Coptic Christians have reason to celebrate… alone. While they and many others rejoice at the removal of the overall Islamist tinge of the 2012 constitution, this largely liberal-produced draft leaves other religious minorities out in the cold.
“One of the main concerns we have is that freedom of religion is limited to the heavenly religions,” said Chris Chapman, noting the non-recognition of Egyptian Baha’is in particular. “Freedom of religion is absolute and there should be no exclusion.”
The current draft of the constitution, slated for referendum on January 14, makes absolute the freedom of belief. Practicing religious rites and building houses of worship, however, is limited to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
But the article is not an analysis of the constitution but a description of why the largely liberal drafting committee did not secure greater rights for all, and what might be necessary for Egypt to fall in line with the international agreements it has signed. The interview is with Chris Chapman of Minority Rights Group, who recently presented his findings in Cairo.
From the conclusion:
If this constitution, however, does not fully satisfy liberal activists, a long term focus is necessary to transform a repressive environment to one respectful of human rights. “It happens gradually,” Chapman assured, “as a process of consultation and negotiation. I see Egypt as moving in the right direction, but it hasn’t got there 100 percent yet.”
Until it does, Chapman has the advantage of calling from the outside for both the rule of law and proper legislation. He urges activists and citizens alike to lobby for the rights of Copts, Baha’is, Shia, and others, but the ultimate onus falls on the government.
“This is international human rights law,” Chapman said. “If Egypt is going to live up to its obligations it must respect freedom of religion and belief.”
Please click here to read the full article at Egypt Source.
Note: This is an article from two years ago, never posted on the blog but presented now in memory of Dr. Ahmad al-Sayih, the primary subject. Last week was the year anniversary of his death. He was a good man.
On February 18, 2010 the Jaffa Center hosted a forum entitled, “The Fatimid State: Protecting the Holy Places of Mecca and Jerusalem”. The Jaffa Center is directed by Dr. Rifaat Ahmad, who was previously interviewed concerning the practice of reconciliation sessions in Egyptian society. He is concerned with combating the spread of Wahhabi thought in Egypt, as is one of the main contributors to the forum, Sheikh Ahmad al-Sayih, who was previously interviewed about Nag Hamadi. Upon receiving kind invitations from both gentlemen to attend the forum, I accepted in hope of strengthening relationships and seeing each in a natural environment.
Ten presenters participated in the forum, each one associated with the Jaffa Center, which aids in their research. The Libyan owned, Egyptian based satellite television channel, al-Sa’a, broadcast the proceedings. Dr. Ahmad served as moderator, and each researcher had ten minutes to present his study. Though topics varied, most presentations focused on the political relations at the time, both internal and external. Fatimid Egypt was described as a strong military and economic state, founded upon scientific inquiry, and welcoming of other religious viewpoints. The leadership of the state was composed of Shi’a Muslims originally from Tunisia, but ruled over a predominantly Sunni Muslim majority. They created al-Azhar University as a tool to promote Shi’a thought, but made little effort, it was claimed, to transform the religious loyalties of the people. Most senior military officials, in fact, were Sunni Muslims loyal to the Shi’a state. Together, they resisted the Crusader’s efforts to reclaim the Holy Land.
Sheikh Ahmad developed this line of thought in his presentation, celebrating the Fatimids for opposing the spirit of denominationalism. Instead, they promoted humanist thinking of the highest degree, espousing tolerance, dialogue, and moral consciousness throughout their territory. They combined respect for scripture with an open minded commitment to reason, welcoming Christian participation in their cause. Sheikh Ahmad highlighted that the Fatimids constructed five churches for the Christian community in Cairo, churches which remain standing to this day. These are in the area of Zuwaila bil-Jamaliyya, near the mosque of al-Hussain.
Sheikh Ahmad proceeded from the historical model to extend pronouncements about the needs of Muslims in the contemporary world. Modern Islamic thought and practice, he declared, are in great need of rediscovery of these sublime principles from the Fatimid era. The denominational spirit is alive today, dividing Muslims and other religious adherents alike. This fanaticism kills both religious and humanistic values, as well as a closed mind which is not fitting for Islamic civilization. It leads some, in fact, to imagine that Islamic civilization built itself upon religious values alone. This is nonsense, Sheikh Ahmad declared, there is no civilization but that which has taken and developed ideas and structure from that which existed before it. This is why, he concluded, modern civilizations must respect and cooperate together. None stands independent; all and mutually benefit through the exchange of culture, ideas, and viewpoints.
I am not a scholar of the period, but the presentations surprised me in two directions. First, my limited knowledge of the Fatimid period was built upon the impression that it was a Shi’a enterprise. Though I had known the population remained loyal throughout its rule to Sunni principles, I had previously only heard negative words spoken of this state. Perhaps this is not unexpected given my residences in Sunni nations alone, but most Muslims with whom I conversed dismissed the Fatimids as a historical exception, finally put right by the Sunni champion Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi, known as Saladin in the West. It was strangely disorientating to hear such positive words uttered on their behalf.
The second surprise was the depth of such thoughts, compared to a particular feature of history which I have heard, but do not know well. The researchers were unanimous in proclaiming the tolerance of the Fatimid state, but it had been my impression that this was the period in which the Copts of Egypt were treated most harshly. While this requires more and thorough research on my part, I had heard this was the era in which the then still majority Christian population, along with the Jews, were forced to wear their distinctive clothing and mount only inferior donkeys for their transport. Many have understood these developments not to be intrinsic to Islam itself but reactions to Crusading Christian pressures which unbalanced internal religious relationships. It seemed, however, from the testimony that these persecutions took place under the reign of Caliph Hakim bil Amr Allah, who described as being an oddity having a personality which constantly changed his opinions and policies. It was said he later succumbed to insanity. As mentioned, these surprises came only from impressions, and impressions are unstable ground for the study of history. I was glad to have received another dimension to my understanding.
Though the study and discussion of history is enjoyable, it was not the purpose for which I attended the forum. Instead I had hoped to develop the relationship with two gentlemen with whom we have been growing in dialogue and cooperation. I had also wished to witness if the call to peace and tolerance from our private meetings would be given with the same enthusiasm in a public setting. Though I did not doubt the sincerity of the earlier testimony of either, I was pleased to see the same enthusiasm expressed amidst a group of their peers. May we all with such consistency both speak and live our convictions.