Death of Coptic Pope Shenouda III

The one time I went to Egypt back in 1988, I did the regulation tourism things: the pyramids, the Nile, the temples and the Red Sea. But the one thing I regret was the thing I did not do which was to take up an offer. It was at Aswan where a Coptic taxi driver befriended me. I cannot remember his name but I do remember he asked would I go home and meet his family. I turned him down either out of suspicion or because I wanted to spend more time at the poolside bar (Photo:AP).

It was a shame because I would have learned a lot more about Copts and their ancient form of Orthodox Christianity inherited from the Pharaonic Egyptians. I had blithely assumed Egypt, or officially the Arab Republic of Egypt, was a Muslim country but as my taxi driver reminded me, 10 percent were not. He also told me the leader of that 10 percent, some eight million Copts, was a Pope, just like the more famous one in St Peter's.

The leader then was Pope Shenouda III and he died on Saturday in Cairo after 40 years on throne, aged 88. Shenouda will be buried at St Bishoy Monastery of Wadi al-Natrun in the Nile Delta, where he spent time in exile. President Anwar Sadat banished Shenouda to the Monastery in 1981 after he criticised the Sadat government one too many times. Shenouda was an outspoken critic of Sadat and a thorn in his side who berated him over his handling of an Islamic insurgency in the 1970s and Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

Shenouda was the 117th pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Tradition says the Church was founded by St Mark but its independent history is traced back to the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The 'Chalcedonian Definition' defined Jesus as having a separate manhood and godhood. Still central canon to the Catholics and most Orthodox Churches, it was rejected by Alexandria. It was also in Alexandria where the concept of a “pope” first developed, long before Rome stole the idea. Deriving from the Greek word πάππας (pappas), the first man to carry the title was Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heracleus who died in 249.

In 451, the entire Egyptian population followed Pope Dioscorus in rejecting Chalcedon and the Coptic Church was born. Coptic was the language they spoke, grammatically closely akin to the hieroglyphic Late Egyptian. The Copts were hated by the Byzantines who saw them as heretics. There was a brief interregnum of Persian conquest by the Sassanids before the Muslims conquered Egypt in 642. The religion was left undisturbed on condition they pay Jizya to the new rulers. The new tax slowly took its toll though the conversion to Sunni Islam would take three centuries.

Copts survived but would remain second class citizens suffering petty discrimination in their own country until the 19th dynasty of Albanian Muhammad Ali Pasha. Ali abolished Jizya and saw their value as an administrative caste. In this, Ali emulated the British divide and conquer strategy of raising the profile of a despised minority. The Copts thrived and started their own schools of education. A 20th century Diaspora took the faith to every continent.

Nazeer Gayed Roufail was born into the faith on 3 August 1923, the youngest of eight children. He grew up in the ancient Nile settlement of Asyut, the Egyptian city with the highest Coptic concentration. Here, a traveller in 1918 wrote, “the wealthy Christian families have built themselves palaces and made gardens by the river side - The domes of the Coptic Cathedral and the minarets of the Mosques may be seen in the distance”.

Roufail was active in Sunday School and went to Cairo University, graduating in history and later the Coptic Theological Seminary. Roufail retreated to the Nitrian Desert where he joined the ascetic life of the Syrian Monastery under a new name of Father Antonios el-Syriani. The Monastery had already supplied one Coptic Pope in the 15th century and from the early days el-Syriani was marked out as a special candidate to repeat the feat. For six years he lived as a hermit before being ordained as a priest.

In 1962 Pope Cyril VI made him bishop of Christian Education and President of the Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary. Cyril also gave him a third name: Shenouda. He was named for St Shenoute the Archimandrite, the most renowned saint of the Copts who lived for 118 years. The modern Shenouda revolutionised the seminary and tripled the intake of students. His influence ruffled Cyril’s feathers causing a reprimand when Shenouda argued bishops should be elected. It would not be his last fight over democracy.

In March 1971, Cyril VI died and Shenouda was enthroned the 117th pope six months later on 14 November. A year earlier Anwar Sadat had inherited political power of Egypt and was keen to flex his muscles. The Six Day War with Israel in 1967 had halted Coptic pilgrimage to Jerusalem, a situation that lasted for 11 years. When Sadat brokered the Camp David agreement with Carter and Begin, he hoped the Copts would lead the return of Egyptian travel to Israel. Shenouda did not play ball and decreed a papal ban on Coptic visits to Israel in 1979. “From the Arabic national point we should not abandon our Palestinian brothers and our Arabic brothers by normalising our relations with the Jews,” he said.

Shenouda’s inconvenient pro-Palestinianism irked Sadat as did his support of its suicide bombers. In 1981, Sadat sent Shenouda back to the Nitrian Desert where he had previously lived as a hermit. Sadat was assassinated later that year and on 2 January 1985 his successor Hosni Mubarak reversed the decree. Pope Shenouda came back to Cairo to a hero’s welcome celebrating the Orthodox Christmas on January 7. Shenouda expressed forgiveness to those who wronged him. “All Copts open their hearts to their brothers, the Muslims,” he told the congregation.

As the 20th century ended, more and more extremist Muslims were not prepared to open their hearts to their Christian brothers. In the predominately Christian village of El-Kosheh in 2000, riots between Christians and Muslims led to a shoot-out in which 21 Christians were killed. When the judge blamed Coptic incitement and acquitted most of those accused, Shenouda spoke out in rare public criticism. “We want to challenge this ruling. We don't accept it,” he said. But Copts were increasingly on the outer losing their positions of influence across society with only one percent of MPs.

Worse was to come after Mubarak was overthrown in the Arab Spring. For all his faults, Mubarak was a sometime protector of the faith and allowed them religious freedoms including the right to repair their churches to live broadcasts of Easter services and punished Islamists who persecuted them. When he was deposed, over 100,000 Copts fled Egypt, mostly to Canada. The killing began with a church bombing during a 2011 New Year’s Eve mass that left more than 20 dead and dozens wounded, followed by another deadly attack during the Coptic Christmas a week later. Islamists have called them infidels and accused them of being Western spies and traitors who are stockpiling arms in plots to secede from the country.

Shenouda was the peacemaker, often calling for harmony and he regularly met Muslim leaders to ease tensions. He was revered among Copts and popular among many moderate Muslims who respected him as a survivor. But the strain eventually told on his elderly frame. He flew regularly to the US this year for medical treatment and died on Saturday of lung and liver complications.

His death is a massive blow not only to the 8 million Copts but the 80 million Egyptian Muslims he leaves behind. A strong voice of moderation in a troublesome time, his absence will leave a huge void and may exacerbate the trend of Copts to leave the country. The loss of Egypt’s Copts would not only be tragedy for the millions of refugees, but also one for those left behind. Like my taxi driver in 1988, the Copts form much of the nation’s professional and business class. The loss of their expertise could be a fatal blow to Egypt’s faltering economy.

The one about the archbishop, the media and Sharia

British newspaper the Daily Express printed this picture (left) on its front page yesterday. The three women were snapped for a totally unrelated story about the controversy that has erupted in the wake of Rowan Williams’ “Sharia” speech earlier this week. The preferred reading of the Express was these women represented the future hostile face of Islam in Britain. Nevertheless the women were not giving the finger to Britain but to the intrusive photographer who was harassing them as they went about their perfectly legal business. There hasn't been sumptuary laws in Britain since the 16th century and the women are free to wear burqas if they so desire. In any case as one commentator asked “Is there anything more British than the two-fingered salute to authority? She looks very much like the rest of us”.

The other key point, of course, is that the women also had absolutely nothing to with the story. They were just a handy stick to use to show the dangerous “otherness” of Islam. That this fear is a stick is shown by Britain's second largest selling newspaper the Daily Mail which had a poll for readers to decide “which of these men pose the bigger threat to Britain’s way of life?” While there are several likely candidates to fulfill this intriguing threat (politicians or media owners perhaps, such as billionaire Viscount Rothermere, chair of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc, one of the largest media companies in the UK), the only choices offered in the poll are two bearded clerics: Abu Hamza and Rowan Williams.

Both are considered dangerous demagogues in reference to Islam. Abu Hamza al-Masri is a leading British radical Islamist whose activities in the Finsbury Park mosque led to intense police and media scrutiny. Demonised for his apparent preaching of jihad in the homeland, it didn’t help his image he had a sinister-looking hook in place of his left hand. Hamza’s own lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC said Hamza was “probably the most frequently abused and ridiculed figure” in Britain.

Though perhaps he has relinquished that title for the moment. If Abu Hamza was the media’s Blackbeard with his pirate’s hook, the new villain is the snowy whitebearded mild-mannered Rowan Williams. But Williams is not a Muslim. He is in fact, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, metropolitan of the province of Canterbury, Primate of All England, senior archbishop of the Church of England and the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Williams’ offence was to tap into a fear in the Western psyche about the takeover by Islam. Muslims are a minority in Britain but they are outbreeding other sectors of the population. Combined with a steady steam of immigrants from Muslim countries and the sense of “other” they generate when practicing their culture, any suggestion that their “power” may increase causes howls of protest from Britons feeling vulnerable about their culture and their place in the world. Britain is a Christian country, they say. Actually, like most Northern European countries, Britain is a post-Christian country. And Williams, more than most, is aware of this.

Williams has often been in the headlines for some controversial statements about various aspects of Christianity. But when he moved on to Islam, the media went ballistic. In a speech to lawyers and jurists at the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday, the Archbishop examined the intertwining of civil and religious law in England and suggested that some aspects of Sharia law might be practical in terms of solving cultural questions without damaging the civil law of the land. In the last two days this speech has caused a political and social firestorm. While his subject matter was learned and thoughtful, it was doomed from the moment when he said the magical word Sharia.

While Williams has claimed to be shocked by the reaction, he prophesised it himself in the early part of his speech when he quotes Tariq Ramadan’s Western Muslims and the Future of Islam:

“In the west the idea of Sharia calls up all the darkest images of Islam...It has reached the extent that many Muslim intellectuals do not dare even to refer to the concept for fear of frightening people or arousing suspicion of all their work by the mere mention of the word”

Williams’ main point in the speech was that Sharia was a method of jurisprudence governed by revealed texts rather than a single system. He said more latitude should be given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identity. Religious groups could provide cultural clarity in issues related to marriage and inheritance much as the Islamic Sharia Council already do. But the media were only interested in the "darkest images of Islam".

And so the evidence that Williams supplied in the speech, such a similar dispensation that already exists for Jewish law (Beth Din) was lost in the stampede to criticise Williams. Reuters reported that bastion of British tolerance The Sun saying yesterday: "It's easy to dismiss Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams as a silly old goat. In fact he's a dangerous threat to our nation." The Daily Express thundered “Muslim laws must come to Britain” before weaseling out with a passive voice “he was accused” without appearing to accuse him themselves. Upmarket was no easier on Williams. The Times said Williams was dangerous and “must be resisted”.

Even the left joined in the criticism. The Guardian said Rowan Williams has a knack for creating problems where none yet exist. The Independent said “let the backlash commence” and put Williams' error as the assumption he had the same intellectual freedom as the leader of a major church that he had when he was merely an eminent theologian. Spiked's editor Brendan O'Neill said Williams (whom he personally attacked as a "smug, guitar-strumming religious leader with a social-worker voice") claimed the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK is "inevitable" when the only inevitability mentioned by Williams was to “mutual questioning” and only perhaps mutual influence towards change.

There were a few voices in support. On BBC Radio Wales Kim Fabricius launched a spirited defence of Williams in a radio interview with Sunday Mail's editor Peter Hitchens and made the point that if anyone had actually taken the time to read the speech, then there wouldn’t be an issue. Australian blogger and theologian Benjamin Myers defended Williams saying the speech was a “dense, thoughtful, informed, and highly nuanced reflection…on the complex relation between law, citizenship, and the identity of religious communities.” Myers made the very good point that Williams wants us all to think more about the issue. “But thinking is hard work,” says Myers. “It’s neither as enjoyable as a good lynching, nor as satisfying as a posture of moral indignation.”

The Church Times columnist Andrew Brown drew a comparison between Williams and his more worldly predecessor: "The trouble with Rowan Williams is that he can never remember that he is Archbishop; the trouble with George Carey was that he could never forget." Williams clearly has more important things on his mind than merely being an archbishop. If he has upset this many people, it is likely he is doing something revolutionary. As the conclusion to his speech says “if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies.” Replace the word “British” with “American” or “Australian” and the sentence remains valid.