The curtain has closed on the crisis of Abū Fānā. Behind the scenes one can still hear whispers and noise. The following lines present a panoramic image of the final dramatic scene.

Article full text:

After announcing the end of the Abū Fānā crisis in last week’s media, the Egyptian press reported symptoms of renewed tensions in this response.

The press highlighted the issue in the light of four main subjects; namely the criminal part, the reactions of the Coptic expatriates to the reconciliation and the solution achieved, the creation of a new problem upon the execution of the construction of the wall and comments on the issue.

While al-Musawwar of September 5, 2008 hailed the resolution achieved by announcing an upcoming conference that is supposed to be held in Mallaw entitled “we love you Egypt,” al-Misrī al-Yawm of September 1 reported “symptoms of a new crisis” in Abū Fānā.

Al-Misrī al-Yawm reported that the governor of Minia, General Ahmad Diyā’ al-Dīn has decided to decrease the height of the fencing wall around the monastery to one and a half meters instead of four meters as had been previously agreed.

A monk that refused to be named told al-Misrī al-Yawm that the governors decision is a major setback, elaborating that the height specified by the governor is not enough to protect the monastery and that it will be easily covered by sand after a year. Meanwhile, Al-Misrī al-yawm reported ‘Īd Labīb’s and MP ‘Alā’ Hassānayn’s declarations that another problem, more serious than the wall issue was uncovered. They, however, refused to reveal it to al-Misrī al-Yawm. They said that the problem was reported to Pope Shenouda III in the U.S. and that they were waiting for his reply.

Moreover, “a sudden deterioration” in the process of the solution was reported by al-Dustūr of September 5, 2008.

The deterioration was reported because of the disagreement between the Bedouins and the monks of the monastery concerning the conditions proposed by the monk and rejected by the Bedouins. The monks had put a condition that implies an officially certified oath from the Bedouins not to attack the monks or the monastery. They had also put the condition to release Rif‘at and Ibrāhīm Fawzī, the two men accused of killing the murdered Muslim man and to reveal the identity of the real killer.

Al-Dustūr reported that ‘Īd Labīb, the Coptic businessman delegated by Pope Shenouda III to solve the problem in the conventional committee had declared that the committee had no authority over the criminal part of the issue, adding that the presence of ‘Alā’ Hassānayn with the monks in the prosecution was a personal choice.

Labīb also reported that General Diyā’ al-Dīn approved of the four-meter high fencing wall.

As for the criminal part of the conflict, al-Jumhūrīyah of September 4, 2008 reported that the conventional committee of Abū Fānā was working hard to achieve a solution for the criminal part of the conflict. Al-Jumhūrīyah of September 4, 2008 reported on the several meetings that was held under the supervision of ‘Alā’ Hassānayn and ‘Īd Labīb between the monks and the Bedouins to achieve a way to cancel the different claims that was filed by each party against the other.

On the judicial part, al-Misrī al-Yawm of September 7, 2008 reported that the detention of 15 accused was renewed for further 45 days on September 6. Al-Misrī al-Yawm also reported Pope Shenouda’s rejection of the conventional solution of the criminal part of the crisis, giving the chance to judicial institutions.

Al-Dustūr of the same date, doubted the legacy of the detention of the arrested Bedouins, elaborating that they have been arrested because the case is of a special sensitive nature and not because they legally need to be jailed.

On September 4, 2008 al-Jumhūrīyah reported that the lawyers representing the monks and the Bedouins asked to postpone seeing in the case of the prolonging the detention of the 13 Muslims and two Christians arrested due to the Abū Fānā attacks. Al-Jumhūrīyah published that the request is because both parties had new testimonies after achieving a conventional reconciliation.

On the other hand, the press reported reactions of a number of Coptic expatriates’ organizations in the West. Many of those organizations had rejected the conventional agreement and announced that 20 Coptic expatriates’ organizations were to file a claim before international legal institutions, calling to reject the conventional reconciliation and proceed with the judicial procedures in the incident of the attack against the monks and the monastery.

Meanwhile, through Bishop Abram member of the secretariat of the Holy Synod, the church rejected the claim signed by 20 Coptic expatriates’ organizations. Bishop Abram of Fayyūm asserted that the claim did not express the church’s opinion, but that of the organizations that had signed it.

Besides reporting on the updates of the incidents, the media also reported on comments that were written by different concerned authors.

In al-Maydān of September 3 Sāmih Fawzī commented on what he called the “common errors in managing the sectarian issue.” Fawzī highlights six general features of what he considers to be mis-management of the sectarian incidents in Egypt.

1-The lack of authentic and truthful information

2- Spreading rumors.

3- Discarding law, by adopting conventional procedures to achieve solutions.

4- The media escalation brought about by controversial news reporting.

5- Forming temporary national unity [reconciliation] committees that disappear as soon as the problem is finished and consequently there will be no permanent strategy to deal with future problems.

6- Internal and foreign controversy. Muslim-Christian relations are an internal issue that should not be interfered with by any foreign parties. However, achieving an internal solution demands creating effective national mechanisms to deal with troubles in the frame of law and transparency.

Fawzī asserts, however, that expatriate Copts are an integral part of Egyptian society. This is a fact that should always be kept in mind even when some individuals have rejected their behavior. The vast majority of expatriates Copts form with expatriate Muslim Egyptians a strategic depth for Egypt abroad by forming a lobby that can work in the interest of Egypt.

Fawzī concludes stating: “The sectarian issue, like any other social issue, needs a wise administration the most important aspect of which is applying the laws.” He also highlights the vanity of conventional procedures and negotiations that enforce a culture of bargains in such a sensitive issue.

However, Muhammad Rādī of al-Maydān of September 3, 2008 commented on the subject in article that he headlined: “The monks enforce their will in the crisis of the Abū Fānā monastery.” Rādī reported on the comments of many Egyptian figures. He reported the Coptic thinker Jamāl As‘ad’s statement describing the solution achieved as: “a sectarian blackmail under a weak government;” for as he argues both the monks and the Bedouins took as much as they could, and only the government was the loser as a result of the absence of the rule of law.

[Author: As the lights go down on the stage of the hottest sectarian incident of the year in Egypt one can observe in the press the blatant contradictions that reveal, in my opinion, irresponsible media reporting. Contradictory stories were reported. Many names, titles and facts were reported in a controversial, rather provocative way to play on the religious sensitivity of Egyptians.]