While the uproar in the wake of the first attack against the Abū Fānā monastery continues, monks were again attacked and stoned by people from the tribal communities. Heated discussions and debates on the issue are still being reported in the media. Muslims accuse the monks of killing a young man and the church has presented a list of six urgent demands to President Husnī Mubārak.

Article full text:

The attack against Abū Fānā Monastery in the Upper Egyptian governerate of Minia has created uproar in Egypt. The monastery is located in the desert close to Mallāwī district in Minia.

While the governor of Minia asserts that both security and prosecution are exerting every effort to uncover the culprits, the Coptic Orthodox Church has deplored the authorities’ reluctance to deal with the incident, particularly after renewed assaults were committed against the monks.

Al-Dustūr of June 10 reported on the new assaults against monks and workers of Abū Fānā Monastery on June 8. The newspaper reported that a group of Arabians [The tribal communities which are called Arabs or Arabians in Egypt.] assaulted the monks who managed to escape but incurred injuries in the assaults. The injured monks were hospitalized in Mallāwī.

Pope Shenouda was angered by the new attacks, quoted by al-Misrī al-Yawm of June 10, 2008 as declaring, "it is totally unacceptable and it requires a decisive stance."

In his weekly sermon at the cathedral in Alexandria, Pope Shenouda described the assailants as "grudge bearers" and "opponents of good." Moreover, Pope Shenouda stated that the assailants did not want the monks to cultivate the desert land they legally possess. "These [assailants] do not have any one to rule them," Pope Shenouda said.

Moreover, Pope Shenouda denied allegations that the land is the state’s property and argued that the church bought it and has all the documents to prove their ownership.

The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church issued a strong-worded declaration concerning the incidents. The declaration, signed by Bishop Bīshūy, secretary general of the Holy Synod, called on the Egyptian President Muhammad Husnī Mubārak to intervene to prevent the repetition of similar assaults. The announcement also stated that the monastery does not contain any arms or weapons.

The Holy Synod presented six demands: first, to release the detained Copts; in particular the monastery’s contractor Rif‘at and his son Ibrāhīm, both accused of killing a Muslim man, after the Holy Synod asserted their innocence. They further requested that no Copt be accused in this incident because Copts were victims and not assailants. Second, the Holy Synod called to arrest the real culprits and take the suitable measures that will prevent the repetition of similar assaults that threaten national security in Egypt. The Holy Synod announced that the monks had named the assailants and that an order to detain them was issued but not executed.

The declaration also called for the true events of the incident to be brought out into the open and stated that the assaults were planned and not accidental. The Holy Synod also called for building a wall around the whole monastery area under the direct protection and supervision of the state. Moreover, the Holy Synod called for indemnifying the monastery for the losses, that totaled roughly one million Egyptian pounds. Finally, the Holy Synod called on the government to carefully study the reasons for these assaults so that they can be avoided in the future.

Al-Dustūr of June 13 mentioned that the Holy Synod’s declaration is the first of its kind and that it was issued while the pope was on a medical trip to the United States after he broke his leg.

Al-Dustūr of June 9 published that church sources reported on Pope Shenouda’s rejection of any "reconciliation" before official procedures are taken and the culprits whose names were reported to the prosecution are detained. Pope Shenouda highlighted the impotence of these superficial formalities which are called reconciliation sessions, hinting that reconciliation took place in 2006 when the Arabs admitted that the monastery owns the land. They also agreed to build a wall around the monastery and to pay 500 Egyptian pounds as a penalty in case they broke the agreement.

Al-Dustūr also reported on church sources claiming that Pope Shenouda received many phone calls from officials in the government who asked him not to further escalate the situation, promising to put an end to such aggressions and take the appropriate procedures.

Al-Dustūr reported on Father Paphly, deputy abbot of Abū Fānā abbot, telling al-Dustūr that the monks who were moved to a hospital in Cairo are in a stable condition and improving, alluding to the fact that the medical care they receive there is better than that in Minia. He added that the state is complying with the Arabs. He explained that after the monks were kidnapped, Bishop Demetrius told the governor that he would not return to the monastery without the kidnapped monks, and the monks were released shortly thereafter. This, Father Paphly believes, could not have been possible if the governor did not know where the monks were. He therefore believes that it is impossible to state that the government does not know who the culprits are.

On his part, General Ahmad Diyā’ al-Dīn, governor of Minia, told al-Dustūr of June 13, 2008 that the usual reconciliatory sessions have not worked because they deal with "symptoms" rather than the real problem. He added that the governorate is planning to hold a meeting that will gather together all the concerned institutions to collect all the relevant official documents and take the suitable legal decisions. "Therefore," General Diyā’ al-Dīn stated, "a reconciliation is not absolutely rejected nor absolutely accepted."

He asserted the government’s objectivity in dealing with the issue. He also expressed his respect for Pope Shenouda as a religious symbol, while at the same time stating that nobody is free from the authority of the law.

Amidst the great uproar provoked by the incident, a new problematic character has entered the limelight and added to the complexity of the situation. Abū Lu’lu’ah is a Muslim man. Different facts were published about him. Muhammad al-Bāz of al-Fajr of June 16, 2008 stated that he is 51 years old, and al-Fajr of June 9, 2008 reported that he is 49 years old.

A short interview with Samīr Lu’lu’ah was published in al-Fajr of June 9. According to al-Fajr, Muhammad Samīr Lu’lu’ah is 49 years old. He received his Baccalaureate from the Azhar. He works in commerce, owns a bakery, and is married with five children.

Al-Fajr of June 9 asked Abū Lu’lu’ah, "why did you participate in torturing the monks?" He replied, "I did not. I was only trying to resolve the conflict.”

Q: Why did you go to the police station then?

A: The police have the right to summon whoever they want and to investigate them.

Q: What are you going to do with the monastery?

A: If our religion did not call for tolerance with Christians, we would have kicked them out. But we do not forget the neighborhood’s rights and will not forget the revenge that we will exact as soon as we know the murderer.

Q: Do you have any weapons that have been used against the monastery?

Laughing, Abū Lu’lu’ah answered "why has no one asked the monks about the weapons they used against us?"

In the same issue of al-Fajr, Muahammad al-Bāz mentioned that the attack against Abū Fānā Monastery was not the first of its kind, and that attacks have been carried out since 2005. Al-Bāz mentioned that according to the Coptic Orthodox Church’s census, the attack against Abū Fānā is the 18 since 2005. He also reported that over the last five months, six attacks were carried out by the community tribes surrounding the monastery.

Al-Bāz denies there was a sectarian element to the attacks. Instead, he believes that there were materialistic and financial motives involved. He also criticizes what he considered to be the monks’ allegations that they were targeted because they are Copts.

Al-Bāz claims that the monks pretended that the attacks were of a sectarian nature to obtain people’s compassion and prove that they are persecuted.

Moreover, al-Bāz presents a background to the incidents in Abū Fānā. He mentions that in 2005, the monks of the monastery demanded that the Department of Antiquities allow a fence to be built around the monastery and constructed a number of cells for the monks in the surrounding desert areas owned by the General Department for Construction Projects and Agricultural Development. The monastery filed their application following conflicts with the tribal communities who had taken over parts of the land surrounding the monastery.

Last January the permit was issued, and when the bishop of Mallāwī asked for additional land, his request was denied because he did not have the right to take over the land he wanted.

In June, the monks began carrying out construction work, which provoked the surrounding tribal communities who had taken over the land and thought that they owned it and that the monks should have asked their permission to start the construction work.

Moreover, al-Bāz blamed Copts for escalating the problem and accused them of exaggerating what has happened and describing it as an armed Muslim attack against the monastery.

Al-Bāz argues that there were two different scenarios for the incidents; one narrated according to the Coptic point of view, which suggests that the security forces complied with the aggressors. The police officers who were in charge of guarding the monastery left their places at 2 p.m., which is similar to what was reported about the armed attack against the jewelry shop in al-Zaytūn where the police guard left minutes prior to the attack.

Al-Bāz describes this Coptic point of view as a typical Coptic way of thinking which is being exported to the entire word after every similar incident, even when there is no existing proof.

As for Ibrāhīm Khalīl, the Muslim man who was killed, the Coptic monks mentioned that he was a mentally disturbed person who used to come to the monastery every now and then. Al-Bāz reported a monk as saying, that the monks took him back to his father on more than one occasion.

Nevertheless, the sequence of events are wholly different from the Muslim side. According to alleged Muslim eyewitnesses, a considerable number of Coptic young men were preparing for a visit from one of the satellite TV channels. They were painting the church wall and writing slogans on it. Moreover, they were carrying sticks with screws in them and looked as if they were ready to defend their church against any possible attacks.

They also claim that the monks who were taken to hospital pretended to have injures when in fact they did not. Al-Bāz also stated that a Christian businessman, who owns a shop near the monastery, claimed that the clashes started when a group of Coptic youth started smashing shops without differentiating between Muslims and Christians.

Al-Bāz also hinted to a Coptic businessman [S.M.] who has a close relationship with the monks of the monastery. Al-Bāz states that it is rumored that this businessman was involved in provoking the monks to build the fence and appeared to don the cloak of religion, while in fact he sought to exploit the archaeological significance of the monastery and its religious value in tourism.

Al-Bāz states that the monastery is located in an area of a special archaeological significance for both Muslims and Christians. The Supreme Council of Archeology declared in 2002 that there are both Muslim and Christian monuments under the monastery.

On the same page of al-Fajr, Fādī Emil wrote about whom he considered to be the igniter of sectarian strife in Egypt through Paltalk; namely Mutajallī, a Coptic man who used to be a member of the Middle Eastern Christians’ Organization and then left the organization to resume his activity with Paltalk.

Muhammad al-Bāz interviewed, the previously mentioned Abū Lu’lu’ah, whose nickname is Muhammad Samīr Lu’lu’ah ‘Abd al-Samī‘.

Copts accuse Abū Lu’lu’ah of complying with the Arabs and participating in the attacks. They also allege that he is a former agent for the security service. Abū Lu’lu’ah’s statements in his interview with al-Bāz were inconsistent. First, he expressed his discontentment with the Copts’ accusations and stated that they owe him because he found the kidnapped monks and convinced the Arabs to release them. Then, and in the same interview, he declares that he defended himself against Copts’ accusations, stating that he was away in another village when the attacks took place.

Abū Lu’lu’ah accused the monks of killing Khalīl, the Muslim man who was shot dead. Moreover, he claimed that they are accusing the Arabs of killing him. He also refuted what he called "the monks’ allegations" that Khalīl was mentally disturbed and wondered how could they know that, alluding to the fact that the victim was married with children and that he held a passport, which implied that he traveled abroad, thereby meaning that he was of a sound mental disposition.

Jawdah Lutfī and Nashwá Mustafá in October of June 15, 2008 called to address the real reasons behind sectarian strife in Egypt rather than the superficial treatment of the problem embodied in formal receptions and media reports presenting Muslim shaykhs and clergymen together in a friendly conversation or receptions.

Sawt al-Ummah of June 9 interviewed the hospitalized monks who narrated what happened to them. Monk Yu’annis stated that the Arabs forced the tractor driver to knock down the cells and destroy the farm. Monk Andraus stated that masked people hit him on his head. He added that he was saved because they thought he was dead when he fell unconscious and thus they did not kill him. Petrified by the attacks, Monk Fīnī said that he drove a tractor and hid inside a cell.

Dr. Marcel from the Burj Mīnā hospital in Cairo declared that the monks did not have suitable medical care in the first hospital and they were accordingly transferred to one in Minia.

Al-Dustūr of June 11, 2008 published a history of the monasteries in Egypt, pointing out the main historical ones and stating that the monasteries have been subject to attacks throughout the history.

Sāmih Fawzī of Rose al-Yūsuf of June 11, 2008 called for the real criminal nature of such incidents to be exposed regardless of the religious element. The attacks and taking over the land are themselves crimes, regardless of the religion of the attackers or the attacked.

Under the headline, ’Sectarianism and counter sectarianism,’ Dr. ‘Amr al-Shūbakī of al-Misrī al-Yawm of June 12, 2008 stated that the absence of the state of law hurts both Muslims and Christians alike, in the same way that other serious problems such as anarchy and unemployment do.

Hānī Labīb of Rose al-Yūsuf of June 11, 2008 believes that issuing and effectuating a unified law for houses of worship in Egypt is the best way to realize equality and justice and prevent similar incidents from taking place in the future.

Al-Dustūr of June 13, 2008 quoted Jeffrey Fleishman’s article in the Los Angeles Times published under the headline, ’A frail pope and sectarian tensions,’ in which he discussed a number of the sectarian incidents that have taken place recently. [To read Fleishman’s article in full see: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/egypt-a-frail-p.html]

Finally, Watanī of June 15, 2008 reported that the National Council for Human Rights in Egypt [www.nchr.org.eg/en/home.asp] sent a second investigative committee to Mallāwī in Minia to conduct further investigations.

The council has already sent a committee which turned up information that still requires confirmation and clarification. The first committee included a group of researchers from the council, as well as individuals who are not members of the council.