So what if the Islamists come?
In a nutshell, the biggest fear after the Arab spring sounds like this: "But what if the Islamists come to power!?" At first sight the victory of Al Nahda in Tunisia, the calls for imposing Shariah law in Libya and the popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt could be interpreted as an Islamist revival. But is that really so?
After the Arab spring the logical question is where's the place of the Christians in this new Middle East. Until now at least at first sight the impression was that the dictators were tolerating the secular character of the state and were in favor of the peaceful coexistence of the Muslim majority with the Christian minority. But now we're seeing Al Jazeera reports from Damascus where horrified Christians claim they'd rather support Assad because they used to feel safer under his regime. How desperate is that?
We're also seeing the pogroms on the Coptic churches in Egypt. Of course the most desirable outcome would be fair and free elections like those in Tunisia, where all segments of society would be represented in politics. But the events in Cairo are fueling the fears. Last month a Coptic protest was drowned in blood by the military. It was the bloodiest crackdown since Mubarak's downfall. 24 dead, 320 injured. The riots were caused by the demolition of yet another Coptic church in Aswan. The Christians came out on the street to protest and demand government intervention and protection of their rights. They're pissed that their group (1/10 of the Egyptian population) is constantly subject to blatant discrimination - for instance, in order to build a new church they need special decree from the president, and converting from Islam to Christianity is strictly prohibited, while the reversed is not impossible.
There are many versions about what happened there. Some sources claim the Copts were first attacked by civilians, possibly Islamists. And in the subsequent confrontation between the Christians and the military, thousands of Muslims also came to the street, some of them supporting the Copts while others joined the military, following the call on the national TV to "help restore order" and protect the "decent Egyptians" from the "angry Christian mobs". So the protest was presented as a religious attack on the secular state, and the old stereotype of the Christians as outsiders was reinforced.
We saw on BBC all the horrific scenes, people being brutally run over by tanks. The authorities didn't comment on that, instead they promised a full investigation and punishments for those responsible for the clashes. But so far - nothing.
In fact the Copts have been subject to increased religious attacks for ages. But that's nothing compared to the Christians in Iraq in modern times, who used to live in relative peace under Saddam. After the US invasion, they're subject to constant persecution, murders, and their churches are being blown up. In result over 400,000 Christians have fled Iraq since 2003.
In turn, the Copts have been living under constant pressure. But the big question is what will happen now, or rather how much worse things will get for them. Since Mubarak fell, the incidents of torched churches and even murders of Christians have increased. All of this sharply contrasts with the footage from the peaceful protests at Tahrir square in the beginning, where we saw Muslims and Christians praying side by side for the fall of the Mubarak regime.
The eternal US presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is among the staunchest advocates of the argument that the Arab spring is the beginning of a Christian winter. He believes there are clear symptoms of increasing religious intolerance in the Middle East. He doesn't miss a chance to criticize Obama's administration for its involvement in the Arab revolutions, which he believes will ultimately lead to hatred to all religious minorities.
This argument is supported by the arch-bishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the Anglican church. He believes the extremists will benefit from the political vacuum that remained after the fall of the regimes. This is seen in Egypt, and in Syria the relations between Muslims and Christians are at the brink of exploding, while in Iraq, he argues, we're witnessing outright ethnic/religious cleansing.
And now the Syrian Christians are worried by the increasing influence of the Islamists and the possibility of a rise of fundamentalism. Most of them are ready to swallow the repressive regime for the sake of preserving their right to practice their religion in relative peace. No other Middle East country (except Lebanon) enjoys such a diversity of ethnic and religious groups cohabiting peacefully. The Christians are 10% there, and they desperately need guarantees that the coming new order in the country will continue to protect their minority rights.
Granted, the relations between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East have always been a very delicate matter and it's useless to make generalizations. A survey by The Economist ("The World In 2012") suggests that the Islamists in the region will assert a greater presence in political life, but they won't try to get unlimited power, but they'll be playing cautiously and pragmatically instead, trying not to scare off the secular majority. The new constitution of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya will undoubtedly rest upon Islamic principles, but no Islamist party would be able to get full majority and they'll have to work with the secular formations.
Actually Egypt has always had discrimination against the Copts, but seldom persecutions. The Christians' rights are either denied or severely limited, like the chance to get high ranks in the military, or the intelligence services, or getting any access to the presidential circles. The government traditionally has two Coptic ministers, but always with insignificant portfolios. Indeed, at a community level there are often clashes and violence. Two reasons - the construction of new churches, and the conflict that emerges whenever a Muslim woman falls in love with a Christian man, or when someone attempts a conversion.
The fact is that for many years under Mubarak a false notion was being pushed that their situation would've been much worse without protection from the regime. The occasional tensions and conflicts were being explained as a result from personal grudges, not on an ethnic level. So Egypt was creating a self-image of a society that's devoid of serious religious problems, and that image was being sold to the world. But meanwhile the problems were always there, and claiming that there ever was a "Christian summer" before the Arab spring is wishful thinking. In many respects after the fall of the regime the situation actually has a potential to get better even despite the eruption of violence, because now the problem is clearly put on the table, it's not being shunned any more, and everyone can recognize it for what it is, and try to address it for once. Or not.
No doubt, there'll be short-term negative effects for the Copts, but in the long run this hot issue can finally be openly discussed. Under Mubarak's regime, not a single journalist would dare to ask questions about the situation of the Christians. Now even the state televisions are discussing it, and thanks to the US and EU the issue has gone international. Seems like many moderate Muslims are supporting the Copts, and even the official position of the Muslim Brotherhood is against violence. Of course we can't be sure what it'll be once they get to power - they could impose more restrictions. But at least for now they claim they're supporting full equality. Moreover, most young people who carried the revolution on their shoulders, are using internet and the social networks, while people didn't have that freedom of expression and those sources of information in the past. In result, the influence of the moderate Muslims is increasing. Even some young people split up from the Muslim Brotherhood and formed four new parties because they don't share the views of the older generation. It's a fine example of political activism at its best. As a whole, those who are on the fringe and are willing to create chaos, are a tiny (albeit very loud and well organized) minority - they'd often do things that would shock the world, but they are a minority nonetheless.
So, maybe most of these worries are too exaggerated, but meawnhile the concerns of the religious minorities in the Middle East becoming victim of the Arab spring if things go wrong, are well understood and normal. It's all up to these societies, the new governments in the region, and partly the leaders of the international community, to guarantee that the worst scenario won't happen.
After the Arab spring the logical question is where's the place of the Christians in this new Middle East. Until now at least at first sight the impression was that the dictators were tolerating the secular character of the state and were in favor of the peaceful coexistence of the Muslim majority with the Christian minority. But now we're seeing Al Jazeera reports from Damascus where horrified Christians claim they'd rather support Assad because they used to feel safer under his regime. How desperate is that?
We're also seeing the pogroms on the Coptic churches in Egypt. Of course the most desirable outcome would be fair and free elections like those in Tunisia, where all segments of society would be represented in politics. But the events in Cairo are fueling the fears. Last month a Coptic protest was drowned in blood by the military. It was the bloodiest crackdown since Mubarak's downfall. 24 dead, 320 injured. The riots were caused by the demolition of yet another Coptic church in Aswan. The Christians came out on the street to protest and demand government intervention and protection of their rights. They're pissed that their group (1/10 of the Egyptian population) is constantly subject to blatant discrimination - for instance, in order to build a new church they need special decree from the president, and converting from Islam to Christianity is strictly prohibited, while the reversed is not impossible.
There are many versions about what happened there. Some sources claim the Copts were first attacked by civilians, possibly Islamists. And in the subsequent confrontation between the Christians and the military, thousands of Muslims also came to the street, some of them supporting the Copts while others joined the military, following the call on the national TV to "help restore order" and protect the "decent Egyptians" from the "angry Christian mobs". So the protest was presented as a religious attack on the secular state, and the old stereotype of the Christians as outsiders was reinforced.
We saw on BBC all the horrific scenes, people being brutally run over by tanks. The authorities didn't comment on that, instead they promised a full investigation and punishments for those responsible for the clashes. But so far - nothing.
In fact the Copts have been subject to increased religious attacks for ages. But that's nothing compared to the Christians in Iraq in modern times, who used to live in relative peace under Saddam. After the US invasion, they're subject to constant persecution, murders, and their churches are being blown up. In result over 400,000 Christians have fled Iraq since 2003.
In turn, the Copts have been living under constant pressure. But the big question is what will happen now, or rather how much worse things will get for them. Since Mubarak fell, the incidents of torched churches and even murders of Christians have increased. All of this sharply contrasts with the footage from the peaceful protests at Tahrir square in the beginning, where we saw Muslims and Christians praying side by side for the fall of the Mubarak regime.
The eternal US presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is among the staunchest advocates of the argument that the Arab spring is the beginning of a Christian winter. He believes there are clear symptoms of increasing religious intolerance in the Middle East. He doesn't miss a chance to criticize Obama's administration for its involvement in the Arab revolutions, which he believes will ultimately lead to hatred to all religious minorities.
This argument is supported by the arch-bishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the leader of the Anglican church. He believes the extremists will benefit from the political vacuum that remained after the fall of the regimes. This is seen in Egypt, and in Syria the relations between Muslims and Christians are at the brink of exploding, while in Iraq, he argues, we're witnessing outright ethnic/religious cleansing.
And now the Syrian Christians are worried by the increasing influence of the Islamists and the possibility of a rise of fundamentalism. Most of them are ready to swallow the repressive regime for the sake of preserving their right to practice their religion in relative peace. No other Middle East country (except Lebanon) enjoys such a diversity of ethnic and religious groups cohabiting peacefully. The Christians are 10% there, and they desperately need guarantees that the coming new order in the country will continue to protect their minority rights.
Granted, the relations between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East have always been a very delicate matter and it's useless to make generalizations. A survey by The Economist ("The World In 2012") suggests that the Islamists in the region will assert a greater presence in political life, but they won't try to get unlimited power, but they'll be playing cautiously and pragmatically instead, trying not to scare off the secular majority. The new constitution of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya will undoubtedly rest upon Islamic principles, but no Islamist party would be able to get full majority and they'll have to work with the secular formations.
Actually Egypt has always had discrimination against the Copts, but seldom persecutions. The Christians' rights are either denied or severely limited, like the chance to get high ranks in the military, or the intelligence services, or getting any access to the presidential circles. The government traditionally has two Coptic ministers, but always with insignificant portfolios. Indeed, at a community level there are often clashes and violence. Two reasons - the construction of new churches, and the conflict that emerges whenever a Muslim woman falls in love with a Christian man, or when someone attempts a conversion.
The fact is that for many years under Mubarak a false notion was being pushed that their situation would've been much worse without protection from the regime. The occasional tensions and conflicts were being explained as a result from personal grudges, not on an ethnic level. So Egypt was creating a self-image of a society that's devoid of serious religious problems, and that image was being sold to the world. But meanwhile the problems were always there, and claiming that there ever was a "Christian summer" before the Arab spring is wishful thinking. In many respects after the fall of the regime the situation actually has a potential to get better even despite the eruption of violence, because now the problem is clearly put on the table, it's not being shunned any more, and everyone can recognize it for what it is, and try to address it for once. Or not.
No doubt, there'll be short-term negative effects for the Copts, but in the long run this hot issue can finally be openly discussed. Under Mubarak's regime, not a single journalist would dare to ask questions about the situation of the Christians. Now even the state televisions are discussing it, and thanks to the US and EU the issue has gone international. Seems like many moderate Muslims are supporting the Copts, and even the official position of the Muslim Brotherhood is against violence. Of course we can't be sure what it'll be once they get to power - they could impose more restrictions. But at least for now they claim they're supporting full equality. Moreover, most young people who carried the revolution on their shoulders, are using internet and the social networks, while people didn't have that freedom of expression and those sources of information in the past. In result, the influence of the moderate Muslims is increasing. Even some young people split up from the Muslim Brotherhood and formed four new parties because they don't share the views of the older generation. It's a fine example of political activism at its best. As a whole, those who are on the fringe and are willing to create chaos, are a tiny (albeit very loud and well organized) minority - they'd often do things that would shock the world, but they are a minority nonetheless.
So, maybe most of these worries are too exaggerated, but meawnhile the concerns of the religious minorities in the Middle East becoming victim of the Arab spring if things go wrong, are well understood and normal. It's all up to these societies, the new governments in the region, and partly the leaders of the international community, to guarantee that the worst scenario won't happen.