The following lines shed light on the latest updates concerning the crisis of Abū Fānā. An ‘urfī committee was formed to achieve a solution. However, its tasks were suspended due to disagreements on different issues. The article also sheds light on the reaction of expatriate Copts and the response of the Christian denominations in Egypt.

Article full text:

The so-called “‘urfī committee” assigned to resolve the tensions of Abū Fānā is still in the limelight of the Egyptian press. Newspapers reported on the committee's performance. Al-Misrī al-Yawm of August 4, 2008 headlined: 'the ‘urfī committee achieves a resolution to the crisis of Abū Fānā and obliges the two parties to legalize the situation.' Al-Misrī al-Yawm also mentioned that the building of the wall around the monastery will start on August 5.

Two days later; on August 6, al-Misrī al-Yawm published that the committee started executing the “‘urfī” agreement between the monks of the monastery and the Arabs of Hūr.

Al-Ahrām of August 7, 2008 reported on Father Bulā’s assertion that everyone should obey the law. However, al-Dustūr of the same day published that the bishopric of Mallawī denied that a final and complete agreement had been reached. It also reported on Pope Shenouda’s assertion that the case of the land and that of the monks being attacked should be separated.

On August 8, however, al-Misrī al-Yawm reported on the suspension of the committee’s tasks because of a disagreement over the penalty clause and the appearance of new parties involved in the conflict.

The monks had called for ten million Egyptian Pounds to be earmarked as a penalty clause instead of the original two million that was proposed and this should be imposed on the party that violates the agreement in the future. Al-Misrī al-Yawm also stated that one of the ‘urfī committee members who wanted to remain anonymous threatened to “scandalize the committee’s work through the media if it failed to achieve a reconciliation,” asserting that this will provoke the public.

On the other hand, ‘Īd Labīb, member of the committee stated that the truth is only what happens in reality and not what the media reports. He also called for a distinction to be drawn between the criminal part of the problem and the land conflict issue.

Rose al-Yūsuf of August 10, 2008 reported the withdrawal of ‘Alī al-Najjār, representative of the Arabs in the committee. Majdī Raslān, the lawyer representing the Arabs declared that al-Najjār withdrew because he felt that his attendance was superficial and not real, stressing that the monastery is insisting on having 600 feddans and accepts no alternative solutions.

Al-Jumhūrīyah of August 5 had published that the committee delegated to resolve the problem of Abū Fānā found out that the bishopric of Mallawī and Bishop Demetrius had committed deadly mistakes by refusing to apply the law and taking over vast amounts of land.

Moreover, the press reported on Pope Shenouda’s keenness to achieve a radical solution to the Abū Fānā problem. However, al-Sharq al-Awsat of August 6, 2008 reported that the church refused to pay the blood money of the Muslim man who was killed during the clashes in Abū Fānā. Al-Misrī al-Yawm of August 9, 2008 published that the mother of the murdered Muslim rejected any ‘urfī reconciliation. [Reviewer: In the issue of the killed man, the killer is not identified yet. However, upon villagers’ accusations against two Coptic men, the contractor of the monastery of Abū Fānā and his son are detained under charges of killing the man.]

On the other hand, Coptic Parliament Member Dr. Badr Hilmī Rizq Allāh attributed the escalation of the situation in Abū Fānā to the state’s administrative and security apparatus’ reluctance to deal with problem since the beginning of the year 2000, especially after the failure of the ‘urfī council that was held then to resolve the conflict.

On the other hand, Rose al-Yūsuf of August 7, 2008 published that the Arabs rejected the ‘urfī committee’s decision to give the monastery 600 feddans in addition to the archaeological periphery.

Al-Jumhūrīyah of August 8 blamed al-Misrī al-Yawm for doubting the material that had been published in al-Jumhūrīyah about the issue concerning the testimonial of the Dutch journalist [Reviewer: Mr. Cornelis Hulsman, editor-in-chief of AWR].

On the other hand, the press also shed light on the reactions of expatriate Copts who created massive uproar abroad by protesting against what they call “the persecution of Copts in Egypt.”

Groups of Coptic expatriates in the U.S succeeded in reporting on the “discrimination against Copts in Egypt” to the Congress, a step that was denounced by Copts in Egypt. Al-Misrī al-Yawm of August 7 2008 reported that the leadership of the Evangelical Church in Egypt prepared a letter that will be sent to the Congress asserting that all Christian denominations in Egypt reject any foreign interference in Egypt’s interior affairs. The letter also rejects Senator Frank Wolf’s proposal to accuse Egypt of persecuting Copts and violating human rights.

Al-Wafd of August 7 discussed an alleged “deal” between the church, the government and Coptic expatriates. It also published Bishop Marqus' denial of any deals to stop the expatriates Copts’ demonstrations in exchange for the church's demands being fulfilled in Abū Fānā.

Meanwhile, Sāmih Fawzī, presented by al-Misrī al-Yawm of August 4, 2008 as a Coptic researcher, asserted that Copts are persecuting themselves and that their problems in Egypt are more social than religious. Fawzī insists that the core of the Coptic problem in Egypt is their isolation from public life.

However, Bishop Marqus of Shubrā al-Khaymah and head of the information committee at the Coptic Orthodox Church stated that the isolation of Copts has become a thing of the past in Pope Shenouda III's rule.

On the other hand, Dr. Butrus Ghālī, head of the National Council for Human Rights expressed in an interview that was published over two days in al-Misrī al-Yawm of August 5 and 6, 2008 that foreign apparatus' have the right to intervene in Egypt’s affairs in issues related to human rights. He stated that the difficult living conditions, the fundamentalist current and the finalism of both parties [Copts and Muslims] are the main reasons behind the sectarian tension in Egypt. He added that the crisis of Abū Fānā is an illegal issue and much bigger than a conflict over land. He also asserted that the superficial gestures of love and cordial gestures between Christian clergymen and Muslim shaykhs are sterile and will not bring about any solution to the sectarian tensions.