On January 4, 2010 Cornelis Hulsman and Jayson Casper visited the JaffaCenter to discuss the topic of reconciliation sessions with its director and editor, Dr. Rifcat Ahmad. Dr. Ahmad received us warmly and provided us valuable perspective on the issue. The following is a summary of our discussion.
Article full text:
We began our meeting with an exchange of introductions. We contacted Dr. Ahmad at the suggestion of Sheikh Ahmad is it al-Sāyih, professor of doctrine and philosophy at the Azhar University, and member of the Moral Rearmament Association, with whom we have good relations. Sheikh Sāyih referenced the Jaffa Center as an establishment of Islamic scholarship designed to counter the Wahhabi influences current in Egyptian society. Curious to discover more about this entity but also eager to seek Muslim religious opinion on the question of reconciliation sessions, we secured a visit. We introduced ourselves as an organization which critiques the press for often failing to report the foundational issues involved in local tensions, but also our desire to move beyond reporting into proactive encouragement and capacity building for reconciliation.
Dr. Ahmad encouraged us in this regard and suggested a wide cooperation, including joint participation in conferences and the exchange of research and studies each has conducted. We welcomed this idea, but then spoke directly of our topic of interest. As an Islamic religious scholar, do you support the role of reconciliation sessions in Egyptian society?
Dr. Ahmad began with a statistic: in the past year there have been over forty million justice-related cases and complaints registered in the various police and judicial bodies throughout Egypt. This figure was reported by al-Musawwar Magazine on December 31, 2009. This number is unmanageable for current governmental resources, resulting in the realization of the Egyptian proverb—slow justice is injustice. By their very nature reconciliation sessions solve conflict and prevent additional cases from clogging the court system. As such, they should be a welcome tool in helping establish communal justice without recourse to the law.
He continued by stating that reconciliation sessions mesh with the culture of tribes more so than recourse to the law. These tribes make up a sizeable portion of the Egyptian population, especially outside of the cities, and frequently clash with police. Even in the general population, however, Dr. Ahmad anticipated wide acceptance of the principle of reconciliation sessions for the following reasons. One, it establishes justice quickly, whereas the law requires much time and money. Two, it is in line with the culture of the people, as Islam accepts the principle of blood money, which is accepted in place of revenge upon a killing. Three, it applies the spirit of the law, and does not subject anyone to the hard letter of the law. For all of these reasons he supports the wide use of reconciliation sessions, and would support the drafting of a law which incorporates this extra-legal process, establishing its outcome as a legitimate agreement, legally binding.
Dr. Ahmad did qualify his support, however, by raising the important issue frequently cited by critics that reconciliation sessions damage civil society and the rule of law. This must not be allowed to happen, and much political wisdom is needed to strike a balance. If there is to be governmental support for reconciliation sessions, this must result after the collection and analysis of data gained through thorough field research and sociological studies. If there is not a clear coordination between the people and state then reconciliation sessions could lead to a weakening of state authority.
The most important feature of any law to be drafted is its flexibility. There must be allowances for regional and cultural differences so that any reconciliation process is entered into with complete freedom of choice. Any compulsion whatsoever will make a mockery of the reconciliation attempt. In this regard Dr. Ahmad commented on the often heard Coptic complaint that their participation is forced and therein their rights are forfeited. While acknowledging that this may have taken place, he believed such cases to be exceptional. In general, Muslims and Christians in Egypt share the same culture, and thus have the same reference points for conducting reconciliation. The difficulties lie more between Bedouin and village farmer; here a reconciliation session may be impossible, for the two parties approach the issue differently. Yet a flexible law can still allow for the attempt to enter reconciliation, but both parties must be free throughout the process to withdraw at any time prior to the agreement. Local and cultural customs should be allowed to influence specific cases. While drafting such a law necessities great care, in terms of Islamic basis there is no barrier or reservation; the sharī‘ah allows the incorporation of ‘urf into agreed upon religious law.
Dr. Ahmad spoke further of his estimation of essential Muslim-Christian unity, comparing Egypt favorably to Lebanon. While there are religious identity issues which characterize individual Egyptians, religious identity in Lebanon usually also includes a strong political distinction. Therefore, as Egyptians can easily find recourse in a common culture despite differing religious creeds, the Lebanese suffer since their religious divisions are cemented in political structures. Dr. Ahmad praised Pope Shenouda for his wisdom in grounding the Coptic Christian identity firmly in the framework of Egyptian citizenship. He has also, stated Dr. Ahmad, sought continuously to keep politics outside the church. As a result, while political and religious difficulties can be asserted by both religions, the mainstream faiths have kept the two from intertwining.
As a final question, we asked Dr. Ahmad if he had advice for the pursuit of reconciliation in general, apart from the more controversial participation in official sessions. He replied first of all that reconciliation depended upon more than a common agreement; it required societal reform including a reduction in unemployment and an increase in political participation. Still, such measures would take years, and at the local level much good could be done in promoting dialogue, cooperation, the exchange of holiday visits, projects, and youth clubs. These measures, though, are better at preserving good relations than restoring damaged ones. Following a conflict, direct action is necessary.
Dr. Ahmad identified the village mayor and community leaders as the ones who must meet together to conduct informal sessions to solve problems in the village common to all. When conflict strikes these parties must insist on maintaining regular contact, even if their interests are divided. Only through such strong and determined leadership, despite differences, can a divide village not be completely torn asunder.
He also spoke of the necessary contribution of the youth in a village, stating that those who have received an education can be relied upon generally to contribute to good relations. It is the unemployed, and more so the illiterate members of the younger generation who find themselves embroiled in conflict. It is of great importance to encourage leadership among the former group.
Finally, Dr. Ahmad spoke of the highly important role of the mosque and the church. The leaders of the two religious institutions must take joint responsibility for the affairs of the village. In society today there has been a strong sense of belonging to religion, complimented by a decline in the trust in the state. Religious leaders must recognize that they play a greater role in the lives of the villagers than their political representatives; in so doing the power of religion can be used to heal instead of to divide. Unfortunately, all three of the groups mentioned often find themselves at odds during times of conflict, but these must be encouraged to overcome their difficulties to insist upon and preach the essential community unity.
Following a fruitful and enjoyable conversation we thanked Dr. Ahmad for his time and hospitality, hopeful for future collaboration. On his part, this was offered freely, and we look forward to continued friendly relations, which we pray will mirror the reality of Egyptian society.
