In the wake of the 25 January Revolution Copts are concerned about their place and position in the new Egypt. Now their earsplitting cries threaten to daunt the democratic transition, notes Gamal Nkrumah "The project of establishing the Islamic state as a potential model will be determined by the ballot box," declared Aboud El-Zomor, recently released from Tora Prison for his part in the assassination of president Anwar El-Sadat. Much to the consternation of the Coptic Christian community El-Zomor added that he regarded the second man in Al-Qaeda, the Egyptian national Ayman El-Zawahri, as "a man who loves his religion and social justice". Never before have Egypt's Christians faced a more challenging political future. What would be the fate of Egypt's Christians be if -- as El-Zomor maintains will happen -- the Egyptian electorate votes in a Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood government? An Islamist government, even a soft-shelled one, would be in flagrant breach of the tradition of tolerance affirmed -- to varying degrees -- by successive Egyptian governments throughout the past century. The cutting off of the ear of a Coptic Christian in the Upper Egyptian city of Qena for allegedly administering a brothel and engaging in an illicit relationship with a lady of the night has outraged Egyptians, Coptic Christians and Muslims alike. The bloody incident has once again envenomed confessional relations in the country and exacerbated inter-faith tensions. It is not known whether the call girl in question was Christian or Muslim. Most observers sensibly conclude that it does not matter. What we do know is that unidentified Islamist fundamentalists, widely known as Salafist, planned a crime that they deemed justified under Sharia law. The police reportedly detained eight Salafists and later it transpired that El-Husseini Kamal Mubarak, the man who is said to have cut off the ear of Ayman Anwar Mitri, the Copt, was a Salafist. Mubarak alleged that he was applying Islamic Sharia punitive law ( hudud ) to the letter, a claim flatly denied by the highest Islamic religious authorities in Egypt. In the presence of Muslim and Christian religious leaders the victim and his torturer were brought together to sign a granting pardon accord. The hooliganism that has spread its ugly tentacles in the wake of the 25 January Revolution threatens to undermine the very principles of the revolutionary spirit. "This atrocious crime is indicative of the humiliations and indignities suffered by the weak and underprivileged in our society. Poor Christians are doubly oppressed, because of their poverty and because they are Christian," Professor Galal Amin, an internationally acclaimed author and economist, told Al-Ahram Weekly. Islam's traditional mandate defends the defenceless, the underdog and the weak. But Copts believe that Islamists have latched onto the notion that Christians are second class citizens who cannot enjoy full citizenship rights, hence the horror and trepidation gripping the country's Christian communities. "Islam is a religion. Islamism is a political agenda," explains Amin. Fire-and-brimstone sermons by Islamist preachers abound and are the source of disquiet for many Coptic Christians and secular Muslims. The torturous question is whether the current violent incidents involving individuals who do not toe the Salafist line are mere dress rehearsals for the democratically-elected Islamist dispensation anticipated as inevitable by many of Egypt's Christians. Consigning Christians and secularists to hell is one thing, but hastening their descent into Hades is another. "The problem in my opinion is about interpreting Quranic verses such as 'O believers, fight the unbelievers' and 'Fight you therefore against the friends of Satan.' Mere mortals cannot judge who the friends of Satan are because the Quran also says 'Know that God is All- Forgiving, All-Clement.' Who can deny the tolerance of Islam? It is all a question of interpretation and I object to those who pretend that they have a monopoly over the interpretation of divine texts," says Amin. "We must learn to distinguish between the divine and the human and the mundane. We must apply reason and what I term the maximum utility of religion. To evoke scripture in political discourse is unfair and illegitimate." Al-Azhar, the Coptic Church and a wide spectrum of Egyptian public opinion was not scared of giving offence in addressing the case. Ahmed El-Tayeb, the sheikh of Al-Azhar and the highest Islamic religious authority in the country, expressed disgust and revulsion at the crime committed in Qena, saying it tarnished the image of Islam. He stressed that Islam was essentially a religion of amity and altruism, peace and tolerance towards the other. Pessimists suspect that the militants' bloodlust will not be sated as long as full citizenship rights are enshrined as a cornerstone of Egyptian civil society. "This is a most dangerous precedent and it augurs ill. It threatens peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians. Nobody should be allowed to assume the position of judge, prosecutor and executioner in a civil society ruled by law," former National Assembly member Mustafa Bakri told the Weekly. The former parliamentarian added that what is troubling is that the crime was committed in the name of religion. Ibtesam Habib, former MP and member of the National Council for Human Rights, concurred, saying that what is unacceptable is that the criminal in question believed that he was applying Islamic Sharia law. "It is not logical that whenever a Copt is attacked by a Muslim that the authorities arrange a reconciliation meeting without recourse to the due process of the law. The criminal must be tried in a proper court and justice seen to be done. A criminal who maims someone in the name of religion must be brought to book and the punishment must be severe enough to deter others. He must be made an example so others do not follow suit." Most commentators were concerned that those who had the authority to monitor law and order were either unable or unwilling to do so. The most troubling conduct ascribed to the criminals is that they took justice into their own hands and applied the law of the jungle. Protecting religious minorities in the country from prejudice should be a national priority. Post-revolutionary Egypt is made extremely uncomfortable by the fact that a considerable number of fanatics believe that there is some rationality in the enmity between Christians and Muslims. "What worries me is that there is so much misinformation on the Internet. People often are terrified by such reports as they incite violence and hatred. Something must be done and soon," insists one human rights activist. "It requires constant, difficult ethical balancing to reconcile these priorities in the post-revolutionary period." For all the grief and terror a common criminal spreads, even if he is clinically pronounced mentally deranged, his or her crime does not shake society much. Terrorists, however, who maim and disfigure fellow citizens in the name of religion or a confessional cause shakes up a country profoundly. Such crimes goad the injured public, especially if it is a long-suffering Christian minority, to self-protection and even vengeance. The question of what motivated the criminals in Qena has sat uncomfortably in the middle of public debate. Most Egyptians are outraged by the sheer savagery of the crime. Some, however, caution that we must not leap to conclusions. A lot hinges on whether justice is seen to be done and whether the perpetrators are brought to book. The authorities must show the will to act. It is the failure to do so that could make the Qena case so explosive.
