There was a time long ago when Egypt
was governed by President Nasser, and I used to live in Cairo . A story surfaced to the effect that an
American reporter – probably from the New York Times – was interviewing the
President when he remarked that his paper had so far given Egypt coverage
worth a million dollars if it were counted as advertizing and paid for. Nasser thought about it for a moment then said: With the
kind of reporting we've been getting in your paper, I would pay you a million
to keep quiet.
The moral of this story is that perception can vary greatly
depending on which side of the table you sit. The American reporter thought the
coverage in his paper had been good for Egypt whereas the President of the
country thought it was not. This is natural, of course, and you can get a sense
of what may have transpired between these two men when you read a recent
article published in the NY Times on April 25, 2014. It was written by David D.
Kirkpatrick under the title: “Religious Minorities Still Waiting for a New Day
in Egypt ”.
Already prejudiced against the coverage of Egypt that I
see in the New York Times; a publication I feel is too obsessed with that
country, I consider that article to be a distortion of reality, therefore
detrimental to the country. I am certain, however, that there are people who
would not see it that way, least of all the reporter who wrote the article and
the editors who published it.
To me, the title itself suggests that the editors of the
Times meant to project a bad image of Egypt when they used the word
“still” in the middle of it. This article is supposed to be a reporting from
the field, not an opinion piece. But the use of that word in the title turns it
into an editorial because it suggests that something could have been done but
was not done. And when you read the entire article, and you get exposed to the
rest of the story, you realize that the title is at odds with the reality on
the ground. It is so because you discover that the religious minorities in Egypt are being
treated the same as the majority ... contrary to what the title suggests.
Moreover, the “new day” that is mentioned in the title has
indeed come to Egypt .
It came in the form of a new Constitution that mandates the treatment of
everyone equally. You may like the articles of the Constitution pertaining to
religion or you may not, but you cannot say they affect the minorities
differently from the majority. And yes, despite all that, there are individuals
in the country who display prejudice toward those of a different religion. But
the government in Cairo
cannot legislate bad behavior out of existence anymore than the government in
DC can legislate racism out of existence. Prejudice is a fact of life that
takes a long time to eradicate.
But what about David Kirkpatrick, the writer of the article?
Is he any better than the editors who wrote that title? Apparently not; and
this is because his first words are meant to express an opinion he knows will
negatively impact the vision that the readers will form of Egypt . Here are
the words: “The architects of the military takeover in Egypt ...” The
author knows that unlike the people of Egypt who appreciate their military
as much as the Americans appreciated theirs after the Second World War, the
current American population dislikes the military. It does so because it was
disappointed by the country's adventures abroad, and so it became suspicious of
any military that gets involved in politics. Thus, by using the words “military
takeover,” Kirkpatrick is trying to solicit a negative emotional response from
the readers.
And now, having prepared the readers to see things through
the prism of bias, Kirkpatrick goes on to describe a situation he hopes will
make Egypt appear even worse … but he ends up making the country look better.
He does because he inadvertently demonstrates that where it takes generations
to eradicate the effect of bias in a society, the Egyptians did it in a short
period of time. He says this: “Nine months later Egypt 's freethinkers and religious
minorities are still waiting.” But after 1,200 words of futile attempts to
prove the validity of that fallacy, the truth catches up with him.
And so, he is forced to reveal this much: “the complaints
have not deterred church leaders from firmly supporting Mr. Sisi as their
protector. The Coptic pope has hailed Mr. Sisi as overwhelmingly popular, a
competent patriot on an arduous mission, and the one who rescued Egypt . Over
Easter weekend, Mr. Sisi made a private visit to the pope at the main
cathedral. The mass erupted into prolonged applause at the mention of Mr.
Sisi's name.” And all that happened only nine months after what he calls the
military takeover.
Well then, is there someone unhappy with the current
situation in Egypt ?
Perhaps there is, but you'll have to look closely to find someone. Guess who it
might be. You'll find it hard to believe what you're about to learn – it is the
NY Times. However, it is not because the paper was censored in Egypt but because of this: “A panel of scholars
has cited authority granted under the new Constitution to block screenings of
the Hollywood blockbuster 'Noah' because it
violates a prohibition against depiction of the prophets.”
This seems to make the NY Times people unhappy but those who
know something about the history of the arts know that idolatry and
superstition were prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula ;
and because of this, Islam restricted the depiction in painting and in
sculpture of any and all figures that someone might be inclined to worship.
This led to the type of design known as the Arabesque. It involves the fine art
of calligraphy, and the sort of geometric figures which are highly decorative,
but also play a role in the understanding of that branch of mathematics.
With time, however, the restrictions have been loosened to
the point where everything is now permitted except the depiction of God and the
prophets – one being Noah. Still, the debate on the subject is ongoing in Egypt because
some people want to see this last restriction repealed, and others want it to
remain.