Pandora’s Box—Coptic Fears Explained (Part II of ICC 2005 Coverage)
As previously discussed, many media outlets in the Middle East (particularly Egypt) have expressed displeasure at the recently-held 2nd International Coptic Conference in Washington, D.C. This series is considering different angles of both the conference and the response to it.
In Part I, we focused on Al-Ahram writer Emad Mekay’s recent decrial of the conference. Here in Part II, we will have a deeper look at different opinions surrounding the conference, foreign intervention, and the state of Egypt, in general.
Let’s start with the state of Egypt. For those who may not have heard, the past two months have been fraught with tension, riots, and mob violence, beginning with a riot in Alexandria that ended up in four deaths.
The riot came about as a result of allegations that a DVD containing an anti-Muslim stage-play, called “I Was Blind But Now I Can See,” was released by St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in the neighborhood of Maharram Bey.
A few days after a Coptic nun was stabbed, an angry mob gathered outside the church and trapped several people inside. It is interesting to note that the allegations began with articles published in Moslem newspapers al-Midan and al-Osboa.
Al Ahram has since published an article claiming that there was no proof that any DVD was released by the church; that’s right, some now claim that the DVD was released by the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to escalate the already-tense relations between Christian and Muslim Egyptians.
This is nothing new, though. Copts have been putting up with a shameful array of harassments for years, from getting gunned down in their churches to having to pay to be able to walk ‘safely’ down a village road. From the planned seductions and forced conversions of their women, to the denial or total passing over of their qualifications in the workplace. And from the lack of Coptic representation in the government to the fact that they have to get the signature of the PRESIDENT if they want to fix a toilet in their churches, one can’t argue that Copts in Egypt have well and truly seen it all.
Of course, Hosny Mubarak has finally gone and delegated the responsibility of signing the Hamayouni requests (aka ‘fixing churches’) to governers. Not a huge concession, apart from the fact that it’s taken entirely too long to happen. And might not end up improving things in the least.
And in terms of the pitiful amount of Coptic representation that has been allowed to seep into the government—in the form of Copts holding 2 out of 444 seats—it’s obvious that Copts are being either held back (not allowed) or frightened into staying away from political involvement.
Why? Do some fear the “slippery slope” effect? That upping the number of non-Muslims in office will automatically mean a renaissance of Coptic Egypt, where all the cushy jobs were held by natives? Perhaps. But that’s another story, and right now we get to move on to foreign intervention.
The term itself is a bit off-putting, I know, calling to mind tanks and flame-throwers and, well, the veritable camel who wouldn’t leave the tent. The occupation of a land that’s already been through so much.
But foreign intervention can happen in much subtler (read: less scary) ways. “When President Bush calls Mubarak on the phone and says ‘there are some people in jail, I want them out,’ that is foreign intervention, and we can’t say we’re against that because it results in good things, and doesn’t harm Egypt’s image or security,” said Michael Meunier, president of the U.S. Copts Association, in a recent interview.
So foreign intervention doesn’t HAVE to take on a terrifying spectre of totality.
But there are some who would again bring up the “slippery slope” argument, wondering if small bits of foreign intervention might turn Egypt into another Iraq (God forbid). Others might say—as many have—that nothing short of God’s hand can change anything in Egypt.
This brings us to actual feelings and opinions about the state of affairs in Egypt, and about foreign intervention.
While some (as I’ve just mentioned) have no hope (in regards to matters of human intervention), many are fearful that Coptic life could go from bad to worse.
Like Mary, who recently told me that “I know it’s bad now. I know that. But you guys could end up making things 100 times worse. Life in the city could digress to the quality of life in the villages.”
Another lady, Iman—a lady who practically yelled at me when I told her I attended the conference (I wonder what she has to say this week, after all of the developments that happened in Egypt, likely because of the conference) informed me that it’s all fine and well for Copts outside of Egypt to try and help, but “we are the ones who have to live with the consequences.”
Others, like Sara, blink disbelievingly and insist that things are simply “A-OK” in Egypt, that they’re used to it and happy as they are. So who’s right? All of them are. And each of them is entitled to her opinion.
After all, it’s a free country, isn’t it?
In Part I, we focused on Al-Ahram writer Emad Mekay’s recent decrial of the conference. Here in Part II, we will have a deeper look at different opinions surrounding the conference, foreign intervention, and the state of Egypt, in general.
Let’s start with the state of Egypt. For those who may not have heard, the past two months have been fraught with tension, riots, and mob violence, beginning with a riot in Alexandria that ended up in four deaths.
The riot came about as a result of allegations that a DVD containing an anti-Muslim stage-play, called “I Was Blind But Now I Can See,” was released by St. George Coptic Orthodox Church in the neighborhood of Maharram Bey.
A few days after a Coptic nun was stabbed, an angry mob gathered outside the church and trapped several people inside. It is interesting to note that the allegations began with articles published in Moslem newspapers al-Midan and al-Osboa.
Al Ahram has since published an article claiming that there was no proof that any DVD was released by the church; that’s right, some now claim that the DVD was released by the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to escalate the already-tense relations between Christian and Muslim Egyptians.
This is nothing new, though. Copts have been putting up with a shameful array of harassments for years, from getting gunned down in their churches to having to pay to be able to walk ‘safely’ down a village road. From the planned seductions and forced conversions of their women, to the denial or total passing over of their qualifications in the workplace. And from the lack of Coptic representation in the government to the fact that they have to get the signature of the PRESIDENT if they want to fix a toilet in their churches, one can’t argue that Copts in Egypt have well and truly seen it all.
Of course, Hosny Mubarak has finally gone and delegated the responsibility of signing the Hamayouni requests (aka ‘fixing churches’) to governers. Not a huge concession, apart from the fact that it’s taken entirely too long to happen. And might not end up improving things in the least.
And in terms of the pitiful amount of Coptic representation that has been allowed to seep into the government—in the form of Copts holding 2 out of 444 seats—it’s obvious that Copts are being either held back (not allowed) or frightened into staying away from political involvement.
Why? Do some fear the “slippery slope” effect? That upping the number of non-Muslims in office will automatically mean a renaissance of Coptic Egypt, where all the cushy jobs were held by natives? Perhaps. But that’s another story, and right now we get to move on to foreign intervention.
The term itself is a bit off-putting, I know, calling to mind tanks and flame-throwers and, well, the veritable camel who wouldn’t leave the tent. The occupation of a land that’s already been through so much.
But foreign intervention can happen in much subtler (read: less scary) ways. “When President Bush calls Mubarak on the phone and says ‘there are some people in jail, I want them out,’ that is foreign intervention, and we can’t say we’re against that because it results in good things, and doesn’t harm Egypt’s image or security,” said Michael Meunier, president of the U.S. Copts Association, in a recent interview.
So foreign intervention doesn’t HAVE to take on a terrifying spectre of totality.
But there are some who would again bring up the “slippery slope” argument, wondering if small bits of foreign intervention might turn Egypt into another Iraq (God forbid). Others might say—as many have—that nothing short of God’s hand can change anything in Egypt.
This brings us to actual feelings and opinions about the state of affairs in Egypt, and about foreign intervention.
While some (as I’ve just mentioned) have no hope (in regards to matters of human intervention), many are fearful that Coptic life could go from bad to worse.
Like Mary, who recently told me that “I know it’s bad now. I know that. But you guys could end up making things 100 times worse. Life in the city could digress to the quality of life in the villages.”
Another lady, Iman—a lady who practically yelled at me when I told her I attended the conference (I wonder what she has to say this week, after all of the developments that happened in Egypt, likely because of the conference) informed me that it’s all fine and well for Copts outside of Egypt to try and help, but “we are the ones who have to live with the consequences.”
Others, like Sara, blink disbelievingly and insist that things are simply “A-OK” in Egypt, that they’re used to it and happy as they are. So who’s right? All of them are. And each of them is entitled to her opinion.
After all, it’s a free country, isn’t it?
Comments