WATANI International
3 April 2011
What chance can there be of dialogue between the Muslim Brothers and the Copts?
The Egyptian media recently circulated news that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) Supreme Guide Mohamed Badie had requested an audience with Pope Shenouda III. However the group’s spokesman, Essam al-Erian, was reported to have said that it was the Coptic Church that had requested a dialogue with the MB, but that no date had been set. It was circulated that Mr Badie intended to allay Coptic fears of the Brothers and to enhance MB/Coptic relations.
In his Wednesday weekly sermon, Pope Shenouda explained that Mr Badie had sent him a note to welcome him home after his medical trip to the United States, and that he, the Pope, had telephoned Mr Badie to thank him. “It was a courtesy call, no more no less,” the Pope said.
Mr Erian later commented that there must have been some confusion about the matter.
Coptic youth rejects
The mere possibility of some prospective MB/Coptic dialogue gave rise to controversy. Why do the Brothers wish to hold a dialogue with the Copts, through the Church? Will the Brothers hold the dialogue in its capacity as a religious or a political group? What is the point of dialogue without revealing the situation of the group on crucial Coptic issues such as citizenship rights and building churches?
Some 500 Coptic young men and women activists, members of the Copts for Egypt rights group, and members of 6 April group, issued a statement in which they unequivocally rejected the initiative to hold a Coptic/MB dialogue. “We appreciate and respect the Muslim Brothers as our brothers and partners in the homeland,” the statement said, “but we have our reservations about dialogue with them, for the following reasons:
“We are, first and foremost, Egyptian. As such, we insist that any dialogue with any party should be based upon citizenship not religion.
“We believe in a civil State that respects all religions, and see that religion is above and beyond being mixed up with politics.
“We have no fears; all our partners in the homeland are our brothers; we fear no one but God.
“Despite the fact that we all share the same religious identity [as Christians], we belong to different, varied Egyptian political movements. If you wish to talk to us, you will find us among our Egyptian brothers and colleagues in the various parties, movements or NGOs.
“We are the sons and daughters of Egypt; we believe that religion is for God and the homeland is for all Egyptians.
“We decline to hold a dialogue with any entity based on religion, but we can all meet together as Egyptians, just as we met and collaborated in Tahrir Square in the 25 January revolution.”
Where are the good intentions?
“A false perception is being propagated among members of the Egyptian public that the MB are on the threshold of power in Egypt,” Abdel-Rehim Ali, an expert on Islamist movements, told Watani. He says the Brothers are trying to capitalise on the situation by garnering the support of Copts until they gain a substantial number of seats in parliament in the upcoming elections. Once they no longer need the Copts, the MB will surely turn their backs on them.
If the Muslim Brothers wish to attract the Copts, Mr Ali says, they should start by apologising for the crimes they have committed against the Egyptian community in general and against Copts in particular. They should prove their good intentions by rescinding the fatwas published in their mouthpiece newspapers and magazines against Copts and building churches. These fatwas are behind the acts of terrorism committed against Copts, the killing of hundreds of them and the burning of their homes, property, businesses, and churches.
“How can the MB hold dialogue with those whom they have accused of apostasy [the Copts]?” Mr Ali says, “Or who can never have one of their community run for president?” Islamists allow for no Copt or no woman to be president of the country.
According to Mr Ali, neither the Copts nor Egyptian moderate Muslims should be deceived by the moderate, compassionate attitude the MB is feigning. It is just a means to an end, and will be directly discarded once the MB are in power and the end is attained.
Religious State
Emad Gad of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies says that the MB are acting as though they are the major political power on the Egyptian arena, and that the Copts are a minority represented by their Church. Mr Gad says, however, that Coptic views are as politically varied and divergent as is the entire Egyptian arena. If the MB wish to interact with the Copts, Mr Gad says, they can do so through the political parties and movements in which the Copts are represented, not through the Church.
“How can the MB hope to hold a dialogue with the Copts while they, the MB, reject the concept of citizenship rights?” Mr Gad asks.
For his part, the lawyer and activist Kamal Zakher believes the MB are aiming to legitimise their role on the political arena by interacting with the Copts on the political level. They are also working to reduce the Copts, politically, to a non-Muslim group of dhimmis represented by their Church. All this, Mr Zakher said, plays into the hands of the proponents of the religious State.
Resolving ambiguities
The editor-in-chief of the State-owned Cairo weekly Al-Qahira Salah Eissa, heatedly remarked to Watani that it was not the MB’s [self-appointed] role to represent Muslims, any more than it was the Church’s to represent Copts. “If the MB see themselves as a political group they should interact with the other political movements, parties, NGOs, and civil society figures,” Mr Eissa says. And for that to be effective, according to Mr Eissa, the MB must explain the many ambiguities between what they claim to be Islamic teachings, and how they plan to implement them on the ground.
Such ambiguities include the MB’s attitude to the rights of minorities such as Copts and Baha’is; their stance towards the imposition of jizya (a tax imposed on non-Muslims living under Muslim rule) on non-Muslims; the implementation of Islamic hudoud (Islamic-stipulated penalties such as stoning adulteresses to death, flogging adulterers or cutting of a thief’s hand); or the banning of women and Copts from the presidency. In the past, Mr Eissa says, the ruler of an Islamic country had to be Muslim because he led the people in prayer and took decisions to wage religious wars. Today, however, the president is a public servant and decisions regarding wars are approved by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the People’s Assembly.
Mr Eissa insists that no political dialogue should take place between religious groups such as the Church and the MB, but between civic movements.