WATANI International

26 October 2008

In the course of Watani’s campaign to rally support for the bill of the unified law of building places of worship the only opinion that went against the bill was that of Maher al-Darbi, head of the parliamentary Local Administration committee. Mr Darbi’s opinion was that the bill, if raised in Parliament, would cause an uproar, so he said he would oppose placing it on the agenda. “There is no need for that bill,” he stressed. “According to the Constitution, Islam is the formal religion of the Egyptian State and Islamic sharia the main source of legislation. Feelings of the Muslim majority should be respected. Mosques and churches are built without any problems. The refusal to grant Copts a licence to build a church is a matter of national security. The current rules governing the building of churches and mosques are more positive than those applied at any time in the past”. I will objectively discuss Mr Darbi’s argument since, despite its being a lone argument—all other opinions were in favour of the bill—I strongly believe no view should be ignored, and hope he may be persuaded to reconsider.

It should be stressed that the Constitution, which stipulates Islam as the State religion and Islamic sharia the main source of legislation, does not contradict the building of churches. Neither Islam nor sharia ban the building of churches, and the Constitution stipulates equality and full citizenship rights for all Egyptians regardless of religion. It furthermore cites the protection of freedom of belief and practice of religious rites as due to all. Any suggestion that there is conflict between the different articles of the Constitution in that concern is thus not valid, and merely serves to create unwarranted problems. The matter has already been settled by Islamic scholars, intellectuals, and the National Council for Human Rights (NCHR), all of whom now call for equal legislation to govern the building of churches and mosques, legislation that would pry the matter out of the grip of the security apparatus.

As for the allegation that the building of churches disregards the feelings of the Muslim majority, it calls to mind a reminder that Muslims and Christians have lived along the Nile banks for centuries in peace and compassion. Their urban communities always included mosques as well as churches; in fact the image of the mosque minarets close to the church towers has become an emblem in which they take pride and which denotes their peaceful co-existence. This co-existence was only made possible through a tolerant religious address and through their closely integrated lives. This consolidated the notion that mosques and churches are sacred, well-respected places of prayer and blessings that served to spread faith and virtue. The viewpoint that churches slight the feelings of Muslims and that erection or maintenance of such buildings is a provocation, is in itself contradictory to tolerant Islam and to the age-old legacy of co-existence between Muslims and Copts.

It is my belief that the opinion expressed by Mr Darby is the outcome of the climate of fanaticism, which is itself the outcome of a defective culture and a religious address foreign to Egypt. It is this address which is spreading notions that Christianity is apostasy and churches are houses of polytheism. But this has never been the case in Egyptian history or culture, where Muslims and Copts formed one close-knit social fabric. This real fraternity and mutual respect lives on today as both Muslims and Copts visit the places of worship of one another to share the joy of weddings or the grief of death. Islam itself includes concepts which refute anti-Christian attitudes.

The equality between Muslims and Copts which would be consolidated through a unified law for building places of worship should in no way be seen as a confrontation between the Muslim majority and Christian minority. The bill cannot be passed without the consent of the Muslim majority; in fact it was members of this majority who first proposed the bill four years ago and who have ever since strongly supported it. And all through Watani’s campaign to rally support for the bill, I can proudly attest that it was this Muslim majority which strongly backed the bill, absolutely denying that church building is a matter of national security or harm to public interest. I thus invite Mr Darby to reconsider, and to join hands with the national caucus for the bill.   

Comments

comments