Sectarian tensions are mounting. The once muted conflict is fast developing into an openly declared one, with accusations being openly exchanged between Muslims and Copts. Still, some insist that sectarian incidents are limited, and that national unity banquets are the key to restoring peace and breaking the vicious circle of sectarianism.
It is erroneous to assume that one party alone bears full responsibility for the tension. Even if one of the parties is more to blame, others are surely still accountable.
A recent interview with Father Bishoy, secretary of the Holy Synod, published in Al-Masry Al-Youm, sparked the current controversy. Several sectarian remarks made by the bishop drew criticism from a multitude of Islamic thinkers and writers. But the dispute was indicative of a deeper underlying crisis.
Preachers are not infallible and extremists exist on both sides. The real problem is with what can be termed popular sectarianism, which has thrown both Muslims and Copts into a hellish circle of hate, no longer restricted to a bunch of radicals here and there.
Muslims and Copts were pushed into this circle of sectarianism when the government opened the door wide to a discourse that focused primarily on outward manifestations of religiosity. This trend, which receives the support of official religious institutions, was created by a mix of new profit-oriented and state-assigned preachers with whom the different Islamic waves have collaborated. This gave rise to a model of religiosity that focuses on outward appearances and fails to speak to the mind.
The government has for three decades allowed a superficial Islamic discourse, the underlying philosophy of which is that everything is permissible as long as it does not develop into organized political action. The government therefore had no qualms about turning a blind eye to sectarian ideas.
Since the government has stood on the sidelines when it should have intervened, and interposed when it should have remained uninvolved, sectarian tensions rose, with Muslims clinging to pretentious religiosity and Copts becoming increasingly radical and closed upon themselves.
Muslim thinkers such as Mohamed Selim al-Awwa, Tareq al-Beshri and Fahmi Howeidi have offered their insights into citizenship and democracy, but were perhaps a little too harsh on Egypt’s Copts, stemming from a feeling that their valuable contributions were snubbed or attacked instead of being taken seriously.
These thinkers may be oblivious to the fact that their discourse is different from the dominant one promoted by the state. Also, the fact that many Muslims and Copts reject their form of religiosity does not mean that they reject these thinkers’ entire corpus of ideas.
This explains why I disagree with al-Awwa, who considered Father Bishoy’s statements indicative of a new, more extreme Christian discourse that does not mind drawing on the power of foreign countries.
Many Muslims will complain about extremism on the part of Copts, but they don’t seem to realize that they are in part responsible for it. The failure of the Muslim majority to present an Islamic model that respects the mind, upholds democratic principles and promotes development has fueled fundamentalism and hypersensitivity to all things Islamic.
But the state of law for which al-Awwa calls is almost nonexistent in reality. Is the law in Egypt applied indiscriminately? Was al-Awwa as shocked as all Egyptians at the court ruling against Hisham Talaat Moustafa? Don’t the more influential people in Egypt draw on the power of other countries? Would any state that upholds the law leave its security men to fall prey to a bunch of football hooligans?
We should recall all such incidents when urging the Coptic Church to respect the law, which is implemented on a selective basis, and the Constitution, which has been tailored to serve those in power.
It is true that the Coptic Church has collaborated with some expatriate Copts, occasionally becoming stronger than the state. The Coptic Church appears to have dispensed with society and to look down on public opinion and Muslims. But why has this happened? Is it because they are Christians and therefore naturally hate Muslims? If that is the right answer, then I’m afraid we’re no better than the fundamentalists in the West who claim that our problem in the Middle East is that we are Muslims.
Coptic fundamentalism has to be understood in light of Muslims’ focus on appearances, an aspect which has alienated many Muslims and Christians in a society that does not practice what it preaches. This has pushed Christians into the confines of their churches where they, in turn, fall victim to an extremely radical discourse.
To save this country, we need to get rid of two major obsessions–one with football, and the other with our superficial understanding of religion. The second requires new rules to regulate religious discourse, to help Coptic youth integrate into society, and to stimulate Muslim youth to reject conspiracy theories. Together they can build a better future for this country by working to establish democracy and the principle of citizenship.
Translated from the Arabic Edition.
