Background:

This was the second conference on minorities held at Ibn Khaldūn Center for Development Studies. Several speeches were given about Coptic rights in Egypt and related to the Muslim-Christian incident of 1996 in Kafr Dimyān and the terrorist attack inʿIzbat Aqbāṭ.

*For more information on the Ibn Khaldūn conference, please refer to the tapes: Conference Ibn Khaldūn on Copts rights I, II, III, IV and V 

http://arabwestreport.info/en/conference-ibn-khald%C5%ABn-copts-rights-i

http://www.arabwestreport.info/en/conference-ibn-khald%C5%ABn-copts-rights-ii-0

http://www.arabwestreport.info/en/conference-ibn-khald%C5%ABn-copts-rights-iii

http://arabwestreport.info/en/conference-ibn-khald%C5%ABn-copts-rights-iv 

http://arabwestreport.info/en/conference-ibn-khald%C5%ABn-copts-rights-v 

 Side A:

Mr. ʿĀdil Ḥussain, journalist and oppositional political activist with an Islamist background, insisted at Ibn Khaldūn Center for Development Studies on the importance to get Islamists involved in the discussions about Coptic rights. He criticized Dr. Rif‘at al-Sa‘īd’s speech as he allegedly generalized his talk on  Islamic contemporary thinking and the way the latter is always criticized without a deep examination of the facts and the progress made on several topics.  Dr. Mīlād Hannā, chairman of this session at the conference, comments on the previous speech, emphasizing the need for Islamists to combine modernism and Islamic ideological heritage. Rev. Dr. Makram (full name unknown), has several questions related to Mr. Ḥussain’s speech and the way the latter talked about how the majority adopted Islamic thinking. Dr. Makram demanded a clarification on the term ‘majority,’ he questioned if it concerns the majority of the population or whether he referred to Islamic thinkers and leaders.  Mr. Ḥussain calls for establishing the values that shape this dialogue first. He elaborates further about how ‘renaissance’ is not always something to celebrate as it often includes incorrect ideas. He explains that it is true that both sides have their mistakes but he criticizes attempts of justification of violent attacks against Christians.

Side B:

Mr. Mamdūḥ Nakhla, a Coptic lawyer criticized Ḥussain’s words and how he talks about justifications of violent attacks against Christians. Thus, he pointed out that when Mr.ʿĀdil Ḥussain, as a representative of Islamic thinkers, talked about how the Islamic project calls for a civil state, that it was not meant as a secular state but rather a non-military one. Mr. Mamdūḥ Ramzī, lawyer and president of the Egyptian Organization for Anti-Discrimination, made several comments on Ḥussain’s words on the Islamic Project. Ramzī explained that, as a Christian, he should not be forced to live in a religious state.  He mentioned the example of troubles in Bosnia and parts of Sudan because of such religious rule. He stated  that Al-Khat al-Hamāyūny [Hamāyūny Decree] is still in place after over 200 years of independence from Turkey. Finally, he called for the separation of religion from the political sphere.

Mr. ʿAlaaʾ Qāʿūd, a journalist, criticized the fact that the conference is far from being a solution-oriented one. He insisted on the need for finding solutions for Copts’ problems and he explained that if a civil code is applied for Christians only, it will represent a sort of discrimination in itself. 

Mr. Qutb al-‘Arabī, author and journalist at al-Shaʿb newspaper [an Islamist, pro-Brotherhood, publication], criticized Dr. Rif‘at al-Sa‘īd’s tendency of blaming the Muslim Brotherhood for every single problem that concerns both the society as a whole and Christians as a people, and how he does not criticize the state at all since it is the latter that, according to al-‘Arabī, practices such discriminations. Thus, he clarified that Copts in Sudan are living in good situations and not as Ramzī had described.