The Triple Attack against Abu-Fana Monastery

ICC Note

Few weeks ago, Muslim fanatics carried out attack against Abu-Fana Monastery in Egypt . The attack and the failure of the Egyptian government to protect the country’s Christians indicate the discrimination that Egyptian Christian face.

By Talaat Radwan

07/26/2008 Egypt (Watani)-The attack against Abu-Fana monastery was particularly vicious because it did not stop at the actual physical attack by the ‘Arabs’—the name commonly given to the tribal communities living in Egypt’s deserts—but extended to cover three fronts.

No non-Muslims

The first was led by the Muslims who believe Egypt belongs to Muslims only. The concept is explicitly expressed in material among the curriculum taught to students of the first secondary school year in Azhari schools (Islamic schools run by al-Azhar—the highest authority in the world on Sunni Islam). Students are taught an Islamic text which stipulates that dhimmis, non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, “are banned from owning wealth or property in Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) since they are incoming aliens therein.”

The Vice Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), Mohamed Habib, probably had this principle in mind when he said: “When the Group takes over the rule of Egypt it will change the present Constitution into an Islamic one which would ban non-Muslims from appointments to high-ranking posts in the Sate or the Military Forces.” These, he said, should be exclusively occupied by Muslims. So Habib gave up the idea of banning non-Muslims from residing in Egypt , but he stipulated a residence that would be devoid of rights.

Against modernity

The concept of excluding non-Muslims is also obvious in the MB fatwa concerning the building of churches. This fatwa categorises churches according to districts. Towns built by Muslims, such as—supposedly—all new towns in Egypt , are entitled to no churches therein. Opinion is divided where towns which had been captured by Muslims through war, such as Alexandria for instance, are concerned. Some scholars say they may retain their churches but not repair or restore them ever, while others say these churches should be demolished. In all cases, no new ones may be built. In case of towns that were peacefully captured by Muslims, existing churches may remain but not be repaired, and no new ones built.

Pouring oil over the fire

The third front is represented by the security officials whose attitude can be described as ‘passively unbiased’ as best. The Security Director of Minya declared that he was not responsible for protecting the monks or their land, but was only responsible for the antique area. This attitude exposes the discrimination against Egypt ’s Christians, since it clearly says that protection of their places of worship is not the responsibility of the police. So why would the Arabs be deterred from attacking again?

Egyptians first