Overlooked in the midst of all the celebrations in Egypt concerning the presidential victory of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, his predecessor, President Adly Mansour—who very much shares in Sisi’s worldview and politics—made a strange comment about the place of the nation’s Christian minority, the Copts. (Sisi installed Mansour as acting president of Egypt on July 4, 2013, after ousting former President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood party during the June 30 Revolution, which was supported by the Coptic Church.)

In a televised speech delivered a few days ago, Mansour addressed the Copts in a very inclusive way, one much welcomed and appreciated by Egypt’s Christians. Among other things, he indicated that they were equal citizens, “brothers” to the Muslims; that they have been an integral part of Egypt’s history; that both Copts and Muslims are victims of and enemies to “terrorism” (a reference to the Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations).

Then he said:

I speak to you [Copts] today through the true spirit of Islam—the spirit whose values appeared in the Pact of Omar, wherein the righteous Caliph, Omar bin al-Khattab, made a covenant with the Christians of Jerusalem, after Medina opened [conquered] it in the year 638; the Pact which preserved for the Christians their churches, monasteries, and crosses, and their religion and possessions. Egypt again renews the spirit of this pact and its principles with you; Egypt, the Muslim state, which takes from the values and principles of the tolerant and true Islamic Sharia for its legislation.

To those familiar with the actual text of the Pact of Omar—also known as the shurut, or “the conditions,” of Omar—the above speech is a strange contradiction. After all, whereas Koran 9:29 provides divine sanction to fight the “People of the Book” (namely, Christians and Jews) “until they pay the jizya [monetary tribute] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued,” the Conditionsof Omar lay out in detail how Christians are to feel themselves subdued.

Below are excerpts from the Conditions (see Crucified Again for my complete translation and historical discussion of the text). The conquered Christians appear to be speaking and agree:

Not to build a church in our city—nor a monastery, convent, or monk’s cell in the surrounding areas—and not to repair those that fall in ruins or are in Muslim quarters; Not to clang our cymbals except lightly and from the innermost recesses of our churches; Not to display a cross on them [churches], nor raise our voices during prayer or readings in our churches anywhere near Muslims; Not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims; Not to congregate in the open for Easter or Palm Sunday, nor lift our voices [in lamentation] for our dead nor show our firelights with them near the market places of the Muslims; Not to display any signs of polytheism, nor make our religion appealing, nor call or proselytize anyone to it; Not to prevent any of our relatives who wish to enter into Islam; Not to possess or bear any arms whatsoever, nor gird ourselves with swords; To honor the Muslims, show them the way, and rise up from our seats if they wish to sit down; We guarantee all this to you upon ourselves, our descendants, our spouses, and our neighbors, and if we change or contradict these conditions imposed upon ourselves in order to receive safety, we forfeit our dhimma [protection], and we become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition.

To “become liable to the same treatment you inflict upon the people who resist and cause sedition” simply meant that, if any stipulation of the Conditions was broken, the Christians would resume their natural status as non-submitting infidels who “resist and cause sedition” against Islam—becoming, once again, free game for killing or enslavement.

That other Muslims read the Conditions to mean what they plainly say—as opposed to Mansour’s portrayal of them as indicative of Islamic tolerance—consider how just a few months ago, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) tried to enforce the Conditions to a tee, when it issued a directive calling on “Christians in the city to pay tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety.”

It [ISIS’ statement] says Christians must not make renovations to churches, display crosses or other religious symbols outside churches, ring church bells or pray in public. Christians must not carry arms, and must follow other rules imposed by ISIS on their daily lives. The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices—they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS’ conditions [based on Conditions of Omar], or reject their control and risk being killed. “If they reject, they are subject to being legitimate targets, and nothing will remain between them and ISIS other than the sword,” the statement said.

To be sure, ISIS’s interpretation of the Conditions of Omar is more orthodox than Mansour’s—certainly more in accordance with Islamic history and doctrine. Consider, for instance, the words of Saudi Sheikh Marzouk Salem al-Ghamdi—an Islamic cleric, not a politician like Mansour—once spoken during a Friday mosque sermon:

If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet—there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions [reference to Conditions of Omar] are … that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passes by their homes … that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, that they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hair in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims, and do not strike a Muslim…. If they violate these conditions, they have no protection. According to the Conditions of Omar, Christians were little better than third-class subjects of an Islamic state

What, then, do we make of Mansour’s reference to these medieval Conditions—in a speech meant to reassure Egypt’s Christians of their equality as citizens of a modern nation?

What do we make of the fact that Mansour’s views on the Copts—often seen as inclusive and moderate—are shared by Sisi, Egypt’s new president, who is believed to be more of a pious Muslim than his predecessor?

Was Mansour employing a bit of Islamic tawriya, mentioning seemingly tolerant aspects of the Conditions—that Christians are allowed to “preserve” their existing churches, monasteries, and crosses—while ignoring the “conditions” Christians must obey in exchange for such “tolerance,” namely, that they not build new or repair old churches and monasteries and to keep their crosses out of sight—otherwise they lose all “protection”?

Through such double-talk, was Mansour trying to placate, on the one hand, the Copts, many of whom do not know much about the Conditions, and, on the other, hardline Salafis who do—with words and references that convey different notions to different people?

Indeed, from a Salafi point of view, Mansour’s declaration to the Copts that “Egypt again renews the spirit of this pact [Conditions] and its principles with you; Egypt, the Muslim state,” is tantamount to telling the Copts to remember their place in a medieval Muslim society and embrace their lot as dhimmis, third-class citizens.

Nor does Mansour’s use of abstracts like “the spirit” or “values and principles” (of the Conditions) lessen the significance of his words. For however one spins it, the only meaning of the Conditions is that Christians—because they are Christian, not Muslim—must uphold discriminatory and humiliating conditions in order to experience tolerance in an Islamic state.

Then again, could Mansour himself, a judge and former head of Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court, be ignorant or incredulous of the truth concerning the Conditions?

In fact, a few days before Mansour’s speech, I wrote the following words which may be applicable to him:

This is the fundamental problem facing all moderate Muslims: despite what they like to believe and due to a variety of historical and epistemological factors, they are heavily influenced by Western thinking … so whenever they come up against Islamic teachings they cannot fathom [such as the discriminatory Conditions], they collectively behave as if such teachings don’t really mean what they mean. Yet the Salafis know exactly what they mean.

At any rate, despite Mansour’s disturbing references to a medieval text that historically justified Christian subjugation, most Copts believe that Egypt’s government, first under Mansour and now Sisi, is preferable to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

And most remain optimistic about Sisi.

Time will tell if such optimism is warranted, or if Egypt’s Christians will again be fated to watch their nation take one step forward only to take another one right back—the inevitable outcome of a worldview that always tries to articulate itself through Islamic terms.

Editor’s note: The following account was written for RaymondIbrahim.com by an American teacher in the Muslim world. It is reminiscent of other accounts in Pakistan. For instance, in March 2010, Rasheed Masih, described as a “devoted Christian,” was butchered by Muslim men “with multiple axe blows for refusing to convert to Islam.” Earlier, the “six men had threatened to kill 36-year-old Rasheed Masih unless he converted to Islam when they grew resentful of his potato business succeeding beyond their own.” According to a pastor who knew Rasheed, “As the Christian family [of Rasheed] strengthened in business and earned more, the Muslim men began to harbor business resentment, as Muslims are not used to seeing Christians more respected and richer than them.” Eventually he was lured to one of their farm houses, where he was slaughtered by repeated axe blows. The autopsy revealed he had 24 wounds.

As with Sarah, who I wrote about last week, I met Paul at the Church I attend while in Bangkok. After a friendly introduction where I learned of his asylum seeking status, I asked him:

“Why did you flee Pakistan? Did you commit apostasy? Blasphemy? Proselytization?”

Paul smiled and answered, “No, No, and No! I had to flee Pakistan with my family because I was a successful Christian businessman.”

Not expecting that answer, I asked Paul if he could elaborate, to which he agreed. We walked to a nearby park and he began his story with his British great-great-grandmother, who for some reason unknown to him, was living in a remote part of Pakistan in the early 20th century (which was then part of the British Empire). One day, she was running from an angry Muslim mob who wanted to kill her. She found refuge in the home of a Muslim man, who in exchange for his protection, she was forced to marry as a second wife and convert to Islam. A few years later, after giving birth to their second child, her husband died.

Without her husband's protection, she knew that the jealous first wife, with the help of the villagers who still wanted her dead, would eventually kill her and her children. While everyone was in mourning and paying little attention to her, she fled with her two boys to the Province of Punjab, where she lived among Christians for the rest of her life. There, she raised her sons as Christians and taught them the values of hard work and individual responsibility.

As the generations passed, some of her descendants were very successful, including Paul. Through years of hard work, Paul transformed a $250 investment into three very profitable photo-shop stores. He lived in a beautiful villa with his parents, two brothers, and sister, and purchased a second home for himself, his wife and two daughters. He also donated to charity organizations that helped poor children, regardless of religion, get an education. He was proud to be known as the most successful Christian businessman in the city.

Being a wealthy Christian in a Muslim country, Paul also had to make financial contributions to local politicians (protection money) and help them during elections by mobilizing the Christian minority to vote.

Sadly for Paul and his family, his success drew the envy of his Muslim neighbors who were waiting for the right moment to strike. That moment arrived when Paul's parents were distributing New Testaments to poor Christian families in the neighborhood. Their Muslim neighbors accused them of proselytizing Muslims, and within a week, Paul's world was turned upside down. A few days after the false accusations against his parents were made, a group of men failed to kidnap his youngest brother. As they were running away, they shouted:

“Infidel, convert to Islam. Stop spreading Christianity in Muslim areas.”

Paul's father then tried to get the police involved, but they refused, accusing him of proselytizing to Muslims. His father pleaded his innocence and asked for proof. The police responded that the word of a Muslim against the word of a Christian was all the proof that was necessary.

Following his father's unsuccessful attempt to get assistance from the police, Paul decided to seek help from his political connections. But shortly after he left his house with his brother, they were attacked and severely beaten—Paul's brother was stabbed—by a group of Muslims shouting,

“You are infidels. We have the right to kill you. You are the enemy of Islam.”

Left for dead by the mob, the two brothers were taken to a hospital by neighbors. A few days later, still recovering from his injuries, Paul found out that his bank accounts were frozen by government officials and his stores were taken over by some of his neighbors (one store was burned to the ground). He was also warned that an angry mob was heading towards his home to kill him and his family. With little time to spare, he gathered his family, took the cash stored in the house, and fled to another city.

Sadly, their tragic story did not end there. Not satisfied with stealing Paul's stores, money, and homes, the Muslim mob now wanted his family's blood. They followed him and one evening, gathered outside his rented house with torches shouting,

“Infidel, we know you! You survived last time, but we will kill you this time.”

Gun shots were fired through the windows and as the angry mob was getting ready to torch the house, the Muslim owner arrived with the police to prevent his property from being burned.

The crowd was dispersed and Paul's family took the opportunity to flee. They went to a hotel, sold one car, and got tourist visas for Thailand. A few days later, they drove to the airport, left their remaining car in the parking lot, and flew to Bangkok.

When Paul arrived in Thailand 18 months ago (December 2012), he was very angry and confused. He was betrayed by people he trusted. His whole family was almost killed and everything he worked for was gone, stolen, lost forever, because his family was Christian and had no legal rights in Pakistan.

But today, after hearing the horrors stories of other Christians that have fled Pakistan, he thanks GOD that his whole family safely made it to Thailand. Sadly, his father died six months ago, a refuge in a foreign land. On a more positive note, his mother’s and sister's family are now in the Netherlands, and he is expectied to join them soon with the remaining members of his family.

Author’s note: The names of the individuals in this article were changed to protect their relatives who remain in Pakistan.

L'islam permet aux hommes musulmans d'abandonner leurs épouses à des violeurs afin de sauver leur propre vie – a dit le Dr. Yasser al-Burhami, vice-président du parti salafiste égyptien, le plus grand parti islamiste en Egypte depuis le bannissement de la Fraternité Musulmane.

La fatwa (ou décret islamique) de Burhami n'est pas surprenant. Plus tôt, le cheikh salafiste a déclaré que, même si un homme musulman peut épouser des femmes non-musulmanes, en particulier des chrétiennes et des juives, il doit les détester – et leurs montrer qu'il les déteste – parce qu'elles sont des «infidèles» (en même temps qu'il les apprécie sexuellement).

En effet, parmi les nombreuses fatwas du Dr. Burhami, un pédiatre de formation, il est interdit aux chauffeurs de taxi et d'autobus musulmans de transporter des prêtres coptes à leurs églises, qu'il décrit comme «pire qu'emmener quelqu'un dans un bar qui sert de l'alcool»; le droit de marier des filles mineures; l'interdiction de la fête des mères – «même si cela leur fait de la peine» – qu'il considère comme une innovation de l'occident; et il insiste sur le fait que les musulmans ne peuvent pas quitter l'islam, une déclaration souvent mentionnée dans les médias.

Dans sa plus récente fatwa, où les maris sont autorisés à abandonner leurs femmes pendant qu'elles sont sexuellement agressées si c'est dans leur propre intérêt – Burhami s'appuie sur le qiyâs, qui est en retour basé sur les décisions d'un éminent juriste du douzième siècle. Selon l'Imam Azz bin Abdul Salaam, un musulman doit abandonner ses biens à des voleurs pour sauver sa vie.

Sur la base du raisonnement du qiyâs, Burhami déclare que le mari musulman devrait abandonner sa femme si elle met sa vie en danger, puisqu'elle est juste une autre possession qui peut facilement être remplacée.

Dans les mots d'un éditorial arabe critiquant Burhami et intitulé «Virilité selon Burhami!» et écrit par Amani Majed, une musulmane:

L'abandon par un musulman de ses biens à des voleurs pour sauver sa propre vie s'applique aussi – selon Burhami, désolé à dire – à sa femme et ses filles. Alors, si la femme est exposée à un viol, elle est considérée comme une possession et le mari peut l'abandonner à son sort pour sauver sa vie. Et pourquoi pas? Car s’il perd ses biens, il peut les remplacer; et si sa femme est violée, il peut en épouser une autre, même si elle est toujours en vie!

L'éditorial se penche ensuite sur les conséquences de la logique de Burhami dans le cas ou tout les hommes musulmans la suivrait: si un policier patrouillant les rues voit une femme – une étrangère, pas sa femme ou fille – être violée, doit-il intervenir comme son travail lui ordonne de faire et risquer sa propre vie, ou doit-il penser qu'à lui-même et fuir? Est-ce que le soldat égyptien devrait demeurer à son poste et défendre son pays contre des envahisseurs, ou doit-il fuir pour sauver sa propre vie?

Trois observations:

Premièrement: les salafistes comme Burhami, qui tentent de modeler leur vie aussi littéralement que possible auprès de celle du prophète Mahomet et de ses premiers compagnons – d'où les longues barbes et robes blanches – méritent une attention spéciale car ils sont un trésor d'informations sur le vrai islam. Ce sont toujours les musulmans salafistes qui évoquent et défendent un certain nombre de choses réputées absurdes ou odieuses dans un contexte occidental – comme l'application d'un hadith canonique qui oblige les femmes à allaiter des hommes (ironiquement, pour protéger leur «chasteté»), boire l'urine de chameau pour une bonne santé, et la destruction de toutes les églises.

Bien sûr, leur honnêteté est basée sur leur capacité offensive et leurs avantages via a vis leur ennemis. Comme Dr. Burhami a lui-même dit, les traités de paix avec Israël et d'autres infidèles doivent être respectés jusqu'à ce que les musulmans soit capables de les renier et passer à une offensive victorieuse.

Pourtant, les salafistes sont beaucoup plus honnêtes que d'autres islamists, comme les Frères Musulmans, qui, maintenant qu'ils ont été renversés en Egypte, ont montré leur vrai visage – de terroristes – leur causant une fois de plus à être bannis en Egypte.

Deuxièmement: De nombreux musulmans, probablement la majorité, rejettent la dernière fatwa de Burhami (abandonner sa femme aux violeurs), et sont en accord avec l'éditorial mentionné plus haut. Le problème, cependant, et comme d'habitude, est que même s'ils sont d'accord qu'un tel comportement est indigne d'un mari, dans le domaine de la jurisprudence islamique, il est difficile d'argumenter contre la logique de l'imam salafiste. Il a utilisé le qiyâs, un outil légitime de la jurisprudence islamique; et l'imam, dont la logique est basée sur le qiyâs, est largement reconnu comme une autorité dans l'islam sunnite.

En plus, et malgré le ton moqueur de l'éditorial, les femmes sont en fait, souvent dépeint comme rien de plus qu'un meuble pour les hommes dans les scriptes islamiques.

C'est le problème fondamental auquel sont confrontés les musulmans modérés. En dépit de ce qu'ils aiment croire et due à une variété de facteurs historiques et épistémologiques, ils sont fortement influencés par la pensée occidentale – protégé les femmes et les faible, ou la chevalerie, sont des «innovations» chrétiennes – donc quand ils se heurtent à des enseignements islamiques, ils ne peuvent pas évaluer leurs significations. Ils se comportent collectivement comme si ces enseignements n'ont pas vraiment dit ce qu'ils veulent dire.

Pourtant, les salafistes savent exactement ce qu'ils veulent dire.

Troisièmement: Cette dernière fatwa illustre l'attrait du salafisme. Cette branche de l'islam ne propose rien de profond ou spirituellement satisfaisant, mais elle offre une sanction divine pour l'égoïsme éhontée – comme abandonner sa femme à des violeurs pour sauver sa propre vie.

La justification de cet égoïsme ne se limite pas à la survie de soi-même, mais aussi à sa gratification, et surtout dans le contexte du jihad. On peut continuer sur les autres fatwas salafistes permettant le viol, l'inceste, et la prostitution pour ceux qui se battent pour imposer l'islam. Même les héros renommés comme Khalid bin al-Walid – "l'Epée d'Allah ", qui est célébré dans le monde musulman pour ses conquêtes jihadistes, était, d'un point de vue moins hagiographique, rien de plus qu'un meurtrier et violeur sadist.

Plus généralement, les musulmans salafistes croient que tous les non-musulmans peuvent être déçus, trichés, volés, exploités, réduits à l'esclavage, et tués. Tout dans l'intérêt de la communauté musulmane, considéré comme uni avec les intérêts de l'islam.

Pourquoi croient-ils cela? Parce que du point de vue salafiste, tous les "infidèles" (non–musulmans) qui ne se soumettent pas à la loi islamique ou la charia – Américains et Européens, par exemple – sont des ennemis naturel, et donc libre jeu.