Does the following sound familiar to you? “Mom loved my
Brother more than me.” This is basically the message that Raymond Ibrahim
conveys to the world in his latest article, published on October 26, 2013 in
National Review Online under the title: “Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood vs.
the Copts” and the subtitle: “U.S. Policy toward Egypt favors their enemy.”
So you ask: What does Raymond Ibrahim want? And this is
where you scratch your head in puzzlement as you look for an answer in his
article where you'll find numerous questions and assertions but no clear answer
to your question. So, you try to construct a possible answer from what else he
says. In fact, he begins the article with a question: Who is more deserving of
punishment, millions of Egyptians or the Muslim Brotherhood? And he goes on to
say that actions taken by the Obama administration imply that the millions of
Egyptians are in the wrong.
Upon this, he gives a list of the churches that were
vandalized in Egypt
over the past few months, and the handful of Christians that were shot. But who
is doing that and why? He answers the question like this: “Needing someone to
scapegoat in their drive to set Egypt
ablaze, Brotherhood leadership demonized the Christian minority [including] the
Copts.” What that means is that the conflict is about Egypt not about
religion.
In any case, what could America have done? He answers the
question, and the answer basically amounts to this: Are you kidding me? And he
explains why. Look at this passage and marvel at his logic: “Since the
administration got away with lip-service approach when Americans were killed –
condemning the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi … and then ignoring the whole
affairs – surely it wouldn't hesitate to take the same approach with a foreign
nation.” Well, well, well, it seems that Raymond Ibrahim is saying that America loved
the Brother more than him and more than the Benghazi Americans. So why
complain? Never mind answering this question.
Finally, he seems to allude to what he wants, but then
quickly shoots down the idea. Here is how he does that: “Human-rights activists
have been imploring the Obama administration to make foreign aid to Egypt
contingent on respect for the rights of all Egyptians, including the
Christians.” So you ask: Is he asking that the advice be followed? And this is
where his answer becomes muddled. On the one hand, he says this: “Members of
the Muslim Brotherhood are more motivated by money than by the prospect of killing
Christians.” Wow, so the idea of vandalizing churches and killing people has
more to do with money than with religion. Is that it?
Well, yes and no – or perhaps, it's a maybe. Here is what he
says in that regard: On the other hand, when … the Obama administration cut aid
to Egypt in response to the ouster of the Muslim brotherhood, what additional
proof do Americans need to conclude that their president is on the side of
Islamic terrorists?
What does that mean? Does it mean that the terrorists were
not appeased before the aid was cut off, and they are not appeased now that the
aid has been cut off? Or what is it? No response there.
And this brings us to the article that was written and
published on the same day, in the same publication by Archbishop Amel Shamon
Nona. It has the title: “Faith in the Time of persecution” and the subtitle: “A
letter from Iraq
to Christians in the West.” He begins the article by asking the question: “How
can we live our faith in a time of great difficulty?” And he answers as would a
typical Christian that's immersed in his religion. But like the subtitle says,
this is also a letter to Christians in the West. And he has an advice for them.
It is as follows:
“Many people living in freedom from persecution, ask me what
they can do for us. First of all, anyone who wants to do something for us
should make an effort to live out his or her own faith in a more profound
manner, embracing the life of faith in daily practice. For us the greatest gift
is to know that our situation is helping others to live out their own faith
with greater strength, joy and fidelity.”
In other words, he says that the first thing we do here in
the West is mind our own business. From there he draws a parallel that should
be an eyeopener. Here is the first part: “To know that there are people in this
world who are persecuted because of their faith should be a warning to you to
become better, and a spur to demonstrating your own faith as you confront the
difficulties of your own society, as well as the recognition that you too are
confronted with a certain degree of persecution because of your faith, even in
the West.” And here is the second part: “We suffer at the hands of
fundamentalists coming from distant countries to fight against us, using as an
excuse that their brothers are being persecuted in various countries.”
In other words, the wise bishop is saying that we're not
“holier than thou” and besides, those who persecute the Christians in Iraq don't do
it because of their religion but because we, of the West, are persecuting their
Muslim brothers in their own countries. And he does not stop here. He goes on
to say: “There is temptation to which Christians can fall victim, and which I
never tire of warning against: we can, with the passing of time, end up becoming
persecutors ourselves – turning to violence.”
And he ends like this: “We are happy because we have the
opportunity to reflect on our choice to be Christians. We are happy because we
have the opportunity to make our freedom concrete.” And that's a challenge to
us.
He is saying, in effect, that because we, in the West, have
not proven the strength of our faith by going through an experience similar to
theirs, we have no right to believe we can help them in any way, shape or form.
That's also another way of telling us to buzz off.