Kidnapping Copts? Seeking Civility and Safety in Egypt, Part I

By Sally Bishai

Despite the fact that the calendar says “2006” rather than “1006,” Copts in today’s Egypt are sometimes kidnapped from their homes, jobs, or schools and forced to change religions, as in the recent case of Theresa Ghattas Kamal, missing from el-Saff (30 miles south of Cairo) since January 3.

A recent phone call alleged to have been made to Kamal’s aunt, however, suggested that Kamal did not convert, which is exactly what she told her relative.

The February 26 communiqué managed to get attention back on the case, and, in fact, on the whole practice of kidnapping people—generally girls, always Christians—in Egypt.

There were, by the way, two interesting facts about this case that took root in my mind: first, the fact that police had previously claimed Kamal’s conversion was both supported by the necessary paperwork—which Kamal’s brother investigated and found false—and voluntary—a notion which the phone call to the aunt effectively dissolved.

For the record, people trying to find out what happened to their kidnapped relatives—like Kamal’s brother—run the risk of being arrested. (So do protestors.)

For the record, the “official” word on conversions in Egypt is that the person wishing to convert is supposed to meet with clergy from the church, not once but twice, and fill out appropriate paperwork.

Also, underage girls wishing to marry are required to have their father’s signature in order to go through with the marriage.

This doesn’t mean that the officials are so conscientious that they dutifully follow “protocol” every time a girl wishes to get married… especially if she’s a copt and her husband-to-be is a Muslim.

The second interesting thing that stood out to me was the fact that Kamal’s father had converted to Islam in 1955, though others in the family stayed Christian.

This prompts me to wonder whether Kamal was a target because her kidnappers thought she was “unfinished business” that began 1955—or if the mark’s proximity to a convert in this alleged kidnapping was merely coincidence?

I say “alleged” because many—in Egypt, especially—wonder whether “missing girls” are simply runaways who are too scared or upset to face their families.

On one hand, Egyptian parents—especially fathers and especially in villages—can be seen as tyrannical, dictator-like, and little better than the warden at a maximum-security prison.

On the other hand, many of the girls taken in recent years have been described by family and community as peaceful, serene, religious, and devoted to their families. This tranquility may have made these girls appealing targets to would-be kidnappers.

Or, as the afore-mentioned skeptics have suggested, this religiosity may have been an act.

In any case, it must be mentioned that the U.S. State Department has expressed concern over this spate of kidnappings, and is trying to help.

You know, I do think the true problem here isn’t the kidnappings, for we can never hope to quash the few unpredictable and fanatical elements in any society. Rather, I think that the problem is that the Copts aren’t prepared for the eventuality of a kidnapping.

I, however, have an idea.

In short, it’s a legal document that will make it impossible to allege that the girl was seduced into leaving, or simply a runaway.

But more on that tomorrow, same bat-time, same bat-channel!

Motakhalef or Mokhtalef?

People think that Christians are crazy.

I know they do.

Not only do we believe that a guy was born, 2000 years back, of a virgin, BUT we believe that He was the Son of God.

That His death on a cross saved us from sin.

And that His teachings mean something today. (This is not even touching on the fact that we believe He rose from the dead on the third day.)

To believe someone mad for believing in (and staking eternity on) this “fairy-tale” sounding, erm, set of beliefs (for lack of another word) may not be so out there.

After all, to a person living in a ‘modern’ day and age–where wireless internet and cell phones are a way of life–the story of Jesus might seem like superstition or myth. I can totally understand that.

But.

It’s not the aforementioned that has this article titled the way it is; rather, it’s the way we Christians (are supposed to) live that has me pondering whether we fit under the umbrella of “Mokhtalef” or “Motakhalef.”

Oh, I should probably get around to telling my non-Arabic-speaking readers what these words mean; “Mokhtalefeen” means “those who are different.” “Motakhalefeen,” however, means “those who are mentally challenged.”

And you have to admit that any religion that tells its subscribers to NOT drink, NOT smoke, NOT use drugs, NOT sleep with anyone they’re not married to, and NOT lie/cheat/steal (amongst others) could very well be pegged as mad, in this “If it feels good, do it!” and “dog eat dog” sort of world.

So the question emerges again, “Are Christians different or just weird?”

Or you could even put it like this: Are we trying to be saints.. or are we just insane?

After all, you’d HAVE to be mad to give up the pleasures of this life.
Wouldn’t you?

Well.. not necessarily. Keep in mind, to our system of beliefs, we’re actually suffering now (if you can call a lack of STDs and hangovers and lung cancer) so that we wouldn’t suffer later (in the eternal, one-person lake full of fire, meaning).

I know it sounds as though I mean that we’re working our way to heaven, or buying salvation, but that’s not what I mean at all.

After all, we can never be perfect; as Christians, we’re merely held accountable for our sins. And forgiven for them. (The whole “knock and the door shall be opened to you” thing.. and by the way, that’s not saying that ‘unbelievers’ aren’t going to be held accountable–they will be. After their death. And it ain’t gonna be pretty.)

Why can’t we work our way into heaven, then?

Well, in the Christian teachings, we find that you could actually live a “good” life, and follow all the “rules,” and still end up in hell. That’s because we believe that humans are born flawed (aka “with a sinful nature”) and that we require a saviour, Jesus Christ.

Many non-Christians don’t believe that any of this is true, and feel as though we’re mad for living with so many restrictions on a life that will only happen once.

So they would consider Christians “Motakhalefeen.”

Some, however, realise the sacrifices that we Christians are making (not that other religious of other faiths AREN’T, only that I’m discussing THIS faith right now) and, while they would never admit to it, or choose the same path that we have, they understand that we’re striving for sainthood, that we ARE different (any true and practicing Christian would take this as a compliment), that we are IN the world but not OF it.

And if this makes us “Motakhalefeen” by the standards of “the world,” then so be it!

Porn Stars, Sex Week @ Yale University, and the ACLU

By Sally Bishai

I recently noticed an article on AOL, titled “Porn Stars, Sex Toys Part of Yale Program.”

For those of you who don’t have access to America Online, let me summarize the “article.”

Actually, I was taught to never shoot the messenger, so apologies to Matt Apuzzo (who penned the thing) and mucho disses to Yale University, apparently a modern-day DEN OF INIQUITY, and one of the reasons I, Sally Bishai, Copt-for-life and American Citizen, am not allowed to say “God Bless You” in the corporate world.
“How d’you figure that, Salls?” you may be wondering.

Have a seat, coz I’m gonna tell you, and be warned, love, it ain’t gonna be pretty.

(This last part’s kind of a joke.. since I don’t have a Southern accent and—oh, never mind, it would take too long.)

“Organizers say Sex Week gets students talking about sex in a way that’s more relevant than middle-school film strips, more honest than movies and television, and more fun than requisite college health lectures,” says the dear and beloved Apuzzo.

I, however, moral gadfly extraordinaire, ask “What’s wrong with this Polaroid?”

Hint: “trying to get students to talk about sex.”

I think that kids in college are past the age where they need to learn about the basics of life. (I went to a Catholic school, and was forced to go through several graphic years of sex-ed—I mean, “Family Life”—class, which mostly involved lectures at the hands of nuns who had, ostensibly, never even HAD sex.)

In fact, why waste class time—and risk going against a family’s beliefs—to educate pre-teens (and those younger) about sex, anyway?

You don’t see them teaching kiddies about the different religions out there, do you?

It’s actually illegal to do that, as I’ve found out. At least, if you mention Christianity.

I don’t think anyone would get arrested or fired for mentioning the Five Pillars of Islam, or the Enlightened Path or whatnot, however.

I know that some of you are thinking, “Well, sex education is important because, while some may choose to have no religion, everyone will end up having sex at some point.”

May I suggest that there are people in this world who will NOT have sex in their lives, either by choice (like monks or lifelong bachelors who are actually moral—they do exist!) or because no one appeals to them (or perhaps they’re the unappealing ones, and they don’t feel like… befriending.. a hooker).

Fine, you might be thinking, “Well, everyone has a body, and kids are naturally curious, so it’s best to head them off and get it out in the open before they make a mistake,” to which I say, 1- in this day and age, I’m sure a four-year-old knows more about sex than I did when I was a senior in high school, and 2- some children may come from families where the parents are either conservative, Muslim, Baptist, Eastern, or any number of other demographics for which sex is a taboo subject with adults, much less children.

But the people that attend Yale aren’t children, they’re—at least in the eyes of the law—adults.

So why am I so vexed at this veritable porn-fest-—which showcased a panel of X-rated celebs, not to mention stripping lessons by a dame from Playboy and sex toy demonstrations from the purveyor of pureromance.com (who actually sponsored the thing)?

Because it’s just another example of how LIBERAL items get pushed to the front of the news (and get all sorts of consideration that conservative and/or Christian things don’t), and how liberals—who would get bent out of shape if this were a Jesus rally—are intolerant, making their moniker a misnomer.

For some reason, I don’t think they’d be quite so peeved if it was a “Meeting with Muhammad” or “Lunch with Lakshme.” In fact, I’ll just bet that the ACLU and similar groups would push for any seemingly-controversial religious event, so long as it wasn’t Christian.

As I’ve said countless times, I really and truly feel that it’s JESUS that offends liberals. Not that all conservatives are Christian, coz there are Jewish, Muslim, and even atheist ones out there..

To be fair, our good friend Apuzzo did mention that Travis Kavulla, editor of the Harvard Salient, wasn’t behind Sex Week’s “festivities”…

He goes on to report that the woman (can’t bring myself to call her a “lady”) behind the sex toy demos was “surprised at how reserved the students were at her seminar. And for all their good grades… [the purveyor] said Yale students seemed less clued-in about sex than students elsewhere.”

Hello? What’s wrong with kids just being kids? Why drag young adults into something they’re not ready for?

Furthermore, re: her “less clued-in” observation, maybe these kids—-and I do believe that college attendees are, for the most part, still kids, trying to navigate the whole “how to make it on their own, whilst forging relationships at school, AND preserving their friends-from-home and family ties” thing-—are focusing on what’s IMPORTANT about their experiences at college (arguably one of the top schools in the nation)—the grades!

Apuzzo then shares the following quote from a 20-year-old sophomore from Poland:

“I have a lot of inhibitions and fears that I’m not sure where they come from.” Hmm. Maybe they’re from your sense of morality? Or the fact that you aren’t ready for sex yet?

The Polish lass goes on to say that she likes the idea of Sex Week because “it opens up the ground to talk about issues people aren’t comfortable talking about otherwise.”

I’m willing to bet that if people waited until they were ready to marry, or at least, to have a long-term relationship (not that I approve of that, but I’m trying out this whole “willing suspension of the disbelief” thing today), the issue of inhibitions and not wanting to discuss sex would dissipate.

“Inhibition” is just another word for “conscience,” which, sadly, fewer and fewer people have today, in a world that’s being hijacked by immorality, intolerance, and the ACLU!