The West lashed out against Islamic ideology and Sharia (religious law) in the aftermath of 11/9 attacks on New York. Similarly, some secular Egyptians rushed to do the same following the terrorist church bombing in Alexandria in the first hours of the New Year that agonised Egyptian Muslims and Copts. Instead of waiting for results of investigation to identify the actual perpetrator and those behind him, they thoughtlessly started to speculate on its causes. Some attributed the deadly assault to the State focusing on security for the parliamentary elections at the cost of protecting the Christian places of worship, though terrorist groups had announced their intention of targeting these sites. Another side spoke about the State reluctance to tackle different cases of sectarian tensions in a firmer way, while a third group blamed the Islamic Sharia and called for having a civil state to ensure the citizenship rights of the Copts on an equal footing with the Muslims. Actually this is not the first time, some secularists have demanded this so-called civil state and even requested the cancellation of two articles in the Constitution referring to Islam as the religion of the State and Islamic Sharia as the main source of legislation. This happened in 2005, when the Egyptian State was considering introducing some changes to the Constitution in organising the presidential election. At the time, some broad-minded Copts were the first to stand up against those secular voices by affirming that such articles have never done any injustice to the Egyptian Christians. They were aware that all the Egyptian constitutions written since the beginning of the 20th century were drafted by a group of enlightened legislators, some of whom were Copts and had approved such articles. No one denies that the Muslims form the majority of Egypt's population and many Western secular countries have an article in their constitutions stipulating that Christianity is the religion of the State. Besides, the article on the Islamic Sharia is not stating that it is the only source of legislation, as the Egyptian legislation includes many rules taken from French or English law. Besides, the Coptic Orthodox Christians in Egypt have their own councils and adjudicate their marriage and divorce affairs according to the Church. The question is: Why this sudden concentration on the Sharia and the civil state issue while being faced with a terrorist attack alleged to be plotted overseas? Adopting such a stand today would give the wrong impression that the Islamic Sharia prompts the Muslims to hate and physically liquidate the others, even if they were followers of Jesus, in whom Muslims believe as a great Prophet of Allah. Ironically, those seculists persons believe that the solution is to stop identifying the religion of citizens in their ID cards, so as to ensure equal citizenship of the Copts with the Muslims. I personally believe that the Christians would be the first to be harmed if this were introduced, effectively incorporating them into the Muslim majority and concealing their religious identity. If we bowed to this request, would we then oblige people not to name their children after some Coptic saints or Muslim Companions or names of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH), so that no one could differentiate between Egyptian Muslims and Christians? Would this be stretched to slap a ban on covering the head for Muslim women, despite being a religious duty, as Turkey once did, where now the citizens have turned to requesting a change in such rules in respect of their religious teachings? Would we request the Christians to stop wearing the cross or having it branded on their wrists? This is glaring nonsense and would only end in failure for contradicting long centuries of traditions backed by religious belief. The solution is to make clear our identity as Muslims and Copts and to mutually enjoy the same respect and rights in society. We should do this, firstly because Islam, the religion of the State, acknowledges Christianity and has respected its followers since the time of the Prophet Mohamed, and secondly because the Copts share with their Muslims counterparts good and hard times in this country. Therefore, it is time to debate the problem courageously and forthrightly. We have to admit that the institution of Al-Azhar, the seat of Sunni Islam, has been weakened and absent from the political and even social life of the Egyptians for decades. This has cleared the way for the domination of some extremist groups, together with the influence of Wahhabism (a hardline version of Islam) on many Egyptians. They have encountered the Wahhabi doctrine either though direct contacts with Saudi and Gulf societies, working there or through the satellite TV channels that have invaded the Egyptian society and brainwashed the majority of uneducated persons with some militant ideas. This has happened while the State authorities were busy chasing after any enlightened Muslim preacher who had acquired the esteem of the public and might even be chosen by international institutions as one of the most worldwide influential personalities of the year. On the other hand, the State noticed the emergence of some extremist Christian groups in and outside the country, who scathingly hit out at the Government. However, the authorities did not take any action against them apparently so as not to anger the Coptic Orthodox Church and its head Pope Shenouda, who hasn't either taken any firm step against those persons other than condemning their acts. He could have excommunicated them, as he does with any Coptic thinker daring to adopt opinions different from his. Even when one of his senior assistants, Bishop Bishoy, stated that the Egyptian Muslims are guests of the Copts, implying that the former are not indigenous citizens of Egypt, the Pope did not rebuke his aide for such a provocative statement. Besides, when some priests in November incited Coptic citizens to revolt against the State over the building of an unlicensed church in the Omraneya area of Giza, causing street riots, damaging governmental institutions and injuring many policemen, Pope Shenouda made no apology for such irresponsible deeds. Instead he retreated to a monastery outside Cairo as a sign of anger at the arrest of the Coptic rioters by the police. It is only when the State authorities released all the detained rioters that the Pope returned to his church and the traditional weekly services. In other words, the State authorities have accepted the idea of considering the Copts above the law. Contemplating this incident and many others would make it clear that it is the Coptic Orthodox Church that doesn't want to have its followers be considered Egyptian citizens like the other citizens believing in Islam and so enjoying the same rights and duties. Naturally, this discrimination on the part of the State has created a kind of covert sensitivity between the Copts and the Muslims. However, one shouldn't neglect the many negative aspects in which Egyptian Christians suffer at the hands of the State authorities. Therefore, instead of wasting our efforts in tackling such useless issues as having a civil state or removing religion from our ID cards, we should find a better way to courageously debate our religious and social troubles. By so doing, we could establish real justice and freedom of expression for all citizens. Let's start with the suggestion made by Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar Ahmed el-Tayyeb of creating a general council – which he suggests naming the Family Home – comprising senior Muslim and Coptic representatives – to debate and attempt to solve different problems, sending their recommendations to the Government to be enacted. This suggestion of el-Tayyeb, made even before the bombing at Al-Qiddissein Church, was published in the weekly magazine Al-Mussawar two days earlier. In addition to this proposal, el-Tayyeb put forward other inspiring ideas in his interview with this magazine, which are worth quoting extensively and will be published in this corner next week.
