The presidential decree of December 2005 [Editor AWR: For the text of this decree, see AWR 2006, 22, art. 58] provided remarkable procedural facilities to church building. The decree moved the approval of the rebuilding of already existing churches from the president’s hands into those of the governors. It stipulated a 30-day deadline, since the submission of a rebuilding application and the consultation of authorities concerned, for an approval to be issued. No application could be rejected without an official explanation. As for the restoration of churches, approvals were no longer required; it was sufficient to notify the administration.
Although the decree was widely praised, there were worries that it would be emptied of its content by the administration’s arbitrary instructions [Editor AWR: A euphemism for security decisions that can nullify or postpone church repair or building approval for which no explanation is given. We recently saw an example of this. Someone working with Bishop Yu’annis showed us a building permit for a church in one of the satellite cities not far from al-Qatamiya that was followed by a security order to stop working on this. No explanation was provided.], as previous ones had been. So we insisted that only a unified law for building places of worship would ever attain equality among Egyptians—as stipulated by the Constitution —in that respect. Presidential decrees, if implemented properly instead of being trifled with, were indeed helpful in eliminating some hindrances to building churches, but these decrees were in themselves a telling sign of the inequality of Egyptians. Churches alone required such decrees to be built, while mosques were subject to no restrictions whatsoever [Editor AWR: That is not true, restrictions exist but these are much less then those for repairing or building churches].
Our worries materialised as the administration saved no effort to hinder the implementation of the decree. The executive instructions issued by some governors inadequately confused demolishing with rebuilding, restoring, repairing, and the like; the result being that the entire process was again placed under the thumb of the administration. Arbitrary instructions insisting on providing the original building permits of the churches, no matter how old were a further complication. In some cases the permits had been issued by royal decrees—the monarchy was abolished in 1953. Did the administration ever ask for the royal building permit of a mosque? Furthermore, the countless small village and hamlet churches which had been erected without permits, due to years of failure of the congregation to obtain the required permits, were targeted. The fact that the civil and security authorities put these churches under their thumb, and kept a close eye on what went on inside—be it even the reparation of toilets—in an adamant attempt to stop any improvements, implied that the authorities acknowledged the existence of the churches. But when matters came to rebuilding or restoring them, the administration appeared to have been hit with a sudden fit of amnesia as to how the churches were built in the first place. They forgot the humiliation of the congregation in pleading for and pursuing approvals which never came, and disregarded the fact that many churches were built upon verbal approval. The authorities turned a blind eye to unlicensed churches, but later used this fact to hinder restoration.
Amazingly, the presidential decrees were rendered impotent, and no-one defended them. They were reduced to mere publicity tools for the benefit of foreign journalists, human rights groups, and religious freedom activists, who keep on posing questions on the discrimination among Copts and Muslims in building of places of worship. The usual answer is: “The president has issued several decrees to free church-building of all restrictions.”
We must admit that we Egyptians are incapable of bravely facing our ailments. We introduce cosmetic changes and leave the major defects intact. We paint the outside walls of our house and leaving the interior a huge mess. We are not interested in real reform, but execute some hollow changes to propagate a rosy image to the outside world. I wonder if we realise that we may fool some people some time but can never fool all the people all the time.
Finally, I care to stress that my viewpoint did not emerge out of a vacuum, nor have I had a fit of sudden pessimism. I have received several complaints—all documented and authenticated—from Sohag, Assiut, Alexandria, Beni-Suef and other governorates. I intend to publish these complaints subsequently, to acquaint our Muslim fellow citizens with our agony, and to prove that the only answer to our plight is a unified law for building places of worship. Lest anyone should tell us—through ignorance or oversight—“What more do Copts want? The Hamayouni edict has been annulled, church building liberated, and 7 January (Coptic Christmas) declared a national holiday?”
