|
To
my mind, one of the most cogent signs of human progress and adherence to
humanist values is the way a civilization treats its minorities. To the same
extent that the protection of these minorities is a mark of human
civilization, their persecution and the violation of their rights,
particularly their right to personal security, private property and freedom
of worship, is a sign of backwardness and barbarity. Moslems can be
justifiably proud that Islam has a noble tradition of treating religious
minorities, especially Christians, according to the most advanced norms of
civilized behavior. In more than one passage, the great book of Islam, the
Holy Quran, deplores as sinful the coercion of people to embrace a faith other
than theirs, even if that faith is Islam. According to the sura71of
al-Baqara (The Cow), "There is no compulsion in religion. The right
direction is henceforth distinct from error." Other suras are also
unequivocal in deploring the use of coercion to convert people to one single
religion: "And if thy Lord willed, all who are on the earth would have
believed together. Wouldst thou compel men until they are believers?"
(verse 99, sura of Yunes [Jonah]); "If Allah willed, He could have
brought them all together to guidance. So be not thou among the foolish
ones" (verse 35, sura of al-Anaam [The Cattle]); "Say: (It is) the
truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and
whosoever will, let him disbelieve" (verse 29, sura of al-Kahf [The
Cave]).
Quranic
texts stating that, had it been God's will, He would have united all men in
one nation appear in many more suras as well, in almost identical words. All
stress the need to preach Islam with kindness and not with violence and
coercion. Other texts forbid war against non-Moslems as long as they do not
fight the Moslems.
In
authenticated references of the Prophet's sayings—the hadith72—Muhammad
not only forbids oppression of Christians and Jews but considers such
oppression to be a great sin. The hadith states: "He who is unjust to a
Christian or a Jew, I shall be his antagonist on the Day of
Resurrection." The history of Islam is rich in examples of noble stands.
One of the oldest is the refusal of the second caliph, Omar Ibn al-Khattab, to
pray in a Jerusalem church during a visit to that city, lest it become a
precedent for Moslems to emulate him, thus violating the right of Christians
to their own houses of worship. One of the greatest contemporary Arab writers,
Abbas al-Aqad, devotes a chapter in his book, Democracy in Islam, to the attitude
of Islam to other faiths. In the chapter "With Strangers," he
writes: "Under an Islamic government, non-Moslem people of the Scriptures
who are subjects or allies of the State have the same rights and obligations
as Moslems. The State will do battle on their behalf as it does on behalf of
all its subjects, and will not judge them by the tenets of Islam in matters
where their faith rules otherwise. Nor can they be called before the courts on
their feast days, for the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘You are Jews,
and you will not be summoned on the Sabbath.’” According to al-Aqad, a
Moslem ruler is required to go beyond the letter of Islamic law in dealing
courteously and fairly with non-Moslems, for the Prophet said: "He who
insults a Christian or a Jew shall feel lashes of fire on the Day of
Resurrection." He also said: "He who harms a Christian or a Jew
harms me," and, on another occasion, "He who deals unfairly with a
Christian or a Jew and lays a heavier burden on him than he can carry shall be
my enemy on the Day of Resurrection." When Amr Ibn al-Aas became Governor
of Egypt after the Islamic Conquest, the caliph al-Khattab sent him a missive
enjoining him to deal justly with the Copts, the majority of Egypt's
population at the time. He wrote: "You have with you the people of the
faith and the covenant... Beware, Amr, of making an enemy of the
Prophet." In his History of Islamic Conquests, al-Balatheri tells of
Omar's visit to the Levant, where he ordered alms to be given to needy
Christian lepers. It was also Omar Ibn al-Khattab who granted the Christians
of the city of Iliah a treaty that stated: "They shall be secure as to
their persons, their churches and their crosses. Their churches are not to be
inhabited, destroyed or diminished in any way; nor shall they be coerced as to
their faith."
Al-Aqad
also notes that Islam gave Christians every opportunity to build churches,
practice their religious rites and engage in trade. What better proof could
there be that Moslems protected religious minorities throughout their long history,
particularly Christians and Jews, he asks, than the fact that they were never
coerced into embracing Islam. Even under the Abbasids, when the might of Islam
was at its height, religious tolerance prevailed. It continued under Ottoman
rule, which protected Christian and Jewish minorities, as borne out by the
fact that these communities continued to thrive in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine
and Egypt, all of which were under the complete domination of the Ottoman
State at its strongest and greatest.
In
short, history abounds with examples attesting to the importance given by
Islam to the protection of religious minorities and their right to practice
their faith freely. But this situation did not last forever. When most
Islamic countries, particularly the Arab ones, fell into the clutches of
European colonialism, they became a perfect ground for the application of one
of the major tenets of colonialism in general and of British colonialism in
particular: "Divide and rule."
That
notorious policy was to leave its mark on the modern history of Egypt.
Immediately after Egypt was occupied in 1882 the colonialist authorities began
to play Moslems against Copts and nationals against aliens. Inspired by the
ideas of Ahmed Lotfi al-Sayed, the Umma Party played a commendable role in endeavoring
to establish the unity of the two elements of the Egyptian nation, the Moslems
and the Copts. But the one Egyptian leader who not only put a stop to all the
tensions, grievances and conflicts between Moslems and Copts, but who found a
new formula for brotherhood and profound unity
between the two was Sa’ad Zaghlul. His achievement in this area was a
sign of his political genius and one of the noblest aspects of the 1919
nationalist revolution. No other leader before or since has been as successful
in uniting these two elements of the Egyptian nation.
Zaghlul’s
death tempered the enthusiasm of the Copts for the Wafd Party he had founded
and whose appeal was due in large measure to his personal charisma and unique
leadership. Indeed, their attitude to all political parties since then,
whether they existed before the 1952 revolution or date from the days of
Nasser and Sadat, have wavered between uneasy resignation at best and burning
tension at worst. Relations between Nasser and the Copts were characterized
by deep mutual mistrust. Sadat's relations with that community were severely
strained, particularly following his shocking decision in September 1981 to
remove the head of the Coptic Church by annulling the decree crowning him
Patriarch of the Copts of Egypt and of the territories under the jurisdiction
of the Patriarchate.
What
then is the essence of Zaghlul's political genius that led him to find the
unique formula which united the two elements of the Egyptian nation in 1919?
To answer that question, we must examine the situation in Egypt in the early
20th century.
Between
1906-10 relations between Moslems and Copts sank to an all-time low. During
those years, and as a result of the policies and practices of the
representatives of British colonialism in Egypt, Sir John Eldon Gorst and his
successor, the Earl of Cromer, relations between the two communities underwent
the worst crisis in recent history. British colonialism had sown the seeds of
discord and tension through the clever application of their divide-and-rule
policy, notably in the area of government jobs where violent competition
between the two communities was actively encouraged. The British fanned the
flames of fanaticism by leading the Coptic minority to feel that they were not
getting their full rights or the same opportunities as those available to the
Moslems. Tensions were further exacerbated by newspaper coverage of the
conflicting points of view.
The
crisis reached a peak after the assassination of the Coptic prime minister,
Boutros Pasha Ghali, by a young Moslem, Ibrahim al-Wardani, on February 20,
1910.
Sa’ad
Zaghlul served in all the successive governments that ruled Egypt through the
years of Moslem-Copt crisis (under Mustafa Pasha Fahmy from 1906-08, under
Ghali from 1908-10 and under Mohammad Pasha Said from 1910-12). In 1912 he
tendered his resignation, refusing to be a puppet minister and the mere
executor of the British Commissioner's orders and those of other
representatives of the occupation forces. The fact that Zaghlul was a lawyer,
a judge renowned for his integrity and equity and a man imbued with Islamic
and French culture, enabled him to understand the true nature of the crisis,
its origin, its prime movers and their motives. His insight and years of experience
made him realize that an even-handed approach would end the crisis and totally
eliminate its causes. Thus, he understood that if the majority were to take
the initiative in providing a sense of security for the minority, peace
between them would ensue; the Copts would no longer fear for themselves, for
their property or for the future of their children and there would be no more
cause for fanaticism.
Sa’ad
Zaghlul accumulated a vast store of experience from his participation in the
Orabi Revolution, from his early imprisonment, his work as a lawyer and
judge, as a minister and elected member of the legislative body (1913-1914),
and from World War I. He drew the necessary useful lessons and, when he became
the leader of the 1919 revolution, he put all his experience to good use to
rally the Copts to his cause. Thanks to his moral stature, the two erstwhile
protagonists became united under the banner of the revolution, fighting side
by side for the cause of the Nation. Moslems and Copts forgot their
differences when the man whom both sides trusted without reservation was
arrested. Describing the massive popular demonstrations that swept the country
on March 17, 1919, Ahmed Hussein (Almanac of Egypt's History, part IV, page
1567) writes: "Perhaps the most magnificent feature that the
demonstrations highlighted, a feature which dominated events from the very
first moment, was the close unity between Moslems and Copts. To the surprise
of the British, who thought they had succeeded in driving a wedge between the
two elements of the nation, in that instant the two elements fused together
and, Egyptians all, fought under the slogan: ‘Religion belongs to God, and
the Nation to all.’ The banners raised on March 17, 1919 bore the Cross and
the Crescent together.
Among
Sa’ad Zaghlul's closest and most loyal companions during the revolution and
throughout the years of nationalist struggle from 1919 to 1924, were eminent
Copts like Wassef Ghali, Wisa Wassef, Makram Ebeid and others. It will be
remembered that when the British occupation forces arrested Sa’ad Zaghlul
and sent him into exile on December 22, 1921, two of the five companions
exiled with him were Copts: Senewet Hanna and Makram Ebeid. The following year
seven of Zaghlul's companions were arrested by the occupation forces and
sentenced to death; of the seven, four were Copts. Following the arrest of
this second group of Wafdist leaders, a new group of nine, including two
Copts, took over the leadership of the party. These too were arrested and a
fourth group was formed, composed of six leaders, two of them Copts. The
prominence of Copts in the upper echelons of the Wafd bears witness to the
broad national vision of Zaghlul. Under his leadership, the Wafd won a
sweeping victory in the first real elections held in Egypt. When he named the
first popular cabinet in Egypt's modern history in January 1924 he did not
follow the tradition of appointing only one Coptic minister: out of nine
ministers, two were Copts.
Zaghlul actively strove to eradicate fanaticism and bias by pursuing a policy
based on the spirit of Egyptian nationalism and on respect for the members of
the minority who became an integral part of his popular ruling party. A new
spirit of brotherhood prevailed between Moslems and Copts, best exemplified in
an incident which took place in the late-1930s. When a soldier, using a
poisoned lance, tried to kill Mustafa al-Nahas, who succeeded Zaghlul as
leader of the Wafd, Coptic party member Senewet Hanna protected him with his
own life. His sacrifice was an unforgettable symbol of the unity which bound
the two elements of the Egyptian nation together. This degree of unity and
brotherhood can only be destroyed when fanaticism invades the ranks in the
form of reactionary ideas which are ill-suited to the age in which we live and
to a nation such as ours. National peace and harmony promise the only hope of
salvation from the abhorrent storm of fundamentalism which has raged for so
long in our part of the world.
|