Related Articles
As told by: Abdallah Homouda
The Scene
She ached in her limbs. Thepainkillers failed to relieve a persistent headache which had now become chronic. She was afflicted with a state of severe depression and yearnedfor some restful calm. Butthe disturbing noises around her continued to escalate, despite the deafness in her ears which sometimes cut her off from the world. It seemed all those around herwere trying to be heard by shouting more loudly than anyone else and their presence had become a disturbance rather than a joy. If they could only debate properly she would have been ablelisten towhat they were saying.
Despite her love for them and her desire to enjoy their company, she had no option but to withdraw to a distant place, ona high plateau,where she could see to the wider horizon and breathe in the fresh breeze which would help cure herheadache.
She defiedthe painin her limbs andstood up abruptly. Refusing to succumbto pressurehad, over the centuries, been her most important medicine.She stretched out her hand and picked some green leaves and flowers from sprouting herbs growing under her feet. She did not need food; she needed to rejuvenateher crumbling strength in anticipation ofthe challenges ahead.
He dignity prevented her from asking thegreedy and ungrateful ones to whom she had given everything to return what was owed to her in her time of hardship.
She became overwhelmedwith concerns as she stretched her visionto the horizon. She saw in the distancea vast expanse of desert separating her from the rest of the world, preserving her privacy and security. But she was a conduit for fruitful communications, for generosity, the prize of surviving the hardship of the road. Closer by, there was dense greenery which met the needs of her children. She praised God for what He gave her – but was troubled by the immense question of whether her children had made good use of God’s gift.
What hurt her most was that many people today had learned from her, while her own children overlooked much of what she made easily available to them. Others acquired the knowledge and prospered, prospered better than her own children who were the beneficiaries ofprolific heritage. Others recognised reality and worked to change it for the better. They hadbuilt on the work of their predecessors while her own children had overlooked continuity and the wisdom of accumulated experiences. Each one of her children seemed toclaim the monopoly of the truth, looking down on the thoughts, achievements and status of others. They believed they were – alone – God’s authority on earth. Nothing from ancient history had been retained but the concept of “the priest of the temple,” whether the God was “Amun-Ra” from a distant eraor the one Almighty God, be He praised and exalted.Or others.
History
The records which have survived tampering and destruction are the basis for much of our historical knowledge. Ancient monuments show that writing began during the reign of King Menes “Narmer”, who united the two lands,and was the founder of the unified Egyptian entity. There are no ancient monuments that indicate the length of time between the existence of Om EdDonia “Mother of the world” (the Egyptian identity) and recordings about her. Recorded history is only a part of a whole. No one knows when God created her, nor how she lived until the people of those times brought her to our knowledge.
Since the dawn of recorded history, she bore a woman’s name. Some named her “Isis”, the goddess of love of life and eternity, who preserve family wellbeing, She was also known as “Mut” the goddess of matrimony and motherhood; in what is known as the Holy “Trinity of Luxor”, the god Amun is shown as being the father, Mut, the mother and Khonsu, the son. Others knew her by the name “Hathor”, the goddess of beneficence and motherhood. Some called her the great “Taweret”, the goddess of the eternal River Nile and the flood. They also saw her as their beloved “Merit”, the goddess of love. In times of distress and mobilisation, her name was “Sekhmet”, the goddess of war. In the absence of religious monotheistic ideology, there appeared to be no consensus about her sacred nature.They viewed her in whatever context or state they felt – or based on their awareness of the concept of creation.They agreed to raise her to the ranks of the gods.
They also called her “Kemet” (which is pronounced in two different ways in the Coptic language; namely, “Kemi” and “Kheme”), which means “the black land”, that is, rich with its highly fertile silt. Although this name does not have any divine connotation, it is consistent with the names “Hathor” and “Taweret” in terms of having the Nile, flood, beneficence and abundance in common.
As centuries passed, visions and concepts changed. In modern times some people, impressed by her appearance, have called her, “Bahiya” (An Egyptian adjective that means “beautiful” or “splendid”); others saw her as a giver and have named her “Khdra” (or “Jade”; denoting the green cultivation, or“goodness” and “abundance” to Egyptians), and some went on to emphasise the meaning of giving, so they called her “Shalabeya” or “Um el-Khair” (the mother of goodness). In Arabic culture, multiplicity of names is evidence of the honour of the named person. “Om EdDonia’s” share of honour must be great. Everyone sees her from a different angle based on how he or she feels towards her, what he or she wishes for her or what he or she wants from her. Having many characteristics is evidence of having many components, features and qualities.
As a result, the children of Om Ed Donia tend to have a variety of views about their mother. Each and every one of them endeavours to form a vision of her based on an understanding of her nature. Some have seen her as “Pharaonic”, others as “Arab nationalist” or “Arab-Islamic”, while others exaggerated the religious dimension and have seen her as nothing but “Islamic”; thereby ignoring an important “Christian” side that was a logical prelude to the Islamic phase of Egyptian history.
There was also a counter exaggeration, keen on “modernisation” or “modernity”, which has tried to cram the Egyptian identity in a westernised European context, relying on the European and Western fascination with the Egyptian civilisation, and the progress made by the European West since the Renaissance. Western historians have attributed this “rebirth” to a re-awakening of the legacy of Greek-Roman civilisation, acknowledging the achievements of the ancient Egyptian civilisation which was the basis for all that came after.
This lack of understanding of the legacy of their own identity precluded the children of Om EdDonia from building on the work of their ancestors, allowing others to surpass them.
Challenges
The problem with thispartial view of identity is that one cannot see the whole picture. There is no common ground to help bring a positive interaction between the different parties; differences become disputes.
The ongoing debate about the character and identity of Egypt overlooks the fact that there is no single, one-dimensional identity. A sound identity must be multi-faceted. A person might be the father or the mother of their children, but he or she is also a son or daughter, a brother or sister, a friend and colleague. All living identities are multi-faceted. Therefore, Pharaonic Egypt is also Greek, Roman, Muslim and Christian Egypt.It is also African and Arab Egypt. Above all, she is “Om EdDonia” (the mother of the world) with all its pros and cons.
Egypt, at her pinnacle of recorded history, was a melting pot, a single entity characterised by integration and positive diversitywithout discrimination against any constituent in favour of another. Egyptians in the bosom of their mother are equal. Egypt has always been a recipient of immigrants, despite what is reported in the United States press, without racial discrimination.
Many people impose on Egypt their narrow unilateral vision of identity.They confine her to a small corner, diminishing her standing, dwarfing her status, limiting her role.As a matter of fact, they have to be held to account for threatening her eternal unity.
The problem, then, is not in the constituents per se or in their multitude, but it is in the perception of those constituents and the good and bad intentions of those who hold these views. If the constituents, in their large numbers and diversity, are in a state of a positive interaction, this will result in a structural cohesion and will bring about wealth in various aspects of life. Usually a positive interaction is an incentive for those of a good vision and constitutes a deterrent to those with evil in their hearts. Failure to understand the relationship between those constituents and to fail to objectively recognising it in a context based on the agreed national interest, has serious negative consequences.It opens the door for potential conflict and division because ithighlights differences and overlooks accord.
The absence of a national vision turns differences from a diversity into a dispute. The lack of firm political will and the inability to manage contradictions are the most important results of the absence of an objective national vision. These differences in views can become a time bomb.They remain likely to explode in the form of a heated conflict over the flimsiest of reasons. From here, the pain of Om EdDonia began. From here the treatment starts towards full recovery, God willing.
* * * * *
None of Om EdDonia’s epithets suggest she is anything but female. But some people, in their limited mentality, believe females have a lesser status than males. She could even be the subject of ownership. They have increasingly belittled her status. Her children fought among themselves, again, in relation to guardianship over her, where each thought he wasmore entitled to be in control.
They all forgot that they, individuals and groups, were working to impose their domination of her, relying separately on a narrow understanding of the concept of guardianship.All of them forgot that guardianship involves a duty on those who undertake it; it does not mean an indisputable authority over those who become subject to it.
With their limited vision,some were attached to the idea of religion as an authority.Some believed that the female was “mentally and religiouslyincomplete”.They overlooked the meaning of the word of God, be He praised and exalted, “Do you have the males and He has the females?” This verse was revealed in context of his condemnation of the disbeliever, because of their preference to have boy children rather than girls and their thinking that angels were females.They were wrong to believe that God keeps what they thought as lesser creatures to himself.
Even when He said, in the Chapter of Mary, “The male sex is not the same as the female sex”, they failed to understand that the lack of similarity does not necessarily imply a preference of one gender over the other. In fact, it represents variety which makes for complementation between the two sexes. At the dawn of Islam, the high linguistic skill among the Arabs made them feel overwhelmed by the word of God and exposed their prejudices. Now, as the standard of the study and understanding of Arabic has deteriorated, people demonstrate their prejudices through ignorance.
The concept of masculinity, in this context,can only be measured in comparison with the female standard; and vice versa.Neither the male northe female is better or worse than the other.
There are others who have been associated with the concept of science.They imagine science is the antithesis of religion. On that basis, they have omitted the fact that true religion calls for knowledge and science.Many have it, that science would, eventually, lead to religion; contrary to the superficial understanding which touches upon certain details that are taken out of context of refined sophisticated knowledge.
* * * * * * *
With conflicting views over differingpolicies, all Egyptian parties, at least theoretically, are equal in respect to the”entitlement to power”.However, they see power in the sense of “guardianship”. Theyhave all missed the point that “the assumption of authority is a responsibility” and because it is a responsibility, it is “to forfeit not to gain”. They did not consider elections to be a democratic battle to win the trust of the people, but a “Battle of ballot boxes” through which the winner seizes the authority to rule.It does not matter after that as to whether governance was responsible or irresponsible. They forgot that the assumption of power implied a “social contract” between the ruler and the ruled; whereby the ruler is committed to a proper exercise of constitutional power in implementing the popular mandate he/she received on the basis of his/her election manifesto. The people, holders of the original power,have the right to withdraw the mandate, if the ruler does not abide by the terms and conditions of the mandate.
In many cases the rulerignored the responsibility for exercising his duty. Sometimes, “duty” becamea “right” and “the right to perform the duty” becamean “absolute power” to rule over others. Many officials in our country have come to believe theirjob specification is to“bestowabsolute power”.They do not seem to think that they can be accountable for their actions. There is a tendency to believe there is now a philosophical basis to justify authoritarianism as a necessity to stay in power. “Out of mind” was the concept of a balance between the authorities’constitutional conduct in securing justice under the law and encouraging free expression, creativity and participation in rebuilding the country.
* * * * * * *
Having endeavoured to understand the entity and identity of “Om EdDonia” and address the issue of relations between the entity and identity constituents, there remains the question of addressing Egypt’s Christian population. It has been customary to call them “Copt” or “Copts”. This is actually a gross misunderstanding. The word “Copt” isthe ancient nameof Egypt as known to the Greeks and the Romans.
Om EdDonia is an integral indivisible whole that cannot be classified on the basis of creed; neither exclude a single divine faith in favour of another. She has attained a high level of faith through the centuries. Those who use this nomenclature to reduce the Copt’s sense of being in comparison with that of a Muslim are, in fact, emphasising the Copts Egyptian-ness more than their own. Therefore, they lose their argument in depriving the Copts of equal citizenship.
Thosewho, acting on the assumption of a deficient “Salafist vision”, proposereducing the status Copts to those of “dhimmis” (in Arabic “AhlDhmmah” which means “non-Muslim living in a Muslim state”) do not understand that “dhimmis” implies a social contract.Such a contracthighlights responsibility towards the “dhimmis”, that is to say that “the Muslim has a duty of care towards the Copts”. As custom, traditional generosity and chivalric obligations dictate, a man can sacrifice his own life to protect those who are under his duty of care, which is to ultimately raise the status of “dhimmis”.
Those who purport to adhere to the Righteous Ancestors and want to use the concept of “dhimmis” to exclude brothersand sisters in citizenship and humanity – and to belittle them in the society – overlook the fact that they are contravening their Righteous Ancestors’ fundamental principle.Theirattitude negates their claim to belong to the “Salaf” (ancestors and tradition founders). Furthermore, it makes them intellectually dogmatic;with thinkingbased in long gone.They repudiate their obligations. A true Muslim fulfils understands the nature and necessities of the time. Equal citizenship has become a fundamental principle in society; Christians pay tax, meet their duties and perform National Service in the armed forces to defend theircountry. Hence, it is the right of the “Christian Copts” to enjoy equal citizenship on equal terms as their Muslim Coptic brothers and sisters. This also is the law of modern era.
* * * * * * *
