An AWR team traveled to Beni Suef to investigate the incidents at ‘Izbat Bushrá, and gained an initial report of what happened.

Article full text:

The purpose of the visit to the city of Beni Suef, located approximately two hours south of Cairo by railroad, was to clarify the situation within ‘Izbat Bushrá, a village that recently witnessed civil disturbances between Christian and Muslim communities over the use of a privately owned building as a place of Christian worship.

‘Izbat Bushrá, a small hamlet of some 2500 individuals, of whom 1000 are of Coptic confession, recently rose to attention in local and national media regarding tensions between the Muslim and Coptic communities. The seeds of tension were originally sown in 2006 when a private, three-story building (with an additional basement) was commissioned and built on behalf of the local Coptic priest – Fr. Ishāq Kastūr - for use as a main place of residence. The building comprises a ’prayer hall’ on the first floor, a general utility hall on the second floor, and private apartments for the priest and his family on the third floor. It was completed in late 2006, amid rumors and concerns from the Muslim community, the authorities, and also part of the Christian community that the building would be transformed into a church. Critics within the Coptic community point to the legal and bureaucratic nightmare of having the erection of a Church approved (as compared to the relative ease in the Muslim case) as justification for the slight bypass of the law. The situation took a decisive turn for the worse, however, when on June 21, 2009, a Muslim crowd forcibly entered the building and sacked it.

The AWR team was originally tasked with meeting Bishop Stephanus in order to assess the recent development of events, proceeding thereafter to the village itself for a first-hand experience of the situation and atmosphere. AWR had been unofficially informed of the tensions between the bishop and his priests, particularly concerning the handling of the ‘Izbat Bushrá incident, and was warned of the danger of being denied access to the village, despite the direct approval of the bishop itself.

From the start the full clarification of events looked unlikely, as Bishop Stephanus, despite his best assurances that the AWR team would be able to meet with him to discuss the situation in full, remained unreachable in Beni Suef, forcing the AWR team to seek the version of events from Fr. ‘Abd Al-Qudūs Hennā. After the traditional warm welcoming and offering of a hearty meal, the subject of ‘Izbat Bushrá finally emerged thanks to a written statement produced by the priest and his coterie, outlining the series of events that led to the unlawful damaging of the building and supplementing the known incidents with the following information:

Prior to the sacking of the main building, tensions had already flared in early 2009 as the fence of the building as well as adjacent cultivated land was damaged, and subsequently the priest was forcibly removed from his duties within the hamlet for one month, at the request of the authorities. Afterwards, a formal complaint was filed by members of the Coptic community, and was classified under the ’administration’ category by the authorities. According to the priest this was a sign of police partiality since administrative complaints, he maintained, are seldom investigated.

Following his return from forced exile, both the priest and his family found the entrance of their dwelling under permanent watch by a security guard, presumably in order to assure the safety of the family. Fr. ‘Abd Al-Quddūs Hannā alleges, however, that the security guards assigned to watch over the building actively hindered any Copt unrelated to the family from entering the property, further evidence, he claims, of the role of the state in preventing Coptic gatherings and worship.

Further still, in the aftermath of the building’s desecration, the police allegedly arrested nineteen Coptic community members over charges of commencing the troubles in the first place. Though they were released in the following days after their formal appearance in court, Fr. ‘Abd Al-Quddūs Hannā highlighted the frustration of Coptic community with the apparent lack of equitable justice between Muslims and Christians. He claimed the police had done very little to stop the wrecking of the building or to pursue the Muslims responsible. Instead, the priest and his family were denied access outside their dwelling, suffering food, electricity, water, and medication shortages as a direct result of their forced isolation.

As to the illegality of the church within the building, responses ranged from demanding a change in the law to continuing building churches in this fashion, since the law is largely overlooked and in any case is deemed discriminatory and hence unfair. Discussions then moved away from the specific topic of ‘Izbat Bushrá to the more general situation of Muslim-Coptic relations, with the general consensus being that these relations had worsened in recent years, but that the Coptic community had no issue with their Muslim neighbors, since the discrimination came from the state apparatus and not the general population. Such discrimination includes the refusal to acknowledge the Easter Resurrection as an official state holiday, since Sharī‘ah Law, the main legislative source of the judicial system as defined under the constitution, does not recognize this date.

As to the possibility of visiting the village itself, however, despite being granted security clearance from the Egyptian authorities, Fr. ‘Abd Al-Quddūs Hannā strongly advised against the decision, citing a fragile compromise had been reached between the Muslim and Coptic authorities which could very easily be jeopardized by the arrival of foreign investigators. This advice naturally seemed strange, given the explicit permission of the bishop himself to visit the village, but in a very short amount of time, the AWR team was generously offered a chauffeur-driven car back to Cairo, paid for by the bishopric.

Thanks to frantic last minute calls made on the journey back to Cairo, however, the AWR team was able to arrange a meeting with Father Mūsá William in Beni Suef. This second interview revealed a different side of the affair than had previously been suggested by the initial plaintive report of victimization. Indeed, the opinion of Fr. Mūsá on Fr. Ishāq Kastūrr was decisively more negative, demonstrated by his call for calm and the condemnation of any action that might provoke or exacerbate the already strained relations between Muslims and Copts. Furthermore, Fr. Mūsá painted a much more positive and nuanced picture of Muslim-Coptic relations, affirming these had improved considerably in recent years.

Whatever one’s opinion of the incident, the visit made by the AWR team laid bare the complexity of the issue, with neither the communities nor the government without blame. The visit, and the subsequent denial of access to the village, also highlighted the internal politics present within the Coptic Church, while igniting logical suspicions of ulterior motives other than those of preserving the "fragile compromise".