define a muslim. for this reason it is important to defend religious freedom and to work on bringing religious freedom as an integral part of building a liberal democracy in the region. let me now move from this to the present and the future and the situation of religious freedom in egypt. religious freedom in egypt is hardly a happy story. there simply isn't that much of religious freedom in the country. certainly it is not saudi arabia. it is not iran. but the situation of religious freedom in egypt has been shaped by the dynamic relationship, interrelationship between the religious establishment, the state, the islamists and the general public. each of these has played a different factor or different role in the lack of religious freedom in the country. but it is how they operate together that creates this vacuum of freedom for -- whether

religious minorities, intellectuals and others who think differently. that situation has, perhaps, worsened much more after the revolution. we've seen a dramatic increase in the number of attacks against the cops. but more importantly than the fact that there are -- an increase of attacks is the fact of the shape of those attacks. increasingly we see that the general public has participated in those attacks. that your neighbors are angered by the fact that you are building a church. or that some christian girl, some muslim girl, has some affair with a guy from another religi religion. the participation of your general public, of your neighbors, is perhaps the most worrisome sign to the future of religious freedom in egypt. concerning the islamists and their role, i would perhaps look at two points. if time allows, of course. the first is how the muslim

brotherhood as written very clearly about their view of the koptices church especially. the muslim brotherhood has been accused of not having a program. using slogans and not a program. they've given us a 96-page program that anyone can read and see their views on it. a page and a half on the catholic church specifically. that page and a half is extremely interesting to read. first it says that -- it highlights an interest of the muslim brotherhood to take control of the christian endowments from the church. the reason they provide on this page 64 of the program is that the religious endowments should serve all egyptians, regardless of religion. nicely put, i would say. but more interesting is how they define the church role according to them. it is -- the church role is to take its place along with other state institutions in fighting the cultural invasion from the

west. the church should cooperate with different state institutions and egyptian civil society to correct carving deviant paths. that statement reminds me of a model that has, perhaps, become less relevant in the world. that of a national church model. the repression that the churches have suffered under communism, the attempt by the ruling regime to control the official religious establishment, and thus use it as a way to control the religious minority, that i think would be something interesting to watch in the future. and more profoundly, in terms of the muslim -- or the islamic religious authorities and how the muslim brotherhood will deal -- as an interpreter or authority. another interesting thing to note or dynamic to note in the future will be this relationship

between the muslim brotherhood and the salafis. how -- whether the muslim brotherhood's used to the fact of being the guys on the right or the guys on the more extreme, how will they teal now with the fact of being challenged from the right? how will they deal with the question of their base -- possibility of losing their base to the more radical salafis. so the radical relationship between the muslim brotherhood and the salafis will not only tell us a lot about the future of politics of egypt but it will also be extremely important in how the fate of religious minorities and religious freedom in general takes shape. thank you. >> very good. thank you, sam. well, you've -- you've -- all three of you have given us a great deal to reflect upon. i think what i'd like to do given the amount of time left is sort of ask -- try to ask an

uberquestion and start with summer and go down the line again. get you to reflect on -- use this question to situation the themes that you would like. i'm going to pick up on sam tatros's notion that religious freedom means more than private, if you like, confessionalism. i'm not sure this is the way jillian was using it or not. it means the right to bring your religion into the public square. that means -- it can mean a lot of things. it can mean politics. religion and politics. using your religious beliefs to make religious arguments for laws and policies, economic, other foreign policies as well as domestic policies. it can mean, dare i say it, prost letism or trying to convince other people, i believe this came up very early today, convince other people that your religious claims are true and they ought to accept those in.ims and join your club, but which is a big, big problem in

the muslim majority countries of the world. just as it was a huge problem in medieval europe or should i say in europe 14 centuries into its existence as a christian dominated culture. so it's not a new problem. it's not an unknown problem. so religious freedom as it sh-- meaning the right to enter the public square. really need this to succeed as a democracy? by success i mean last. we don't get a collapse in a generation or even two or, you know, the return of a mubarak like figure or simply chaos. how important is this aspect of religious freedom to success? and, mind you, this means not only koptic christians. it does mean that. to enter in the public square. to make christian arguments within egypt. which may sound a little bit farfetched. but also as sam said, for

muslims to criticize the brotherhood. or to criticize openly, without fear of recrimination, an understag may consider to be simply false without being accused of or defamation of islam. so, in short, this is not just about minorities. about the maj community and disfavored members of the majority community. >> that's a very, very difficult question. i don't know if i'll even begin to be able to address it in any way. but i think what i will agree with is that, you know, this idea of religious freedom isn't as simple as one might think. you know, because as you have done, you've kind of separated different dimensions of it. in fact, i have not even gone that far. wh wt i think is quite crucial at this moment, and maybe that's because i'm living in this particular moment with regard to the difficulties that are going on in egypt right now, are -- and

this might not exactly be religious freedom, but ideas of equality without regard to religion. it's not really religious freedom. that, i think, is quite crucial at this particular moment. i think that kind of a discourse is likely -- or has a better chance of succeeding in creating the kind of society and state which i think many of us would hope that egypt will become. >> samer, if i could just come back on that very point. >> sure. >> equality under the law is what you're speaking of. >> without regard to religious difference. >> without regard to religious difference. but including the right of religious actors, if we can call them that, to bring their religious views into the public square. i presume you would agree that it is unrealistic to expect muslims in egypt not to bring their religion, or perhaps i'm wrong? >> i think you're right. i think it definitely includes that. i don't necessarily think that that is the way to create the type of society that we want. because one of the problems is

that framing it in this -- in this kind of a way, this kind of sectarian way, looking at individuals not as individuals but as a member of religious groups and so on, i think that actually does -- in providing rights on that basis does more damage, in some sense, than good in eterm of creating a kind of liberal democratic society that we want. so i would definitely include the point that you mentioned in addition to what i have put forward which is in terms of equality without regard to religion. in addition to, of course, the right to practice one's faith and in the case of egypt, i think this means dealing quite specifically with the creation of a unified building law with regard to churches and mosques and so on. however, however, one could possibly then differentiate that level or that reach of religious freedom with this idea of

conversion. because that's such a -- that's the particularly sensitive issue with regard to -- i have no problem with it. but many people do, right? so -- so it shall -- so if ther, as it were, as i kind of -- as i think stephen hadley said, frame it with religious tolerance, that would stop short. >> stop short of a right to proth letize or a right to convert others or, in fact, a right to conversion. but it's an interesting question how far a democracy can go. eve a muslim majority democracy without grappling successfully with that at some point. jillian? >> so when i teach courses on middle east politics, i always start the first class by saying, middle east politics is not limited to the palestinian/israeli conflict. i want to say the arab spring is not limited to egypt. we've been predominantly talking about egypt. i keep trying to talk a little

bit differently. i want to say something about yemen. yemen had a couple of weeks ago abdullah saleh stepped down. we don't call that state a shiia state. we shouldn't. it's nonsensical. in fact, he's from that sect. you have a very strong wahabi influence. saudi funded. saudi inspired. that's very -- you have all kinds of different religious sects. in the case of yemen, i think it would be a mistake to put the question of religious freedom front and center in the transition, because there's all kinds of other issues of power struggle left over from the unification which saw essentially the crushing of a largely secular south and very progressive voices there.

not an atheist communist movement but a very secular, privatized religious communist movement. you saw a developed socialist leader from a yemeni socialist party assassinated in 2002 as an isla convention. one of the most contentious things that happens in the country, the wahabis will go into zadi mosques in the north and start praying in wahabi style. they're standing there quietly, but they're doing it and it's very contentious and political. ultimately one would want to get to the point that a muslim could walk into any mosque they want and pray how they like. putting those questions front and center in yemen's case would be very divisive. it would exacerbate all kinds of tensions. one would hope you'd get their eventually. it's interesting to pull that back for a moment and let other questions come to the fore. i have a piece about to come out, it might be posted today on

al jazeera english where i'm arguing yemen should probably have a fedderated state. when you have a village that has a particularly strong association with a particular religious sect and wants to preserve that, pushing towards them that they have to be open to other voices and proth letizing in the public square is going to be contentious and problematic. i want to say i don't have a particular position that it should ultimately be there or not. ultimately i would like to see all world views tolerated and accepted and open to debate. but in certain transitions putting those issues front and center are going to be more problematic. in other transitions it might be a blaze to build bridges as a starting point. i want to bracket the timing of that. they could play out very differently depending on contexts. >> good. sam? >> does egypt need this? i would say definitely yes.

in the sense of we've had a historic problem with religion in egypt. religion, islam specifically, has been viewed with high suspicious by the intelligentsia that has formed the modern egyptian state. we've never found our peace with islam. many will claim their problem is islamism and the kind of views that it holds. but in many cases the real problem, the root of the problem is they don't like islam. they've never found a way to deal with the idea of this religion and how it works with the modern world. i think part of this is -- which was referred to in the earlier panel, is the influence, huge influence, of french secularism on egypt. and that we -- in a sense we never read burk. we rad volter and druso. this is where the foundation of

the egyptian secularism comes from. so while egypt never had a model, it certainly was what they would have wanted if they could have achieved it. so in this sense i think the -- any hope of a long-term, stable democracy in egypt, along with millions of other problems that are there, will have to find a way of accommodating islam in the public square. that people are allowed to bring -- make religious-based arguments against political decisions and economic views. this is not prohibited. people are allowed to do it. i think returning to the general political situation, i agree that we are in a transition period and nothing is entirely perfect in a transition period. i don't think it's a transition to democracy. that's another story. in a sense i think the

policymakers are beginning to realize that this is much -- the beauty contest here, that we're not having the nice guys were in tahrir. things are lovely. tech savvy youth. things will be great. let's move to the next country of the arab spring. the realization is now coming to this city that we're in front of a situation where each country is different. where things might develop in different direction down those roads. and that we are essentially in front of the least ugly girl contest. we're choosing between -- we're choosing between not very nice options there. and none of them is entirely perfect. so i think in this sense whether religious freedom comes at the forefront of the issues that people need to fight for or not, yes, it might not be one of those main issues at the moment. >> all right. very good.

we have a few -- on that optimistic note, let's turn to our audience. i see we have a question over here. mr. mcfarland? >> all right. my name is steve mcfarland. question. how long must egypt stay in this halfway house of religious tolerance? if religious tolerance is not going to permit individuals of the minority faith to share their faith or to be perceived as even trying to persuade something else the truth of their belief or convert or pros theltize or say something derogatory at least by accusation blas teemic. if that is a bridge too far for religious freedom in our lifetime, is that much of a halfway house to live in long

term? because i believe that the ability to share one's faith and to -- and to disagree with a majority faith and to try to persuade someone of the truth of your beliefs is the essence of religious freedom. and religious tolerance sounds more like, i tolerate what other people's dogs do on my lawn. you know, i just put up with it. >> you shouldn't do that, steve. >> i know. you know, that's not my notion of religious freedom. comment? >> samer, would you like to take that? >> no. >> but you will? >> yes. i think that, you know, maybe i'm wrong, correct me, but i think if you, you know, look at where egypt is right now, where it's been, what the current state of things are, we will be fortunate to achieve religious tolerance. and achieve equality before the law regardless of one's faith.

the struggle, right now, nor should it necessarily be, for example, regarding article 2 of the egyptian constitution. islam is the religion of state. arabic is its language. the prince pms of the sharia are the primary source of legislation. exactly formulated as such. is about -- and the most liberal and realistic goal one can have is to preserve the article as is. because -- and i myself, you know, am i favor of keeping the article as is. whereas the salafis, for example, want to change the article to increase the importance of islam and the sharia by either getting rid of the principles, because the prince pms of the sharia are things that all of us can agree with. the social justice. equality. truth. so on. to either the sharia or the rulings of sharia so that you can have more specific rulings be the basis of law as opposed

to these wonder chl principles. i think if we achieve religious tolerance, you know, right now and probably for some time to come, meaning equality before the law for all, the right to practice one's faith and so on, that that will be a significant achievement. >> okay. i hear you. i would like to point out on steve's behalf, i think he would say that the standard that you said of equality before the law is not met if one cannot share one's religious beliefs publicly. so i think we just have a disagreement over what equality before the law means and what religious freedom may mean. and the question i asked was intended to get to the utilitarian -- can it work? >> the problem is if you do this, the ability to share one's faith, if that means pros theltizing, right, then you are in an arms race. >> it doesn't mean pros theltizing. that's a bad word. it means sharing your faith. and trying to convince others you're right. >> you know, i don't know what

the difference is. >> there isn't any. i'm just kidding. pros theltism has a negative tone to it. >> i don't know if you agree with me. then you have an arms race essentially. you know? and that is an arms race that is bad for religious minorities, probably. right? and it's also not the kind of race that egypt should be engaged in right now, at least -- >> and so the question is, please, you need nt answer this, the question i was posing is given that reality, i agree with you, is democracy over the long term possible until this issue is resolved or at least grappled with honestly? and i agree that it isn't. >> yeah. you know, very briefly. i don't think that, you know, it is something that, you know, radically or fundamentally impedes the ability of a liberal democracy being established in egypt. it might not be the extent that

you'd like. but i think it shall. >> okay. fair enough. jillian. >> yeah. i -- you know, i -- yeah. i echo -- yeah. i pretty much echo your point. it's -- there's -- i think it should be there. but i don't think it needs to be there front and center. i think when there's other kinds of security and confidence that comes from the institutions, when the institutions are functioning in a way that people feel safe, then i think they would emerge, you know, more freedom of expression around particular kinds of issues. where people don't have to feel that one statement is just a complete threat to their whole community. they don't have to feel panicky. i think that will be gradual. i think you can get there in some ways through the exercising and functioning of that space. >> sam? >> let me begin by a story that happened yesterday in egypt. maybe a month ago there was a schoolteacher in the south of egypt who during the school -- during the class break was sitting in the teachers lounge.

and he's christian. and a conversation begins between a sal farks i teacher and himself that results in a religious discussion. and the salafi teacher claims -- there's no proof of that -- that the christian insulted the prophet. this automatically results in writing in the air. which results, of course, in that teacher being arrested. the court system which is hugely dysfunctional suddenly becomes very functional. after one day of hearing the case, the whole case takes three days, one day or hearing it without anything they give him a couple of years of a sentence. the salafis don't like that fact because they think a couple of years is not enough. so they demonstrate in front of the court and won a death sentence. this is a good punishment for such an act. now, what happens actually yesterday is due to human rights organizations pressure and so on, the case goes into another

hearing. an appeal of that case. and the guy can't get a lawyer. not because he doesn't have people willing to represent him. but because there are 300 other lawyers that prohibit any lawyer representing him from entering the courtroom. that's a problem. no, you will not have democracy unless you deal with such an issue. the issue is not -- you cannot escape it within the question of equality. not the fact that can he preach christianity to others or not. but can he get a fair trial for this crime if we even consider it a crime? can he get a lawyer to defend him in that case or not? so i think it's -- it is an integral part of the story of a democratic transition. will you get it? i doubt. should you work on it

exclusively, no. as a part of a larger picture that not everything of it will be perfect, not today or tomorrow or even 10 or 20 years, that's the sad story of the long process of the transition. >> okay. let's get another question. how about right here. >> thank you. my name is haro hashemi from the beckett fund. my question is about more of the constitutional development in these countries and the role that religion will play. taking into context just the various types of constitutional reck ignition of religion, turkey being a model which declares in its constitution that it's secular or pakistan that declares islamic religion of pakistan or indonesia saying it's based on the country -- that there is one fwood god. there's also a provision for

religious liberty that people have the right to practice their religion. in contrast to these arab spring countries, particularly tunisia, i'm interested to see what you think of whether or not they will recognize islam outright as the religion of the state and how this will reflect on religions. >> i'm not an expert on tunisia. i spent some weeks there this spring in january for the anniversary. one of the things that instruct me, with nafta having won such a large -- 40% of the assembly, i was in a mountain top town called lakef on the anniversary of the revolution which is wub of the places that there were a lot of protests weeks before it ever got to the capital a year ago. so they were defending the grocery stores that had burnt down last year. they're making sure they don't get burnt down again. there's piles of tiring burning here and there. people are protesting. nothing has changed after a

year. the most interesting thing is one of the most heavily guarded buildings in town was the nafta office. nafta in power is now panicking they're the target of things haven't really changed. another incident -- then i'll try to weave it together. another incident was that the -- there are women showing up for exams in the universities, three at a time. you're not allowed to take an exam according to the current rules because you have to show your face. intended to be very provocative. the time i was there the salafi group also established a -- i tried to go. my friends would not take me. there's this pushing going on and these tensions between nafta and the salafis. one of the interesting things was that nafta kept saying they oppose this. they were completely against this. this isn't what they represented. they wanted to maintain itsecul. but the nafta minister of higher

education refused to make a statement against, you know, the sort of salafi inroads and this pushing. refused to take a stand on that. that was seen as very, very troubling by secularists in the country. you're saying one thing. is this really down the road you're going to remain silent? it's something that came up in an earlier session. sometimes on the koptic issue, sometimes the lack of doing something speaks incredibly loud. the mubarak regime's lack of intervention around all kinds offish ir shoes. attacks on university professors. attacks on cops. their silence on the issue speaks volumes. i think in tunisia everyone is holding their breath. while nafta says it's not going to push that forward there are threads of nervousness for some people that that might be coming down the road a year or two from now. again, i'm not an expert on tunisia. from my trip i thought that was an interesting point of tension. people are nervous about it.

>> i think we had a question back here. we have time, unfortunately, for only one more. okay. this gentleman here. here we go. up here. sorry. >> hi. i'm richard hyde. i direct the religion consulting group. i'm curious about other bases of identity in the countries that you're talking about. they all speak arabic. they're mostly s lly muslim. what differentiates a tunisian from a mor rocken from an egyptian, et cetera. there must be lots of other things going on here. >> well, i mean, you know, there are unlimited differences. these are overlapping identities. the arab that the tunisian speaks is not the arabic that i speak. nor is the