackmailing our brother Copts and forcing them to pay tributes in order to protect [rather save] their lives and property." The contradiction between the two quotes is evident. In addition to the contradiction, there is over-simplification similar to the simplification with which France handled its occupation of Algeria, claiming that the occupation was the response to its representative being hit by Algeria’s governors. It is also similar to the case of the Macari and Maltesians [from the island of Malta] who fought in Alexandria; then Britain issued its warning, and then conquered [and occupied] the country [of Egypt] and occupied it for more than seven decades.
And despite the fact that the violence of the Islamist groups is a rejected phenomenon, it is fair to admit that they did not take the Copts as their targets. They made the police and the foreign tourists their targets. The wrongness of this behavior is not enough reason to count it [the behavior] responsible for the irritations in the relationship between the Muslims and the Copts.
To say that what happened in Al-Kosheh "is not an external arrangement nor was it by secret hands" is to judge a case that is still in the hands of investigations without an [official] attribution of blame issued. The investigation may - or may not - reveal the existence of a foreign role and an external hand in the incidents. In addition, saying that some Islamist groups take some responsibility in the Fitna Ta’ifiyya [disorder between followers of different religions] deserved saying the same thing about extremist Copts. The experience of history teaches us that a certain group’s monopoly of the description "victim" pushes it out of its human context. In the end, they [members of the group] are humans and have extremists and moderates, patriots and sectarians. The problem does not only fit as intellectual welfare. It has dangerous practical consequences. The attempt of some of the trends to picture the Copts as victims is the other side of the "chosen people of God" concept which caused the Jewish groups severe losses throughout history. They take the responsibility of many of these losses. It is the most dangerous entrance to the "Ghetto" culture. The least sympathy with the Copts, and the caution about having healthy relationships with them requires people involved to fight the "Ghetto" culture which has started to invade the political and intellectual sectarian speeches covered with false secular embellishments.
The "Discrimination Against Copts" Myth:
The most dangerous judgment to come in this statement/hoax is saying that the incident of Al-Kosheh is "a result of activities and policies that any fair observer would classify as discrimination against Copts [...]". This claimed discrimination is a psychological disease the liberal and Marxist trends need someone to cure them of. This Arab Islamic nation has nothing in its history to be ashamed of. The concept of discrimination against minorities is a black spot in Western history, and is felt only by those who live with their bodies among us while their minds are hidden in Western racist history. Therefore, issuing such judgments emphasizes the fact that they are in a state of alienation, and instead of trying to deal with it, they try to drag us all, Muslims and Copts to the prison of the West, on the level of concepts and historical experience.
We will satisfy ourselves here with indications of how much this judgment that appeared in the statement is wrong. For example:
Until 1992, there were 1442 churches in Egypt, while the ones registered with the state are [only] 500. The difference between these two numbers reflects the fact that the Hamayouni Law [regulating the building of churches] does not exist anymore, and that the building of churches does not show in [the lists of] official churches.
Among the 500 churches registered with the state, there are 286 Coptic Orthodox churches, accounting for 55 percent [of all the registered churches]. The rest - 45 percent - belongs to the Catholic Copts, Latin, Maronites and the Evangelical churches.
The percentage of "only" Orthodox Coptic NGOs is 40% of all the NGOs of Egypt.
The Christians in Egypt have a church for every 1352 citizens and the Muslims have a mosque for every 1227 citizens.
Do these numbers reflect discrimination activities and policies against the Copts?
And why was the economical dimension of Copts within the society ignored while they have:
22.5% of the companies founded between 1974 and 1995.
20% of contractors’ companies in Egypt.
50% of consultancy offices.
60% of pharmacies.
45% of private [medical] practices.
35% of the membership of the American and German chambers of commerce.
25% of the elite jobs "doctors, pharmacists, engineers, lawyers, and vets".
20% of the investors of the [industrial] cities of Sadat and Tenth of Ramadan?!
A Dialogue or a Balance Statement?
And because dialogue is better than falling into the logic of giving balance statements, we will offer "one" explanation that is different of the one the statement/hoax adopted. The Copts as a minority in the Arab world [Translator’s note: The word Copt came from the same root as the word Egypt came from in the "Coptic" language. Coptic simply means Egyptian. There are no Copts in the "Arab" world other than in Egypt] are considered by Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim as a gray case, and cannot be calculated using black and white. They have high expectations, ambitions and even achievements. They are undoubtly better financially, better educated. Despite all that, they reject their situation and are the least worried. Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim explains this phenomenon with what sociologists call "The inconsistency of position" which means that the indications of position are many: income, education and authority. In the normal cases, these indications are consistent with each other. They go up and down together. When some of these indications are higher than others, it results in pressures on the members of this ethnic group. If the Copts have a higher income and a better education, there must be a similar political authority, which does not happen. This is the cause of feeling persecuted.
A Psychological Attitude:
The measurement standard then is the wealth of the Copts and their social status. Therefore, they should have 45% of the countries official position to go with their 45% of the wealth of the country which they have. This talk of "feeling persecuted" is a psychological attitude while the statement talks about "an evident discrimination that cannot be missed by a fair observer." Whoever wrote the statement forgot that the small share of official positions is not the only measurement for fairness. If we measure the woman’s status, we would find that women being [employed] in the office place does not necessarily mean development in the woman’s status. Benazir Bhutto took the prime minister’s office in Pakistan, and left the office and nothing happened to the situation of the Pakistan woman. What matters is the political and legal structure, not the names of the people in office. The small share of [the Coptic] parliamentary and political parties representation is because the elections are faked to suit the governing elite, whether it is Muslim or Coptic. It is also because the Copts are more attracted to economical activities than political ones.
Even if we accepted the fact that the share the Copts get of the official positions is not a fair share, is the state to be blamed for that, or the church - which for three decades tried to be a political institution expressing the Copts [interests] and trying to convince them that their political loyalty should be to the church, not the country?!
The Recommendations:
The recommendations attached to the statement are nine. They begin with emphasizing the necessity of applying the recommendations of the investigation committee of 1972 that was headed by Al-Oteifi. Among the thousands of poisoned publications about Fitna Ta’ifiyya [communal violence], not one of them published half of the recommendations [of Al-Oteifi’s committee], [bearing in mind that] among them [the hundred signing the statement] is an active publisher and people running human rights’ and other organizations that receive millions from outside the country. Are they asking the nation to undertake recommendations that are not known to it? Or is there another reason behind that?! In addition, this report was published in 1972, meaning it is about thirty years old, and it was followed by other official documents, which are therefore more suitable for the recent development in the incidents’ status, whether inside or outside. Why Al-Oteifi’s report especially?
The second recommendation urges the enforcement of real equality among all citizens. The third recommendation urges giving leadership positions only to those who are competent. We have not seen throughout the discussion - despite the amount that has been written in it - a description and an analysis demanding the change of certain articles in the law in order to achieve this equality, unless the recommendation means abolishing the second article of the constitution, or abolishing the text that Islamic Sharia [law] is the main source of legislation. This would make it an edited version of Farag Foda’s demands to abolish the Azhar because it is a form of theocracy. This is not a call for reformation but a rude one for the nation to disregard its civilization and religion, it is one of the hardest examples of the despotism of the minority. If the problem was not a problem of legal texts (and it is not a legal problem because the choice of leadership positions is the right of the decision-maker if the candidates hold the same qualifications. This right should not be used to start feelings of animosity against other sects. If the choice was not between equal candidates, the law delegates the authority and controls it), why do you not suggest defined regulations to evaluate and discuss, instead of cheaply and intentionally stirring [the minority]?
The fourth recommendation urges an increased punishment of every action against any religious sect, or any action that includes hatred of other’s set of beliefs. We say "Aflah in sadaq" [a traditional Arabic saying. The literal translation is: It would be right only if it is true. It means that the issue concerned is true but is being misused]. Among the people who are signatories to the statement are those who are keen to disregard Islam, and Sayyed Al-Qimni is on the head of the list. There are also people who are in favor of similar writings that were judged as being unquestionably apostasy from the religion [of Islam]. The examples of Farag Foda and Nasr Hamed Abu-Zeid assure us that the standard of measurement is not the same, and that the real goal is opening the door to more control over the Islamist culture that already suffers a tight "official" grip. Let people judge themselves before urging others to stop stirring the people. In the writings of many of the statement’s signatories [one can find] evident incitement against Islam and the Islamist movement. The standard should be the same.
The danger of incitement and disregarding religions comes from within the Coptic Orthodox Church. For example, when one of the signatories demanded the abolishment of the second article of the constitution. Another example is seen in the sixth chapter of the third volume of the book "Articles about the Bible", by Bishop Anba Gregorios, the bishop of scientific research, published by the Scientific Research and Coptic Higher Studies Bishopric. The book contained more than twenty letters he sent to Islamic thinkers and academics that were full of aggression and evident disregard of Islam. Among the letters is one sent to Sheikh Al-Sha’arawi inviting him to join Christianity. [Editor: this is highly unlikely]
The question: Do the "intellectuals"!! have enough courage to come back and punish Bishop Gregorios, a head bishop, with the punishment they call for?
Beyond the Statement:
More dangerous than that is the deliberate changing of the facts of reality. The coalition the Egyptian Orthodox Church made with some of extreme secularists dragged it to a coalition with the normalizes [people calling for normalization with Israel] and thus disagreeing with their stated position, and I am afraid to say revealing its true position as regards the Arab-Zionist war. Anba [Editor: Here the word "Anba" is an honorific title] [Pope] Shenouda is in a tough war to abolish any cultural power the Christian secular figures may have within the Coptic group. How can that [stance] go with the coalition? The secular movement is not concerned only with abolishing the cultural, social, and political roles of Islam. It takes [the abolishment of] Islam and Christianity themselves as its final goal. One can deduce from the course of actions that the Pope is making a bet that the good bond between the Copts and the church will keep them away from these currents. This bet is the beginning of the Coptic group’s entering the "ghetto" tunnel. In addition to this, there is the negative effect on the Coptic group.
Every straight course of thinking reaches the conclusion that all believers - no matter what their religion - are much closer to each other than to extreme secularists who do not revere God, and look from above on believers, whether Muslims or Christians, and want them displaced from their cultural and civilization position that is built around religion. They want them displaced to a non-religious cultural position. The ultimate result of that is the Zionization of the nation and giving it to its enemies.
Coda:
You tough intellectuals. Talk about the problem openly. Ignoring reality is not a way to turn it into something better.
