Egypt: Islamists vs. Copts
An Animosity That Seeks Any Excuse to Attack
If Egypt's government does go Islamist—and early presidential election results indicate it will— millions of powerless Christians will be seen as troublesome and unwelcome infidels, not just by "extremists," but by the government as well: the first step to genocide.
As Egypt's presidential elections come to a close, with the Brotherhood claiming presidential victory, the future for Egypt's indigenous Christians, the Copts, looks bleak.
Earlier, after the first presidential elections of May 23-24, any number of Islamists denounced them, bemoaning that it was the Copts who were responsible for the secularist candidate Ahmed Shafiq's good showing.
Even though Shafiq is a "remnant" of the Mubarak regime, under which Copts suffered, he is seen as the lesser of two evils to an Islamist presidency. As one Copt put it: "What did they want us to do? Whoever says that supporting Shafiq is a crime against the January 25 Revolution, we ask him to advise us for whom should we vote? The sea is in front of us and the Islamists are behind us."
Abu Ismail, the Islamic fundamentalist Salafi presidential candidate who was disqualified, expressed "great disappointment" in "our Coptic brethren," saying, "I do not understand why the Copts so adamantly voted for Ahmed Shafiq," and portraying the vote as some sort of conspiracy between the Copts, the old regime, and even Israel: "Exactly what relationship and benefit do the Copts have with the old regime?" he asked.
Tarek al-Zomor, a prominent figure of the Gama'a al-Islamiyya—the terrorist organization that slaughtered some 60 European tourists during the Luxor Massacre—"demanded an apology from the Copts" for voting for Shafiq, and threatened that "this was a fatal error."
To an extent, of course, Islamist attacks on Copts were due less to the Copts' votes for Shafiq, and more to do with the usual animosity for Christians—an animosity that seems to seek any excuse to attack them. By virtue of their greater numbers, many more Muslims did in fact vote for Shafiq than did Christians; even the Islamic Sufi Council of Egypt expressed its support for Shafiq instead of for the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate who advocates Islamic Sharia law.
Realizing that threats, with which Copts are well acquainted, would not prevent Christians from voting for the secular candidate, and in a request that borders on the comical if not absurd, Islamists began imploring the Copts to vote for the Brotherhood's Morsi, who some say vows to return the Copts to bondage. Islamist kingpin Yusuf al-Qaradawi himself called on politically active Muslims to go meet with the Copts and "explain to them" how they have nothing to fear from an Islamist president, telling them that "Shafiq will be of no use to you."
Most adamant was popular TV personality Muhammad Hassan, a cleric who appeared several times assuring Copts that they have "nothing to fear from the application of Sharia," which he portrayed as the best guarantor for their safety and freedom. A day before the elections, Hassan implored the Copts "to elect Sharia and vote for Dr. Muhammad Morsi, promising them peace and security, and that they would live in prosperity under Sharia law."
Sheikh Muhammad Hassan is, incidentally, the same cleric who says Islam forbids Muslims from smiling at infidels—except whenever Muslims need to win them over. One week before he began beseeching Copts to vote for Sharia, he was in Saudi Arabia making disparaging comments about "those who say Allah has a son," the Koran's condemnatory language for Christians.
What does all this mean? For a long time, the various Egyptian regimes and Islamist organizations have downplayed the numbers and significance of the nation's Christians, the Copts, sometimes saying they make up as few as 5% of the total population— a statistic many Western resources quote without hesitation. Others institutions, however—pointing to the Coptic Orthodox Church's birth and death registry—say Egypt's Copts constitute up to 20% of the total population. Based on the Islamist response to the first presidential elections, such a figure may not be so farfetched.
Either way, Copts constitute the largest Christian bloc in the Middle East—a circumstance that has other implications. As seen during the presidential elections, large numbers of Christians may help to stave off the Islamization of Egypt. But if Egypt's government does go Islamist—and early presidential election results indicate it will—fears of persecution on a grand scale become legitimate precisely because of the Copts' large numbers, which will work against them: Millions of powerless Christians will be seen as troublesome and unwelcome infidels, not just by "extremists," but by the government as well, which, as history teaches, can be the first step to genocide.
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum
Reader comments on this item
|Comparison of the fate of Egypt's Copts vs. Turkey's Armenians [167 words]||Erkin Baker||Jun 21, 2012 12:11|
Comment on this item
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.
by Irfan Al-Alawi
"Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi" is Abu Du'a, a follower of the late Osama Bin Laden. By adding the name "Al-Qurayshi" in his current alias, he is also seeking to affirm descent from Muhammad.
The allegation of theological sovereignty over all Sunnis extends to Indonesia and Morocco. The idea that the borders between Syria and Iraq will be dissolved by the new "caliphate" defies all Islamic theology and history. As the Qur'an states, "Allah "made the nations and tribes different." (49:13) Syria and Iraq have been distinct for millennia.
The "Islamic State" seeks to obliterate these diverse identities by expelling or killing all Shias and Sunni Sufis. And it does not invoke the Ottoman caliphate in its propaganda, demonstrating decisively the fake nature of the "Islamic State."
A caliphate is obsolete and the "Islamic State" is totalitarian. All Sunnis need to repudiate them soundly, even by force of arms.