Showing posts with label Egyptian Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egyptian Government. Show all posts

Monday, October 15, 2012

Latest Media Coverage on Baha'is in Egypt

Yesterday, Daily News Egypt, Egypt’s Only Daily Independent Newspaper In English, published a comprehensive story about the life of the Baha'is in today's Egypt. As the article speaks for itself, it would only be fair to quote it in its entirety here:

Baha’is in Egypt

Lucy Provan  /   October 14, 2012  /   1 Comment
The 25 January revolution gave everyone hope for change, and the Baha’i hope for acceptance.
Share     Print       Email
Baha’s cheerful smiling face belies his family history. When Baha’s father, a Quranic sheikh in a village in Upper Egypt, converted to the Baha’i faith, their neighbours accepted his choice and the small community lived in peace. This changed early one morning in 2001, when armed men in army fatigues took away his father, mother, two uncles’ and one uncle’s wife. His father was sent to Tora prison for nine months, his mother for seven.
After this event and his father’s public admittal to being a Baha’i, “the village started to get a reputation for its Baha’is,” Baha remembers. “People from the other districts would gossip and it hurt the pride of the people in the village.”
All this came to a head in 2009, when Baha’s father and Baha’i activist, Basma Moussa, went on the TV show “Al-Haqiqa.” Gamal Abdel Rahim, a journalist on the show, accused them of being apostates. “You are an infidel and should be killed,” he told the two. “Go build a country in Israel.”
Soon afterwards, the Baha’i homes in Baha’s village were looted and torched. The Baha’is had to flee and have not returned since. Rahim, this year appointed editor-in-chief of Al-Gomhuria newspaper, congratulated the attackers.
Whether living accepted in communities around Egypt or being attacked for being Zionists spies, the fortunes of Egypt’s estimated 2,000 Baha’is have fluctuated since their arrival in the 1860s. Today, the draft Egyptian constitution only recognises three state religions; Islam, Christianity and Judaism, meaning the Baha’is could be written out of Egypt’s future. So who are the Baha’is and what are they going to do about it?
One Thursday night in Cairo, Baha is sitting on a large grey sofa, it is one of many gathered in a circle in the white apartment. Young men and women trickle in to the room, greeting each other warmly. In what seems an unwritten rule, no one questions each other’s religion; attendees have come from all faiths. “We have come to discuss our similarities, not our differences,” announces the host as the session starts. Slips of paper are handed out, printed with sayings from the Torah, Quran, Bible and other holy books. Sitting here you might not even guess it is a Baha’i devotional meeting, save for the framed photograph standing in the corner; a portrait of a turbaned man with violet coloured eyes.
 Origins
The violet coloured eyes belonged to a Persian named Abdul Baha. He was the son of Mirza Hussein Ali, or Baha’u’llah, prophet of the Baha’i religion. Hussein Ali claimed to be the latest in a line of prophets including Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Christ and Muhammad. He believed humans were progressing towards a global society without conflict or prejudice. He promoted gender equality, universal education and the elimination of poverty. Baha’is believed in the independent seeking of truth, abrogation of the clergy, and election of Baha’i representatives. For these beliefs, Baha’u’llah was persecuted in his birthplace of Iran and imprisoned in Acre, modern-day Israel, where he died.
Abdul Baha toured the Middle East after his father’s death, spreading word of the new religion. While in Lebanon he met a kindred spirit; the Egyptian Mohamed Abduh. Abdul Baha would go on to spread a faith which now has seven million followers and is the second most geographically widespread religion after Christianity. Abduh would become the father of the modern idea of an Islamic state and a great influence on Hasan Al-Bana, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Their friendship indicates Egypt’s openness to Baha’is at the time.
Picture of Abdul Baha as a young man.
Picture of Abdul Baha as a young man.
“They discussed matters which concerned the east; how to progress and develop while protecting eastern and religious values and principles,” says historian Suheil Bushrui. “It was not an issue that he [Abdul Baha] was not a Muslim; at that time in the culture of the Arab world, and especially Egypt, there was a great deal of discussion and especially dialogue opening up and investigating new ideas.”
Early acceptance
By 1924, a Baha’i National Spiritual Assembly, the elected governing body of the Baha’i faith in Egypt, was established. It was the fourth in the world. Egypt became a hub for Baha’i pilgrims travelling to Acre. In 1925 in Beba, Upper Egypt, a Shari’a appellate court annulled the marriages of three Baha’i men who had married Muslim women. However, in so doing the judge legitimated the Baha’i faith, declaring it “a new religion, entirely independent with principles and laws of its own.” The Baha’i faith was officially recognised in 1934. By the late 1950s, there were approximately 5,000 Egyptian Baha’is, local Baha’i assemblies in 13 cities and towns and the community had purchased 17,000 square meters of land on the banks of the Nile for a Baha’i house of worship.
Basma Moussa, the Cairo University professor who appeared on television with Baha’s father, sits in her garden looking through photos. In one, her mother peers excitedly from behind a large crowd inside the National Spiritual Assembly building in Cairo.  She remembers her mother’s stories of the assembly, “there were always people coming and going, visits from different countries and an equal number of men and women, which was quite unusual at the time. People in the area accepted the assembly as something normal.”
Persecution
This acceptance was not to last. Forty years after Saad Zaghloul led a revolution under the slogan, “religion belongs to God and the homeland to all,” Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser became concerned about the rise of Baha’is and their links to a nascent expansionist Israel on his borders. In 1960, he issued Decree 263, paragraph six of which proclaimed “all Baha’i assemblies and centres [are] hereby dissolved, and their activities suspended.” Baha’is were allowed to practice in their homes, but all official Baha’i properties, funds and assets were confiscated. They have still not been returned.
Nasser’s actions were driven by a desire to reinforce secularism, but subsequent administrations would target Baha’is for their perceived heresy. The 1971 constitution promised, “the state shall guarantee the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rites.” Four years later, however, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Decree 263 and ruled constitutional protections only extended to the three “heavenly” religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
From 1965 to 2001 there were 236 arrests of Baha’is, charged under Article 98(f) of the Penal Code which proscribes “disparaging contempt of any divinely-revealed religion or its adherents, or prejudicing national unity or social harmony.” It was rare for these cases to be followed by prosecution; most were simply released after being detained. Albert-Ludwig University of Freiberg’s Professor of Islamic Studies, Johanna Pink, has suggested the government was not so much concerned with the Baha’i being a real threat, but was attempting to “legitimise” its authority in the eyes of the people, presenting themselves as “defenders” of Egypt as an Islamic state.
Public attitudes
The government’s opportunistic discrimination against Baha’is was based on the fact public perception was generally negative and based on rumours. After the 1960s, “the tone of the press became much more negative and even polemical,” wrote Pink in a 2005 paper on freedom of belief. She added that by 2005, a connection between the Baha’i faith and Zionism was taken for granted in the media. In 2008, the Andalus Institute for Tolerance and anti-Violence Studies noted many national newspapers’ reports “implie[d] direct incitement to hatred against Baha’i.” Baha’is were also often seen as a security threat, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, cites claims made most frequently by conservative clerics such as Abdel Moneim Al-Shahat, a prominent Salafi leader, that “Baha’is deserve no rights in a new constitution and…should be tried for treason.” From 1910 to 2010, 15 fatwas(Islamic religious rulings) labelled Baha’is heretics, based on the fact that Baha’is believed in a prophet after Muhammad.
All this affected the personal lives of the descendants of those converted by Baha’i Iranian traders years ago. Sumaya Mohamed Ramadan, winner of the Naguib Mafouz prize for literature, remembers her introduction to the Baha’i faith in England. “I saw a picture of this oriental man with a turban and I thought what is he doing in this living room in Brighton? I started to ask and I missed the train home that night.” Coming back, Ramadan’s conversion was accepted by her family, although occasionally her religion would cause others embarrassment. “One time we were talking about equality, everyone was agreeing with what I was saying and then I mentioned some of my ideas were based on the fact I was a Baha’i, and the whole room went silent,” she recalls.
Moussa graduated in the top ten of her class in dental medicine and started working in Cairo University. When her colleagues questioned her different fasting patterns, she revealed her religion, “some started not to speak to me or eat with me.” Some started to accuse her of missing work, she says. Moussa was continually overlooked for promotion and spent a long time fighting the administration of her university. “I lost five years of my life and career complaining about it and I had to do it alone,” she says. “I couldn’t mention the discrimination was because I was Baha’i.”
A more positive wave of support followed a court case in 2009, when Baha’is won the right to declare their religion on their ID card. Not declaring their religion would have removed their entitlement to a range of rights including education, housing and franchise. Their only other option was to commit fraud or lie about their religion. Many media outlets highlighted the case, helping create more public understanding. “The media was biased before… in 2009 there was a legitimate and neutral report,” a reporter in Masry Al Youm told Daniel Perrell, author of a 2010 study on Baha’i rights. Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also got behind the case. Despite this, Pink says other “Egyptian human rights groups have been reluctant to take up the case of unpopular minority religious groups like the Baha’i Faith… fear[ing] that this might compromise their ability to speak out on other issues which they consider more important.”
The revolution
The 25 January revolution gave everyone hope for change, and the Baha’i hope for acceptance. The Baha’is of Egypt released an open letter to the nation enthusing about the possibilities for the future.
Baha'i National Spiritual Assembly before 1950. Basma Moussa / Daily News Egypt
Baha’i National Spiritual Assembly before 1950.
Basma Moussa / Daily News Egypt
“Media concentrates on the negative aspects to Baha’is… but we want to help build the country, all Egyptians together, and since the revolution we are more able to do that,” says Baha’i NGO worker, Shady Samir.
Moussa noticed a great difference in her treatment since the revolution. “People started stopping me in the street and saying ‘I’m not a Baha’i but I respect your struggle.’ Before they were scared to speak about religious freedom, after the revolution everyone started to speak about his opinion.”  Her employer’s attitude also changed, “last March they promoted me to professor… and I didn’t have to push for it,” she smiles.
Where to now? The constitutional question
The current debate about the new constitution raises many issues of concern for the Baha’i community. For example, the proposed Article 8 which states, “freedom of religion is absolute and practices shall be conducted in accordance with public order. The state shall ensure freedom to establish places of worship for adherents of Abrahamic religions in accordance with the law.”
The clause would mean Baha’is would not be able to practice their religions in public or build places of worship. Nor does it suggest that the state would be involved in protecting freedom of religion.
Much depends on how the constitution is interpreted by the new legal system. “Anything written in a constitution is only as valuable as the enforcement of it,” says Perrell. “Constitutions have tremendous normative value and by listing only a few religions… they inhibit legitimate conversation about what constitutes a religion and validates those who would discriminate against any unlisted religion.”
Mohsen Kamal, deputy director of the Andalus Institute for Tolerance and Anti Violence Studies, suggests further implications. The 2009 ruling on ID cards could be nullified, he says. It could be even harder for Baha’is to go to the media and talk about their rights. “If they are talking about their religion they could be accused of insulting Islam.” The article of the new constitution implementing “the principles of Shari’a law,” could result in Baha’is being punished as apostates.
“In plain words,” wrote Baha’i blogger Bilo, “and according to the current rhetoric, promulgated by Islamists and many of those participating in drafting Egypt’s new constitution, if you are a Baha’i in Egypt, you are not recognized or protected under the constitution or any laws that enforce equal rights because only adherents of the three religions are entitled to such protections.”
Mahmoud Ghozlan, spokesperson of the Muslim Brotherhood and a member of the new Egyptian National Council of Human Rights, defends the implementation of Article 8. “Baha’ism is not a religion,” he asserts, before describing how the constitution will not negatively affect Baha’is. “They will have the freedom to worship but they will not be recognised as a religion.”
This sentiment was echoed by a Constituent Assembly member, Farid Ismael, in a recent broadcast television programme, Akher Kalam. Ismael claimed this article should not cause Baha’is to fear for their safety, stating the assembly did not condone attacking anyone because of their religion and if Baha’is were threatened then the government would protect them.
“There is something called the general order. We won’t let a minority promote their religion, which would go against the general order, and jeopardise social peace,” justifies Ghozlan. This attitude was similarly recorded in a paper by academic Daniel Cantini in 2009, “the view of Egyptian jurisdiction is that public interest, even as vaguely defined ones [such] as Shari’a, respect of recognised religions, social peace or national unity, have priority over the individual right of freedom of belief.”
The importance of the Baha’i case for Egypt rests on what it tells us about the attitude of Ghozlan and other decision makers. Their fate indicates how much fundamental change Egyptian institutions have undergone since the revolution.
“Why do we point to what has happened to the Baha’is?” asked Faraj Fuda, a renowned secularist, before his assassination by Islamists in 1994. “What happens to the Baha’is today may happen to others tomorrow and that the chain [of events] that starts with the Baha’is will inevitably end with enlightened Muslims.”
The future
The Constitution remains in draft and much debated. What can Baha’is do to influence its provisions?
Fundamentally, the problem Baha’is have always faced is ignorance and prejudice in a society in which religion is often a crucial aspect of identity. Legal changes are essential, but the importance is in the implementation, and this is grounded in the attitude of the people. As recorded in an interview with the former UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros Ghali in 2010, “there is still a lot of work to be done socially…according to Boutros Boutros-Ghali, there is still limited success, ‘when the small administrator may consider the Baha’i the devil.’”
Baha reflects three years on from when his family’s houses were torched. “Even the people who attacked [my family] were usually nice people” he says, “friends of friends, I think people did not know about the religion. They believed rumours… if there has been a misunderstanding, as a Baha’i it’s my fault. I need to clear that misunderstanding.”
Shady Samir is the grandson of one of the Baha’i men whose marriage was annulled in the Beba case in 1925. He works for an NGO which helps young people learn how to use information technology. It is a job he has chosen, he says, as part of the “service” all Baha’is must perform in order to promote unity and peace. Samir says Baha’is should not just focus on their rights, but wider issues, such as the position of women. By demonstrating their positive contribution to society inclusive of all Egyptians, Baha’is might gain the trust and change attitudes of those around them. “When I was growing up, the community was more afraid and enclosed,” he says, “more of a minority mentality. Now especially we are being more open.”
Running youth groups, volunteering in their community, helping their neighbours are all ways in which Baha’i are encouraged to foster understanding and acceptance of their faith.
Ramadan suggests, “evolution can be a revolution. Plant a seed and it will cost you, but with work and perseverance and faith there will be fruit. There is no point revolting to try to make the tree grow in a second. The revolution is a learning process for everyone, just because it has aspects that don’t suit me doesn’t mean it is not a good thing… you choose to be grateful and work with what there is.”
The Baha’is appear determined to keep on preparing for the time of unity predicted by their holy books. At the end we have to “grin and bear it” says Ramadan. She intends to “build little circles of influence and big circles of concern… so you can influence your circle and change society.”
Back in Zamalek at the inter-faith meeting, the slips have been read out and people gather in groups to discuss the subject of “peace.”
What is peace, we are encouraged to ask ourselves. How could we achieve it? Some think that you should understand yourself, others reject this. “Just being at peace with yourself is selfish. We need to think about world problems.” Some quote Martin Luther King Junior, others religious texts. “What’s so great about peace anyway?” grumbles one participant, initiating a string of refutations and strong admonitions from the Martin Luther King fan.
Afterwards, I ask people what the session means for them. One attendee tells me it helps him to think about his life. He goes back to the people at work, his family and talks about the other perspectives he’s heard. “Many people here come to learn about others and have the freedom to express ideas,” notes the organiser. “It might be the first time they read the Bible for example,” and certainly the first time to gain an understanding of Baha’i texts.
In 2009, Baha’s father was being accused on television of being an infidel and threatened with death. His words then reflect a hope which continues with Baha’is today. “I would like to tell the nation, [quoting from the Quran] ‘if a wicked person brings any news to you, you shall first investigate, lest you commit an injustice towards some people out of ignorance and become sorry and remorseful for what you have done,’” he said. “I ask the Muslims and Egyptians to seek the truth.”

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Bahá’ís in Egypt Pay Taxes—But Are Deprived of Civil Rights

On 9 may 2007, Al-Ahaly Egyptian newspaper published an interview with Dr. Basma Moussa, a professor at Cairo University’s Faculty of Dentistry and an Egyptian Baha’i.

Instead of translating the article, the following are my conclusions based on the information provided in that interview:

There must be separation between citizenship and belief—they cannot be interconnected. Each Egyptian citizen must be entitled to ALL citizenship rights. Presently, all Egyptian Bahá’ís are deprived of their citizenship rights simply because of their belief. They are denied government-issued ID cards which are a necessity in order to continue to live in Egypt as a human being. Nothing in normal daily living can be accomplished without these ID cards.

Egyptian Bahá’ís have always served their country and fellow citizens with absolute loyalty and sincerity. As law-abiding citizens, they have always had contributed to their society in professions, sciences, commerce and fine arts. One of the members of the community, Mr. Hussein Bikar has been recognized as a national treasure and awarded the highest prize in the land: President Mubarak’s Prize in Fine Arts.

In Egypt, it appears to be perfectly acceptable for the government to force the Bahá’ís to pay taxes like all other citizens, but seems to have no hesitation in depriving them of all their civil rights and all services due to them. The authorities cannot demand taxation from Bahá’ís with nothing in return. Is there any justice in this? This fact alone raises a very big question! One would expect that ID cards (and the national ID number) must be used in order to pay taxes!

Meanwhile, a misguided Human Rights Committee of the Egyptian Parliament just announced the outcome of its deliberations regarding the ID card issue. In an article published in the front page of Al-Dostour Al-Youmy Egyptian newspaper on 8 May 2007, the decision of that committee of the parliament was revealed, announcing that it has denied the entry of any religion on ID cards other than the three recognized “divine” religions in Egypt, i.e. Islam, Christianity & Judaism. It also refused to eliminate religious classification from Egyptian ID cards, quoting the usual baseless reservations and rhetoric regarding personal status laws (addressed in the previous post dated 9 May 2007). Thus affirming the denial of ID cards to the Bahá’ís and any other “unrecognized” religious groups in Egypt.

Here again, is another blow to human and civil rights in Egypt, disrupting hopes for progress and tolerance and depriving Egypt from a stable, more humane and progressive society.

It is worth noting that one’s religion is only in one’s heart and is the individual’s private and personal affair. Simply stating the religion of a person on a piece of paper or a plastic card cannot truly reflect the person’s true feelings, conscience or beliefs. On the other hand, no one should ever be placed in a position to have to lie about his or her own belief or religion in order to satisfy some arcane laws that dictate the religions which can be the only ones entered in ID cards and official documents.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Egypt: Rights of Baha'is and Current Government's Stand

This is a news report, aired on Al-Hurra Television that examined the challenges facing the Egyptian Baha'i citizens. The recording can also be watched directly at this link.

The reporter, Tareq El-Shamy, interviewed a Baha'i family living in Cairo, a representative of the Egyptian government and a representative of a Christian church.

The program, which was televised on the 19 March 2007 broadcast, is entitled: Eye on Democracy.



The first interviewee, Dr. Labib Iskandar Hanna, spoke of some of the difficulties facing the Baha'is, such as their inability to obtain birth certificates for their newborn children, and their inability to obtain ID cards, death certificates, bank accounts or the acquisition and sale of property. He described the current situation as "civil death."

The second interviewee, Raymona El-Hamamsy, spoke of her past humiliating public dismissal from high school, even though she was named "the exemplary student," simply because she wrote her religion as Baha'i on the required document.

The last interviewee, Mr. Rifaat Fikry who is a representative of a Christian church, spoke about discrimination against Christians, women and Baha'is in Egypt.

The most revealing interview in this program--the one before last--is with the government's representative, Mr. Hany El-Nazer representing the ruling National Democratic Party [al-Hizb al-Watany al-Democraaty], and a member of the Supreme Political Council.

The brief statements made by Hany El-Nazer appear to betray the government's current strategy and "party line" regarding the Baha'i crisis. The following is a literal translation (from Arabic) of his statements:

"On the subject of the Baha'is, I would like to tell you something...we must recognize that in the Egyptian society there are Muslims and Christians and Jews. These are known divine religions, and they are respected. Then you start something and after you start it, you want to legalize it? This cannot be--so we are not starting something and then say the ID and legalizing...this talk is not permissible, and it is not useful to talk about it."

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Official Egyptian Press Examines the Baha'i Case

The following is commentary on an extensive article authored by Ahmed Zaki Osman that appeared in Al-Qahera (a weekly published by Egypt’s Ministry of Culture) on Tuesday, 16 January 2007. Issue #353, p. 24. A pdf image of the article can be viewed at this link.

In the attached page that carries a fairly large picture of Abdu’l-Bahá (the son of Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith), Al Qahira investigates the possible reasons behind the attack on Baha’is after the ruling of the first administrative court of 4 April 2006 that gave Baha’is the right to official documents required by the state for all transactions whether with various state departments or social institutions, banks, schools, universities etc…. The verdict was overturned by the Supreme Administrative Court, on 16 December 2006, to much jubilation from Islamist extremists both inside the court and in the papers, and to the amazement of Osman who points out in his article the confusion in self perceived roles on the part of members of parliament in particular.

The article is entitled: "Why was not the home of Islam big enough for all people, including the Baha'is...recognizing their rights to believe in whatever pleases their hearts?" In one of its subtitles the article points out that "Egypt's citizenship laws have never stated that adherence to divine religions should be a condition for citizenship."

Ahmed Zaki Osman, the author of the article, chooses as starting point what he calls the "geography" of the Baha’is' case. He quotes the famous geographer Gamal Hamdan who in his magnum opus "The Character of Egypt," has specified Egypt as the land most likely to manifest in all matters the rule of the 'golden means' and contrast, due to the rich variety of its demographic and historical heritage. Ahmed Zaki Osman carries this metaphor to its conclusion by highlighting the paradoxes in discourse that were rampant while the case for the Baha’is was being made public, albeit to underscore the underlying paradoxes rather than to demonstrate the positive aspect in Hamdan’s initial statement.

He scrutinizes the discourse of hegemony in a way that underscores what he suggests is a national ailment that he sees as fairly novel to the Egyptian scene, and arrives at the conclusion that Muslims are passing through an unprecedented phase of oppression, weakness and humiliation whereby it is difficult for the adherents of that faith to point to any achievement worth their while except in those societies where the preponderance of the population is not Muslim. He points to the fact that there are Muslim members of parliament in France, Britain, Germany and other countries and cites the fact that there is a Muslim woman judge in the United States; this however does not seem to impress Muslims at home with any message. They remain according to Ahmed Zaki Osman the victims of a monocular vision, unable to appreciate the invigorating elements in a healthy debate that rests on rational premises instead of vainglory and pride that derives its raison d’etre from an imagined threat in which all that is not Muslim is targeted for its own sake.

Ahmed Zaki Osman is not out to describe a persecution complex...far from it. What he is trying to do is to put in perspective the difference between handling a situation rationally or resorting to inflamed emotional rhetoric which is how he describes the responses that occurred from members of parliament who are otherwise noteworthy citizens. What he seems to be saying is that, in the absence of true democracy, frustration is taken out haphazardly without resort to either decency in dialogue or indeed an understanding of the roles designated by society to its judiciary, its executive and its representative bodies.

He describes a confusion of issues that allows members of parliament to draw their comments from their own personal leanings and feelings on a matter that falls within the realm of the courts and the institutions of justice and nothing else. To the extent that those members of parliament who raised the issue as intolerable, have addressed their request for questions in the house to the wrong minister! The minister they needed to address in order to voice a grievance such as their intention to deny a group of citizens the right to hold national ID cards with all what that implies, should have been the Minister for Interior and not the Minister of Religious Endowments!

This situation bespeaks, in the opinion of Osman, a degree of frustration and intolerance that stems both from annoyance with the political atmosphere as much as it is a manifestation of the confusion of issues that allow those politicians to play on the emotions of the public and to instigate their fears...though he does not accuse the parliamentarians who stand guard on Islamic pseudo issues--as was the case when the minister for culture made a denigrating remark (off the record) to a journalist about the veil, or when the Pope of the Vatican made his ill-advised references to history--of anything less than a misconception of their role in parliament.

The other reason Osman attributes the anger to is the lack of a mind educated to accept diversity and difference. He cites a famous dialogue between the Imam Muhammad Abdu and Sheikh Rashid Reda on the issue of the Baha’i faith. In the quotes he chooses, it is more than apparent that there was a steady and stable ground of enlightenment that ensured the rationality of the debate without either of the clerics condescending to haphazard accusations of the faith, its proponents or its leading figures. Indeed, Muhammad Abdu is quoted as saying of Abdu’l-Bahá that he is a very Great man. But then we must recall--says Othman--who the parties to that dialogue were, in a clear reference to their excellence, and thus the relative mediocrity of the current commentators and players.

Osman stresses what he calls "the geography of paradoxes" to indicate the clear schism between what a Nation thinks of itself, and what the reality of its discourse reveals. He describes the jubilations (Allah'u-Akbar!) that were loud in the court on the 16th of December, as an indication of a moral bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, he puts that scene under the subtitle: "The psychological defeat of the nation." He ends his article by posing a number of salient questions that all address the issue of the times when diversity is viewed as a threat and hopes that Egypt will overcome its current narcissistic, introvert outlook in order to regain its sense of dignity, rights for all its citizens whether poor or rich, Muslim or non Muslim, weak or strong.

To conclude, this writer challenges all the dogmas, delusions and illusions of the Islamist fundamentalist establishment which has triggered the government's appeal of the administrative court's ruling that had granted the Baha'is their rights. This challenge was introduced in the Egyptian parliamentary debate more than a month after the court's judgement and following several sessions during which the matter was never brought up. To make matters worse, these extremist individuals addressed the wrong minister regarding their issue. The article also points out the fact that the task of the parliament is not to police the judiciary and challenge court decisions, but rather act as a watch-dog to the executive branch of the government to ensure that the rights of individuals, whom they represent, are protected.

Furthermore, a secular member of the parliament, Dr. Zainab Radwan, a well known academician supported the recognition of the Baha'is, not because it is their right, but for a sinister reason--that is "to identify them so that the society can be protected from their influence"...not far removed from the Nuremberg Race Laws! Then, all of a sudden, the issue of "public order" was brought in, which in fact has absolutely nothing to do with this case, particularly when the disruption of public order, so rampant in the Egyptian society recently, has been caused by the exact same society elements which have been attacking the Baha'is....

Thus this whole matter which had emerged through the parliament, challenging a court decision that granted citizenship rights, has been illegal and out of jurisdiction all along. Even worse, the Supreme Administrative Court avoided the question at hand, and instead of ruling on the civil and personal status questions in front of it, resorted instead to take shots at the legitimacy of the Baha'i Faith!

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Egypt: Recommendations of Human Rights Organizations

The Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organization [EUHRO] held its fifth annual convention in Cairo on 11 January 2007, to which the Baha'is were invited to make a formal presentation. The theme of the convention was entitled: "Freedom of Belief Between Shari'ah [Islamic jurisprudence] and the Constitution." The panel consisted of representatives from the media, the arts, the university, the ruling political party, Islam's al-Azhar University, and the Baha'i Faith. They were, seated from left to right: Mr. Amr Al-Leithy, editor of Al-khamees newspaper & programmer in channel-2 of the Egyptian TV; Mr. Wael Al-Ibrashi, Editor-in-Chief of Sawt Al-Umma newspaper & the TV program Al-Haqiqah [The Truth] of Dream-2 channel; Dr. Mahmoud Ashour, former Deputy Sheikh of al-Azhar University; Justice Naguib Ghobreial, the organization's president; Mrs. Ilham Shaheen, an actress & a movie superstar; Dr. Gihad Ouda, a university professor of political science & member of the political committee of the ruling party; and Dr. Basma Moussa, professor of Maxillo-Facial Surgery at Cairo University, representing the Baha'i Faith.

Dr. Basma Moussa made an elaborate PowerPoint slide presentation describing the crisis currently facing the Egyptian Baha'is. This presentation was a very well-received keynote feature of the convention, during which she used several quotes from the recent message of the Universal House of Justice to the Egyptian Baha'is.

Following its conclusion, the convention released its recommendations to the press and the Egyptian government. The following is a summary of its eleven-point recommendations:

1) The convention supports President Mubarak in his efforts to reform the constitution and in particular the principle of citizenship.

2) The convention affirms that the rights of citizenship in Egypt cannot be realized without the modernization of the State and the respect for all religious authorities in Egypt.

3) The convention recommends that the constitution must be freed from any reference to religious inclinations.

4) The convention recommends that the constitution truthfully declares the true meaning of Egyptian identity and the affirmation of the modernity and civility of the State.

5) The convention recommends the absolute guarantee of freedom of belief to all citizens regardless of their various religious congregations or beliefs.

6) The convention recommends that in case article-2 of the constitution [referring to the Islamic Shari'ah as the source of legislation], that it would be amended to state that "it will not interfere with the principle of citizenship, and would not influence the beliefs of others."

7) The convention recommends that the principle of "public order" be clearly defined and understood so that it does not get confused with any belief or religious understanding, and that "public order" be based on basic political and economic rules of the society.

8) The Convention recommends the elimination of religious classification from ID cards.

9) The convention recommends that all laws of the land must become devoid of any discrimination between its citizens based on religion, gender or race.

10) The convention affirms the necessity of enforcing all of Egypt's agreements to the various international treaties and declarations on human rights to which it has been a co-signatory, as well as all the agreements that became part of the Egyptian law as stated in Article-151 of the Egyptian constitution.

11) The convention recommends the elimination of any conditions or reservations that Egypt had attached to its ratification of any of the international treaties on human rights, while safeguarding the status of Egyptian citizenship & identification.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Cairo Institute for Human Rights Symposium on the Rights of Baha'is

The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) conducted a symposium on 26 December 2006 regarding the civil rights crisis being currently faced by the Egyptian Baha'is. A full report on the symposium can be seen in Arabic at this link, and in English at this link.

Below is a translation of this report prepared by one of the regular readers of this blog.

"The Government created the problem for the Baha'is...and it alone has to find a solution."

26/12/2006

The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court in mid December 2006 to over-rule the verdict issued in April of the same year by the first circle Administrative Court which had confirmed the right of the Baha'is to list their religion in official state papers and personal ID cards, raised many fears concerning freedom of belief and freedom of thought in the Egyptian society. This [fear] was reflected in the discussions that took place in a meeting held on December 24 with the title "The dilemma of the freedom of belief in Egypt...in relation to the ruling of the High Administrative Court in the Baha'i case."

Mu'taz Alfigairi, president of the Centre's programs said: "The ruling went beyond the freedom of belief, to [ruling] on the Baha'i system of belief," expressing that the reactions to this case, gives a good indication of the dilemma present in the current political and social atmosphere prevalent in Egypt.

Hisham Ahmad Saif-ul-Islam president of the Hisham Mubarak Center for Law, added that this ruling, and the general issue of the Baha'is have brought to the foreground, the discussion on freedom of belief in Egypt in general, pointing out that the Egyptian constitution protects such freedoms of belief and expression. Saif-ul-Islam continued by saying that the government alone has to find a solution to this problem which, by itself it has created after refusing to issue the Baha'is the legal papers necessary for identification, which are very necessary in their daily transactions, such as passports, and ID cards. He sees that the solution is to eliminate the space for religion from the ID card, or to go back to using the word "other" (other than Islam, Christianity or Judaism), pointing out that the present condition for the Baha'is puts them in a state of "Civil Death/Non Existence," for not being able to submit proof of their existence in official forms and records.

Hossam Bahgat, president of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights [EIPR] sees that "the ruling of the High Administrative Court not to allow Baha'is to be identified as such in official documents, puts the government in a difficult position in regards to Baha'i citizens being unable to obtain birth certificates or ID cards or even death certificates," and considers that human rights organizations were late in getting involved in this case.

Bahgat added that the Baha'is were subjected in the Eighties and Nineties to very difficult conditions including arrests and imprisonments as well as media campaigns targeting even their morals. He emphasized that the latest ruling does not mean that the case is concluded, and that human rights organizations will continue to bring new cases and legal proceedings regarding the same issue, making sure to avoid earlier mistakes that might have occurred. Bahgat emphasized that Islamic law accords justice to the Baha'is as do books on Islamic jurisprudence, pointing out that those who defended the Baha'is have taken advantage of this argument before the court, however the court did not take it into consideration. He also pointed out that the ruling considered Islamic Law to be the basis for legislation as well as the basis for all moral values of society, thus presenting difficulties for all future cases that deal with freedom of belief.

He emphasized that for the society's majority not to have been granted all rights, does not present an excuse or justify taking away the rights of the minority, pointing out that the Islamic current [movement] did not have the Baha'i case on its agenda, but rather it was the ruling National Party that brought the case to the Parliament, and not the representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Dr. Ahmad Rasim Al-Nafis, a university professor and Islamic thinker of the Shiite school of thought, addressed the issue of freedom of belief and human rights, and pointed out that there are intellectual "taboos" that some see as sacred while in reality they are points of argument and discussion that people have not agreed on as some might have imagined.

Al-Nafis pointed out that there are large communities of Muslims who live as minorities in other non-Islamic and non-Christian (i.e. not of "the Book") countries such as India, which brings up the question of how they can for example implement laws such as those for apostasy in these societies where they live. He said that it is incumbent upon Muslims to abide by the laws and keep their covenants and obligations, whether these are in the form of local laws or international treaties that their governments have agreed to, such as the agreements on freedom of belief and human rights, adding that, just like the west uses double standards, so do Islamic countries use double standards just as much.


Al-Nafis confirmed that there is not an established specific punishment for apostasy in the Qur'an, and that the Qur'anic verses just speak of God's punishment in the afterlife regarding it. He wondered why there is a tendency in the Islamic world for "being ready to jump at" wanting to punish and make an example of anyone who steps out the established system. He said that the war on Shi'ism and the Shiites enticed government officials and their helpers to establish a creed based on "iron and fire," cautioning that there are some now who are trying to establish a new class of sheikhs [clergy] who will become the "defenders of the belief." He emphasized that giving any segment in society the right to try others for their beliefs and thoughts rather than their mere adherence to the laws of the country, would constitute a catastrophe that should be opposed and stopped.

Dr. Basma Moussa–-an Egyptian Baha'i--and professor of dental medicine at Cairo University, addressed the root causes of the current situation facing the Baha'is. She traced it back to an attempt in 2004 by a Baha'i engineer [Hossam Ezzat] to obtain official documents for himself and his family after the civil authorities refused to register him as Baha'i, based on ruling numbered 49 in the year 2004 that stipulates recording one of the three religions--Islam, Christianity, or Judaism--in official documents, forcing the said engineer to file a lawsuit where he obtained a ruling by councilor [judge] Farooq Abdul-Qadir that he can document that he is a Baha'i in his personal ID card.

Hossam Ezzat's Old ID Card [CONFISCATED]

She emphasized that the media handled this in a negative way in more than 400 articles and news items in over 50 newspapers and magazines that used unusual methods of reporting while heaping numerous insults and calumnies on the Baha'is and their Faith.

Basma pointed out that the Baha'is are asking for their rights as citizens and were not trying to obtain a recognition of their religion. She said that there are Baha'i children as old as 14 years of age who have yet to obtain birth certificates, besides they have not been able to get the various immunizations required in children. She wondered how society could handle thousands of citizens walking in the streets without official documents as she also wondered if the United Nations would place this case on its agenda since it has declared the year 2007 to be the "Year of Rights."

In comments from the audience, Hamdi Abdul-Aziz director of the Suwayseiya Center Against Discrimination tied the case of the Baha'is to what he described as the "tyranny" that has corrupted religion and civil life together, saying that rights of citizens should be demanded for all and not only for minorities, pointing out that the majority also suffers from these abuses, just as the minority does. Ayman Akeel president of Na'eit Centre for Legal Studies called for organizing a campaign for the actual implementation of international treaties that Egypt is already a signatory to.

Amin Abul-Futooh Batah--a Baha'i--pointed out that the Baha'i religion has been in Egypt since 1864 and had centres and administrative bodies in about 17 cities in Egypt, clarifying that the Baha'i issue was presented in a bad light to the late President Gamal Abdel-Nasser, who in turn issued his decree to dissolve Baha'i Assemblies [Institutions]. Battah added: "We accept Islam, and its Prophet, and the Books of God and His Messengers, but we also believe that the Baha'i [Faith] is a new religion and that [Baha'u'llah] is the awaited Mahdi [Promised One], pointing out that Baha'is are not asking for recognition of their religion but rather are asking for their rights as citizens, who must be provided with official papers proving that they are indeed Egyptian citizens. Along the same line, a Baha'i lady talked about her son who is in his second year in college and does not have an ID card, and about her second son, who has passed the age of 14 years, who does not have a birth certificate yet.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Egypt: US Reaction to the 16 December Verdict

Following the 16 December 2006 verdict of Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court verdict denying Egyptian Baha'is their civil rights, the United States Government has reacted to the ruling on two separate occasions.

The first was a statement made during the daily State Department briefing by Mr. Sean McCormack on 18 December 2006. The second was in the form of a letter written by two Congressmen on 22 December 2006 to Egypt's Ambassador to the United States.

The first statement can be found at this link, and a video of the briefing can be viewed at this link, with the specific reference to the Baha'i case beginning near the 45 minutes mark of the video.

It is also transcribed here:

QUESTION: Sean, one on Egypt. Do you have any reaction on the December 16 ruling by Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court that returned an April 4 lower court ruling which had affirmed the right of Egyptian Baha'is to receive government identity cards?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it is certainly a ruling that flies in the face of stated Egyptian commitments to freedom of expression, freedom of religion. We would hope that the Egyptian Government would take steps that would allow people of the Baha'i faith to obtain these identification cards. Not being able to get a hold of these identification cards poses all sorts of difficulties for individuals in getting things done in daily life. So we would urge the Egyptian Government really to address this issue. It's really a fundamental issue of religious freedom.

The second reaction was in the form of a letter co-signed by the US Congress Representatives Mark Steven Kirk from Illinois and Tom Lantos from California. The letter was addressed to His Excellency M. Nabil Fahmy, Ambassador of Egypt to the United States.

An introduction to the letter by Representative Kirk and a link to the letter can be viewed at this link. The introduction states the following:

December 23, 2006

Religious Freedom for Bahai’s in Egypt

This holiday weekend serves as a reminder of the importance of our world’s religions to worship free from persecution. That’s why I became alarmed when I learned of the action the Government of Egypt recently took towards the small Egyptian Baha’i community. The Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt decided last Saturday to uphold the Egyptian government’s discriminatory policy of prohibiting Baha’is from obtaining a national identity card. The court’s ruling denies Egyptian Baha’is their rights as citizens of Egypt and would subject them to particular hardship in obtaining education, employment, and social services.

I joined with Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) to write a letter to the Egyptian Ambassador to the United States, expressing disappointment at the court’s decision and urging the Egyptian government to remedy the situation.


The letter is transcribed below:

Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515


December 22, 2006

His Excellency M. Nabil Fahmy
Ambassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary
Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt
3521 International Court, NW
Washington DC 20008

Dear Mr. Ambassador,

We are writing to express our disappointment upon learning of the December 16 Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt ruling against the Baha'i community. As you know, the court decision upholds the government policy which forces the Baha'is either to lie about their religious beliefs or to be prevented from obtaining state identification cards. Without identification cards, Egyptian Baha'is lose access to most citizenship rights, including education, financial services and medical care.

The Supreme Administrative Court ruling overturns a decision by a lower administrative court that Baha'is have the right to obtain government-issued identification documents which accurately state their religion. This decision was appealed by the government.

The Baha'is in Egypt do not ask for special treatment. They have offered to leave the religion space on the identification card blank, to make a dash, or to write "other." The government has denied each of these requests.

The Baha'is are Egyptian citizens. Egypt is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Egyptian Constitution stipulates religious freedom for all Egyptian citizens.

We urge the Egyptian government immediately--before the deadline of December 31, 2006--to take action to remedy this situation so that the Baha'is may be treated justly as Egyptian citizens. As the Chairman of the International Relations Committee and a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, we hope the issue of religious freedom for Baha'is in Egypt will not interfere with our important mutual priorities in the upcoming 110th Congress.

We look forward to your kind and prompt reply.

Sincerely,


[signed]
Mark Steven Kirk
Member of Congress


[signed]
Tom Lantos
Member of Congress

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

To the Baha'is of Egypt: From the Universal House of Justice

The Universal House of Justice, the highest governing body of the Baha'i Faith has just released its message addressed to the Baha'is of Egypt in response to the recent developments affecting the Egyptian Baha'is in their homeland. The original text of the three page letter can be accessed here in English and here in Arabic.

Images of the letter are published here and accompanied by some comments and relevant illustrations. In order to see each page clearly, please click on each image.

In the first paragraph, the Universal House of Justice refers to the recent unjust ruling of Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court, the disappointment it has produced, and the need for the Egyptian Baha'is to stand firm in their quest for their rights, thus not to deprive the Egyptian authorities from the opportunity before them to "correct a wrong which has implications for many others."

The letter then addresses the brave efforts made by the many members and agencies of the Egyptian society that stood in support of their Baha'i brothers and sisters when it stated "Moreover, to relent would be to disregard the moral courage of these organizations, media, and persons of goodwill who have joined their voices to yours in the quest for a just solution to a serious inequity."

In the second paragraph, the letter addresses the issue at hand, and that the presiding judge in his statements "misses the essence, obscures the issue" of the case before the court, which is the necessity for Egyptian Baha'is to "...simply wish to be free to carry out the requirement of civil law that you [they] must obtain identification cards without making false statement about your [their] religious beliefs."

It also comments on the court's misuse of the validity of the other "three of the divine religions" in its attempt to discredit the Baha'i Faith and to "justify the exclusion of certain citizens from exercising their civil rights..." amounting to "a misuse of the authority of these Faiths to perpetrate an injustice that offends the high standard of justice to which they hold their adherents...."

It then states "The ruling was unreasonable not only because it is contrary to prescriptions set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Egypt is a signatory, but more especially because the sacred scriptures of Islam extol tolerance as a precept of social stability."

The third paragraph addresses the landmark decision of 1925 in which a southern Egyptian [Beba] religious court in its attempt to denounce the Baha'i Faith and annulling the marriages of three men because of becoming Baha'is has "arrived at the accurate conclusion that the Baha'i Faith was a new religion, entirely independent, with beliefs, principles and laws of its own." And that "verdict was sanctioned at the time by Egypt's highest ecclesiastical authorities." For further reading regarding that historic event, one can refer to this previous post.


Baha'i women and girls in an Egyptian prison in Tanta in 1972 (93 Baha'is were arrested then)

In the fourth paragraph, the Universal House of Justice refers to the history of the Baha'i Faith in Egypt when it took root during the lifetime of Baha'u'llah. It spoke of the freedoms enjoined by the Baha'is and their Institutions, particularly when the National Spiritual Assembly was incorporated as early as 1934, and until "...suddenly in 1960, without forewarning, Presidential Decree no. 263 was issued, banning your national and local institutions and confiscating your properties and other assets." It then spoke of the five decades of "humiliation of all kinds, including the harassment of police surveillance and false arrests." The letter then addressed the misinformation being propagated in the Egyptian society in attempts to prove the unworthiness of Baha'is of the public's trust, while there has been much to confirm the noteworthy contributions by Egyptian Baha'is "towards fostering the spiritual, intellectual, and cultural character of the Egyptian people."

A clear representation of this has been the example of their "late Baha'i compatriot Hussein Bikar, who, despite having received a presidential award honoring his outstanding achievements as an artist, was denied an Egyptian identification card up until the time of his death." Mr. Bikar, for his exceptional talent was recognized by all Egyptians as a National Treasure. A tribute to his life and works of art can be viewed at this previous post.

The next three paragraphs reflect on "the broad context in which the recent action of the Supreme Administrative Court occurred, that from it you [Egyptian Baha'is] may derive an ever-larger sense of meaning and purpose." Here, the Universal House of Justice demonstrates how the Egyptian Baha'is have been put into a position, not only to defend their rights in their homeland, but also to uphold justice and defend the rights of minorities everywhere else. The letter speaks of the widespread presence of injustice throughout the world afflicting "every department of life whether in the home, at the workplace, or in the public sphere as a consequence of the ill conduct of individuals, groups, or governments." It also speaks of the current crisis taken in the context of "global connotation" and the responsibility placed on Egyptian Baha'is to strive, "...guided by the principles of the Faith and in collaboration with others whenever possible, to combat injustice, for the common good."

Labib Mu'awad and several other attorneys defending the 93 arrested Egyptian Baha'is in 1972 (some of whom were under-aged girls)

In its last paragraph, the Universal House of Justice addresses the various groups in Egypt who have shown their staunch support for the rights of the Baha'is. The whole paragraph is quoted here:

"Those groups supporting you in your current encounter are of a world-embracing vision and are themselves prepared to withstand the harsh resistance to their selfless occupation, sustaining blows of injustice in the process. As the rise of justice ensures the appearance of unity in the world, all who take on the formidable challenges of struggling for it have indeed captured the spirit of the age epitomized in the principle of oneness."

Bloggers and Human Rights Activists Supporting the Baha'is at the Supreme Court on 16 December 2006

"To the extent that the fight for justice contributes to the establishment of a single global standard of human rights, the organizations in Egypt so engaged are working towards achieving the unification of their nation's peoples. They are thus committing themselves in large measure to the vital task of reconciling the tensions that bedevil their society and delay the attainment of its unity. Such reconciliation should not be impossible to Egypt's people, who can take pride in the celebrated enlightenment that in a glorious past ensured their unity in a flourishing society. Undoubtedly, Egypt will rise to participate, as befits its stature, in the fruition of that destiny of world peace and prosperity of which all nations dream."

The letter concludes by offering prayers in the Holy Shrines, not only for each and every one of the members of the Egyptian Baha'i community, but also for all their compatriots "in that land of ancient splendor."



Relevant and Subsequent Development

Today, President Hosni Mubarak gave an important speech (Arabic Version) to a joint session of the Egyptian Parliament and to the nation regarding his plans to amend 34 articles of the Egyptian constitution. Here are some quotes from his truly enlightened speech:
(read complete English version here)

"Today, as we take this historic step towards developing our democracy, and as we recall our past progress and what we managed to achieve in the face of internal, regional and international challenges, I thank God, and am proud of this nation. And my confidence in our future progress is multifold"

"I had a clear vision of future of the country that won the confidence of the people and their support last year. I have vision of a modern Egyptian society which preserves freedom, elevates the value of citizenship and strengthens the role of citizens in the political process; A modern and developed society that lays the foundations of democracy and supports its day to day practice."


"The people entrusted and supported me in their first competitive presidential elections on Egyptian soil. As president of all Egyptians, I am responsible before the people; bearing the burdens of leadership and protecting the interest of the nation and her citizens. In fulfillment of the pledge I made last year, and of my responsibility as President, and exercising my competencies under Article 189 of the Constitution, I call upon the People's representatives to amend 34 articles of the Constitution, with the aim of bringing about a tangible leap that will open new horizons for our democracy."

"My request is meant to assert the idea, value and principle of citizenship. We are all Egyptians. We are all citizens of this homeland and we are all equal in rights and duties before the law without discrimination based on creed or religion [in the Arabic version (on Radio) he used the words Aqyida, Ta'effah & Deen; meaning belief, congregation & religion]. Over the course of our history, we have never been exposed to religious or sectarian division."

"Being aware of this and as I follow the sectarian and confessional divisions that the region is witnessing, I am determined to protect our society, Muslims and Copts, and confront practices that seek to circumvent the law and undermine the cultural heritage of the Egyptian people; practices that mix religion with politics and politics with religion, which spread discord and extremism, and which seek conflict between the two wings of our nation."

"Yes, I am responsible for all this before the people, as I am responsible before history. I speak to you and behind me lie long years I have spent in the service of the nation, protecting its skies, territory and sovereignty, preserving her independence and self determination, and fulfilling the responsibilities with which I have been entrusted."

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Egypt: Need to Apply the True Teachings of Islam

The Teachings of Islam: What is Right for Muslims Must Also be Right for Baha'is

In an "OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI" [Arabic version linked here] sent on 12 October 2006 in response to the Pope's statements in a lecture he has given at the University of Regensburg in Germany on 12 September 2006, thirty eight Islamic religious leaders, thinkers and scholars have presented their response to the Pope's injudicious comments about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and his references to Islam and to religious violence which had aroused a great uproar, violence and many demonstrations by outraged Muslims throughout the world.

The statements were in regards to the Pope's use of a debate between the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a “learned Persian” as the starting point for a discourse on the relationship between reason and faith. Among the thirty eight co-signatories of this open letter were, H.E. Shaykh Professor Dr. Ali Jumu‘ah Grand Mufti of the Republic of Egypt and Professor Dr. Abla Mohammed Kahlawi Dean of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Al-Azhar University (Women’s College), Egypt.

This letter pointed out to the Pope the true nature of Islam and very eloquently corrected misrepresentations of it and its Prophet. As will be quoted below, the letter emphasized the merciful, tolerant and compassionate essence of Islam.

Under the title, There is no Compulsion in Religion, the letter states the following: "...There is no compulsion in religion was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their oppressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another’s heart to believe. There is no compulsion in religion addresses those in a position of strength, not weakness...." It continues by stating, "...Moreover, Muslims are also guided by such verses as Say: The truth is from your Lord; so whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. (al-Kahf 18:29); and Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion (al-Kafirun: 109:1-6)."

Under the title, What is "Holy War"? it states: "We would like to point out that “holy war” is a term that does not exist in Islamic languages. Jihad, it must be emphasized, means struggle, and specifically struggle in the way of God. This struggle may take many forms, including the use of force. Though a jihad may be sacred in the sense of being directed towards a sacred ideal, it is not necessarily a “war”...."

It continues: "...Moreover, the emperor’s statements about violent conversion show that he did not know what those instructions are and have always been. The authoritative and traditional Islamic rules of war can be summarized in the following principles:

1. Non-combatants are not permitted or legitimate targets. This was emphasized explicitly time and again by the Prophet, his Companions, and by the learned tradition since then.
2. Religious belief alone does not make anyone the object of attack. The original Muslim community was fighting against pagans who had also expelled them from their homes, persecuted, tortured, and murdered them. Thereafter, the Islamic conquests were political in nature.
3. Muslims can and should live peacefully with their neighbors. And if they incline to peace, do thou incline to it; and put thy trust in God (al-Anfal 8:61). However, this does not exclude legitimate self-defense and maintenance of sovereignty.

Muslims are just as bound to obey these rules as they are to refrain from theft and adultery.... God says in the Holy Qur’an:
Let not hatred of any people seduce you into being unjust. Be just, that is nearer to piety (al-Ma’idah 5:8)."

Under Forced Conversion it states: "...The command There is no compulsion in religion means now what it meant then. The mere fact of a person being non-Muslim has never been a legitimate casus belli in Islamic law or belief.... We emphatically agree that forcing others to believe—if such a thing be truly possible at all—is not pleasing to God and that God is not pleased by blood. Indeed, we believe, and Muslims have always believed, that Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether (al-Ma’idah 5:32)."

Under Something New it states: "...and, Say (Muhammad): I am no new thing among the messengers (of God), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that what is Revealed to me, and I am but a plain warner (al-Ahqaf, 46:9). Thus faith in the One God is not the property of any one religious community. According to Islamic belief, all the true prophets preached the same truth to different peoples at different times. The laws may be different, but the truth is unchanging."

And finally under Christianity an Islam it quotes the Bible: "...particularly ‘the two greatest commandments’ in Mark 12:29-31 (and, in varying form, in Matthew 22:37-40), that, the Lord our God is One Lord; / And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy understanding, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. / And the second commandment is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

Last week, shortly after this enlightened and eloquent letter to the Pope, Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court gave its final judgement against the Baha'is' basic rights, which denounced them as infidels and apostates of Islam, echoing the adamantly held attitude of al-Azhar towards the Baha'i Faith; there was no uproar or demonstration by Baha'is in Egypt or anywhere else, instead they continued their peaceful and rational appeals for their citizenship rights.

Furthermore, the Egyptian Baha'is are being told by the officials that in order to obtain ID Cards and recognition in Egypt they must either lie on official documents by denying their religion or convert to Islam!

These two events occurred within a few short months of each other. The Baha'is in Egypt, as a result of the recent Supreme Court verdict, are currently being treated as a non-entity in direct violation of the stated sacred teachings of Islam and the Holy Qur'an that has been clearly voiced by these respected Islamic leaders and scholars, including those from Egypt.

Would it not be deemed obedient to the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), righteous, sincere and honest for these honorable Muslim leaders to put into action their pronouncements and elucidations, and similarly, advice the Supreme Court of Egypt as well as the Egyptian Government to apply these essential and basic teachings of Islam to their Baha'i religious minority which has been cruelly persecuted and deprived of its basic civil and human rights?