Who is burning churches in Egypt?
Let's examine this question. We don't have hard evidence but we do have our knowledge of the Egyptian scene and the players on both sides of the current conflict.
1- The Muslim Brothers. First, they condemned the attacks. That's not enough to exonerate them. We are proceeding here from the prism of 'you're guilty until we prove that your innocence is more compelling.' They could have still burned them and condemned the acts. We have seen how people commit crimes and condemn them. But is it in their best interest? No. It makes them look terribly bad when they seem to need all the support they could get. In other words, they don't have the motive. More importantly, the movement has been in Egypt since 1928 and they haven't been known to target churches. Nor is hatred of Christians constitutes a part of their rhetoric. True, many of MB members recently critiqued the Coptic pope and accused him of conspiring with the army to oust the elected president. (Human Right Watch was eager to document in its recent report on targeting churches in Egypt the strong rhetoric coming from some of the MB supporters). They are definitely not happy with that. But they also accuse the great shaykh of al-Azhar of being a co-conspirator in the same crime. They didn't send men to burn al-Azhar. If they wanted to do so, which it is hard to imagine, they certainly haven't do so so far.
2- Other Islamists: Possible. But for what and why now? Are they more royal and loyal than the MB themselves who issued statements condemning and prohibiting the acts. More significantly, whoever the attackers are why aren't they repelled?
3-Army/police/baltajiyya: it would sound weird given that the Coptic Church completely backed the coup and actively helped increase the volume of 6/30 protests, which falls within their civic right to protests (of course toppling an elected president is not, but that is another issue). Moreover, the assailants are unlikely to be Christians, but still some might participate. But let's exclude that possibility because it looks far fetched. Let's check the army and its addenda (police/baltajiyya). When churches were burned, no one came to their rescue. But the army was eager to take journalists by planes to see from the air how churches are consumed in fire (see testimony of Middle East correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Matt Bradley, on his twitter account) Of course, testimonies by Christian clergymen in various locations in Egypt told of how they called the army, the police, the ministry of interior repeatedly seeking help and none was provided. Everyone either promised and didn't deliver or apologized for not being able to help (see for example ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRioMVTtT1M). It was in many cases the Muslim clerics--including some salafi, MB and other Islamists--who came to help and aided in guarding churches, sometimes preventing further attacks and sometime coming too late but providing assurances.
Now the army and police can claim that they didn't have the man power, or didn't know churches would be targeted. Both claim don't stand a fact check. Not only were the media loyal to the army expecting massive attacks on churches and Christian businesses, but it also spoke of real plans uncovered by the security forces of Islamists major attacks on churches. That somehow didn't prompt the army to tighten security around churches or at least to respond in time when they were attacked. The army which fills the streets of Egypt, so trigger-happy, killing and wounding hundreds of peaceful protesters, arresting anyone who seems remotely Islamists, seemed so lethargic and so absent when churches were attacked by hordes of arsonists and thugs. But they weren't completely absent as I pointed out above; they wanted to show the acts to journalists. We don't have hard evidence that the army or the police orchestrated these attacks but they certainly seem to have turned blind eyes to them and wanted to take advantage of the PR these attacks generate to convince the world the Islamists are terrorists. Finally, one might argue that attacking houses of worship would seem rather too much for an army to do just to score points in a PR campaign. That's true. But let's not forget that the army burned a major mosque in Cairo in day light and stood as the world watched. They also attacked several other mosques using fire arms. An army which targets mosques in a Muslim majority country to serve its interests would certainly not hesitate to target churches for the same reasons.This time it targeted them not to arrest or kill the worshipers or to deny them a platform. It rather burned them to sell the plight of their owners to the world as evidence of the callous nature of its adversary. Nothing is sacred in the eyes of people like these. Human life wasn't; why should mosques or churches?
1- The Muslim Brothers. First, they condemned the attacks. That's not enough to exonerate them. We are proceeding here from the prism of 'you're guilty until we prove that your innocence is more compelling.' They could have still burned them and condemned the acts. We have seen how people commit crimes and condemn them. But is it in their best interest? No. It makes them look terribly bad when they seem to need all the support they could get. In other words, they don't have the motive. More importantly, the movement has been in Egypt since 1928 and they haven't been known to target churches. Nor is hatred of Christians constitutes a part of their rhetoric. True, many of MB members recently critiqued the Coptic pope and accused him of conspiring with the army to oust the elected president. (Human Right Watch was eager to document in its recent report on targeting churches in Egypt the strong rhetoric coming from some of the MB supporters). They are definitely not happy with that. But they also accuse the great shaykh of al-Azhar of being a co-conspirator in the same crime. They didn't send men to burn al-Azhar. If they wanted to do so, which it is hard to imagine, they certainly haven't do so so far.
2- Other Islamists: Possible. But for what and why now? Are they more royal and loyal than the MB themselves who issued statements condemning and prohibiting the acts. More significantly, whoever the attackers are why aren't they repelled?
3-Army/police/baltajiyya: it would sound weird given that the Coptic Church completely backed the coup and actively helped increase the volume of 6/30 protests, which falls within their civic right to protests (of course toppling an elected president is not, but that is another issue). Moreover, the assailants are unlikely to be Christians, but still some might participate. But let's exclude that possibility because it looks far fetched. Let's check the army and its addenda (police/baltajiyya). When churches were burned, no one came to their rescue. But the army was eager to take journalists by planes to see from the air how churches are consumed in fire (see testimony of Middle East correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Matt Bradley, on his twitter account) Of course, testimonies by Christian clergymen in various locations in Egypt told of how they called the army, the police, the ministry of interior repeatedly seeking help and none was provided. Everyone either promised and didn't deliver or apologized for not being able to help (see for example ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRioMVTtT1M). It was in many cases the Muslim clerics--including some salafi, MB and other Islamists--who came to help and aided in guarding churches, sometimes preventing further attacks and sometime coming too late but providing assurances.
Now the army and police can claim that they didn't have the man power, or didn't know churches would be targeted. Both claim don't stand a fact check. Not only were the media loyal to the army expecting massive attacks on churches and Christian businesses, but it also spoke of real plans uncovered by the security forces of Islamists major attacks on churches. That somehow didn't prompt the army to tighten security around churches or at least to respond in time when they were attacked. The army which fills the streets of Egypt, so trigger-happy, killing and wounding hundreds of peaceful protesters, arresting anyone who seems remotely Islamists, seemed so lethargic and so absent when churches were attacked by hordes of arsonists and thugs. But they weren't completely absent as I pointed out above; they wanted to show the acts to journalists. We don't have hard evidence that the army or the police orchestrated these attacks but they certainly seem to have turned blind eyes to them and wanted to take advantage of the PR these attacks generate to convince the world the Islamists are terrorists. Finally, one might argue that attacking houses of worship would seem rather too much for an army to do just to score points in a PR campaign. That's true. But let's not forget that the army burned a major mosque in Cairo in day light and stood as the world watched. They also attacked several other mosques using fire arms. An army which targets mosques in a Muslim majority country to serve its interests would certainly not hesitate to target churches for the same reasons.This time it targeted them not to arrest or kill the worshipers or to deny them a platform. It rather burned them to sell the plight of their owners to the world as evidence of the callous nature of its adversary. Nothing is sacred in the eyes of people like these. Human life wasn't; why should mosques or churches?
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق