IN playing the role of an arbitrator between the Coptic Church and its followers, the State in Egypt puts at risk the stability of the nation and raises questions about its neutrality, when the Egyptian Constitution emphasises that Shari'a (Islamic law) is the main source of legislation. According to this constitutional article, the State, with all its different legislative and executive authorities, is committed to allowing Egyptian Christians to apply their canon law in civil status, especially in the case of marriage and divorce. Apparently, Egyptian Christians, most of whom are members of the Coptic Orthodox Church, have the full right to resort to courts to seek rulings in different disputes. The courts, for their part, issue rulings according to prevailing legislation in co-operation with senior clergy, so that a ruling would not contradict the canon law of Christianity, just as Muslim Egyptians obtain rulings in accordance with Shari'a. We say this against the background of the commotion triggered by the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling allowing a Coptic divorcé the right to remarry. The court asked Pope Shenouda of the Coptic Orthodox Church to license a second marriage for Hani Wasfi. He brought a case at the Administrative Court in May 2008 against Pope Shenouda in order to grant him such a licence, while allowing his ex wife to remarry after their divorce. Wasfi is not the only Copt who has struggled for years to obtain alicence to remarry or to get a divorce in the first place. It is well known that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have a strong stand on this issue of marriage and divorce and abide literally by the teachings of Christ in the Holy Bible, emphasising that that divorce should not be considered other than for adultery. It was only in 1938 that the then Coptic Orthodox Pope and hiscouncil approved divorce and re-marriage of Copts for another eight reasons. They issued a code, according to which the Egyptian court issued its controversial ruling last week, allowing a second marriage for a Coptic divorcé. However, the 1938 code, although approved and endorsed by some four former popes, was annulled by Pope Shenouda on taking office in 1971. To avoid contradictions and clashes with the State authorities over the cases concerning Coptic civil status, Pope Shenouda presented a draft personal status law concerning the Copts, according to rules that he thought accommodated Orthodox Christian belief. The State has not yet endorsed this law, despite the passage of many years since its proposal, which could be interpreted as a State insistence on preserving the 1938 code, which is seen as an exception in the history of the Orthodox faith. It is also noticeable in this debate that none of the senior bishops of the Coptic Orthodox Church opposed Shenouda's opinion over this issue. So the State's insistence on enforcing an old civil status code in violation of the opinion of the incumbent Pontiff puts it in a direct conflict with the Coptic Church and its followers, who deeply respect and support their pope. It is true that some Copts suffer injustice because of these rigid Orthodox rules, but we should not let secular Christians drive a wedge between the State and the Church. We have to differentiate between the Church's authority over the Copts pertaining to their religious teachings, and the authority of the State over them as citizens, who should enjoy the same political, economic and social rights as their Muslim counterparts. It is important here to remember how the first Muslim ruler of Egypt, Amr ibn al-Aas, promised the Copts that they would enjoy full freedom of faith and he would enforce their personal status law relating to marriage and divorce. Because the Christian canon law does not include rules on inheritance, for example, the then Coptic clergy approved rules of Shari'a relating to inheritance and they continue to do so. In other words, both Christian and Muslim Egyptians are subject to rules of the State whether derived from Shari'a or foreign laws. It is only in the case of civil status that Copts should follow the instructions of their Church. Meanwhile, those who feel harmed by these rigid rules could convert or resort to civil marriage as Pope Shenouda himself suggested, although he warned them that they would never be allowed back into the Church. However, remaining in the same Orthodox Church and insisting on following secular rules or the canon law of other Christian churches or sects, allowing divorce and remarriage, would bring disorder to Egyptian society and even destabilise State security. The State, on its part, should ensure its authority over all its citizens, Muslims and Christians alike, and deal with them on an equal footing together with ensuring their freedom of faith but not setting itself as an arbitrator between Christians and their Church. Actually some clergy and Copts in and outside Egypt seek to exploit this court's ruling to affirm their claim of the Egyptian State oppressing Coptic citizens. So why does the State insist on enforcing the 1938 code and refuse to endorse a draft law that would enforce stringent conditions on the marriage and divorce of Copts? Does the State and its judiciary mean to ensure the individuals the right to enjoy a happy family life and so stand against the Church's inflexibility? Most probably not, as the State desires to maintain good relations with the Church and not give its opponents further reason to accuse it of discriminating against its Coptic citizens. Apparently, the State wished to avoid the problem of Coptic converts who manoeuvre around the Church's rejection of divorce and re- marriage by temporarily converting to Islam in order to be divorced from their spouses. They then request that they can return to Christianity after the passage of some time. This manipulation creates complicated social and security troubles and even threatens to bring about the eruption of sectarian sedition between Egyptian Muslims and Christians. Ironically, though the Church recognises this manipulation, it insists on Copts' right to re convert and demands that the State allows them to have their ID data changed again to be entered as Christian. The only solution to this dilemma is to have senior State officials sit with the Pontiff to issue a new personal status law for Copts with the approval of all the clergy. However, if some Orthodox clerics opposed this draft law, a referendum should be organised in which Copts could express their opinion over this new law. In the meantime, senior clerics of the two religious institutions of the Coptic Orthodox Church and Al-Azhar, the seat of Sunni Islam, should determine how to ensure that the decision of some Muslims or Christians to convert are being taken according to true faith and knowledge of their chosen religion. They should stand firm against those treating religion as if it were a piece of clothing they put on and take off whenever they like, without true belief and respect for the religion to which they have converted.
