In the aftermath of the attacks against the Abū Fānā Monastery, the governor of Minia headed a committee that drafted decisions that do not appear favorable for the church. From his residency in Cleveland in the U.S., Pope Shenouda III declared the relations between the bishopric in Mallawī and the governor suspended. Moreover, al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah issued an announcement commenting on the recent incidents and blaming the church for enforcing the sectarian atmosphere and increasing the gap between Copts and the state.

Article full text:

As a result of the attacks against Abū Fānā Monastery, General Ahmad Diyā’ al-Dīn, governor of Minia, headed a committee formed by the Egyptian prime minister. The committee held a meeting in an attempt to resolve the crisis. Monks of Abū Fānā and representatives of governmental institutions attended the meeting which issued the following decisions as reported by al-Sharq al-Awsat of June 21, 2008:

First, assigning a specialized committee to examine the archaeological part of the monastery. Second, building the fencing wall as it was previously decided by the concerned official institutions after identifying the designs with the executed works on earth. Thirdly, to reopen the road leading to the monastery through the monastery itself.

Moreover, the meeting resulted in a decision which prevents the building of new cells instead of repairing those that were destroyed during the attacks. Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported on General Diyā’ al-Dīn’s statement noting that the mentioned cells are four kilometers away from the monastery’s main building, thereby giving the impression that the area between the two belongs to the monastery, and this is untrue. [Reviewer: One can notice the inaccuracy in reporting on facts about the Abū Fānā Monastery, particularly in relation to figures. Al-Sharq al-Awsat mentions that the distance between the main archaeological monastery and the newly constructed cells is four kilometers. Meanwhile, al-Jumhūrīyah of June 20, 2008 mentions that it is three kilometers. It seems difficult to obtain one accurate reference or number concerning the issue.]

The committee also decided to prevent planting new land in the area before obtaining the authorization of related officials. “All the plants there constitute violations,” expressed Mahmūd ‘Abd al-Birr, head of the General Authority for Reclamation Projects [GARPAD] and Agricultural Development. ‘Abd al-Birr added that neither of the two parties legally owns these lands. It is noteworthy that for any agricultural projects, the concerned party must first obtain the authorization of the armed forces, the department of Irrigation and the Geological Survey

Constructions and agricultural works were suspended in all unauthorized areas until the necessary authorizations and licenses will be obtained from the concerned official institutions.

General Diyā’ al-Dīn called to reform a committee to examine the official documents that prove that the monastery obtained areas of land through authorization issued by the Department of Government’s Estates. Bishop Dimitrius of Mallāwī had presented these documents to prove the monastery’s ownership of the concerned land. However, Abd al-Birr asserted that the mentioned lands belong to the GARPAD and not a state estate.

Decisions and recommendations apart, the committee headed by the governor of al-Minyā refused the demand of the bishop of Mallāwī to fence all of the planted lands. Similarly, the committee refused the demand of the tribal communities of Qasr Hūr to admit their right to possess the neighboring lands, explaining that determining the legal ownership of the lands, which may be subject to conflicts, is the task of the General Authority for Reclamation Projects and the Department of Survey.

General Diyā’ al-Dān denied allegations that he sided with the tribal communities. He further stated that the Ministry of Interior accepted his demand to establish a police station to protect the monastery.

Al-Jumhūrīyah of June 20, 2008 reported that the the fencing wall will be built around the archaeological monastery according to decision number 812 issued in 2002 by the Ministry of Culture, and to the decision of the permanent committee at the Supreme Council for Antiquities issued on December 3, 2007. A committee formed by both the departments of antiquities and the land survey should identify the track of the wall in a maximum period of one week, while keeping all the recommendations of the Department of Antiquities concerning the location being a site of archaeological value. This archaeological value necessitates abstaining from constructing any buildings or planting anything within the defined archaeological area.

General Diyā’ al-Dīn referred the final recommendations of the meeting to the bureau of the prime minister.

The meeting held with General Diyā’ al-Dīn and its recommendations provoked uproar among Copts in general, and the Coptic Orthodox clergy in particular. Bishop Bula, spokesman for the bishopric of Mallāwī, told al-Wafd of June 19, 2008 that the attack was one of those that have not occurred since the first century of Islam in Egypt. He added that the real compensation is in revealing the truth, punishing the culprits, and quickly resuming the construction of the fencing wall.

In an interview with al-Wafd of June 19, 2008, Bishop Bula stated that he excluded sectarianism in the incidents, however, he asserted, “Attacking safe monks, abducting and torturing them is something that can never be ignored.” He added that problems are never solved with weapons and terrorism, but through dialogue and mutual understanding.

Bishop Bula declared that the attack was launched by an entire group of people, adding that until today they [individuals in the monastery] do not really know who the party is that is fighting us for the land.” He further stated that he who alleges that he owns the land has to present the official documents to prove their ownership, adding that the the monastery has all the official papers that prove its ownership of the land.

Bishop Bula also stated that the government should be grateful for the monks who work to plant desert terrain.

It is noteworthy that the bishopric does not admit the conflict being over the land. Bishop Bula argued that the tribal communities want the antiquities which are in the surrounding area. He elaborated, stating that they have always had the land but they never cultivated it. They searched for antiquities and “they, like a number of prominent responsible state officials, know that the monastery’s area goes back to the fourth century and contains treasures of antiquities; and therefore want to takeover the monastery and the surrounding area [Editor: this is a claim we have not heard when we visited the monastery and the tribal communities in the area from July 3 to 5].

On his part, Rāmī Rafīq, member of the Community Council of Mallāwī, called to construct a fencing wall that can preserve the security of people inside the monastery area.

The monks of Abū Fānā Monastery and a number of workers in the monastery objected to the recommendations of the committee of the Department of Antiquities and those of the Land Survey who were assigned to define the borders of the archaeological monastery in order to build the fencing wall.

The monks protested by placing stones and palm trunks on the way leading to the monastery.

Al-Jumhūrīyah of June 23, 2008, reported that the responsible people in the monastery refused to allow the committee from the the General Authority for Reclamation Projects [GARPAD] from enumerating the lands that were cultivated before 2006.

Al-Misrī al-Yawm of June 22, 2008 reported that 75 priests and monks, and 60 young Coptic men stagged an “open” sit-in in the monastery, protesting the decisions of the committee that was assigned to draw the borders.

Al-Misrī al-Yawm also reported that clergymen from the monastery held their monthly meeting headed by Bishop Dimitrius of Mallāwī. In the meeting they stressed “the compelling need to provide the monks, the monastery and the related surrounding lands with the suitable protection, and called to build the fencing wall around the monastery and the farm.”

Al-Misrī al-Yawm reported on June 20 Bishop Dimitrius’ declaration that Pope Shenouda decided to freeze the Coptic Orthodox Church’s relationship with General Ahmad Diyā’ al-Dīn, governor of Minia.

Ihāb Ramzī, bishop of Mallāwī’s lawyer, stated that the decision was taken upon the session that was held on June 18, 2008 between the governor and the bishopric’s leadership. He stated that Pope Shenouda III took his decisions “when he knew that the governor deceived us when he called the ’Arabs’ to the session.” Ramzī added that Pope Shenouda described the session as a “trap.”

Moreover, Ramzī said that the governor’s terms used to describe Bishop Dimitrius and the monastery as “aggressors over the state’s property.” Ramzī stated that the governor decided to form a committee to destroy all the constructions that are allegedly established on the state’s land, including a church. This angered the monks in the monastery and provoked them to stage their sit-in in the monastery.

Al-Wafd of June 19, 2008 interviewed Governor Diyā’ al-Dīn who appreciated the monks’ efforts in cultivating a desert. He considered their work to be beneficial for the whole society, as they do not seek private financial gains.

In the interview that was published next to the interview with Bishop Bula, General Diyā’ al-Dīn stated that to find a radical solution for the conflicts of Abū Fānā, the borders must be clearly defined and the legal documents must be presented to resolve the problem for good.

Al-Wafd asked “the bishopric refuses the reconciliation, what is your comment?”

Diyā’ al-Dīn answered there is no reconciliation and that the meeting was a chance for the two parties to express their stances in the presence of an official governmental institution to ensure that each party is aware of their rights and duties to avoid similar “fights” in the future.

Diyā’ al-Dīn denied the occurrence of any attacks against the monastery, stating that no one attacked the monastery and that the monastery was preserved. He added that all the incidents were outside the periphery of the monastery [Editor: that depends on how one sees the borders of the monastery. There were indeed no attacks on the main buildings of the monastery but one of the outposts on newly obtained and disputed land].

Commenting of the role of the media, General Diyā’ al-Dīn expressed his appreciation of its role and that of journalists. However, he added that some journalist tend to incite the public and present unreal images that do not report on the reality, and this sheds negative light on the social unity and creates tensions between Copts and Muslims.

Al-Ahrām al-‘Arabī of June 21, 2008 published that Mamdūh Nakhlah, lawyer and chairman of al-Kalimah Center for Human Rights [No link found], called for an international investigation in to theAbū Fānā attacks, following the example of the investigations conducted concerning the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafīq al-Harīrī.

Nakhlah’s suggestion created heated arguments in the Coptic milieus where many Copts refused to accept Nakhlah’s stance as one that expresses their own. Jamāl As‘af criticized Nakhlah’s argument considering a call for an international trial to be “nonsense.” He added that Nakhlah’s mentality is destructive and enforces foreign interference in Egypt’s affairs. He also considered it as part of an “American agenda” that seeks to undermine stability in Egypt and the region in general.

Other laymen criticized the sit-in staged in the monastery and denounced taking over the state’s lands. Kamāl Zākhir Mūsá stated that it is unacceptable for the state to still consider the tradition of possessing by Wad‘ yad [seizure of an area of land]. He also criticized giving any conflict between Muslims and Christians a sectarian identity.

Al-Maydān of June 18 reported on the heated arguments between the Coptic expatriates and al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah. The latter has issued a report commenting on the Abū Fānā attacks under the title, “Reflexions on the Coptic Question.”

Al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah issued an announcement in which they denounced the Coptic reaction to the recent incidents. They blamed Copts for viewing theses incidents as having a sectarian nature, arguing that the culprits in the attacks in Alexandria and al-Zaytūn have not yet been revealed and that they might be Copts [Editor: I have also heard villagers saying that Copts might have attacked the monks in order to be able to blame the villagers. That’s nonsense of course].

Al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah also says that the Abū Fānā incident is a conflict over land that belongs to the state. The announcements blame monks for taking over the state’s land. The announcement claimed that there are three reasons for igniting the fire of sectarian strife in Egypt; namely, some Coptic Orthodox Church’s clerics and Coptic expatriates. [While the text mentions three reasons, it explains only two].

As for the church, al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah denounced its growing political role and accused it of increasing the gap between Copts and the state.

The announcement also denounced the Coptic expatriates who, through the Internet, spread allegations regarding Christians being forced to convert to Islam and kidnapping Coptic girls. Al-Jamā‘ah also criticized Coptic expatriates for alluding to an alleged agreement between al-Jamā‘ah and the state.

The announcement was received with a barrage of criticism in the milieus of Coptic expatriates.

Rose al-Yūsuf of June 16, 2008 reported on the heated arguments between al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah and the organizations of Coptic activists abroad. Rose al-Yūsuf reported that the U.S. Copts Association called al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah’s announcement “a new flaw of the fanatic group.”

Bishop Marqus, head of the information committee at the Coptic Orthodox Church, declared that the church does not want to be involved in sectarian “wangles” that can result in immoral comportments that go against patriotism. He asserted that the Holy Synod is not willing to respond to the announcement of al-Jamā‘ah al-Islāmīyah.

On the next day, Rose al-Yūsuf published an article by Mustafá Rajab who criticized the announcement and considered it to be a step back by the group after the latest introspections. He reported on a telephone conversation with a “leader” in the group who had even more radical ideas on the issue than the announcement. The prominent leader of the group claimed that Christians enjoy more rights in Egypt than any Muslim in the West. He was also quoted as claiming that the hearts of Christians are full of love for Israel and the U.S.