883.404/51

The Minister in Egypt (Fish) to the Secretary of State

No. 551

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a communication under date of March 4, 1936, together with enclosures,23 which [Page 21] I have received from Doctor C. R. Watson, President of the American University at Cairo, regarding the informal representations made recently by the Egypt Inter-Mission Council to the High Commissioner24 looking to the safeguarding of the rights of Christian minorities in connection with the treaty to be drafted between the British and Egyptian Governments.

As appears from the enclosures, the Egypt Inter-Mission Council in a communication dated February 11, 1936, to the High Commissioner outlined the situation regarding Christian minorities and suggested the safeguards which appeared desirable for their protection on the occasion of the conclusion of any treaty between Great Britain and Egypt.

Particular attention was drawn by the Council to the provisions of the Egyptian Constitution declaring “The religion of the country is Islam” which was interpreted by the Egyptian authorities as overriding Article 12 according to which “liberty of conscience is absolute”. To safeguard the position of the Christian minority and to further religious liberty in Egypt three suggestions were offered: (1) that the protection of minorities reserved by the British Government in its Declaration of February 28, 1922,25 be not surrendered; (2) that the Egyptian Government be asked to enact legislation similar to Articles 23 (d) and 24 of the Succession Ordinance of the Palestine Government26 freeing in matters of personal status claimants from any penalties by reason of a change of religion or nationality; and (3) as a condition of Egypt’s admission to the League of Nations upon the conclusion of a treaty the Egyptian Government should make a declaration with regard to religious liberty similar to that contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Declaration of the Kingdom of Iraq, of May 30, 1932,27 upon the termination of the mandatory regime in Iraq.

On February 26, 1936, the High Commissioner received a delegation from the Inter-Mission Council at which time the point of view of that Council was expressed in further detail. It was stated that experience had proved that the Articles of the Egyptian Constitution regarding religious liberty offered no practical safeguards such as the situation in Egypt demanded. Thus, religious liberty had been “officially interpreted to mean only the right of each minority to worship in its own way, and not the right of an adult to change his faith [Page 22] according to his convictions”. Moreover, while a procedure existed for the registration of conversions from Christianity to Islam, there was no corresponding procedure for the registration of conversions from Islam to Christianity.

Doctor Watson, as spokesman of the delegation, referred to the “consternation” caused the Council in 1929 and 1930 when, on the occasion of treaty negotiations in those years, it was learned that the British Government had expressed its intention28 of regarding the question of minorities in future as the exclusive concern of the Egyptian Government. In appealing for a reconsideration of this intention now on the occasion of the forthcoming negotiations, Doctor Watson cited the laws recently passed in Palestine regarding religious liberty, the stipulations attending Iraq’s admission to the League, and the action of the League in 1933 in urging upon all states to make effective within their own territories the regulations for the protection of minorities which have been required in mandated territories.

In his reply the High Commissioner observed that:

(1)
“Negotiations were beginning on the difficult questions of military dispositions and the status of the Sudan, and it might be some time before negotiations opened on the civilian clauses of the Treaty; that inasmuch as the British Foreign Office had made its statement in 1930 about minorities,29 despite the fact that the Council had at that time made representations to it, it would probably be very difficult, though he would not say impossible, to persuade the Egyptian delegation to accept any modification of that statement, but that he would certainly bear in mind what the Council had said, when the time came for the consideration of this question.
(2)
“In his opinion, the solution perhaps lay in the suggestion made by the Council towards the end of its letter of the 11th February, 1936, that Egypt be asked by the League of Nations to make a Declaration, similar to that required from Iraq, before being admitted to membership of the League; and that this method had the advantage of being one which was recognized internationally as legitimate, and was not applied exclusively to Egypt.
(3)
“Seeing that the new Premier, Aly Maner Pasha, was an enlightened and progressive statesman, he might lay before him in one of his interviews the facts mentioned by the Council and see whether, quite apart from the Treaty, some legal redress could be secured for converts from Islam to Christianity, especially in the matter of registration of converts.”

In conclusion Sir Miles Lampson emphasized that the foregoing represented his personal opinions but he would refer the matter to the British Foreign Office in order to ascertain the British Government’s official attitude.

[Page 23]

From Doctor Watson’s letter of March 4, 1936, to the Legation it will be observed that it appears likely the International Missionary Council in New York may approach the Department in order that the Ambassador in London may be instructed to raise with the Foreign Office the subject of the safeguarding of religious liberty in Egypt as was authorized by the Department in 1930 on the occasion of the Anglo-Egyptian treaty negotiations in that year (see Legation’s despatches Nos. 355 and 10 of April 8 and November 3, 1930, the Department’s instruction No. 109 of April 29, 1930, to the Legation,30 and the London Embassy’s despatch No. 866 of May 15 [5], 193031).

The general situation as regards religious liberty in Egypt and the possible means of safeguarding the rights of Christian minorities has been so exhaustively covered in the Legation’s despatch No. 355 of April 8, 1930, and in a memorandum of the British Judicial Adviser forwarded by Minister Gunther on April 8, 1930, to the Chief of the Near East Division, that no extended review of the situation appears called for at this time.

It will be recalled that the principal problem involved in 1930, as now, was that of the disabilities to which Moslem converts to Christianity are exposed under the Sharia law (see Memorandum on the legal status of Mohammedan converts to Christianity enclosed in the Legation’s despatch No. 355 of April 8, 1930). Such disabilities include: deprivation of a convert’s patrimony and the absence of any facilities for registration of such conversion as exists in the case of Christian converts to Islam. This situation and the difficulties of obtaining redress of these disabilities in a Moslem State in the immediate future are thoroughly examined in the memorandum of the British Judicial Adviser mentioned above. They were likewise pertinently set forth in the London Embassy’s despatch No. 866 of May 5, 1930, to the Department, in which the point of view of the Foreign Office was stated to be that the correction of these disabilities would have to be a gradual process and that this evolutionary movement was likely to be hindered rather than furthered by insistence upon legislation over-riding the Sharia law. Such was also the considered opinion, it will be recollected, of the British Judicial Adviser in Egypt, as well as that of the Legation.

As regards the Inter-Mission Council’s suggestion that the protection of minorities, which was one of the reserved points of the British Declaration of 1922, should not be surrendered in any treaty arrangement with Egypt, it may be noted that the High Commissioner considers that “inasmuch as the British Foreign Office had made its statement in 1930 about minorities, despite the fact that the Council had [Page 24] at that time made representations to it, it would probably be very difficult, though he would not say impossible, to persuade the Egyptian delegation to accept any modification of that statement”.

Concerning the second suggestion of the Council for the enactment of legislation similar to that of the Palestine Succession Ordinance the High Commissioner, it may be observed, stated that he might, quite apart from the treaty, endeavor to ascertain from the Prime Minister whether some legal redress was not obtainable for converts from Islam to Christianity, especially in the registration of converts.

In the High Commissioner’s opinion, however, the solution of the situation was rather to be sought in the suggestion of the Council that Egypt be asked to make a declaration similar to that required of Iraq before being admitted to the League.

From the present enclosed communications it would seem that a more realistic view of the difficulties in the way of the attainment by legislation of an increasing measure of religious liberty in Egypt is now taken than in 1930. Moreover, it would appear that the means now suggested for the safeguarding of the rights of Christian minorities in Egypt are more practical than those proposed by the Inter-Mission Council in 1930.

Finally, it would appear to me that, as in 1930, the British Foreign Office might be approached informally and, in making inquiries as to whether any steps are being taken to safeguard religious liberties in Egypt in connection with the new arrangements that are being made between Great Britain and Egypt, the hope might be expressed that sympathetic consideration be accorded the present reasonable suggestions of the Egypt Inter-Mission Council, particularly that concerning the making by Egypt of a declaration similar to that made by Iraq incident to its admission to the League of Nations.

Respectfully yours,

Bert Fish
  1. None printed.
  2. Sir Miles Lampson.
  3. British Cmd. 1592, Egypt No. 1 (1922): Correspondence Respecting Affairs in Egypt, p. 29.
  4. Succession Ordinance, 1923, Legislation of Palestine 1918–1925, vol. i, p. 350.
  5. League of Nations Document No. A.17.1932.VII: Request of the Kingdom of Iraq for Admission to the League of Nations, p. 3.
  6. See British Cmd. 3376, Egypt No. 1 (1929): Exchange of Notes Relating to Proposals for an Anglo-Egyptian Settlement, p. 10.
  7. For attitude of the British Foreign Office in 1930, see despatch No. 866, May 5, 1930, from the Ambassador in Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. ii, p. 759.
  8. None printed.
  9. Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. ii, p. 759.