To the Brotherhood: How and where can Christian citizens exercise their religious freedoms?

The answer would be more difficult if we move on to the second part of the fatwa, as the group’s Mufti confirms that it is not permissible to build places of worship for non-Muslims in the cities conquered by Muslims. But even more, it is not permissible to retain the existing ones.

We have a simple question here and need the answer from the Muslim Brotherhood: How and where can the Egyptian Christian citizen living, for example, in the governorate of Alexandria exercise his religious rituals? According the group’s fatwa, the Christians are banned to build churches in the coastal city that was conquered by Muslims, and the existing churches before the Islamic conquest should be demolished. Where should they go?

The logical response is that they should leave the city and turn to the cities in which the group allows the building of new churches. Can we find this option in the third section of fatwa? This section discusses the position of the places conquered by Muslims upon an agreement with their residents. The only concession offered by the group in this section is to retain what existed before conquest, while this concession turns later into a mirage, as they ban rebuilding what was demolished due to time factors.

The final conclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood’s fatwa is the inevitability of the absence of churches in Islamic countries and consequently non-Muslims should not exist in Egypt. The group’s mufti stresses, in the end of his fatwa, that it is not permissible to build a church in Islamic countries.

The right interpretation of such a fatwa is that non-Muslims should not exist in Muslim countries. Is this what the MB aims to achieve? We will leave the answer to the conscience of the reader.

Is this the Islamic program they intend to implement after their ascendant to power through the democratic ways of which they pretend to believe in?

If what we concluded from their fatwa is right, the Muslim Brotherhood would have to choose one of two options:

The first: To deny what was published in their formal magazine by the group’s senior leaders, including Sheikh Mohamed Abdullah Al Khateeb, as he was the originator of this fatwa. The denial should be accompanied with a clear apology to all Egyptian citizens; as such abnormal visions pose serious threats against the country’s national unity. Such fatwas have been used before by a number of teenagers who began to attack churches and storm Christian places of worship in the 1990s shooting those praying from behind; as they believe that it is not permissible to allow non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim countries.

The second: To confirm what was published in their magazine and to defend their vision courageously and reveal their extremist face that contradicts with Islamic teachings and other moderate visions adopted by a large number of scholars who realize the developments witness in the world.

They have no any other choice. They have no space to dodge.

How can non-Muslims commit to the Islamic regime?

Before, we can recuperate from the repercussions of the first fatwa over the ban of building churches in Islamic countries; Sheikh Khateeb surprises us with another extremist vision.

A question from reader “M.H.T.” who says, “I read a fatwa allowing the People of the Book to have the right to openly drink alcohol in an Islamic state, as the Islamic law gives them this right. How do you assess this fatwa?

The sheikh answers:

People of the Book, as citizens carrying the citizenship of a Muslim state, should commit to the Islamic regime in the issues that do not contradict with their beliefs and religious freedoms. For example, no one can force them to perform Islamic prayers, Zakat payment, or Hajj performance. However, they should commit to the Islamic rulings in other issues. People who have stolen should face the same legal punishment faced by Muslim violators of the same crime. The judges in Egypt used to judge issues between Muslims inside the mosques, and then they would sit in front of the mosques to give their rulings in the issues concerning the People of the Book.

The Islamic community has its traditions and habits that should be maintained by those people who live in it. Women should not appear in the streets without wearing veils, as men should not talk with women in public places. However they have the right to deal with their personal status issues upon the teachings of their religions, including marriage, divorce, eating pork and drinking alcohol. Some scholars allowed them to exercise these matters without openness. Usury is banned in their religion and other sacred religions so they should not use such a means in their dealings inside the Muslim state. All what is banned by Islam should not be exercised openly in the Muslim community, as they could undermine the dignity of the Islamic nation which is keen to protect them and maintain their safety.

We should stop for a moment at the expressions that the group’s mufti was keen to use in his fatwa, including:

• Citizens carrying the citizenship of the Muslim state
• To commit to the Islamic rulings in the other matters
• Women should not appear without a veil
• Not to exercise openly what is banned in Islam

Why does the Muslim Brotherhood deny their intention to implement the Islamic Sharia on non-Muslim citizens? Sheikh Khateeb said that non-Muslim citizens carry the citizenship of a Muslim country and they have to subject to the rules of Islamic Sharia. They should not exercise any behavior contradicting with the principles of Islamic Sharia.

The sheikh seems to offer a concession that reflects flexibility and tolerance when he decides that Christians are not required to pray, pay Zakat and go on Hajj! The real catastrophe happens when exempting them – as if they should feel dishonored – from jihad.

The last word, ‘jihad’ is very dangerous, it means – in the language of the times and its rules in fighting – that Egyptian Christians are not required to perform military service, while jihad is limited to Muslims alone! It is understood that “national” military service is a right for every Egyptian and a duty upon him, and there is no room for exemption from it except in accordance and conditions determined by law for many reasons unrelated to religion. The Muslim Brotherhood is twisting “national” military service into a religious “jihadist” duty that Christians do not have the honor of performing. If this dangerous view is not playing with fire, then what is it?

The Egyptians, the Muslims and the Christians fought side by side in 1948, 1956 and 1973, and the ‘Christian’ General, Fouad Aziz Ghali, was one of the heroes of the prestigious October War and in previous wars. The bloods of all soldiers, Muslims and Christians, have blended together in order to liberate this homeland, but the Muslim Brotherhood does not recognize the homeland and patriotism. They do not deal with those of other religions as Egyptian citizens who have the right to establish churches, eat drink and dress as they like. Instead, non-Muslims are also prevented from defending their homeland!

It is an oddity of the fatwa that “defamation” offends the dignity of the Islamic world “Ummah”. Yet, how many crimes are committed in the name of big words that are far from being specific and clear, and how much of the Islamic religion is abused when it is reduced and dwarfed and dependent on its fate by passing partial behavior that does not mean anything. Is the dignity of Islam is affected by individual behavior that does not harm anyone?

Egypt is a civil state to which all Egyptians belong to, but Sheikh al-Khateeb imposes unrestricted restrictions, as at the end of his fatwa he seeks to ban tourism and to criminalize such a vital sector. Islam does not allow shameless tourism at the expense of Islamic teachings and ethics. He thinks that all tourists are not Muslims, as he views them as defectors and the ruling is to discipline them. Can we believe the Muslim Brotherhood’s condemnation of  terrorist actions that target tourism and the tourists in Luxor, Taba and Sharm Al Sheikh? Perpetrators of such actions committed their crimes based on the fatwas issued by Muslim Brotherhood. Tourism is a shameless activity and should be suspended by an action, according to them.

The Muslim Brotherhood is required to respond to their elders or support their ideas. Do they agree that the performance of military service “jihad” is a duty only for Muslims? They are not able to deny what is an integral part of their ideas. They should arm themselves with courage and declare publicly that they view the Egyptian Christians as second-class citizens with no rights or duties.