Look how the prince of darkness moves his stealthy hand to
commit evil, believing that no one realizes what he is doing. Thus, I invite
you to imagine the moves he makes as being scenes in a stage play that is
written in several acts.
In the opening scene, the audience is introduced to a
character named MB: “MB was ousted from power. His detractors are many, but it
is the Coptic Christians that he is scapegoating.” As we see in a subsequent
scene, MB turns out to be a bad guy because: “In Marsa Matrouh , MB
The bad behavior does not stop here because we see the
following activities in a subsequent scene: “MB supporters attempt to storm
churches in Qena but the police and military use tear gas to disperse them.”
And we see a repeat of that scene in another city: “It also happened in Luxor but there too, the
Egyptian police and military dispersed the supporters leaving 13 injured.”
So then, does that mean we should praise the Egyptian police
and military for doing their job? Or should we condemn them; and warn them; and
blackmail them; and seek to demoralize them? Apparently the latter is what the
Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom got together with the National
Review Online (NRO) to advocate. They discovered a guy who goes by the name
Girgis Naiem, and got him to write an article under the title: “Scapegoating
the Copts” and the subtitle: “Islamist violence against Coptic Christians will
undermine Egypt 's
democratization.” And they had the article published in NRO on July 31, 2013.
It is clear that the Hudson Institute and the NRO are
playing the role of Prince of Darkness using Girgis Naiem as a tool to commit
their evil deeds. And from the looks of it – reading the first paragraph – you
can tell that this guy Naiem is not endowed with a high IQ. The first thing he
does is tell the readers that some Media Institute has reported something about
an article that appeared on a website which belongs to MB. This man has no idea
that hearsay is not a convincing tool when used in an argument. But when you
are presented with the hearsay of a hearsay of a hearsay … well, you know what
to do with this argument.
Still, based on this third generation hearsay, the author
draws what should have been either an ultimate conclusion or the start of a
discussion that is different from what he gave us. Here is that conclusion in
his words: “Attacking the Copts will prove to be as destructive to Egypt as to the
religious minority itself.” You can see a hint in this revelation that those
who pretend to be followers of MB may have motives other than hurting the Copts
for the sake of hurting them. The writer amplifies this idea in the paragraph
that follows: “the MB rejected the invitation to be part of the political
process … intent on regaining power [by] stirring political unrest and
negotiating reconciliation on its own terms.”
He goes on to cite examples of incidents that – even if
taken at face value – amount to very little in the context of a revolution that
has lasted two and half years in a nation of 90 million people. Having done
this, he reiterates the two points that demolish the thesis he is struggling in
vain to illustrate. First, he inadvertently praises the military: “The MB,
bereft now of political power can't afford a long battle with the military.”
Second, he cites at least two reasons other than hurting the Copts for the MB
followers to want to commit acts of violence: “to prove that the new regime is
grossly inept, and the further decline of an economy that depends on tourism …
In a word, Egypt
would be rendered ungovernable.”
He now asks the question: Why pick on the Copts? Well, there
are many of them, he says, which makes them an easy target. And without telling
the reader how the Christians came to be this many in Egypt; a region where the
Christians are so few, he goes on to basically tell the Muslim extremists
something dangerous if not outright criminal. Before I go on, let me explain
something to you, my dear reader. This man's name Girgis (French spelling for
the Egyptian Guergues which is Ptolemaic-Coptic for the Greek Gregorious) tells
you that he is a Copt. Thus, he could not have come up with what follows. And
what follows is to tell the extremists why they must no longer tolerate the
Christians among them. It is therefore my belief that what follows is purely
the work of the evildoers at the Hudson Institute and the editors of NRO.
Here is that passage expressed in gibberish as you can see.
And yet, it carries the demonic message of the Prince of Darkness in its raw
form: “other Islamist groups empower themselves through propaganda equating
Christianity with the West and portraying the Copts as foreigners or
separatists who seek Western intervention, a new Crusade; government
authorities, for whom violence against the religious other can be a
nation-building exercise and who need a safety valve and distraction for the
impoverished masses; and socially disadvantaged Muslims, who alleviate their
own sense of inferiority by persecuting Copts.” The language may be that of
Girgis but the thought is that of Hudson and NRO.
Finally, the man pulls the classic trick of shooting himself
in the foot before ending. Look at this: “Many groups – women, artists,
small-business owners, liberal students, impoverished youths, leftist activists
– had peacefully demonstrated … But it is the Copts who expect to pay the price
for having dared to engage in peaceful protest.” Did he say “expect” to pay the
price? Have they not paid it yet?
Aside from that, is he saying there is a difference between
peacefully demonstrating, and daring to engage in peaceful protest? Or is he
saying the Copts are made to look different from the women, the artists, the
business owners, the students, the youths and the activists?