Last
Thursday, a Coptic Christian church located in Benghazi, Libya, was
attacked by armed Muslim militants. Initial reports indicate that at
least one priest, Fr. Paul Isaac, was injured, as well as his
assistant. It is the second church to be attacked in two months.
Earlier, on Sunday, December 30, an
explosion rocked a Coptic Christian church near
the western city of Misrata, where a group of U.S. backed rebels hold a
major checkpoint. The explosion killed two people and wounded two
others, all Egyptians.
Such attacks rarely if ever occurred under Col. Gaddafi.
There are currently few details. Based on countless examples from
past experience—including centuries of demonstrable continuity—there
were likely loud cries of “Allahu Akbar!” with an exuberant sense of
Islamic supremacism in the air. As for motivation, it was likely sheer
anti-Christian sentiment. For where else are Christians being
Christians than in church—where they are being as apolitical as they are
spiritual, simply trying to worship their God in peace, only to be
attacked yet again.
At any rate, here is one more piece of solid evidence to validate my
observation from last week—that
the recent spate of arrests of Christians in Libya on the accusation
that they are “missionaries” is a pretext for simple, good old-fashioned
Christian hate. After all, this armed attack on a Christian church in
Benghazi occurred right around the same time 100 Christian Copts were
arrested and tortured, their heads shaven and their tattooed crosses
burned off with acid.
Libya’s Islamists had no problem arresting and torturing these Copts,
indeed, boasting of it by posting a video of them on the Internet.
Libyan law makes it illegal for any Christian to display their
Christianity or, worse, preach it. Thus the Islamic militias are off
the hook, as they were merely performing the equivalent of a “citizen’s
arrest” when they abducted and trapped all those Egyptian Christians
because they had crosses, Bibles, and religious icons.
Ironically, whereas the Libyan government has not condemned the
arrest and abuse of Christians accused of proselytizing—how can it when
its own laws ban non-Muslim missionary activities?—it has “voiced its
concern” and “expressed regret” for this latest attack on Christians,
the Benghazi church raid. On Sunday, Libya’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and International Cooperation said that the attack was “contrary
to the teachings of our Islamic faith and customs and as well as
international covenants on human rights and fundamental freedoms and
respect for the monotheistic religions.” The statement further called on
“all Libyan citizens to respect those from friendly and sister
countries living in Libya and to respect their beliefs.”
Such benevolent assertions are contradictory on many levels. Do
Libyan authorities really think that enforcing a ban on Christian
preaching—that is, banning Christian free speech according to the Muslim
belief that Christianity is a false religion that cannot be given a
platform to spread—would not further prompt or at least validate fierce
anti-Christian sentiment among the average Libyan? In other words, if
Christianity is portrayed by Muslim authorities as a religion that must
be denied utterance because it is false, is it not natural that
anti-Christian sentiment would metastasize to the average Libyan Muslim,
leading to things like attacks on churches, which are then seen as
breeding grounds for such falsities or—as the jihadi terrorists who
slaughtered nearly 60 Christians in the 2010 Baghdad church attack put
it—“nests of paganism”?
How, then, can the Libyan government call on Libyans to “respect
their [Christians’] beliefs”? How can it invoke “international
covenants on human rights and fundamental freedoms”—covenants which
permit free speech, in this case proselytism, which Muslims in the West
routinely exercise? Is this not just mere talk?
And that’s just it; Libya’s more fervent Muslims know better. If
Christian churches are not (currently) banned by Libyan law, their
construction on Muslim soil is banned by Islamic
Sharia law,
which, incidentally, also happens to be the source for the ban on
Christian proselytism. (According to Muslim tradition, in the 7
th century Caliph Omar ordered conquered Christians not to build new churches and not to preach Christianity around any Muslim.)
Such is the interconnectivity of Islam’s teachings. Where one
anti-Christian law is upheld, many manifestations of anti-Christian
sentiment—along with justifications and rationalizations—will follow.
Such also is the interconnectivity of Benghazi: where American
embassies are attacked and diplomats killed, so too are Christians and
their churches unwelcome. They are all infidels—false, to be despised
and denied. The only Benghazi-related incongruity is that the United
States government helped empower it and the Obama administration
continues to support it.
front page mag
اتهم
مدير عام المؤسسة الليبية للاستثمار، محسن دريجة، حكومة بلاده بالسعي إلى
عزله من منصبه لمطالبته المصارف الأجنبية بتعويضات عن الصفقات المشبوهة مع
نظام معمر القذافي
