383.0063/3

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

No. 1680

Sir: I have the honor to report that both American and British missionary interests have in the past few weeks felt some concern at the attention given in the Egyptian Senate to a draft bill first proposed on June 22, 1938, by Senator Sheikh Abdel Khaliq Salim.

The bill, the first draft of which is appended as Enclosure No. 1,26 would forbid, under certain penalties, propaganda among young people for the purpose of changing their religious convictions. Enclosure No. 226 is an explanatory note submitted by Senator Salim [Page 492] outlining the disasters the bill is intended to circumvent. When first laid before the Senate in June 1938 the bill was shelved, then revived in February 1939, and referred to the Senate’s Committee on Internal Affairs, which modified the draft by raising from 16 to 18 the age under which religious instruction other than that of parents or guardians should be forbidden. In March 1939 Dr. McClenahan of the American University and Dr. Adams of the American Mission in Cairo called at the Legation to express their alarm. They stated that they felt that a movement was afoot to give this bill the force of law. As long ago as 1933 they were conscious of the fact that the Egyptian Government desired to restrict missionary endeavor, and thereupon had issued a statement, adhered to by numerous missions of various nationalities, designed to set forth the general policy of the missionary societies and to allay the fears of supporters of measures directed against them. This statement of policy, said Dr. McClenahan and Dr. Adams, was distributed in quarters where they thought it would do the most good.

They then referred to the guarantee of religious liberty contained in the Egyptian Constitution, and expressed their belief that the Salim bill had not finally passed in its initial form as it could easily be interpreted as applying to Moslem institutions as well as Christian, and thus would not have served the desired end of discriminating against the latter. On a subsequent occasion they mentioned a recently issued fetwah27 deciding that boys aged seven and upwards might be allowed to choose their religion, provided the choice operates from non-Moslem to Moslem; the fetwah would forbid boys in the same age group, already Moslem, to opt for another religion.

The above-named representatives of American missionary interests are collaborating with an inter-mission committee, a British member of which has placed the committee’s views before the British Embassy. The secretary of the Legation recently interviewed Mr. E. F. W. Besly, Legal Adviser of the British Embassy, on this subject, and learned that that Embassy had referred the matter to the Foreign Office, with a request for instructions as to how far the Embassy should intervene if the course of Egyptian legislation renders this necessary. Mr. Besly stated that he hoped some cooperation would be forthcoming from this Legation especially as the American missionary interests in Egypt surpass the British. The object of the law, he says, is not so much its apparent substance, as a means adopted by the Opposition to annoy the Government. He has mentioned the matter on a few occasions to an Under-Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior, who informed him that the bill would be shelved if possible. The interested missionaries however fear that it may be passed notwithstanding. [Page 493] Mr. Besly does not believe that the proposed bill reflects any strong Moslem prejudice against Christian missionary work as such at the present time, but that it is principally designed to irk the Government.

Delay in voting the bill in the Senate is also due in part to the fact that the Ministry of the Interior itself is working on a similar bill. In the Senate’s session of April 17, 1939, the report of the Committee of the Ministry of the Interior was read, and communication made of the following declaration of the Minister of the Interior to the Committee:

“The Government, while approving the principle of the bill, believes that the question has multiple aspects which have not been considered by the author of the bill. The Government’s own bill is more complete. As soon as it has been studied it will be submitted to Parliament. And as it is not fitting that concerning such a serious question there should be two bills at the same time, or that one of them should modify the other, the Government is asking that the study of the law be adjourned pending introduction of the Government’s own bill.”

Dr. Salim hereupon objected, saying that the bill should not remain too long in abeyance. The Minister of the Interior responded that the Government’s bill would be introduced during the present session.

As mentioned above, Mr. Besly has reason to believe that the Ministry of the Interior has no real desire to force the Salim bill through. It has probably adopted the policy of offering to draft its own bill to replace Dr. Salim’s for purposes of delay and eventually to shelve it again if possible.

In view of the above situation, and the possibility feared by the American missionary interests involved that the bill, in one form or the other (its author’s or the Ministry’s) may have some chance of slipping through, the Legation would appreciate an indication from the Department as to how far it might cooperate with the British Embassy in any representations in this matter. The Legation will remain in contact with the Embassy on the subject, and will be informed of the instructions the latter expects to receive from the Foreign Office. If the bill does not pass in the present session of Parliament, the whole matter will rest in abeyance until the reopening of Parliament in the autumn.

Respectfully yours,

Bert Fish
  1. Not printed.
  2. Not printed.
  3. A formal interpretation of Mohammedan Canon law.