Egyptian Parliament versus European Parliament

The Arab Republic of Egypt has always been considered by the West to be a leader among all Arab-Muslim countries. In order to unveil the real face of Arabs to the West and better comprehend their mentality we can begin by examining the Arabs who lead Egypt. It is vital for our political leaders to understand the attitude of Arabs toward the West in considering policies to protect our country.

Looking at statements made by the President of the Egyptian Parliament, Mr. Fathy Sourour, in the handling of the massacre of Coptic Christians in Nag Hamadi and the Farshoot incident when commenting about the report issued by the European Parliament we get a true sense of their duplicity.

After the massacre of Copts in Nag Hammadi on the Coptic Christmas Eve this year, the Egyptian regime and its parliament attempted to conceal the true motivation for this massacre, indicating at first that the killings resulted from a personal issue between the victims and the perpetrators. They followed this with a new statement that the killings were due to a vendetta in response to a rape which occurred between a Coptic man and a Muslim girl a couple of months earlier.

Neither versions of their two official responses have anything to do with the true nature of this horrible episode but instead have merely proven to be fabrications for the purpose of a cover-up. In the first place these explanations make no sense to anyone who knows the local environment. Egypt is a country governed by military law known for its secret service control and surveillance of the most intimate circumstances in the lives of its citizens, such as observing couples inside their bedroom.

If a feud of this consequence were brewing between individuals, the regime would have known of it. Furthermore, it would most likely have taken place inside a bar or night club involving alcohol or drugs and not likely to extend to premeditated murder of people leaving church. But if a personal dispute did lead to these killings as suggested, the regime knew of it and did nothing to stop it.

The second version of their official response which related to a Coptic man raping a Muslim girl is not a likely scenario either for the following reasons: the Coptic man accused of the rape was already in custody and awaits his trial, and the rape happened in a different town about 40 miles (60 km) away from the supposed vindication. Furthermore, the criminals who committed the Christmas Eve massacre are not in any way related to the girl who was raped.

Most importantly, when the information concerning the rape of the Muslim girl in a town called Farshoot was released at the time of the case, Arab-Muslims living in Farshoot took their revenge then in a barbaric fashion, attacking homes and businesses of Copts causing much physical and fiscal damage to the Coptic community. Information indicating that the Coptic man accused of rape was framed precipitated this vengeful attack on the Copts of Farshoot. In this attack, Arabs were hoping to chase the Coptic community away from their town. The Arabs used this tactic many times in the past to achieve that end. 

All of this occurred under the blessing of the regime’s police system who withheld from intervening to enforce order and secure the safety of all citizens. Typically, no one questioned the absence of Egypt’s special military law when such a barbaric attack was happening. No one questioned why the regime arrested no one for this brutal act.

Furthermore, there was much international interest and concern about this atrocity in both Nag Hammadi and Farshoot and the Egyptian regime managed to avoid public shame and deflect the focus away from their suspicious role by choosing that moment to attack Italy for their internal problem with illegal immigrants. Earlier, in a similar moment the regime made an attack upon the Swiss for a referendum banning minaret construction in their country. Likewise, around the same time, the regime requested an official apology from the German government for the killing of an Arab-Egyptian woman by a German citizen.

According to the actions of the Egyptian regime, it is perfectly permissible for a country to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign state. Why then would the regime look askance at questions by the international community concerning Coptic killings and other minority issues within Egypt?

When the Egyptian regime realized the severity of the international scrutiny and its echo throughout the Western world, Egyptian law enforcement immediately arrested three of at least ten people involved in the killing. As per an eyewitness in the street, there were three cars in a drive-by shooting with at least three people in each one all opening fire at once in Jihadist fashion.

Additionally, the regime gave a false official statement which said that a Muslim guard on duty at the door of the church (normally an official spy appointed by the Egyptian regime) who was protecting the congregation the evening of the massacre was murdered along with the other Copts exiting the church. However the truth is that the Muslim killed in that attack was a military soldier on leave riding in a taxi along with three Christians who were all attacked and killed, our source from the scene indicated. Typically an inaccurate statement as such is made by the regime to cover up the criminal actions of Arab-Muslims against Copts.

The Egyptian Parliament had various discussions concerning the Christmas Eve massacre. The President, Fathy Sourour, along with some members attempted to change the reality of the facts regarding the massacre when they responded to the condemning report by the European Parliament.

Herewith are some of the articles related to the massacre issued by the European Parliament occurring in various Egyptian regimes controlled newspapers between January 21 – 25, 2010:

E.   whereas on 6 January 2010 a drive-by shooting killed seven individuals – six Coptic Christians and a policeman – and injured others when worshipers were leaving a church after midnight mass on Coptic Christmas Eve in the city of Nagaa Hammadi in Upper Egypt; whereas, in recent weeks, further clashes involving Coptic Christians and Muslims have broken out and have been qualified by the Egyptian Government as individual incidents,

F.   whereas on 8 January 2010 the Egyptian authorities announced that they had arrested and were holding three people in connection with the attack in Nagaa Hammadi on 6 January; whereas the Egyptian Public Prosecutor decided that the three accused should be tried before the Emergency State Security Court for premeditated murder,

G.   whereas Coptic Christians represent around 10% of the Egyptian population; whereas there have been recurrent acts of violence against Coptic Christians in Egypt over recent years,

H.   whereas the Egyptian Constitution guarantees freedom of belief and freedom to practice religious rites,

I.   whereas it attaches great importance to relations with Egypt and underlines the importance of Egypt and EU-Egypt relations for the stability and development of the EU-Mediterranean area,

Sourour’s sentiments are clear when he, in a meeting held on Sunday, January 24th, 2010, commented to the members of the Egyptian Parliament about the condemning report issued by the European Parliament saying that the report made by the European Parliament regarding the Nag Hammadi massacre is ‘Vchenk’ (slang for a gun loaded with blanks) thanks to the Egyptian diplomatic officials and the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who sent letters to certain members of European Parliament who moved them through the European Parliament headquarters and succeeded in alleviating the problem. (Translated from Arabic)
Sourour further informed them of his meeting with the head of the Foreign Relation Committee of the European Parliament concerning the drafted report entitled Human Rights and Christianity in Malaysia and Egypt “we succeeded to delete Egypt from the title of this final report.” Furthermore, he added that, “there were several paragraphs indicating that Europe is not excluded from cases related to violation of freedom and crimes against individuals belonging to minorities on the basis of their beliefs.” (Translated from the Arabic)
In addition, Sourour commented upon the paragraph in the report that called for the Egyptian government to ensure that Christian Copts and other non-Muslim religious minorities enjoy freedom of religion and requested that the Egyptian government guarantee to everyone (all faiths) the right to change their religion freely. He noted that this last request emphasized their ignorance about Reddah (death penalty) law which is to punish with death whoever intends to change from Islamic belief to another faith.
Of course Reddah law is part of Shariah law and Shariah is enforced by the second amendment of the Egyptian Constitution. It was instituted by Anwar Sadat in 1981 without a consensus.
Sourour continued by saying that the report had language very damaging to the reputation of the Egyptian regime, and he considered sending a delegation to change them, but time was short and he was prevented. Finally, he claimed that the report “did not contain any defamatory statements against Egypt and stressed that the wording of that report was an Egyptian victory, but overall a loss for those who were hoping to get us.” (Translated from the Arabic)
The above account of the conversation between Fathy Sourour and the Egyptian Parliament lead to the following conclusions:

–         There is an intention by the Egyptian authorities to distort the facts presented to those outside Egypt about the killing of Copts by Muslims and the practice of religious freedom. 

–         The Egyptian authorities’ only concern is to spare Egypt’s image in the outside world without a genuine willingness to join with the international community on the issue of religious freedom.

–         Fathy Serour’s comments indicated the Egyptian regime’s disdain for human rights laws and the organizations that fight for it.

In conclusion, if the Egyptian regime had been given the time to change the wording in the European Parliament report to match their own version of reality, would this change have actually extended to the hearts and minds of the individual members of European Parliament who know as sacred the Declaration of  Human Rights? Moreover, would this continue to influence the West’s idea of Egypt in its effort to analyze the facts and understand the truth regarding human rights issues in Egypt?

Arab-Muslims willing to lie about Egypt’s internal politicize and deceive the world as they resolve to violate human rights through Islamization serve to destroy civilization in Egypt and turn back the clocks to the sixth century. This has been ongoing in Egypt for 1,430 years. Westerners need to be aware of these tactics in order to defeat the forces in the world today who seek to destroy basic human rights and freedoms.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *