Sectarian Conflict in Egypt

Coptic Media, Identity and Representation

Elizabeth Iskander

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9780415695787
• eBook ISBN: 9781136313646
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In light of the Egyptian uprising in early 2011, understanding the dynamics that are shaping Egyptian politics and society is more crucial than ever as Egypt seeks to re-define itself after the Mubarak era. One of the most controversial debates concerns the place of religion in Egypt's political future. This book examines the escalation in religious violence in Egypt since 2005 and the public discourses behind it, revealing some of the complex negotiations that lie behind contestations of citizenship, Muslim-Christian relations and national unity.

Focusing on Egypt's largest religious minority group, the Coptic Orthodox Christians, this book explores how national, ethnic and religious expressions of identity are interwoven in the narratives and usage of the press and Internet. In doing so it offers insights into some of Egypt's contemporary social and political challenges, and recognises the ways that media are involved in constructing and reflecting formations of identity politics. The author examines in depth the processes through which identity and belonging are negotiated via media discourses within the wider framework of changing political realities in Egypt. Using a combination of methodological approaches - including comprehensive surveys and content analysis - the research offers a fresh perspective on the politics of identity in Egypt.

Part I

Copts, Copticness and the Egyptian media

1 The contemporary Coptic community

Between the state and the Church

Boundaries play a role in the politics of belonging, but discourses of belonging also construct and deconstruct boundaries and thus the relationships built within and between them. Barth (1969) points to the behaviour of ethnic groups in defining and maintaining themselves as different by emphasizing a boundary line, outside which ‘others’ exist. This raises the question whether Copts maintain a boundary of difference and, if so, for what purposes and who has the authority to construct any boundaries. It cannot simply be assumed that relations of inclusion and exclusion, or us and them, are a one-way construction that is shaped only by the majority or the dominant group seeking to enclose an ‘other’ within a certain category. As Ibrahim argues, the Copts are not a monolithic group that can be defined simply as a beleaguered minority in relation to its Muslim Egyptian counterparts (2011: 5-6). In mass media in general, the construct of community is often treated as a monolithic bloc. It is necessary to challenge this and avoid essentializing because community and identity are experienced at multiple levels and are continually negotiated phenomena. People belong to multiple groups and negotiate these memberships at both the individual and the collective level (Baumann, 1996: 17). To avoid the reification of community as a fixed entity, this chapter will unpack some of the elements that form part of the complexity of what I will call Copticness. As Sedra (2009) argues, this will enable the literature on the modern Coptic Church and community to move beyond a view of Copts as victims or symbols.

Meanings of ‘Copt’ and ‘Copticness’

First of all, it is essential to outline what the word ‘Copt’ signifies in order to situate the Coptic community and ensure that the following analysis is not abstract, but is grounded in the social and political realities in which members of this community negotiate and experience their identity as Coptic. The word ‘Copt’ is derived from ‘Aigyptos’, which is the Greek word for Egypt (Watson, 2000: 7). From Aigyptos, the Arabs used ‘Qibti’ to mean Egyptian, which is anglicized as Copt. The Copts probably make up approximately 10 per cent of the Egyptian population (Hasan, 2003: 18). Accurate figures are unavailable and, while the government estimates that Copts make up around 6 per cent of the population, some church sources claim the proportion is between 15 and 20 per cent.

After the initial Arab invasion of Egypt in 639 AD, Egypt was gradually transformed from a majority Christian to a majority Muslim country. As well as an Islamization process, Egypt also underwent an Arabization process. At first, non-Arab converts to Islam were seen as inferior to Arab Muslims and, to overcome this, the Mawali system was introduced in order that non-Arab Muslims could be ‘adopted’ by an Arab tribe. In this way non-Arab converts were integrated into Arab culture and adopted its ethnicity (cf. Cragg, 1992). Additionally, those who converted or who conducted business with the Arab rulers began to learn Arabic, which became the official language of Egypt in the eighth century (Tagher, 1998: 85). Consequently, Arabic gradually replaced the Coptic language so that the latter is now only used for parts of the Coptic Orthodox liturgy and worship and is no longer widely understood, even among Copts. Although it is not agreed how long this displacement took, it is generally believed to have occurred around the ninth century (Wakin, 1963). As a result of these intertwined processes, those who converted to Islam came to identify themselves as Arab, whereas those who remained Christian continued to identify themselves as Coptic. So a term which simply meant Egyptian at first is now virtually synonymous with membership of the Coptic Orthodox Church, illustrating the way meanings can be (re)constructed, appropriated and negotiated.

The Coptic Orthodox Church is the largest Christian denomination in Egypt and it acts as a national Egyptian church. Copts also represent the largest Christian community in the Middle East region. The Coptic Church was officially established after the schism between the churches that accepted the outcome of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 ad and those that rejected it. There are also Coptic catholic and Coptic evangelical churches as a result of Western missionary activities in Egypt, mainly during the nineteenth century (Watson, 2000: 8-9). There are further denominations such as Episcopal, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox, which do not normally use the term ‘Coptic’ to describe their church. Because Orthodox Copts form the vast majority of the Christian population of Egypt, this research inevitably studies this particular community and, unless otherwise specified, the discussion will be focused on this group. This denomination also has an intimate role in constructing ideas of Copticness because of the link between the Coptic Orthodox Church and Coptic nationalism.

Many Copts have some sense that they are the ‘original’ Egyptians, direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians and, therefore, articulate a very strong attachment to the land of Egypt and its history, as well as to the deep-rooted Egyptian Christian heritage. Egypt was a major centre for the development of early Christianity and the influential writings of the Desert Fathers, numerous Egyptian saints and distinctive art, provide Copts with a rich heritage to draw upon, as well as a sense of being part of an ancient community that has been pivotal to the development and spread of the Christian faith. Therefore, for Copts, the collective memory and history of their community is tied both to their religious practice and to the territory of Egypt (Van Doorn-Harder and Vogt, 1997: 127). In addition to this heritage, the Coptic Church sees itself as a historically persecuted church, the collective memory of which perhaps contributes to the tendency of the Church to act as a refuge for Copts even today.

Consequently, stories that celebrate survival are common and repeated as though they are recent events. For example, during a visit to a Coptic Church in the Maadi area of Cairo, a story was related to me about how Copts had avoided attacks during the Roman era by using a tunnel that connected this church to another on the other side of the river Nile in order to escape. The narrator related the story as if it were a recent event and formed part of his broader explanation of his life as a Copt in Egypt. Oram-Edwards (2004: 139-40) made a similar observation about such stories acting as part of the collective consciousness of Copts. During her fieldwork she was told many stories which emphasized Coptic solidarity and survival. They included examples of how Copts had worked together to build or repair churches quickly and in secret in order to avoid being prevented from doing so. These examples were presented as a continuation of the stories of the early church that underline the ability of the Copts to survive by sticking together. Such narratives reinforce the importance of solidarity and loyalty within the community and to the Church because it is this that has enabled the community to survive, despite the schism with the wider church, and despite its being located in what is now generically known as the Muslim world.

The most significant period of persecution was under Roman authority and took place around 284 AD during the rule of Diocletian. This period is known to Copts as the ‘age of the martyrs’, and Copts start their calendar (which is based on the ancient Egyptian solar calendar) from the day Diocletian came to power, 29 August 284 AD. This is an example of the merging of ancient Egyptian heritage with the history and heritage of the Christians in Egypt and the Coptic Church. This period also marks the beginning of the emergence of an Egyptian church as distinct from the official Byzantine church (Watson, 2000: 24-33). The early Church established in Egypt was what is now known as the Greek Orthodox or in Arabic as Keniset al-Rum al-Orthodox. In fact, Egyptian names do not begin to appear in the lists of bishops of the Church in Egypt until the late second century (Tellyrides, 2009: 14). Because many Egyptians considered the early church establishment as foreign and part of the Byzantine Empire, church authority was not entirely accepted by Egyptian Christians (Tagher, 1998: 1).

Although, in Alexandria, the Hellenic and Egyptian civilizations did merge through the Christian faith, this process took considerable time and the situation in Alexandria was not representative of Egypt as a whole. The first major collision between Hellenism and ‘Egyptianness’ was when the second Ecumenical Council, held in 381 ad, decided to designate Constantinople as second in primacy after Rome, instead of Alexandria (Schaff, 1995: 161). By the end of the fourth century, Egyptians in Upper Egypt had started to develop their own religious and cultural style which they began to introduce into the church hierarchy. Tellyrides (2009: 18) explains the cultural deviation that emerged as the development of a distinctive national community that grew into the Coptic Church, with its adherents the Copts. From this point on, this community began to increasingly define itself by underscoring the difference between the Coptic Church and Egyptian culture on the one hand and the Orthodox Church and Greek civilization on the other. Clearly, then, Copticness was not simply a religious identity.

Because the Church sought to define itself culturally as well as religiously, the priest became a leader with both civil and religious authority. Dioscorus, an Egyptian who became the Patriarch of Alexandria in 444 AD said, ‘This country “Egypt” belongs to me more than the emperors and I request Sovereignty over it’ (Tagher, 1998: 3). The main figure in this nationalist movement, who is in fact known as the father of Coptic nationalism, was a monk from Sohag called Shenouda. He led a radical stream in Egypt that rejected any reconciliation between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of theology on the basis of promoting Coptic nationalism and sovereignty. Today, the monk Shenouda remains a symbol of Coptic nationalism and this name is often adopted by those with a concern to promote Copticness and the Copts as a distinct people. One example is Pope Shenouda III, who popularized the term al-Sha’ab al-Qibti, meaning the Coptic people (al-Manawi, 2005: 192). A second example is Shenouda Maher, a priest who called for the revival of the ancient (that is pre-Hellenic influenced) accent of the Coptic language and of Copticness as a nationalist identity. His emphasis on Coptic nationalism caused problems with the state and so the Church sent him to America, where he established a monastery also named after the monk Shenouda.

The schism between the Coptic Church and the rest of Christendom was compounded by the dispute at Chalcedon in 451 ad. On the surface it appeared to be a theological disagreement but, in reality, it was also very much to do with the power politics of the time (Tagher, 1998: 3) and the emergence of a Coptic national consciousness. Atiya (1968: 56-58) describes Alexandria’s split from the Byzantine church as a way of gaining Egyptian political independence from Constantinople. However, it is perhaps more accurate to describe the split as a consequence of Alexandria’s repeated attempts to regain supremacy as a centre for Christianity. It does seem certain that both the longstanding rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople and the growth of Coptic nationalism contributed to the outcome of the Council of Chalcedon. After the schism, the loyalty of the Egyptian people was gradually transferred to the Coptic Patriarch and, in later years, all the attempts of Byzantine emperors to effect a reconciliation with Egypt failed. Subsequently, the Coptic Church isolated itself still further and took on greater social and political functions in Egypt. This isolation from the rest of the Christian world was further compounded by the Arab conquests that saw Egypt come under Arab and Islamic rule after 639 ad (Betts, 1979: 115).

Although Egypt has been under Arab Muslim rule since the seventh century and adopted Arab culture and language in the first few centuries of this period, when the development of national unity narratives was taking place at the beginning of the twentieth century Fanous Akhnoukh, writing in the newspaper Misr, pointed to Copts specifically as the inheritors of ancient Egyptian civilization. One of his suggestions included the revival of the Coptic language (Hegazy, 2000: 259). The tendency for the Coptic diaspora to privilege a national identity linked to pre-Arab/Islamic Egypt was also noted by Botros (2006). Her findings on the historical narratives of the Coptic Church and community describe how Copts draw on a narrative of the miracle of the survival of the Coptic Church and their ancient Egyptian heritage. It is naturally very difficult to distinguish between the socio-political and religious discourse of a group partly defined by its religious affiliation and partly by an ethnic heritage, and attempts at categorization can be somewhat arbitrary. Indeed, even the use of term ‘Coptic community’ presents a challenge of interpretation and evokes various reactions (Scott, 2010: 65). The term ‘Coptic community’ is used throughout this book, not to imply that there is one interpretation but to acknowledge that, though imperfect, this is a category that is used in speech in Egypt with numerous implications for social and political life, broadly speaking.

The need to understand that discourses referring to a separate Coptic ethnicity could potentially complicate and hinder discourses of belonging was highlighted in statements by Anba Beshoy in September 2010. In an interview with al-Masry al-Youm newspaper, he suggested that Muslim Egyptians are the guests of the Copts who are the original inhabitants of Egypt. This provoked a heated exchange across different media channels. Most vocal in his criticism of Beshoy was Mohamed Selim al-Awwa, a well-known Muslim thinker, lawyer and, after the 25 January revolt, a presidential candidate. Pope Shenouda attempted to mediate the situation by countering this, saying that in fact Copts are the guests of Muslims because Egypt is a Muslim majority country (Arabian Business, 26 September 2010). Such statements clearly feed into debates and interpretations of the meaning of Egyptian national identity, citizenship and also relations of power between Egyptians on the basis of religion. It also points to dangerous underlying ideas of who belongs and who does not and that such a distinction is being made among Egyptian citizens on the basis of religious belonging.

Ideas of identity related to categories of ethnicity or racial heritage have also been part of debates concerning Egyptian identity. Therefore they are relevant to the theme of this book. Makari (2007: 14) argues that the movements of Egyptianism, Mediterraneanism, pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism all informed debates concerning where Egypt belonged culturally in the first half of the twentieth century. He argues that, ‘Theoretical paradigms dealing with ethnicity and ethnic relations can inform an examination of relations between Egypt’s Christians and Muslims’. The Egyptianism stream related national identity primarily to Egypt’s ancient civilization and was one of the key movements highlighting Egyptian national identity in the early 1900s. Both Muslims and Christians were among supporters of this movement. Around this time, Coptic intellectual and founder of the Coptic museum, Markus Semeika, was promoting the idea that all Egyptians are Copts; some being Muslim Copts and others being Christian Copts. Semeika and others emphasized that all Egyptians are descended from the Ancient Egyptians (Hasan, 2003: 41-42).

However, after the 1952 revolution and with Nasser’s focus on pan-Arabism, the Arab element of Egyptian identity came to dominate. There were also Islamic overtones to Nasser’s Arab nationalism (Scott, 2010: 40-42). This may have led to the sense among some Copts that a focus on Arab identity overshadows the Pharoanic heritage in Egyptian heritage (Reid, 1996: 291; Makari, 2007: 61). As a result, although Middle Eastern Christians were pioneers of the Arabism movement, in Egypt some Copts reacted to this shift by taking refuge in an interpretation of Egyptian identity in which Copts are ‘purer’ descendants of the ancient Egyptians and in which Islam does not emerge as the dominant faith. Once again this hints at the complexity of overlapping interpretations of identity between elements of ethnicity, national identity and religion.

While the argument that Copts are always more closely related to ancient Egyptians is flawed and historically inaccurate (McCallum, 2010: 74), its existence as a narrative should be acknowledged as it arose in the content analysis of new media and through the surveys conducted for this book. An example of a practical way that Coptic as ethnicity is being experienced by Copts in the diaspora is illustrated by a Facebook campaign called 2010 US Census: I am ‘Coptic’.¹ The information page states:

For the 2010 Census, ALL Copts will fill check the box next to ‘Other’ under Ethnicity and write in the word ‘Coptic’.

This is to indicate our ethnicity, NOT our religion. Therefore, regardless of faith, all Coptic people should check the box next to ‘Other’ and write in the word ‘Coptic’.

**Please spread the word and ensure that all Copts unite under their ethnicity in order to become a recognized minority by our government.

This example must be put in perspective, however. This campaign is one launched among Copts in the diaspora, specifically in the USA and not Egypt. In that context, the Muslim-Christian differentiation is less useful in distinguishing Copticness and designating its boundaries between this diaspora community and others. Still, as the Coptic diaspora community grows, the new dynamics introduced by these multiple centres for connection and negotiations of community identities will have an increasing impact on constructions of Copticness. This brief overview indicates that not only has the Coptic community an identity rooted spiritually in a rich and ancient religious tradition but also that the understanding of the meaning of ‘Copt’ is intertwined with a national identity based on belonging to a specific territory, an ancient civilization and a national church that has a tradition of acting as a social and political institution, as well as a spiritual guide. This social and political context, in addition to the observations made during my analysis of Egyptian and Coptic media, gave shape to this research project as one that seeks to explore overlapping constructions of ‘belonging’, flowing around national, religious and transnational connections. This book aims to describe how different levels of belonging, as experienced by Copts and expressed through the media, reflect the construction of their social and political position as Egyptians in the modern world vis-à-vis the Egyptian state and the Church. This contributes to broader contemporary debates over Egyptian national identity, inter-faith relations and the experience of Copticness and its place in modern Egyptian social and political life.

Contemporary challenges

Ibrahim notes that there has been a tendency in literature to represent Copts as, ‘being eternally in resistance to persecuting forces’ (2011: 7). There is also a tendency to represent Copts as a single bloc and unified actor in Egyptian history and politics. While it is the objective of this book to uncover the layers of discourses, it is crucial to analyse why narratives that appear to dominate have tended to represent the Copts as both a religious and socio-political bloc. Setting out some of the challenges that face Copts in engaging in Egyptian national life will help to explain why particular constructions of a Coptic community appear to dominate. This will lead on to the later discussion of why Copticness, and its rela...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Sectarian Conflict in Egypt
• Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Politics
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• PART I: Copts, Copticness and the Egyptian media
• PART II: Copts and national representation in the Mubarak-Shenouda era
• PART III: Challenging regimes of representation
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index