Once again, the "Coptic issue" gets some exposure from a big paper. "As Tensions Rise for Egypt’s Christians, Officials Call Clashes Secular," by Michael Slackman for the New York Times, August 2:
CAIRO — A monastery was ransacked in January. In May, monks there were kidnapped, whipped and beaten and ordered to spit on the cross. Christian-owned jewelry stores were robbed over the summer. The rash of violence was so bad that one prominent Egyptian writer worried it had become “open season” on the nation’s Christians.Who could dare suggest such a thing?!Does Egypt face a sectarian problem?
Not according to its security officials, who insist that each dispute represents a “singular incident” tied to something other than faith. In the case of the monastery and the monks, officials said the conflict was essentially a land dispute between the church and local residents.
“Every incident has to be seen within its proper framework; you study an incident as an incident,” said an Interior Ministry spokesman who grew furious at the suggestion that Egyptians were in conflict because of their differing faiths. It is customary for security officials not to have their names revealed publicly.
“An incident is an incident, and a crime is a crime,” he said.This is an absurd statement. Copts don't worry about anyone "falling in love" when it comes to Muslims. They do worry about their daughters being kidnapped, raped, and forced to convert to Islam.But the Egyptian security apparatus is increasingly alone in its insistence.
[...]Egypt is the most populous Arab country, with about 80 million people. About 10 percent are Coptic Christian.
For most of Egypt’s Coptics, the major flare-ups — the attack on the Abu Fana Monastery or riots in 2005 in Alexandria — are faraway episodes that serve only to confirm a growing alienation from larger society. For most, the tension is more personal, a fear that a son or daughter will fall in love with a Muslim or of being derided as “coftes,” which means “fifth column.”
“We keep to ourselves,” said Kamel Nadi, 24, a Coptic who runs a small shop in the Shubra neighborhood of Cairo. “Muslims can’t say it, but it’s clear they don’t accept us. Here no one can speak the truth on this issue, so everybody’s feelings are kept inside.”Guess what the religious identity of the "village informant" is?
[...]The crowd quickly swelled as men and women and children joined the conversation, which almost imperceptibly began to shift toward grievances: There are no Christian officers in the police force. The villagers cannot get permission to build another church. There are no high-ranking Christian officials in their governate. And of course, if their daughters married Muslims, they would kill them.
Then, just as suddenly, the crowd thinned. The reason: state security was on the way. A village informant had already reported the conversation.
“The police know you are here now,” said Mr. Taki Faris, before he, too, made himself scarce. “They are very anxious these days.”
[...]“We feel pressure, maybe not all the time, but we do,” said Ashraf Halim, 45, a grocery store owner in the Shubra neighborhood in Cairo. “We have liberty of speech, and religion, but it’s as if somebody was telling us at the same time, ‘Don’t speak and don’t practice your religion.’ ”
[...]The underlying tension in Egypt flares periodically around the country. There were riots when word spread of a Coptic play supposedly denigrating the Prophet Muhammad and again over plans to expand a church. The state treated each case as a security problem.
But the violence at the ancient Abu Fana Monastery in May elevated events to a new level. In a follow-up report issued last month, the National Council for Human Rights described the atmosphere in Egypt as an “overcharged sectarian environment” and chided the state, saying it “turns a blind eye to such incidents” and was “only content to send security forces after clashes catch fire.”
They sure do get sorely vexed when you point out the obvious, don't they?
Seems to me the old Scapegoat problem, Egypt has seen food riot this year and several people killed, and as the price of oil is bound to rise as Peak oil takes over we will see even more of this sort of behavior from all parts of the world and not only against Christians. Because of cheap oil we have leveraged our soil to produce more food than than is sustainable in the long run. We use on average ten calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of food, in America the ratio is nearer 100 calories for 1 calorie of food. It is easy to see where these figures come from when you thing that fertilizer comes from hydrocarbons and I think that about 10% of all liquid hydrocarbon fuels in America are used in agriculture. This includes fertilizer diesel for the tractors for plowing harvesting cleaning packaging and transporting to the supermarkets. America can afford this because food is such a small part of expenditure but when it takes up 30% of the income of the poor in 3rd world countries the rise in the price of oil can be more devastating than 4$ a gallon gas. If the price of bread doubles then it can mean the difference between staving or living.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that when you have trouble find a scapegoat and the Copts are an easy target. Its not that I don't decry what is happening to the Copts but it has been the way of the world from time immemorial.
Look on the bright side though, the industrial sector of the American economy has grown by 1.7% this last month. Due mainly from the fact that orders from the American military have increased by 14.7% . Do they know something that we don't know? We live in interesting times.
Why Copts Still Get Croaa Tattoos On Their Children...
Pray for the Copts daily.
The Muslims continue to provide ample evidence of why it is necessary to demand a ban on Muslim Immigration.
If the New York Times were anything other than what it is - if, say, it really were doing its job - this article would provide the perfect jumping off point for the publication of a discussion of dhimmitude.
That is: the paper could have published, side by side with this story, the text of the classic 'Pact of Omar', together with articles by Bat Yeor and by Mr Spencer offering a commentary upon the 'pact' and explaining how those 'bare bones' provisions were elaborated into a ghastly system of religion-based apartheid that ensured, for the dhimmis, a miserable condition of - as Mr Fitzgerald has often put it - 'humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity'.
It could have reprinted Bat Yeor's classic essay "A Christian Minority: The Copts in Egypt", from Spencer's 'The Myth of Islamic Tolerance'.
It could have asked Nonie Darwish, Walid Phares, Magdi Cristiano Allam, and - possibly - even Tawfiq Hamid, to describe the attitudes toward Christians that are inculcated in the schools of Egypt, and in the mosques.
It could, if it had the guts, have commissioned Mr Fitzgerald to translate (or to find a suitable translator for) a chapter, or a suitable portion of a chapter, from Antoine Fattal's classic work, "Le Status legal des non-Musulmanes en pays d'Islam", and published the results in a Special Edition on Human Rights Abuses Inflicted by Muslims on Non-Muslims Within the Islamosphere.
Hint, hint, hint, anyone reading this who is a journalist for, or on the editorial staff of, a major Western or Indian or Filipino or even a Singaporean or Taiwanese newspaper or TV or radio broadcaster: if the New York Times won't do it, how about *you* do it? Inform the world. Tell everyone about the hideous system of slavery to which the Muslims dream of subjecting everyone who refuses to convert to their mind-numbing religion.
You will be threatened by Muslims. You may be sued by Muslims. Ignore it: just hire better security. The free world will, in the end, thank you for your truthtelling...and you will sleep straight of nights, knowing that you have spoken up for the oppressed, for those who live under the scimitar.
Remember the words of Pericles as rediscovered by Oriana Fallaci: "The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage".
And here, as published at one time on this website, is one version of that legendary 'Pact of Omar', as reproduced by medieval Muslim theorist and commentator on the Qur'an, Ibn Kathir. Comments in brackets { thus} and signed 'dda' are my own remarks on the material.
I invite those who have but lately joined us here, to read slowly through it, and then re-read the posted article, underlining those elements of the article that match topics mentioned in the 'pact'.
Paying Jizyah {'protection' money, paid by dhimmis to Muslims so they will deign to let you live (perhaps) for another year - dda} is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Allah said {in the Qur'an surah 9: 29 - dda}
﴿حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ﴾
(until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam,
﴿عَن يَدٍ﴾
(with willing submission), in defeat and subservience,
﴿وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ﴾
(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled.
Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.
Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,
«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»
(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.)
This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.
The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham {that is: the Jews and Byzantine Christians of formerly Byzantine ‘Palestine’, the Land of Israel - dda}:
'In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city.
When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion.
We made a condition on ourselves that
we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk,
nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration
nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims.
We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors (of our houses of worship) for the wayfarer and passerby.
Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days.
We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit (or betrayal) against Muslims.
We will not teach our children the Qur'an,
publicize practices of Shirk, {i.e no evangelising permitted - dda}
invite anyone to Shirk {i.e. no evangelising - dda}
or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. {see the supremacism and double standard? - dda}
We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them.
We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names,
or ride on saddles,
hang swords on the shoulders,
collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons.
{note - dhimmis had NO right to bear arms or to defend themselves - dda}
We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor.
We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are {i.e. humiliating garments so that Muslims may know whom to attack! - dda}
wear belts around our waist,
refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches
and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.
We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely,
or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims,
nor raise our voices (with prayer) at our funerals,
or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets.
We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims.
We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.{compare this with the fact that, above, Muslims are licensed to invade the homes and churches of non-Muslims and squat there, anytime they like - dda}
When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, “We will not beat any Muslim”. {note: in practice this applied under *any* circumstance, even when a dhimmi had suffered an unprovoked insult or gross and even life-threatening assault from a Muslim - dda}
These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection.
If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''
So ends the Pact, as quoted by Ibn Kathir, in material posted here on jihadwatch by KAOSKTRL at September 9, 2007 3:38 PM; kaosktrl added - That's tafseer Ibn Kathir and his take on the discussion. He is universally accepted [by modern Muslims] as an authority: http://infidelnation.org/Download.htm
O Islam, to judge from the terms of this 'pact', thy name is Injustice, thy name is Cruelty, thy name is Slavery, and thy name is Arrogance, Mean-Mindedness and Overweening Pride.
BBC Radio 4 Tuesday 5th August, 9.00AM and repeated at 21.00 BST.
"The Choice"
Michael Beurk interviews GEERT WILDERS.
There is a Listen Again facility on R4's homepage.
I'm curious about this statement from the article's author:
I've yet to see evidence of an honor killing among Copts. Anyone have info on this?
Let's see if I can sum this up -
There's real freedom of religion and then there's Islamic freedom of religion.
A monastery was ransacked in January. In May, monks there were kidnapped, whipped and beaten and *ordered to spit on the cross*.
..........................
Monks "ordered to spit on the cross"? How could that indicate anything other than a secular dispute?
more:
"The crowd quickly swelled as men and women and children joined the conversation, which almost imperceptibly began to shift toward grievances: There are no Christian officers in the police force. The villagers cannot get permission to build another church. There are no high-ranking Christian officials in their governate. And of course, if their daughters married Muslims, they would kill them."
Well, the first part of this--the grievances--is, as Dumbledore's Army pointed out, all classic humiliations of dhimmitude--no Christians in positions of honor or power--especially where they might have authority over a Muslim in any way--and permission denied to build--or even repair--Christian places of worship.
I did wonder about this last, though:
"And of course, if their daughters married Muslims, they would kill them."
Note how legitimate greivances are followed by this. It seems to indicate that Christians are just as bigoted and violent as Muslims.
Godefroi wrote:
I've yet to see evidence of an honor killing among Copts. Anyone have info on this?
..........................
You hear about Muslim "honor killings" all the time. Is this something Copts do, also? Like Godefroi, I had never heard that they did. I did a fairly extensive internet search--there were lots of references to the above NYT article (not surprisingly), lots of references to *Muslim* honor killings, references to Coptic women marrying Muslims (with no mention of resulting Coptic violence), and this article from 2005:
"Christian couple risks family honor by going public over disappearance of 21-year-old"
"November 18 (Compass) - Risking the loss of family honor, an Egyptian Christian couple last week went public with their daughter’s sudden disappearance under questionable circumstances."
The circumstances seem to be that the daughter was kidnapped, supposedly converted to Islam, and was married off to a Muslim. We've heard this ugly story again and again. So here, the reference to "risking the loss of family honor" was going public with the humiliating story, *not* threatening their daughter.
Of course, Muslim police are seldom of any help in these cases--as we see all the time, their sympathies are most often with the kidnappers.
more:
"Egypt’s security police, the State Security Investigation (SSI), typically claims to be protecting young women in such situations from their birth families, whom it says might kill the converted daughter in order to “save the family’s honor.”
No examples are cited, no cases refered to in this last claim. It appears to be just more justification for police refusing to help desperate Christian families searching for their kidnapped loved ones.
Here's the link:
http://www.copts.com/english1/index.php/2005/11/18/egypt-family-accuses-muslim-of-kidnapping-daughter/
The NYT article ends by citing an Egyptian survey to gauge Muslims' and Christians' ideas about each other:
"The survey showed profound misunderstandings on both sides... Some Muslims declared that Coptic priests wore black to mourn the Arab invasion of Egypt in the seventh century. Some Christians believed that the Koran ordered Muslims to kill all Christians."
These "misunderstandings" are treated as equivalent. More equivalency:
"The village is poor, its unpaved roads filled with barefoot children in tattered clothing. There are two churches, each guarded by men with shotguns. There are also two mosques, where security men are posted outside on Fridays, just in case the faithful become overwrought during prayer, people here said"
In other words, the Christians are guarding the churches from Muslim violence. Security is keeping an eye on mosques for signs of--Muslim violence. Seems pretty equivalent to me.
In most accounts I've heard, far from killing their daughters who are seduced or snatched by Muslim men, Coptic Christian families are normally overjoyed if their daughters manage to escape and return to their family and their faith, and welcome them back with open arms.
Indeed, I once read a major expose by a former Muslim who had been engaged in the process of seducing, abducting, brainwashing and generally degrading Coptic Christian girls, but had since become a Christian himself and repented, and was now actively trying to find and rescue the particular girls he himself had harmed and restore them to their families and the Christian community.
A recurring theme in his account was the reaction of the Christian families when their daughters returned. None killed the girls; few rejected them despite their having been, from the point of view of Arab/Muslim culture, 'dishonoured'; the vast majority were simply overjoyed, embracing and welcoming back the daughters (some of whom they might have chosen to condemn for being silly or 'wild' and thus willing to be seduced). You can see that this reaction from parents to a 'dishonoured' daughter - joy, forgiveness, welcome home - was something that his own Muslim upbringing had simply not taught him to expect.
You could see he was still feeling a holy surprise, in the contrast between the culture he'd left, and the culture he'd joined. It's 'hey, these people really *are* about love and forgiveness!' 'Wow!'
DDA,
It occurs to me that the prohibition in the Pact against Dhimmis buying servants captured by Muslims is intendeed to keep Dhimmis from redeeming their own from Muslim captivity--just another earmark Muslim outrage and characteristically depraved, inhuman Muslim cruelty.
DDA,
It occurs to me that the prohibition in the Pact against Dhimmis buying servants captured by Muslims is intended to keep Dhimmis from redeeming their own from Muslim captivity--just another earmark Muslim outrage and characteristically depraved, inhuman Muslim cruelty.
Read "signature Muslim outrage" for "earmark Muslim outrage."