By Ishak Ibrahim – Al-Manassa –
Four incidents over the past few days have revealed a clear and alarming escalation in sectarian discourse. No longer concealed, it has become too explicit to ignore. Its manifestations have ranged from using socially stigmatizing language to insult Christians, to printing inflammatory slogans on T-shirts, and even preventing a Christian student from attending her graduation ceremony because of her clothing.
To some, these incidents may appear to be minor, isolated cases with no connection between them, each of which was dealt with as circumstances required. Taken together and viewed within the broader context, however, they point to a climate of tension and resentment that erodes the bonds of citizenship, makes society more fragile, and weakens its resilience—particularly amid the closure of the public sphere and the weakness of political and cultural institutions.
By “sectarian discourse,” I do not mean an individual’s expression of adherence to a particular creed or denomination, even when the ideas expressed are hardline. That is everyone’s right. The problem begins when such affiliation turns into blind fanaticism and is used as a social instrument for discrimination and superiority, fostering a contemptuous or hostile view of weaker groups and ultimately leading to their oppression.
Four Incidents
The first of the four incidents involved a blogger who owns an online retail business and printed slogans of the terrorist organization ISIS on T-shirts that were sold to the public. This amounted to promoting their content, including incitement to hatred and discrimination, such as calls for restoring the system of forcing non-Muslims to pay the jizya, and the justification of violence on religious grounds.
This was followed by television presenter Dina al-Masry’s use of discriminatory language involving social stigmatization and insults against Copts. Her remarks came while she was criticizing a decision not to allow broadcasting the dawn call to prayer and prayers over loudspeakers from the mosque neighboring her residence. In response, Al-Mehwar satellite channel terminated its contract with her, stopped broadcasting her program, and contacted the Media Syndicate seeking the termination of her membership.
In the third incident, student Jomana Kamal was prevented from attending the graduation ceremony of the Faculty of Biotechnology at Badr University because of her clothing and because she was wearing a cross around her neck, according to her account. She said that the dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine prevented her from entering the building, summoned university security to remove her, and photographed her, while other female students wearing clothing similar to hers were allowed to enter. She interpreted this discrepancy as indicating that the real objection was to the cross hanging around her neck.
The university did not act or open an investigation into the incident until the student filed a police report against the dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Badr Police Station and the matter attracted attention on social media.
The fourth incident involved Bishop Agathon of Maghagha. Coptic activist Bassem al-Ganoubi disappeared, and his family and friends submitted requests to the responsible institutions for assistance in locating him, without success. Six days after his disappearance, the Ministry of Interior issued a statement announcing that he had been arrested on the basis of a police complaint filed against him by the lawyer of a bishop in Minya Governorate. It later emerged that the bishop was Agathon, Bishop of Maghagha and El-Edwa.
What connects the arrest of Bassem al-Ganoubi with the other incidents bearing a sectarian character?
In this dispute, Bishop Agathon represents a current within the Church that displays intolerance toward those who disagree with its followers and ideas, and attacks them. In a way, this is sectarianism. Moreover, this is not the first time that an Orthodox religious leader has filed a police complaint against a Christian for criticizing his conduct. Agathon was preceded in doing so by Bishop Benjamin, Metropolitan of Monufia. Both belong to the same intellectual tendency, albeit with different ideas and methods.
Roots of Sectarianism
The four cases share certain characteristics, foremost among them a sense of entitlement, superiority, and authority that exceeds the limits of one’s role, position, and the law.
The television presenter assumed the right to drag Christians into her complaint even though they had no direct connection whatsoever with the decision she was criticizing. Bringing them into the matter appeared to constitute sectarian harassment that developed into social stigmatization involving insult and contempt, while denying Christians their right to express their opinions and positions as citizens equal in rights and duties.
The conduct of the veterinary medicine dean is little different from that of the presenter—if Jomana’s interpretation is correct. He too assumed a role that was not part of his responsibilities and claimed an authority he did not possess. He then violated the student’s privacy by photographing her, apparently imagining that his position and paternalistic authority placed him beyond accountability.
Similarly, the bishop granted himself an immunity and sense of entitlement derived from his religious status, shielding his decisions, views, and policies from criticism. Even when questioned about the effectiveness of his management of social, cultural, and economic institutions, the bishop apparently considers himself alone entitled to criticize others—to the point of accusing them of departing from Biblical teachings and of heresy.
These cases reveal the weakness and ineffectiveness of institutional safeguards, whether at the university or within the Church—with the exception, initially, of the case involving presenter Dina al-Masry.
The dean of the Faculty of Biotechnology, to which the student belongs, initially attempted to dilute matters and persuade her to remain silent, claiming that he was powerless to act against his colleague, the dean of Veterinary Medicine. The university then issued a vague statement referring to an investigation without mentioning the rights of the student—the weaker party who deserved support.
Dr. Ashraf El-Shihy, former Minister of Higher Education and president of Badr University, did well to receive the student and present her with a certificate of appreciation while she wore the same dress because of which she had been barred. But this step is no substitute for a serious investigation into the incident, disclosure of the measures taken in response, and safeguards to prevent its recurrence.
In the case of Bassem al-Ganoubi, what protects an individual Christian from the overreach and coercive power of his immediate religious leadership, and from its use of influence with state agencies to punish those who criticize it or reject its views and policies?
What we know at present is that the bishop did not follow the customary procedure of consulting the higher ecclesiastical authority before filing the police complaint and obtaining its approval as to whether doing so was appropriate.
The problems are compounded by the fact that those involved find broad support from others, whether through explanations intended to minimize the violations or through direct support for those responsible.
We have seen, for example, attempts to explain away the word “kafats”, used disparagingly to refer to Christians and carrying overtones of bullying and racism, given that its origin lies in the word “Copt.” Such explanation disregards the negative connotations the word has acquired in popular usage and, more importantly, whether Christians themselves regard it as acceptable or as a demeaning stereotype.
Similarly, some defended the conduct of the veterinary medicine dean by arguing either that the student’s clothing violated some supposed university “dress code”—which does not in fact exist—or that the dean is known for his professional competence (which is beside the point), as the board of the Veterinary Medical Syndicate in Dakahlia Governorate argued.
The danger of these incidents lies in the message they convey: Egyptian society remains deeply sectarian even at its more highly educated and cultured levels, precisely those that should constitute a strong bulwark protecting the principles of citizenship and the civil state.
The Mubarak regime constructed an equation that amounted to: the alternative of the regime is the more hardline Islamists. That alternative did indeed materialize (with the Brotherhood.) The current regime then came to power declaring that it would change this equation by consolidating citizenship rights and adopting policies and measures to promote social coexistence and respect for religious diversity.
The increasing frequency of such incidents demonstrates, however, that a wide gap remains between declarations and strategies on the one hand and actual reality on the other. The programs announced by state institutions have produced no evident effectiveness or impact and have failed to bring about meaningful change in the awareness and conduct of individuals and institutions.
What Is to Be Done?
As I have previously argued, sectarianism in Egypt constitutes an obstacle to the full realization of a state based on citizenship. Confronting it requires moving beyond temporary remedies toward fundamental and institutional solutions. Dismantling sectarianism requires a broad range of measures—legal, cultural, and social. In the short term, however, two interventions are urgently needed and cannot be postponed.
There is, of course, religious discourse that some may find disturbing and that may reflect a hardline outlook, but which ultimately does not warrant criminalization or punishment. Examples include statements that it is religiously forbidden to pray for mercy for non-Muslims after their death or to congratulate them on their religious holidays. Such ideas should be confronted only through critical counterarguments and healthy social practices.
By contrast, there are forms of discourse and conduct that deserve serious attention and action. This does not mean criminal penalties, particularly imprisonment. There is a wide range of graduated responses available, beginning with requiring the offending party to apologize for their actions and undertake not to repeat them; imposing administrative sanctions when the offender is a government official or opinion leader; and levying an appropriate financial penalty.
This requires clear laws facilitating redress for victims, which would help reduce the likelihood of sectarian or abusive practices recurring.
The second intervention that cannot be postponed is the enactment of an equality and anti-discrimination law and the establishment of an independent commission as an enforcement mechanism. This is a constitutional obligation resting upon Parliament, which has deliberately ignored it for eleven years—even though the President approved the National Dialogue’s recommendation to establish an anti-discrimination commission.
Why, then, this governmental obstinacy despite the urgent need for such legislation and its importance at a time when different forms of discrimination remain widespread and the majority of Egyptians suffer from them in one form or another?
_____________
Translated from:
