The Rantings of a Liberal Egyptian: We will rock you

Demanding reform isn’t easy.

Demanding reform from an institution whose bedrock encompasses unwavering thoughts and ideals would be seen by a great many as being nearly impossible.

Yet the inclination of reformation has been persistent quality of mankind. Some social scientists liken this drive to constantly improve, as a thirst that can never be quenched. Throughout time mankind has had an inclination to improve upon itself making the possibilities of improvement virtually boundless. However, in the realm of everything that encompasses religion—there are those that will disparage the efforts of kindhearted reformers—through the use of irrelevant arguments and hatemongering. These efforts are especially manifest when the lights of reform shine brightly.

We can commend and protect our church with incessant praises. We can label those that urge reform as unfaithful heathens. But in the end will that do any good? Unfortunately, it will only hurt us. The below portion is a historical analysis of the partnership that has regrettably worsened our condition.

The Millet System

The partnership between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Egyptian government is reminiscent of the Ottoman Era millet system. As an outcome of Ottoman expansion, the sultans structured their conquered subjects into religious communities, called millets granting them a large degree of self-government.[i] Every millet was headed by a religious leader who had direct authority over the affairs of his community. The millet system allowed religious freedom and the power to “retain their religious education systems and religious legal structures.”[ii] The heads of religious communities were in charge of collecting tax revenues, administering justice, creating educational curriculums and determining the religious affairs of their communities.[iii] Allowing non-Muslims the right to administer their own communal affairs provided the Ottomans the ability to govern a diverse populace with little threat of rebellion. Despite the economic improvement of some groups under the millet system, under Ottoman law they could not be equal to Muslims. Religious communities were tolerated under the system, but were socially discriminated against due to the prohibition against non-Muslims in the military and ruling elite.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Copts had lofty expectations of equality and inclusion, but after decades of authoritarian rule by Mubarak and his predecessors, many Copts found themselves “battling discrimination, violence, marginalization, and the threat of demotion to the old dhimma status in an increasingly Islamized Egypt.”[iv] The partnership between the Church and the State has solidified Pope Shenouda’s role not only as head of the church but also as the leader of the Coptic community. There exists no civilian leadership in Egypt independent of the church and no independent leadership that can effectively address Coptic grievances and promotes a secular vision.[v] Even in the People’s Assembly, more Copts have been appointed by the President than have been elected by the people, making Coptic members of Parliament greatly indebted to the government.[vi]