Girgis Naiem - Egypts Identities in Conflict: The Political and Religious Landscape of Copts and Muslims

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Jefferson, North Carolina

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE

BRITISH LIBRARY CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE

e-ISBN: 978-1-4766-3057-1

2018 Girgis Naiem. All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Front cover image of Egyptian cross and crescents 2018 kharps/iStock

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com

To my family for their support

What is Egypts national identity? This is the question that drives this book. Undoubtedly, the issue of an unclear national identity affects all of Egyptian society, but it weighs most heavily on Egypts Coptic Christians.

Although religion and politics overlap in Egypt, this book is not a religious work, nor does it intend to scrutinize religious doctrines. It only refers to certain religious elements that form the identity of the Egyptians and shape their behavior as well as their politics. Nor is this book a history book as such, although the historical context is essential to show the evolution of the issue of identity that has impacted Egypt and affected its Coptic Christians. The present work falls into the category of political commentary and analysis of Egypts past and present, both of which are the basis for Egypts future. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the inability to define a common national identity and the lack of a shared identity are at the root of most conflicts within Egypt and a cause of repeated political instability. This is evident in the current economic challenges, social unrest and repeated terrorist attackson the state as well as the Coptsand in the occurrence of two revolutions in less than three years.

This book differs from other works on the topic of national identity in that it offers a case study of the effect of religion in politics can have on a specific country: Egypt. It describes how politics in religious matters at the fifth century Council of Chalcedon effectively separated the Copts from the rest of the world. As a result, their remarkable contributions to Christian civilization, which have shaped Christian thought for centuries, sank into historical oblivion. This book explores the effect of the process of Islamization and Arabization on Egypt and its impact on the Egyptians since the seventh century Arab conquest. It explains how and why the rise of fundamentalism in recent times is shaping Egypt and is affecting the Christian community, and even moderate Muslims, although to a much lesser degree. By linking the modern day behavior of radicals to their historical practice, this text shows that their actions are neither unique to, nor a product of, present-day political circumstances.

Is Egypts identity Islamic, Arab or Egyptian? Are they separate, intertwined or contradictory? The monotheistic religion adopted by the Pharaohs made it easy for their direct descendants, the Copts, to adopt Christianity, and like their forefathers, they formed a great civilization. Egypt, the land of Akhenaten, a pioneer of monotheism, became the birthplace of Orthodox Christianity. In the 7th century, Arab Muslims came to Egypt and Islam became dominant. Now Egypt is home to al-Azhar, the most prestigious mosque and university in the Sunni Islam world, located in Cairo. In recent times Egypt has gone through periods of political turmoil; the countrys political instability was part of what came to be known as the Arab Spring, and it had a great impact on its Coptic Christian community. The ransacking and destruction of seventy-three churches by radical Islamists on August 14, 2013, was the most salient, though similar incidents have occurred regularly since. There are a number of causes behind these incidents, but the most important is the absence of a well-defined identity for Egypt as a nation.

The Copts can only identify themselves as Egyptians; the term Copt means Egyptian. But, not all Muslims identify themselves the same way. Secular, liberal, and leftist Muslims also identify themselves as Egyptians; however, some see themselves as both Egyptian and Arab. In general, they share a common ground with the Copts based on their Egyptian identitybut fundamentalist Islamists and the masses they control identify themselves by their religion, not their nationality. Although the different Muslim groups disagree ideologically, there is still a strong common ground among them due to their shared religion. The fundamentalists share no common ground with the Copts, and the most radical are hostile to them as well. Even though the Copts speak Arabic and share some of the same common culture, the fundamentalists dont accept the Copts, believing that Islamism and Arabism are synonymous and only Muslims can bear both. For the fundamentalists, embracing an Egyptian identity means a retreat from Arab-Islamic unity.

The famous liberal Muslim intellectual Taha Hussein came out in support of Egyptian identity. In the last century he declared that Egypt didnt share much with its Arab neighbors, and that Islam and Arabic alone couldnt be sufficient for unity between Egypt and other Arab states. Despite the historic inability of Egypt to unify with other Arab states, fundamentalists continue to call for Arab-Islamic unity in order re-establish an Islamic caliphate, and promote the Islamic identity of which they see themselves as guardians.

Historically, Islam, its culture and traditions, has been the ideology of the state. This fact reduces the Coptic Christians to a subordinate position called dhimmi or protected people. It is an Islamic term that refers to people of the ScriptureChristians and Jews who did not accept Islam. For Copts to be treated as dhimmi means that they will never enjoy equality. Because Islam has been the ideology of the state and because its Coptic citizens are not Muslims, they are not considered to be full citizens, as they lack the Islamic identity.

In Islamic identity, the political bond of culture, society and state are based on the Islamic religion; this automatically excludes Christians. This exclusion is manifested in forbidding Christians from assuming top offices such as president or governor. In an Islamic state these roles have a religious aspect, such as applying Islamic sharia law, leading prayers and going on jihad. The fundamentalists would interpret this to mean a total absence of Christians in any state or government position. To them Christians should be treated as the historical dhimmis, allowed to run their own businesses and forced to pay the Islamic poll-tax, or jizyah, tolerated as long as they show respect to Muslims and accept the sovereignty of Islam.

The fundamentalists still preach the dhimma status for the Copts. Dhimmis are humiliated, subjugated and limited in their rights to public expression of their religion. They arent allowed to proselytize and it is inappropriate for them to compete with Muslims in the economic, social and political sphere. When Copts seek positions of prestige and power it is perceived as a threat of Christian domination over Muslims. Wealthy Copts and those who have made it to senior positions attract jealousy against the whole Christian community because they are seen as not accepting the dominance of Islam. Asking for Coptic rights is considered an aggressive claim for control, separatism and even revenge which raises suspicions and fears. Although these claims are baseless given the twelve-century-long history of Islamic caliphates in Egypt, they demonstrate that fundamentalists leave no room or leeway for basic rights for the Copts. Fundamentalist Islamists accuse Copts who ask for their rights of