The judicial dispute over the child Mikhail, lost between the Christian and Islamic religion, brings to mind the tragedy of the child Shenouda, which lasted for quite a while, before he finally returned to the arms of his family, who took over his upbringing since they found him in one of the churches.

After the child Shenouda finally returned under the alternative family’s system to the arms of his family, which took care of him since they found him in one of the churches, this encouraged Dr. Ramses Najib, the father of the child Mikhail to apply to the dispute resolution committee at the Ministry of social solidarity and Dr. Ramses requested the recovery of the child Mikhail according to the alternative families System, Application No. 109 of 2023, but the application was rejected.

Then Dr. Ramses turned to the same team of lawyers defending the child Shenouda

The defense team, acting for Dr. Ramses Najib Boulos, filed an urgent lawsuit before the Administrative Judiciary Court of the State Council under No. 12864 demanding to stop the decision to place the child in an orphanage, return the child's name from Karim to “Mikhail Ramses”, correct his religion from Islam to Christianity and return him to them as his family that raised him.

The lawsuit was filed against the minister of social solidarity in her capacity as the head of the Higher Committee for alternative families at the Ministry of social solidarity.

The defense team of the child Mikhail pointed out in the lawsuit of the dispute over the child Mikhail before the Administrative Court of the State Council that the dispute came without legitimate or legal justification.

The defense team pointed out that according to the law on alternative families, the applicant is united with the child Mikhail who was found inside the church, united with him in religion،

In addition, the certificate issued by the Christian religious authority states that the child was found inside the church

And that there are witnesses, and they are from the Council of the great martyr St. Mark's Association, they are: Mr. Nasim Kamal Sobhi Emad, Mr. Tawfik Ibrahim and Mr. Magdi Awadallah, and their address and phone numbers are known.

The applicant has fulfilled all the other conditions stipulated in the law in relation to the alternative family, whether psychological, social or economic abilities, and the husband and wife do not have any diseases and they can take care of this child in a surrogate family in accordance with the law.

As well as what Al-Azhar's opinion (fatwa) concluded in a similar case (the case of the child Shenouda), since:

- In a previous fatwa (the case of the child Shenouda), a question was sent to the Al-Azhar International Center for Electronic Fatwa, to inquire about the religion of the child who was found inside one of the churches.

In his reply, Al-Azhar said that this issue is one in which scholars have reached multiple opinions, and the response that Al-Azhar tends to among these opinions is what a team of Hanafi gentlemen has reached, which is that if a child is found in a church and the one who was found is not a Muslim, he is on the religion of the one who found him.

Al-Azhar added: And this is what the Hanafi Masters stated in their books: "if he is found in one of the villages of the “Dhimmi (non-believer in Islam)”, or in a church, he is dhimmi," and this is the answer as to whether the one who is dhimmi is the one who found the child," [guidance in explaining the beginning of the beginner 2/415].

The defense team also stated that:

- Since the said child was found inside the church according to the certificate issued by the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, the bishopric of Shebin Al-Qanater, in which the bishopric of Shebin Al-Qanater and its dependencies testify that on October 2, 2016, after the end of the Divine Liturgy, the priest Morcos Guirgis Ghobrial, priest of the Church of the great martyr St. Guirgis in Abu Zaabal Al-Balad, found the child in the church,

So, Dr. Ramses and his wife have the right to get the baby Mikhail back.

The defense team has asked the Administrative Court to cancel the announced decision to remove the child from his family, as his family is suffering deprivation and severe mental pain because of this decision. The defense team demanded that the earliest hearing be urgently scheduled.

During its session held on December 18, 2023, regarding Case No. 12864, through which the defense lawyers of Dr. Ramses Najib demanded to stop the decision to place the child in the orphanage and change his name from Karim to Mikhail Ramses, and return him to his family, and change his religion from Islam to Christianity, the Administrative Court of the State Council decided to postpone the session to determine the fate of the lost Child between the Christian and Islamic religion until January 8, 2024, until the commissioners ' report is received, knowing that the same court ruled months ago in the case of the child Shenouda, which is similar to the case of the child Mikhail, and issued a ruling on the lack of jurisdiction in such cases.

January 8, 2024: Waiting for new developments

* * *

The Egyptian constitution, which states in its article 2 that:

             Article 2

            Islam is the state religion, Arabic is its official language, the principles of Islamic law are the main source of legislation.

This is a constitution that squanders the rights of Christians in Egypt and even does not recognize their rights at all, so this Egyptian constitution based on Islam and the principles of Islamic Sharia is a discriminatory, racist and unjust Constitution towards Christians. As example, this Constitution, based on Islam and the principles of Islamic law, is one of the main obstacles that prevent Christians in Egypt from their right to adopt children.

Egyptian family-status law is based on Islamic law. Family-status laws for Christians are based on Christian “laws,” but on condition that they do not counter sharia. In this case, adoption is lawful in Christianity, but it is not applicable since sharia does not allow for adoption (based on a well-known precedent of the Prophet Muhammad: in order to marry Zaynab, the wife of a young man he had adopted (his adopted son), the very concept and practice of adoption had to be nullified—otherwise Muhammad would have been marrying his daughter-in-law, which would have been illegal.)