Backlash! 2nd International Coptic Conference Decried by Al-Ahram
By Sally Bishai (01/23/06)
Nearly two months have passed since 220 passionate persons seeking change and equality in the land of the pharaohs gathered in the nation’s capitol to exchange ideas, learn from one another, and think up a solution to the “Coptic problem.”
Most, if not all, of the conference-attendees left Washington, D.C. with a feeling of well-being, happy at the decisions of the conference, and pleased with themselves for being that much closer to making a difference in their beloved homeland.
It wasn’t long, however, before detractors stepped out of the shadows (and the Egyptian media), calling attendees “traitors,” and claiming that no good could ever come from such an assemblage—for a number of different reasons. Today, we’ll focus on one: the “card-mixing” reason.
Al-Ahram writer Emad Mekay, in a (sort-of) recent article (“Copts Mix Cards,” Nov. 24-30 issue) for the famous Egyptian newspaper, pulled all sorts of half-truths out of his bag of tricks (or deck of cards, as the case may be).
For one, he went on (at length) about the "anti-Islamic" bent of the conference. If that’s the case, then isn’t it odd that more than 1/4th of the distinguished speakers were practicing Muslims?
Furthermore, Mekay’s belief that conference speakers were “accusing Muslims of using force to convert Egypt's Copts” is—while not unfounded to someone who wasn’t paying attention to the speakers—actually erroneous.
Why? Well, just think about it. Just because Mohammad Atta and his crew killed 3,000 people in New York, does that mean all Muslims/Egyptians/dark-haired-men/men called “Mohammed” are guilty of Atta’s crime? No!
Just because Timothy McVeigh was allegedly a Christian, does that make me, a Christian, also guilty of it? No!
Likewise, just because some Muslims were guilty of carrying out these alleged conversions/kidnappings/etc., this does not mean that all Muslims are guilty of—or should be blamed for—the crimes of twenty or fifty or a hundred brethren.
Other crimes that Mekay is guilty of include: assuming that all Copts belong to the Coptic Orthodox faith (which they don't; I, and tens of thousand other Egyptians happen to be Coptic Evangelical, and I know of several Coptic Catholic communities in Egypt), or that only the Orthodox in Egypt suffer (which I can assure you, they don’t).
Also, his pulling out of all sorts of negative descriptors for several non-Copts who were kind enough to lend their voices to our struggle, including: Congressmen Lantos and Wolf (who voted to cut aid to Egypt), former Israeli embassy official Nir Boms (uh-oh, an Israeli), publicity guru Eleana Benador (heaven help us, she’s represented neo-cons before!), and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom’s Nina Shea (oh no, they’ve publicly “censured” the Egyptian government!).
In an especially underhanded move, Mekay pulls out the term “Islamofascism,” (ostensibly for reasons of bringing the reader around to his side), then proceeds to go on about how someone who wasn’t even at the conference has previously used the word.
What this has to do with the conference, I couldn’t say. (Have you noticed the excessive use of “association by guilt or glory,” or is it just me?)
Mekay goes on to bring out every neo-con and neo-con connection within a 16-mile radius. His research was obviously lacking, however, because I spoke with a number of pro-Palestinian, anti-neo-con, and anti-war-in-Iraq individuals at the conference.
I find it fascinating that Mekay seems annoyed with us for trying to make things better for ourselves and our loved ones back home.
Never mind the fact that many Copts in Egypt are against foreign intervention (you can’t blame them for fearing a Pandora’s Box, can you?) and against “rocking the boat.”
Unfortunately, as anyone who’s ever had a root canal will tell you, things often have to get worse before they can get better.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Sally Bishai
