The problem Westerners and Muslims encounter is that one finds Egyptian Christians who are aggressive in their language, anti-Muslim, see the hand of Islamists in almost everything and thus express a conspirational way of thinking. They are often providing conflicting information. How does one deal with that?
Of course Christians counter that Christian radicalism is in their language, in publications, demonstrations, interviews, and personal conversations, but not in physical violence. Although this is true, it does not change the harmful nature of this Christian radicalism.
In several texts of U.S. Coptic activists I found statements saying that Arabs are invaders from the East, do not belong to Egypt (implying they are not real Egyptians) and should ideally be removed for the Copts to be truly free. Since even many activists see that this is not possible they argue for a fixed ridiculously high percentage of Copts in top political functions (Maurice Sādiq is an example of a Coptic activist doing so). Many of the same people praise General Ya‘qūb and his Coptic legion in the French occupation forces, the Ummah al-Qibtīyah, and are able to make hostile remarks about Muslims and Islām. This group is uncompromising and believes that change from within Arab-Islamic society is not possible. Thus, pressure is needed from various Western powers (political but also pressure of the media, Western organizations pressuring their governments, protesting developments in Egypt). I heard people who believe that since there is no future for Christians in an Islamic state anyhow that they had better emigrate.
This problem with Christian radicalism is not only found in Egypt, but also for example in Lebanon. George Sabrah realized these differences between the different types of Christians, radical and conciliatory. He does not try to brush this away as is often done, as if Christian radicalism does not exist, and tried to explain this in his article entitled, ‘Two Ways of Being a Christian in the Muslim Context of the Middle East’ [Islām and Christian-Muslim Relations, vol. 17, no. 1,43-53, January 2006].
Sabrah rightly writes that “The ‘Eastern Christian’ can be (and at times has been) a radical who wants to cut himself off completely from the Arab and Islamic world and throw himself completely into the arms of the political West. A heavy price has been paid for such an extremist position.”
One of the most common problems of activists is that of exaggeration and “language inflation.” Language inflation is when the choice of words used to describe any given act or event is grossly exaggerated or inflated; the terminology is also often inflammatory and sensational. Words such as “kidnapping,” “rape,” “persecution,” which are all inflammatory and very difficult to prove, are examples of language inflation. Such language inflation is harmful because it is seen as unjust by the accused party (usually Muslim) and could result in anger and a poisoning of the atmosphere in Egypt as a whole or within a specific region of the country. See our polemics report which is full of examples of polemical Christian and Muslim behavior [AWR, 2006, week 17, art 56].
Examples of such activists/polemicists are human rights lawyers Maurice Sādiq, Mamdūh Nakhlah, contributors to al-Katībah al-Tībīyah, Michael Meunier, etc. It would be wrong to presume such radicalism cannot be found among Coptic clergy. There are many clergy who are opposed to such radicalism. Some priests writing for al-Katībah al- Tībīyah however, among others, prefer to voice their extremely negative opinions about living in a Muslim society to visitors coming from Western countries (Coptic migrants, Western human rights activists and others). A few have even gone public, such as Father Zakarīyā Butrus after he had been expelled from Egypt following falsifications of documents of people who converted from Islām to Christianity. Of course there are several gradations of polemics, polemicists are not the same and use varying degrees of polemicizing but all share one and the same thing, their work is perceived by Muslims and many Christians as confrontational. Several of Pope Shenouda’s responses in the 1970s, but also those that deal with the Wafā’ Constantine, issue fit that category.
On the other hand there are Christians who are very conciliatory. One characteristic is that they believe the future of Oriental Christians is in the Islamic world for several reasons:
It is the region where Oriental Christianity has its cradle, where you find great ancient monasteries and churches, where fathers of the church lived, died and were buried. Syrian Orthodox Bishop Samuel Aktash of the disappearing Christians in the Tur Abdin is such an example. Despite all hardships, Christians should remain in the lands of their forefathers.
Syrian Orthodox Bishop Hannā of Aleppo represented another train of thought in a lecture he gave and that I attended in the mid eighties: Christians in the Islamic world are living in a religious environment, live with religious Muslims and thus need to respond in similar vain, remaining religious, and through knowing their own Christian religion. The bishop asked to look at the oriental Orthodox in Europe, their youth has become more secular, they go to churches for social reasons but there are hardly any callings to the priesthood among Syrian Orthodox youth living in Europe. This is probably not much different for the Coptic Orthodox in the countries they emigrated to. Their priests all received their calling to the priesthood or monastic life in their countries of origin (Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt). Syrian and Coptic Orthodox youth also intermarry with European youth from other churches. They will gradually disappear as a distinct Oriental Orthodox community in Europe. An interesting comparison can be made with help of studies about Syrian Orthodox migrants to Canada in the early 20th century. There is practically nothing left of that community, all mixed with Canadians of other origins and churches. The Syrian Orthodox churches in Canada today all have fairly recently immigrated to Canada. But will that community remain so? Bishop Hanna doubts this. He asserts that the future of Oriental Orthodox Christianity is in the Islamic world. Not a perfect world but also a world that does not have the risk that Christians will disappear in the larger non-Oriental Orthodox world. I know of Coptic Orthodox families in The Netherlands who are highly concerned about their children growing up in a very secular atmosphere in there. That is in line with Bishop Hanna.
One would expect conciliatory Christians to have an open attitude toward dialogue, openness to different ways of thinking and a readiness to discuss different beliefs and thoughts. But this is only true to a certain extent. It frequently happens that both Muslims and Christians are genuinely open to dialogue with people of different religions and other denominations, but show much less tolerance for differences within their own denomination. It is understood that people may be tolerant in one particular area, but not in another.
Typical for conciliatory Christians is their non confrontational attitude toward Islām and the Muslim society they live in, they want to see Christians being considered equal to Muslims, but are satisfied with small steps and do not believe that changes can be forced upon Muslims. They have hope that things can be changed to the better. The first category rarely expresses hope for survival in the countries of origin. Conciliatory Christians are not claiming that Egypt is perfect, or that changes are not needed. They prefer to speak about problems affecting all Egyptians and that improvements need to be made for all without denying that some problems may face Egyptian Christians more. They are willing to look for similar interests with Muslims, are open to dialogue without previous conditions and are able to formulate self-criticism of one’s own Christian community. This category is often accused by people who fall under the first category of being stooges of the Egyptian government and of being afraid to speak out, but that is generally doing injustice to their position. Examples of people in this category are: Munīr Fahkrī ‘Abd al-Nūr, Ramzī Zaqlamah, Butrus Ghālī, and Dr. Nabīl Lūqā Bibāwī. Just as there are differences between Christians involved in various forms of polemics, so there are also differences between conciliatory Christians. Some express opinions independent of the church and state, such as Wafd members Munīr Fahkrī ‘Abd al-Nūr, and Ramzī Zaqlamah. Others, such as Butrus Ghālī and Dr. Nabīl Lūqā Bibāwī, are indeed closely allied to the Egyptian government, but these are also voices that need to be heard.
In 2002 I described the following trends in Egyptian Christianity with help of the late Dr. Maurice As‘ad, former secretary-general of the Middle East Council of Churches in Egypt, and Dr. Christiaan van Nispen [RNSAW, 2002, week 50_2].
It is obvious that between the extremes among both Muslims and Christians, that is people who show concern primarily for the interests of their own community only, there lies a wide range of variation, differences in Christian opinions about living in a Muslim society, that are fluid rather than distinct.
Church-oriented Christians
A. Most Christians in Egypt are church-oriented: they attach great value to loyalty to their own church and church hierarchy. Within this category are great differences:
1) Closed. The people are focused on the well-being of their own religious community, and are generally suspicious of influences from outside their community. The proportion of closed people is larger in the Orthodox than in Catholic and Protestant churches. Examples are Bishop Michael of Assiut and Bishop Wīsā of Balyana.
2) Closed and negative. Within the category of the ’closed’ people, church leaders, bishops or priests may be overtly or covertly negative about people not belonging to their denomination, even to the extent of being anti-Orthodox, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, and/or anti-Muslim. When Christians are negative about other Christian denominations it easily spills over to some sections of the Muslim community who might borrow the same arguments to criticize Christians. Or they say ’look how divided these Christians are.’ Or ’Let them not speak about division among us. Let them first look at themselves.’
3) Open. Loyal to one’s own denomination but willing to engage in dialogue with people outside it, whether other church denominations or Islām. Examples are: Bishop Mūsá of youth work, Bishop Athanasius of Beni Suef, Bishop Pachomius of Buhayra, Bishop Thomas of Qussia, Bishop Butrus of the Orthodox Center for Religious Studies, Bishop Marqus of Shubrā al-Khaymah, Bishop Tadrus of Port Said, etc. Catholics and Protestants are generally open. Examples of non-clergy are: Yūsuf Anton Sidhum, Dr. William Qīlādah, Dr. Samīr Marqus and Dr. Maurice Ascad. 4) Critical. These are loyal to the church but critical of certain policies. Mattá al-Maskīn, Bishop Gregorius. al-Maskīn could also be placed into the category of ’open’ since he advocated dialogue with Muslims.
Besides church-oriented people, there are also Christians who operate outside the church structure. They are more independent when it comes to guidelines issued by church authorities.
B. Politically and dialogue oriented
People who are trying to play a role in Egyptian politics can be found in all political parties. Since they try to work from within their respective parties they are generally also dialogue oriented.
National Democratic Party: Butrus Ghālī, Edward Dahabī Wafd: Munīr Fahkrī ‘Abd al-Nūr, Ramzī Zaklamah, Sāmih Makram cUbayd Independent: Dr. Mīlād Hannā
C. Christian human rights activism
Christian human rights activists focus on what they perceive as wrong-doings against their own community. The line between human rights activism and political activism is very thin. The tendency is to estimate the number of Christians to be as high as possible. The highest estimate comes from Maurice Sādiq, who claims there are 15 million Christians in a population of 62 million, no less then 24% of the population. These claims are being made without providing any evidence. He then points out that the percentage of Christians in higher functions of the government and society such as ministers, members of parliament, top functions in universities, government bureaucracy, etc. is much smaller. Thus, they argue, there is persecution.
Sādiq proposes, based on his estimates, a ’proportional representation’ of Copts in top functions in Egypt, and asks for 100 Copts in parliament. Since Egypt is not meeting his demands, Egypt should be punished. "Egypt violates human rights and the rights of its citizens. This government is a racist government that violates human rights and it is not fit to administer the affairs of the country," Sādiq says.
It is obvious from interviews with Sādiq in the press that, in his opinion, nothing good can come from the Egyptian authorities. It is also clear how he handles cases. Claims against the government must be true. Investigating claims, whether they are true or not, is not his strongest trait. Issues are interpreted from the most negative angle possible when they concern the government. He then asks for American sanctions against Egypt, most likely in the belief that that would help him to achieve his political objective of ’proportional representation.’ For this reason, human rights seem to serve as a tool to achieve political objectives. Sādiq is certainly not very representative of Coptic Christians in Egypt. Even Coptic activists critique him for his outspoken radicalism.
As earlier noted, George Sabrah tried to explain the differences between Middle Eastern Christians with a negative outlook about living in a Muslim society and those who are conciliatory. But George Sabrah is Lebanese and wrote from this perspective. That is why we have asked Dr. Amīn Makram ‘Ubayd not only to comment on Sabrah’s work, but also to provide his view on different perspectives of Christians living in a Muslim context.
