What will happen to the unified law for places of worship under an Islamic majority parliament?
What will happen to the unified law for places of worship under an Islamic majority parliament?
For decades on end, Copts and liberals in Egypt have been calling for full citizenship rights, equality between all Egyptians, and an end to religious-based discrimination. Nowhere has this discrimination been manifested more obviously than in the near-prohibitive rules for the building of churches, as opposed to the absolute freedom in building mosques. Even when Copts meet the rules to build churches, officials systematically place restrictions and obstacles in their path, humiliating them and withholding the required licences. It is a fact on the ground that, for a church building licence to be approved, the process might take decades—in one case in Alexandria it has taken 40 years and has not yet gained approval. No surprise then that Copts frequently resort to clandestinely build non-licensed churches.
Shelved since 2005
As though the difficulty in obtaining licence to build churches were not enough, violence against Copts escalated to alarming proportions during the last decade, on account of their attempts to build churches direly needed by growing congregations. This drove Copts and liberals to strongly call for a unified law for places of worship, where the same laws and regulations governing the building of mosques would apply to churches. Since 2005, several bills were presented to Parliament to that effect, yet none was ever placed on Parliament’s agenda; consequently such a law never saw light.
Following the 25 January 2011 Revolution, it was hoped that a new constitution would be drafted guaranteeing freedom of belief, and that a unified law for building places of worship would be passed.
The turmoil which engulfed Egypt all through the past year, however, pushed the drafting of a new constitution till after a new parliament is established. Several vicious attacks took place against Copts; following every such attack the issue of passing a unified law for places of worship was brought up but, as soon as matters calmed down, the matter was shelved, and officials claimed there were more pressing issues worthy of their attention.
According to Wahid Abdel-Meguid, a researcher at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, the governing Supreme Council of the Armed Forces’s (SCAF) crisis management policy—using a strategy of temporary appeasement—is an indication of its mishandling of critical situations. The subject of issuing a unified law for building places of worship is brought up whenever a sectarian crisis occurs, only to be forgotten when things calm down.
Today Egyptians have elected a new parliament with an overwhelming Islamist majority. Watani set out to find out what chance the unified law for places of worship stands under a parliament dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; whether a law could be passed securing the right to practice religious rites to any group, even if it were in a minority.
Citizenship rights underscored
Dr Abdel-Meguid believes the government is handling the unified law for places of worship in the same manner that a diabetes patient deals with his medical condition—using a policy of coexistence rather than finding a radical solution to the problem. He says this problem will linger as long as the government remains unaccountable, while the build-up of unsolved problems over the years is making a solution even more complicated. The only radical way out is to define a clear programme to be followed by the government and to be closely watched and followed upon by a strong parliament.
As for the chances of a unified law for places of worship with the Islamists holding the reins of power, Dr Abdel-Meguid says that such a law would underscore the principle of citizenship rights. A principle which was agreed upon by the entire nation cannot easily be ignored by a specific group or party, even if it was the majority party. Ignoring this law or objecting to passing it would be an unwise move by the Islamists since, he says, Islam itself grants everyone the freedom to worship.
Defining the identity of a nation
Emad Gad, another researcher at the centre, says it is not important whether Sharaf’s cabinet passed the law, or what its fate would be under Ganzouri, or even to discuss the Islamists’ ascent to power. What matters is the nation’s identity, which will be defined by the forthcoming constitution and the extent to which it will be influenced by the Islamists and the Salafis, who now hold the parliamentary majority. It is this constitution that will determine the fate of the law and the establishment of the principle of citizenship. If the new constitution follows an Islamic reference, ignoring the principle of citizenship, then the law has no chance of passing and the Christians in Egypt will be treated as dhimmis—non-Muslims living under the custodianship of a Muslim rule. On the other hand, if a civil constitution were drafted that established the principles of non-discrimination and equality in human rights, duties, and freedom of faith, then the passing of such a law would become inevitable.
As for his expectations concerning the tendencies of the upcoming parliament, Dr Gad believes it is still too early to make assumptions. He says the conflicting statements made by different Islamic factions are no real prediction of their political agenda. If the Islamists ignore the principle of citizenship while drafting the new constitution, this will drag Egypt into a dark tunnel that may lead to its division. Reassurance, therefore, must come not from a party but from within the Islamic body, because the fate of a country as mighty as Egypt must not be left in the hands of individuals but rather in the hands of the State.
Laws should not depend on individuals
Tahany al-Gebali, Deputy Head of the Constitutional Court, agrees that passing the law on building places of worship is closely linked to the right of citizenship which, she believes, is already firmly established and undeniable. A big change that must be accomplished in post-revolution society, she says, is the dissociation of crucial issues from specific people. Regardless of Sharaf’s resignation or Ganzouri’s appointment, these files must be opened for discussion so that eventually a solution is reached. The only way to achieve this is by establishing a State of institutions rather than a State of individuals, because no law should be put off because of cabinet resignation.
Judge Gebali believes that the new constitution will not overlook the principles of citizenship or building places of worship because constitutions must be based on the principles of the State, such as non-discrimination, equality and freedom of faith. Any constitution that does not abide by such principles is faulty and deficient.
Not advisable
To sound Islamic parties on the chances for the passage of a unified law for places of worship, Watani talked to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) spokesman Mahmoud Ghuzlan. Mr Ghuzlan believes such a law would be favourable to both Muslims and Copts, the purpose being to build bridges of mutual trust and tolerance. The Brotherhood, he says, does not object to the issuance of a unified law to organise the construction, maintenance and restoration of places of worship in Egypt in general, although it must take into consideration the population density and geographical distribution of communities belonging to a specific religion, since Egypt’s towns and villages differ in their ethnic diversity. Whether the Muslim Brotherhood will adopt such a law in the People’s Assembly is still under thorough study, Mr Ghuzlan says, since the Brotherhood lacks important information concerning the numbers of places of worship in Egypt. This information will reveal the adequacy of the number of churches in proportion to the Coptic population, or even if it is in excess to its needs.
The MB, he says, is in the process of drafting a law for the construction of places of worship in general, taking these points into consideration.
Not all MB members feel the same way, however. A leading figure among them, Sobhi Saleh, believes that it is not advisable to open a discussion on a unified law for places of worship at the present time because it might lead to sectarian problems and, he says, priority should be given to more important issues. As for al-Azhar’s initiative to pass the unified law for places of worship, Mr Saleh says that any information issued aside from the Brotherhood’s official documents can be nothing but individual opinion that may be correct or incorrect.
Mr Saleh believes the restrictions imposed on mosques are even tougher than the ones imposed on churches, especially in that churches have the freedom to practise religious rites and even organise trips, whereas mosques suffer from the “heavy restrictions” of not being able to organise demonstrations.