Egypt is changing. This is the truth which some people are trying to stifle through legitimate and illegitimate means. If you think the margin of freedom that opened up three years ago will end, then you’re wrong. This truth is reinforced by the reality of the social and cultural awakening Egypt is going through today.
Not a day passes without some tensions flaring up between the authorities and civil society organizations of all stripes, whether they are led by politicians, social activists, journalists or members of the judiciary to allow more room for civil freedoms and loosen the grip of despotism.
The question is, how can our society preserve this newly acquired freedom without turning the issue into a threat to our unity and national cohesion? In other words, can social and political powers practice these freedoms they have so responsibly and consciously gleaned from the authorities over the past few years?
My observations come in light of the recent Higher Administrative Court ruling granting 12 re-converts from Islam to Christianity the right to change back their religious affiliation to “Christian on their national identification cards.
Some have described the ruling as historical and see it as a victory for the principle of freedom of faith stipulated in Article 46 of the Egyptian constitution.
I certainly hope that the debate over this issue does not exceed the limits of it being merely administrative and procedural into one about religion. This would be a dangerous path to take in a society which is experiencing unprecedented tensions between its various classes and sects, essentially for social and political reasons.
The issue should not be politicized, whether in support or condemnation of the ruling, because this would take it beyond its narrow administrative sphere to the wider and more dangerous social sphere that would lead to a social and sectarian polarization that will have grave consequences.
The importance of this ruling lies, not in its substance, but in the ability of the Egyptian mind to accept religious conversion without seeing it as catastrophic and undermining the laws of nature.
To avoid any misinterpretation, the text of the ruling included a disclaimer stating that the court’s decision does not mean opening the doors for Ridda (apostasy) from Islam to Christianity. The ruling thus stipulated that the new documents should refer to the re-converts’ previous conversion to Islam. The lesson learnt from this decision is that our society is only just starting to become aware of the meaning of gaining its freedom. What’s more important, though, is for the struggle to be peaceful and based on a respect for due process.
In return, everyone must learn how to preserve this freedom. It is illogical for such a ruling to be used as a pretext for those who manipulate religion and the dire socio-economic situation of some people to pressure them into conversion. If this were to happen, we would be confronted with a catastrophic situation that can be exploited by fanatics on both ends to sabotage our newfound freedom.
We will all pay dearly for that because there is no freedom without responsibility.
Khalil Al-Ananiis an expert on Political Islam and Deputy Editor of Al Siyassa Al Dawliya journal published by Al-Ahram Foundation.
