Сopts+egypt

------ Tadros, M. The Copts of Egypt - 2007 4

The Copts of Egypt from the ‘forgotten’ minority to the ‘happiest’ minority

Marlyn Tadros - Ph.D.

Citation:

Tadros, Marlyn. The Copts of Egypt: From the ‘Forgotten’ Minority to the ‘Happiest’ Minority.

Cairo: Virtual Activism, 2007.

Cover: The Refa'i Mosque in Cairo near the Citadel, depicting a cross in the window. The mosque

construction began in 1869 and was completed in 1912.

Image courtsey of D. Sullivan. Cover by M. Tadros


Table of Contents Author’s Note to the 2007 Edition..........................................................................................................7 Preface .....................................................................................................................................................8 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Pagan Egypt .......................................................................................................................................... 10 from the Ptolemies to the beginning of the Greco-Roman Rule....................................................... 10

The Inhabitants of Egypt:.......................................................................................................... 12 Language and Script: ................................................................................................................ 14 The Administration of Egypt:.................................................................................................... 15 Religion in Egypt........................................................................................................................ 16

Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Christian Egypt ..................................................................................................................................... 18 from the advent of Christianity to the Schism.................................................................................... 18

Mark and the Shoemaker: ......................................................................................................... 18 Intellectual Beacon: the Catechetical School (the Didascalia): ............................................. 24 Escape into the Wilderness: the rise of Monasticism ............................................................ 24 Women’s Monasticism: ............................................................................................................. 27 Papal powers and counter persecutions:................................................................................ 29 East versus West: the Schism - Chalcedon 451 A.D............................................................... 33

Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 38 Arab Egypt (I)......................................................................................................................................... 38 From the Arab Conquest to the fall of the Umayyad Empire............................................................. 38

Dawn of a new era: Pre-Islamic Egypt ..................................................................................... 38 The Advent of the Arabs:........................................................................................................... 40 Change of heart: the Decline of Alexandria............................................................................. 43 Administration under Arab Rule:.............................................................................................. 46 The Arabization and Islamization of Egypt:............................................................................. 47 The Arabization of Egypt:.......................................................................................................... 48 The Islamization of Egypt: ........................................................................................................ 49 The Caliphate Inherited: the rise and fall of the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750):..................... 52 Church and State: marriage of convenience ........................................................................... 54 The Decline and Fall: the long-awaited freedom..................................................................... 55

Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 60 Arab Egypt (II)........................................................................................................................................ 60 Egypt under the Abbassides................................................................................................................ 60 until the Fall of the Ikhshids................................................................................................................. 60 (The Abbassides Dynasty, Tulunids and Ikhshids) ........................................................................... 60

Religious Legitimacy: the Rise of the Abbassides (750-1258)............................................... 60 The turn towards Baghdad: Administration under the Abbassides...................................... 60 Eyes and spies: Copts under the Abassides: ......................................................................... 62 Images and the Iconoclastic Movement: ................................................................................. 66 Corruption and Favoritism: the Decline................................................................................... 68 Independent Egypt: The Tulunids (869-905) and the Ikhshids: ............................................. 69

Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................... 71 Coming from the East and the West ................................................................................................... 71 The Fatimites and the Ayyubis ............................................................................................................ 71

West Africa moves in: the Fatimites (969-1171) ...................................................................... 71 The return to Cairo: Administration under the Fatimides ...................................................... 72 The Hisba and the Mohtassib: .................................................................................................. 72 Sane-man, madman: Copts under the Fatimides:................................................................... 73

Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................................... 85 The Slaves and the Sultans.................................................................................................................. 85 Egypt under the First (1250-1382) and Second (1382-1517).............................................................. 85 Mamluke Dynasties:.............................................................................................................................. 85 The Ethiopians, and the Fall of the Christian Nubian Kingdom ....................................................... 89 Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................................................. 101 The Modern State................................................................................................................................ 101 From Resistance to Independence.................................................................................................... 101 Mohammed Ali to the 1923 Constitution........................................................................................... 101

Mohammed Ali (1769-1849), Father of the Modern State...................................................... 101 Successors:.............................................................................................................................. 104 New Missionaries: The Evangelical Church (from 1854)...................................................... 105 The Coptic Orthodox Church’s Reform Movement: ............................................................. 107 The Beginning of the Sunday School Movement:................................................................. 108


Reform and Debt: Ismail (1863-1879) and Tewfik (1879-1892): ............................................ 109 The British Occupation: 1882 till the outbreak of the 1919 Revolution............................... 111 Copts under British Occupation:............................................................................................ 117 Crisis between the Pope and the Laymen: The Founding of the Layman Council ............ 121 The Layman Council’s Crisis Persists ................................................................................... 123

Chapter 7 ............................................................................................................................................. 127 The Rise of Religious Movements..................................................................................................... 127

Disintegration of the Liberal Period ....................................................................................... 127 Farouk: the Ultimate Disillusionment..................................................................................... 129 The Muslim Brotherhood ........................................................................................................ 130 Misr al-Fatah:............................................................................................................................ 132 World War II and its aftermath ................................................................................................ 133

Chapter 8 ............................................................................................................................................. 135 The Republic ....................................................................................................................................... 135 1952 till today ...................................................................................................................................... 135

The post-revolution Layman’s Council’s plight: ................................................................... 139 The Sadat Era: National Schizophrenia ................................................................................. 140 The Mubarak Era ...................................................................................................................... 148 Coptic Migration: ..................................................................................................................... 152

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 154 Survival and Adaptation Neither ‘forgotten’ nor are they the ‘happiest’........................................ 154 References........................................................................................................................................... 160 Select Bibliography............................................................................................................................. 163 Appendices.......................................................................................................................................... 166

Appendix 1�.............................................................................................................................. 167 Edict of Toleration by Galerius (311 AD)................................................................................ 167 Appendix II................................................................................................................................ 168 The Edict of Milan (313 AD)..................................................................................................... 168 Appendix III............................................................................................................................... 169 Theodisian Code XVI.i.2 .......................................................................................................... 169 Banning of Other Religions .................................................................................................... 169 Appendix IV .............................................................................................................................. 170 Excerpts of the 3rd Letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, ...................................... 170 with the Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril..................................................................... 170 and Accepted by the Council of Ephesus.............................................................................. 170 Appendix V ............................................................................................................................... 172 The Nicene and Coptic Creeds ............................................................................................... 172 Appendix VI .............................................................................................................................. 173 The Pact of Umar (7th Century) ............................................................................................... 173 Appendix VII ............................................................................................................................. 174 Pope Urban’s Speech .............................................................................................................. 174 Calling for the First Crusade................................................................................................... 174 Appendix VIII ............................................................................................................................ 175 Excerpts from the Hamayouni Decree ................................................................................... 175 The Azabi Pasha Decree of 1934 ............................................................................................ 175 Appendix IX .............................................................................................................................. 176 The Oteifi Report...................................................................................................................... 176 Appendix X ...............................................................................................................................188 Sadat's speech before ............................................................................................................. 188 the People's Assembly and the Shura Council, .................................................................... 188 September 5th, 1981. ................................................................................................................ 188 Appendix XI .............................................................................................................................. 195 Statement of the Layman’s Council ....................................................................................... 195 On September 23rd, 1981 ......................................................................................................... 195 Appendix XII ............................................................................................................................. 197 The Ethics Court ...................................................................................................................... 197 The Pope’s Condemnation...................................................................................................... 197 Appendix XIII ........................................................................................................................... 203 Roman Egypt: List of Popes and Emperors .......................................................................... 203


Author’s Note to the 2007 Edition

This research was completed in 1996. After sending a draft to a select few, and based upon

their feedback, I made the decision at the time not to publish it. The feedback revealed that I

had upset both Muslim and Christian readers who each felt the paper was tilted in the other’s

favour. None of them cited any inaccuracies which I would have appreciated and gladly

corrected. It was dismissed as ‘outrageous’.

One notable exception was Dr. Nasr Hmid Abu Zaid. I had asked the esteemed professor to

write an introduction to the paper and he responded with an amazing and detailed review and

accepted writing an introduction. Since the project never materialized, I had to relinquish a

potentially excellent introduction.

The political climate was not favourable either for the acceptance of this research and I chose

to keep it under wraps. It remained untouched on my computer until now. After re-reading it, I

found myself standing by what I had written and I therfore decided to publish it. While the

political climate remains unfavourable, if not worse, I think it is time to bring it to light. Many

new issues have arisen since as well as many revelations made about past incidents. Every

day new incidents occurr. The facts of the past though, remain unchanged.

I should mention that I plan to update the research in the very near future. For now, I am

publishing it as I left it almost a decade ago. Following September 11th, the war on iraq and

the ‘War on Terror’, many old/new issues have arisen. This research remain incomplete

without them. I will be adding that chapter in the very near future.

Marlyn Tadros

2007


Preface

Ruled by myriad invaders throughout their history, Egyptians were always at the

center of conflicting forces and powers. They were, in essence, unwilling witnesses to, and

partakers in, the usually unwelcome rise and welcome fall of consecutive dynasties.

Egyptians today, are therefore by-products of diverse cultures, influenced by the disparate

people who ruled them, and influencing them in return. This book is inspired by their legacy,

and aims at presenting as much as is humanly possible, an objective point of view of the

history of Christianity and the Copts in Egypt, which is basically a history of the Egyptian

peoples as a whole.

While studying the initial period of Egyptian Christianity, I found that the majority of

available sources to discuss the earliest advance, progress and development of Christianity

were mainly through the study of its consecutive popes. Popes were the only formal

representatives of Christianity even after the Christianization of the Roman Empire in the 4th

century AD. The history of that period was written mostly by faithful, literate monks, who had

become the writers and preservers of history and culture. No doubt history as such was

bound to be prejudiced, seen from the narrow perspective of believers, rather than the

relatively objective perspective of historians. Nevertheless, being nearly the only sources

available during that period, they have succeeded in transmitting to us their history, provided

one sifted carefully through the myths and legends that accompany such methods of

narration. It is also unfortunate that history from that perspective was also a history of

statesmen and the clergy, rather than a history of peoples. One disadvantage this evokes is

that it is the opinions of the clergy and their conflicts with the state that are most prominent,

rather than the daily dealings with the people. It also tends to give the false perception that

the people and the patriarchy were of one and the same unanimous opinion, which was

hardly the case at any point in history. That, too, is a one sided part of history, and does not

necessarily represent the complete picture of any given period. Another disadvantage is that

it encourages claims that there is no “Coptic civilization” since history, according to some, is

the history of rulers and not of peoples, which would, more often than not, also exclude the

popes themselves.

Following the Arab conquest onward, historical resources tend to become

increasingly conflicting depending on the narrator’s position with regards the conquest. The

available material, however, is abundant.

This research was a fascinating trip through time, watching how the Christians of

Egypt dealt with their different rulers and oppressors throughout the ages. At times, they were

incapable of tolerating the intensity of the oppression, and converted into either paganism or


into Islam; at others becoming oppressors themselves, harassing those who were weaker,

even forcefully converting them into Christianity. At others still, they tested the limits of official

tolerance, and at others single-handedly tried to take charge of their lives. They have

witnessed the rise and fall of powerful dynasties, and have been ruled by every passer-by.

They, however, remained uniquely stubborn: sometimes called ‘a lonely minority,’ at others a

‘mini-minority,’ and at others still, the ‘forgotten minority,’ or the 'happiest minority'.1 At times,

they were simply not called a minority at all, but were rather considered part and parcel of the

Egyptian ‘canvas’ taking offense at the word ‘minority’ as used in the political sense.

Throughout it all, they remained a peoples who have constantly and innovatively reinvented

ways of survival for themselves. Neither lonely nor forgotten, neither worst nor happiest, the

Copts contnued to survive.

I have attempted at times to either verify, negate, or clarify evidence pertaining to

Coptic persecution and harassment, particularly as they relate to the persecution exercised

over all Egyptians. Even though by no means comprehensive, this paper attempts to discuss

allegations that they had never been persecuted under certain regimes, or that they had been

persecuted under others. In the course of this research, I have made extensive use of primary

sources whenever possible.

Finally, I hope that the book's reading will prove as challenging and provocative as its

writing had been.

Marlyn Tadros

1996

1 The expression ‘lonely minority’ was used by Edward Wakin (1961), meaning a minority with no external extensions, or ‘relatives’ abroad, whereas the term ‘mini-minority’ was used by Himdan (1981), surprisingly and narrowly basing his opinion on the period during the French Expedition, when they numbered a mere 150.000. The expression ‘forgotten minority’ was used by the French Expedition in their book La Description d’Egypte. The 'happiest minority' was used by the Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide very recently, to counter claims of Coptic persecution.


Introduction Pagan Egypt

from the Ptolemies to the beginning of the Greco-Roman Rule

Upon arrival in Egypt in the year 332 BC, Alexander the Great of Macedonia

immediately decided to build a city that would immortalize him. He commissioned Dinocrates

(332-331 BC), a renowned Greek architect, to found it on the site of an old village known as

Rhakotis. Naming it Alexandria after him, it became the world’s foremost intellectual center,

second to none other than Athens, and forthwith flourished into an eminent cultural,

intellectual, political and economic metropolis. Perhaps it is remarkable to know that

Alexandria at that time was not considered a part of Egypt, but rather, both the Greeks and

the Romans called it the ‘Alexandria which was close to Egypt’ (Ashour, 1963). It is believed

that an enormous fortress wall was constructed encompassing the city, immediately following

its completion, and that the length of that wall ranged between 10 to 15 kilometers, fortified

with closely spaced towers (Ashour, 1963).

Upon entering Egypt, Alexander the Great went to Thebes, and was proclaimed

Pharaoh of the land, and deified as son of Ammon Zeus, a combination of Greek and

Egyptian gods. It is unfortunate that he did not survive to see his empire develop and expand.

His demise, however, initiated the rule of the Ptolemic Empire (323-30 BC.) which, in turn,

ended with the defeat of Mark Anthony in Actium, the suicide of Cleopatra, and the forced

entry of Octavius (later to be Roman emperor Augustus Caesar•) into Egypt, in the year 30

BC. From that date, and until the brief Persian invasion, followed immediately by the Arab

conquest in the 7th century AD, Egypt continued to be a province of the Roman Empire. In its

later phases, the Roman Empire came to be more commonly known as the Byzantine

Empire, after Constantine I transferred the imperial administration from Rome to

Constantinople in the year 330 AD, where Byzantium referred to the former name of

Constantinople∗ (Hourani, 1991).

The Ptolemies encouraged the flourishing of the cultural and intellectual life in

Alexandria. Discerning the importance of culture, they persistently and unfailingly attracted

foremost intellectuals, thinkers and skilled workers, from all over the world, and particularly

from Greece. They founded the Museion, the renowned theological and philosophical School

of Alexandria, which survived until the assassination of Hypatia, its director, in 415 AD, at the

hands of Christian fanatics. The school was founded by Demetrius, a Greek scholar whom

• Significantly, Augustus means something more than human, somewhere between humanus and divinus, and later became a title used by all Caesars. He was given this title after entering Egypt and was considered another Pharaoh. ∗ The term Byzantine was referred to that period only during the European Middle Ages, and it is basically a historical error, because even though the new capital was located on a much-earlier Hellenic


Emperor Soter, the first Ptolemic Emperor (323-385 BC), had welcomed to Alexandria after

having been exiled from Greece, and had assigned him the duty of founding the school. It

was the Ptolemies, too, who founded Alexandria’s distinguished Library towards the end of

Emperor Soter’s rule, and the beginning of the reign of his son and successor Emperor

Philadelphus (285-247 BC.). It should be mentioned that the library, whose books the

Ptolemies had so meticulously amassed, had been allegedly burnt down in the year 48 BC

when Achilles, the Egyptian leader during Cleopatra’s reign, had burnt down Caesar’s naval

fleet. The fire had apparently burnt down all the books in this library and demolished the

Library itself. According to some estimates, more than 700 thousand books had been housed

in it. The pervasive opinion, however, is that it was totally demolished in the year 272 AD,

when Roman emperor Julianus crushed a rebellion in Alexandria, and a fire broke in the

Library in the process. Whatever the case, the library had been destroyed, and it was the first

of three deliberate fires that destroyed libraries in Egypt by consecutive rulers.•

From the Ptolemic times onwards, Alexandria continued to be the crossroads of

civilizations and peoples, invigoratingly immersed in Hellinistic and pagan thinking and

philosophies. The Romans, like their predecessors the Ptolemies, continued to consider

Alexandria as their Capital, instead of the more traditional Pharaonic Thebes. The choice was

based on the needs of the new and changing times. Thebes had been previously important

because it connected the North and the South of Egypt together, an important aspect of unity

in politics, and was also a center for the expansion southwards into Africa. The new Empires,

however, sought to expand northward and into the Mediterranean for political, economic and

military reasons, which was why Alexandria was ideal for such far-reaching ambitions

(Ashour, 1963).

The fact that Thebes was not a focus of those empires, had, to a great extent, both

advantages and disadvantages. Thebes remained distant from, and therefore in a sense

‘purer’ than, the influence of in-coming foreign civilizations, their philosophies and even their

theologies. Distant, so to speak, from foreign predominance, maintaining the Pharaonic

heritage, religion, and more notably, language. But that distance had also kept Thebes far

removed from the intellectual and cultural life, as well as from the changing times and

progress.

colony known as Byzantium, Constantine and his successors never saw or referred to themselves as Byzantines but rather as Romans. • It should be noted that there was more than one library, in fact three to be exact. One library, considered the ‘daughter library,’ was situated near the temple of Serapis, and it was annihilated in 391 by Emperor Theodisius, in his attack against paganism. The Royal Library, was in the Brucchium (northeast) sector of the city. It is this library which was allegedly destroyed when Caesar set fire to it, in his war against Cleopatra, as described by Plutarch. The last is the Caesarium built by Cleopatra, and later established as a cult for worshipping Augustus. This probably housed the 200.000 books of Pergamon, which Anthony had given to Cleopatra.


The Inhabitants of Egypt:

When the Romans entered Egypt, Alexandrine society was divided into three

different, broad components, to which the Romans were added as the elite ruling class: the

Greeks, the Jews and the Egyptians. Bagnall (1996) claims that such a division had become

obsolete by the third century AD. and that the Romans had classified people differently: they

were mainly citizens of the Greek cities, meaning only Alexandria, Ptolemais, Naukratis and

Antinoopolis, and on the other hand the Egyptians, the latter term indicating the original

Egyptians in addition to all Greeks who were not citizens of the metropoleis. This

classification however, seems to be rather vague, and excludes other important components

of the population such as the Jews who constituted a large element of the population and

were significant players in the history of that period.

Some historians add other components at the time of the Roman invasion: the

Macedonians and the Persians, the latter having settled in Alexandria ever since the Persian

rule of Egypt, or those who had migrated to it at a later stage (Ashour, 1963). However, it

should be mentioned that during that time Egypt had embraced many people of different

nationalities and ethnic origins, in addition to students who had settled in Alexandria for

scholarships in its renowned school. Alexandria was, therefore, a multi-ethnic community.

Nevertheless, the three main groups who comprised the bulk of the population and who

formed Alexandrine society were the Greeks, the Jews, and the Egyptians.

The Greeks were essentially large in numbers, and enjoyed superior social and

cultural positions. They founded what came to be known as “gymnasiums”, essentially

cultural centers that involved manifold activities, including sporting activities. They enjoyed

countless privileges under Roman rule, the most significant of which was that they were

permitted to retain their language. In fact, Greek continued to be the official language used in

all walks of life, with the exception of the military. Furthermore, Greeks were appointed to high

posts in the country’s administration.

The Greeks did not pay the head-tax (known as the epikephalaion) which was paid

by everyone else; and they exercised their cultural activities with notable autonomy,

celebrating their social events without encumbrance (Shenuda, no date). Bagnall claims that

this head tax was not paid by the majority of people, not just the Greeks, and that it was only

known in one part of Egypt which was Oxyrhynchos, and only from about the year 297-8 to

319-320. Villagers residing in Oxyrhyunchos who were not ‘citizens’ of that city only paid this,

according to him.

The second group that lived in Alexandria were the Alexandrine Jews, who were

essentially a large community that spread all over Egypt but were more concentrated in

Alexandria. The Jews apparently equated themselves with the Greeks, and emulated them in

culture, language, clothes and even names. They were largely wealthy capitalists, who


worked in sea transport, agriculture and land ownership, as well as in skilled work, and they

enjoyed various citizenship rights, even though not as exclusively as the Greeks. However,

there were other Jews living in the villages who were as poor as the Egyptians who lived

there, but nevertheless formed their own separate and detached habitats, and maintained the

belief that they were God’s ‘chosen people,’ which further alienated them from other citizens.

Under the Ptolemite rule, the Jews did not enjoy full citizenship. It was Augustus

Caesar, however, who entitled them to full citizenship rights as opposed to the Greeks, in

order to ensure his stronghold on Egypt, hence inciting deliberate hatreds and spite between

the two societal factions.

The third group that lived in Alexandria was the Egyptians, mainly constituting the

lowest category in terms of status, literally having no rights or benefits under the Roman

system, and was treated as semi-slaves. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans prevented them

from using their own Demotic language, and forced them to use Greek in transactions and

official papers.

The Egyptians were therefore considered the lowest of all the races that lived in

Egypt, and were subsequently abused and ill treated. They were broadly divided into two

main components that were all basically peasants: those who worshipped Serapis, the God

introduced by the Ptolemies to combine the Greek gods with the Egyptian Gods, living mainly

in the Delta region. The remaining Egyptians throughout Egypt continued to worship their own

Pharaonic gods, in their own Pharaonic temples. The only Egyptians with any authority were

the high priests of the temples. However, recognizing their influence on the people, and

especially as they were the only educated Egyptians, the Romans sought to control them

through confiscation of their properties, and through stripping them of their status, appointing

high priests answering directly to the Romans themselves.

Those Egyptians were known as Copts, a term derived, according to some, from the

Greek word Aigyptos, which was, in turn, derived from Hikaptah, one of the names for

Memphis, the first capital of Ancient Egypt. The Ashourians called the Egyptians Hi-ku-Ptah,

or Ha-ka-Ptah, meaning the home of the spirit Ptah, referring to Memphis (Yussef, 1987)≈.

There are other claims as to the origin of the name. A Coptic manuscript claims that the

Greeks called Egyptians ‘Coptoi’ because they circumsized their children (Yussef, 1987).

Some other Hebrew and Semitic sources claim that the term Copt was a derivative of Keftaim

or Qifteem bin Misraym, one of Noah’s grandchildren and the first who settled by the river Nile

and named the city of Qift after him.

Another version of the name is suggested by Zeidan (1911) who claims that Misr

itself is a derivative of the Hebrew word for ‘misran’, derived from ‘sor’ in Hebrew which

≈ Another derivative of the name is the term Coptos, a large city in Upper Egypt which later came to be known as Kuft or Guft to which large numbers of Christians had taken refuge from the consecutive Roman persecutions (Lane, 1836).


means tribulations, and Misr is therefore ‘the place of tribulations.’ He claims that Misr was

called by the Greeks “Aegyptus” from which Egypt was derived, and hence the word Copt.

Language and Script:

The Egyptian language went through three phases: the Ancient Egyptian language,

the intermediate Egyptian language, and the New Egyptian language, each with its own

dialects, depending on its geographical region within Egypt. The pagans attempted to develop

a uniform written language in a neutral dialect, namely the Sahidic•. The Christians on the

other hand, resurrected all regional dialects in a written form.

Basically, there were 6 different dialects that survived through to the 5th century AD:

the Akhmimic,# sub-Akhmimic, and Sahidic from Upper Egypt; the Middle Egyptian and the

Fayoumic,• Oxyrchynchite, of Middle Egypt; and the Bohairic≡of the Delta (Bagnall, 1996).

The Sahidic became widespread and replaced all other dialects, but was later supplanted by

Bohairic, becoming the only surviving dialect of Coptic, kept alive by the monasteries.

Coptic was the common colloquial Egyptian used at the time, but it currently refers to

the last stage of the written Egyptian language. Coptic therefore refers to the script, rather

than the language itself. The ancient Egyptians wrote in symbolic script, known as hieroglyph,

which depended on ideograms, which was colorfully inscribed on walls of temples. They were

4000 letters or ideograms in all, and it survived until the third century, as was gradually

replaced by hieratic. Hieratic, a much simpler form of the hieroglyph, was invented by the

priests for clerical matters, and was later used by the government as well. In the 5th century

BC, a new script was devised that was simpler to write and included about ten percent of the

total number of hieroglyphs used previously. The new script came to be referred to as

Demotic, but was ugly in comparison to the hieroglyphic, and was therefore not used on

temple walls but only in written record form. It was a difficult script, and was soon replaced

with the Greek. Alexander the Great brought in the Greek language and script, which was

simpler than the existing Demotic and hieroglyphic. Greek became dominant, and continued

well after the Arab invasion. It was used for official documents rather than Egyptian. The

Greeks then took the Egyptian writing system, and added a number of written vowels, forming

the basis for the new Egyptian script known as the Coptic. This combination of Egyptian and

foreign script is called Coptic, which was, according to historians, invented with

deliberateness in the 3rd century AD. Its first use was translating the Bible into the language of

the Egyptian population.

• Sahidic was probably in or near Thebes (currently Luxor in Upper Egypt). # Akhmimic refers to a town in Upper Egypt presently in Souhag, on the eastern bank of the Nile. It was earlier known as Panopolis by the Greeks. Syutic refers to Asiut, 55 miles north of Akhmim. • Fayoumic used in al-Fayoum, south of Cairo.


Demotic, though, continued because of the flourishing of temples for at least the first

centuries of the Polemic rule (Bagnall, 1996). The Roman rule pressured the temples, and

therefore put pressure on the Demotic language. Consequently, the language declined, and

by the 4th and 5th centuries AD, Demotic had become a ‘relic preserved in temples’ (Bagnall,

1996).

When the Egyptians converted to Christianity, they translated the Bible into the Coptic

language, in both a Bohairic and Sahidic dialect. When the Coptic fight against the

Byzantines expanded, the Church in Alexandria stopped using the Greek language in its

liturgy. The Coptic language reached its epitome of excellence when Saint Shenute Al Itrebi

(451-466) decided to purge the language from the Greek, and the Sahidic language became

the written language of the entire country (Yussef, 1987).

The Administration of Egypt:

Augustus Caesar divided Egypt into three main provinces: Upper Egypt (Thebes),

Middle Egypt (the seven states), and the Delta. To each region, he appointed a governor,

answering to him directly, called the epistrategoi. Other sources claim that Egypt had been

divided into four regions, with four different epistrategois in charge: The Thebaid, the

Heptanomia (the northern part of the Nile Valley or Middle Egypt), and the East and West

Delta (Bagnall, 1996). In all cases, when Diocletian came to power, he introduced a bipartite

division: Egypt and the Thebaid, which lasted until about the year 314 AD. Herculia, included

the east Delta and the old Heptanomia, and Iovia which included the Central and West Delta

in addition to Alexandria.

Caesar also appointed knights for the positions of ‘ministers’, for finance, the

judiciary, the military, and clerical affairs. The headquarters of the overall Roman governor

was Alexandria, and all his aides were Romans. In fact, all important positions were

exclusively given to the Romans.

Every region was divided into smaller nomes, with a head responsible for

administrative affairs called the praeses, or prefect, responsible for justice, taxation and

record keeping (Bagnall, 1996). In every nome there was a high priest, a gymnasium leader,

an education ‘minister’, and a finance supervisor. Those positions were all occupied by the

Greeks (Shenuda, no date). The upper classes helped administer the country, and the

Romans ‘allowed the elite group who claimed Greek descent and whose life was centered on

the gymnasium a certain measure of self-importance through standard Greek magistracies,

like the gymnasiarch’ (Bagnall, 1996), but abolished the elected Greek councils that had

existed earlier.

Egypt comprised four main megalopolis: Alexandria, Nokratis, Ptolemais, and

Antinoopolis, and they all enjoyed semi-independent self-rule. The inhabitants of those cities

were left mostly to themselves in social, religious and cultural affairs. Nevertheless,


administrative matters such as taxes and the military were controlled by the central

government. The councilors or bouleutes in every nome were Greek, and were basically the

wealthy landowners (Bagnall, 1996).

The most important financial resource for the Romans was the land, Egypt being an

agricultural country with very rich natural resources. All land, according to Roman rule, were

‘Royal lands’, and belonged to the Romans, and the government rented them out to the

people.

The taxing system was a very oppressive one, especially for the poor Egyptians who

suffered most from it. There were taxes on grain, gardening, the textile industry, and most

notably the head-tax (epikephalaion) paid by every male individual between 14-70 years of

age, and which only the Egyptians paid, according to Shenuda, and which everyone paid

except the Romans, according to other sources. What is certain however is that Egyptians

carried the heavier burden of taxes. Taxes were also collected for fishing and public baths. In

addition to all those taxes, there were taxes for building temples and statues for the

emperors, as well as taxes for hosting the emperor or his representatives on their visits to

Egypt.

Religion in Egypt

As elsewhere, religion in Egypt assumed different guises, to cater to the political

needs of the ruling system. Even with the advent of Christianity, the new religion was later

modified for the same reasons, and Caesar was perceived to be God’s chosen ruler, whose

duty it was to apply God’s will. As such, emperors were assured of people’s obedience and

allegiance. Deifying emperors was not, as some scholars claim, an “Egyptian custom”. Ever

since the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, it was customary for the Roman Senate to

deify the emperor, ever since it declared that Augustus was Divi Filius, or the son of the

Gods, and there were special ceremonies for deification and worship.

When the Romans arrived in Egypt, it was by no means lacking in Gods. There were

already three principal gods worshipped: Serapis, Isis and Hepocratis (Ashour, 1963).

Serapis was the foremost god of Alexandria, and he had gained more and more titles and

powers because he was basically a convenient combination of Zeus (to please the Greeks),

and Amoun Raa (to please the Egyptians). He was therefore simultaneously the God of the

sun, source of light, master of the sea and master of fertility and prosperity. His fame soon

spread throughout the Hellenistic world and reached Rome, where Emperor Domitian (81-96

AD) was said to have built temples for him.

The Greeks added Egyptian gods to theirs, to the extent that a Greek living in some

metropolis saw Egyptian looking temples but with Greek names of Gods (Bagnall, 1996). The

Jews, on the other hand, kept their own beliefs, especially as they believed they were the

‘chosen people.’


The Romans generally believed in freedom of worship ad libitum, but they

nevertheless ordered the Egyptians and the Greeks to worship the emperor, not as a God,

but initially as a holy person. That was why the Romans adopted Pharaonic titles. They also

appointed a minister responsible for clerical affairs, realizing the dominance and importance

of religion in Egyptian life. Even though this minister was not a priest, he nevertheless had a

very important title: High priest of Alexandria and all of Egypt. He was head of all Egyptian

priests and had exclusive authority over religious affairs. The high priests were called the

archiereus (Bagnall, 1996). It was through this person that the Romans managed to control

this troublesome institution (Shenuda, no date). Even the Holy lands that the Ptolemies had

bequeathed the local priests for their temples, were soon stripped from them.

**********

The road was paved in more ways than one for the advent of Christianity. The

following chapters will discuss the gradual progress of Christianity, as well as the status of

Egyptian Christians under consecutive rulers.


Chapter 1 Christian Egypt

from the advent of Christianity to the Schism

Mark and the Shoemaker:

According to Orthodox tradition, it was St. Mark, one of Christ’s 70 chosen disciples

following his death and resurrection, who had first brought Christianity into Egypt, where he

was eventually martyred. Initially, he had been sent to Egypt to preach to the Jewish

communities who had settled there, sometime in the years between 58 and 62.

Some Coptic historians claim that Christianity came to Alexandria long before St.

Mark, through the strong trading relations between Egypt and Palestine (Yohanna, 1983; and

see also Bishoi, 1905). Their assumption is based on the fact that Egypt was close to

Palestine, and had a community of Jews, who maintained contact with their Jewish families

back home, and must have therefore heard of Christ. Moreover, St. Luke wrote his Bible to

Theophilus, an Alexandrine nobleman, which indicated the presence of Christianity in Egypt

during that period. Additionally, according to the Bible, some of those who believed in Peter’s

message during Pentecost were from Egypt.

In any case, tradition has it that while walking along the streets of Alexandria, St.

Mark’s shoes were worn out and torn, whereby he hurried to a cobbler named Anianus to

repair it. When the needle pierced Anianus’s finger, St. Mark cured it through prayer, and

Anianus, together with his entire household, converted to Christianity. Anianus was therefore

considered the first Egyptian Christian, and later became the second patriarch of Alexandria,

after St. Mark himself.

St. Mark continued for several more years to preach in Alexandria against pagan

beliefs. In the year 68 AD, during the pagan feast of Serapis, normally celebrated in the great

temple of Serapium, which coincided with Easter Sunday, St. Mark had been preaching

fervently against the pagans. Intensely provoked, the pagans, who had already been angry

with him for his earlier preaching, captured him, tied a rope around his neck, and dragged him

along the streets, until he died.

Some historians, however, contend that there is no proof that St. Mark had founded

the Coptic Church in Alexandria in the first place, and that it only appeared in Coptic writings

at a later stage. According to them, there is no evidence of St. Mark’s role anywhere in the

early writings of prominent authorities such as Clement of Alexandria♦, or Origen. This led

scholars to doubt the veracity of the Coptic tradition (Meinarus, 1977). Moreover, there are no

♦ Clement of Alexandria was author of the Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Philosophy and other notable books on Biblical interpretation and philosophy. In his books he mentions Pantenaeus by name as his teacher, and gives his opinions and traditions, but does not mention St. Mark.


documents prior to Eusebius♣, (c. 260-339 AD) to support the Coptic tradition, and even

Eusebius himself had merely reported what he had heard and inferred from known events. St.

Mark came to Egypt in the first or third year of the reign of the Roman Emperor Claudius, in

41-42 AD or perhaps 43-44 AD. From the period between 50-62 AD, since the New

Testament was silent in regard to St. Mark’s whereabouts, ‘it is quite possible that the

Evangelist may have visited Alexandria at this time’ (Meinarus, 1977).

It is not far-fetched to say that Saint Mark was made the founder possibly for political

as well as religious reasons, to strengthen Alexandrine Christianity’s political and religious

status, against foreign rulers, other churches throughout the empire, and other religions as

well. It was commonplace that whenever a Bishopric wanted to assert its status, it had to

prove that it was founded by a saint. History even records that at some point, Byzantium

sought to win over Rome which said that its founder was Saint Peter, whereby Byzantium

claimed that its own founder was Saint Andrew (Baynes, 1950). That was precisely the time

when writings began to appear claiming that Saint Mark was the founder of Alexandrine

Christianity.

Ultimately, there is no doubt that Christianity did come to Egypt, and that St. Mark

was eventually martyred and buried in a church in Baucalis, which the Christians built east of

Alexandria. The remains of St. Mark were said to have stayed in Baucalis until at least the

martyrdom of Pope Peter, the 16th patriarch, and that in the first half of the 5th century Pope

Cyril built a new church to replace the old one. In the middle of the 7th century, the Arabs

destroyed the church, and it was rebuilt during the reign of Pope Isaac. In 828 AD, two

Venetian merchants allegedly removed St. Mark’s relics to Venice, and the church was

abandoned thereafter. There is no longer any trace of that church after it was totally

demolished by Sultan Malik al-Kamil towards the year 1218. To this day, the patriarchs of the

Orthodox Church wear St. Mark’s sash when elected to the See of Alexandria.

When Christianity was first introduced to Egypt, it arrived in a predominantly Greek-

Hellenistic environment amidst its prevalent concepts, beliefs, philosophies and ideologies.

There was a strong, pagan, Hellenistic-based Roman rule in Alexandria and Northern Egypt.

Nevertheless Egypt was not one single entity, and Christianity soon had to confront another,

albeit weaker, rule: the Pharaonic in Upper Egypt and Thebes, which held fast to its temples

and beliefs. Confrontation with the Pharaonic component, however, came at a much later

stage. It was from there that what is now termed the special ‘Egyptian Christianity’ was truly

founded. This particular component gave Christianity the ‘strong temple and the strong

institution.’ (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

♣ Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, and author of the Ecclesiastical History in the beginnings of the 4th century. In Book 2, chapter 16, entitled “Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of Egypt,” he wrote: “And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.” Eusebius also quotes Clement in the 8th book of his Hypotyposes about Mark’s authority as a leader, and


Pharaonic worship and rituals have greatly influenced the spread of Christianity,

since it was there that Christianity was Egyptianized, so to speak, to fit the Pharaonic

concepts. Both the Pharaonic and the Christian concepts believed in the after life and in

judgment day. Christianity therefore did not come up with something new or unfamiliar to

existing religions, nor did it totally reject what was before it, but rather added to it and

therefore formed a sort of extension to it (Habib & Afifi, 1994). This facilitated its spreading,

particularly among the poor and uneducated. Moreover, suffering from the oppressive Roman

rule, it was natural that the Egyptian poor were the first to adopt the new religion, which

presented itself as being on their ‘side’, placing even less importance on worldly possessions

of which they had very little in the first place.

The Romans, on the other hand, already had a strong empire, and were therefore not

in need of any new religion that would upset their hierarchy or even temporarily destabilize it.

This made them initially reject Christianity, and it also made Christianity find more room within

the weaker community: that of the Pharaonic one, and among the Egyptian citizens who

basically had no rights.

The Roman Empire was, in fact, initially characterized by tolerance, regarding

freedom of belief, and many Christian historians could not clearly identify the reasons for the

Roman persecution of Christians. However, upon a closer look at history, plausible reasons

for the consecutive persecution waves could be inferred. It should be mentioned, however,

that Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire, and not in Egypt alone. The

Roman Emperors allowed the Christians to worship the Gods of their choice, but in addition,

they demanded the worship of the emperors. When the Christians declined, the Romans

were afforded the excuse to persecute them for refusing to acknowledge the deity of the

Caesars. Additionally, Christians refused the incumbent enrollment in the military, and

refused to go to war, because of which they were considered recalcitrants, which was high

treason punishable by death. This form of “civil disobedience” which constituted a serious

security menace to the Empire, persisted until the 4th century AD.

In Egypt, matters were no different. Roman Emperors had implemented the concept

of worshipping emperors, and, imitating Pharaonic rulers, inscribed their life stories on temple

walls, and expected the people to worship them. Both Christians and Jews rejected that form

of worship, and this was perceived as a serious threat to Roman stability, and a lack of loyalty

and allegiance.

In the beginning of Christianity, the number of Christians was as yet little, and that

was why initial confrontations were mainly between the people themselves and each other, as

opposed to the later people versus the authorities. There were confrontations between

Christians on the one hand, and the pagans on the other. The attention of the Romans was

soon directed towards the Christians, as their numbers increased, and problems became

continues that St. Peter mentions Mark when he calls the city Babylon: “The church that is at Babylon,


increasingly apparent. Additionally, since Christianity worked mainly among the poor, it

seemed to be inciting them not to give their sole allegiance to the Emperor. Christian priests

seemed to be in control of the populace, rather than the official authorities, which constituted

a threat to their authority. More significantly, Christians were initially looked upon as a

diverging Jewish sect, and both Trajan and Hadrian, the Roman Emperors, persecuted them

together with the Jews, when the Jews began to express rebellion against the government.

Hadrian continued persecuting them, and pope Eumenius (131-144) was killed together with

many other Christians during that Emperor’s bloody reign.

The first direct confrontation between the Romans and Christianity, transpired

between patriarch Cerdon (patriarch from 96-106 A.D.) and Trajan Caesar (98-117 A.D.). The

governor of Egypt asked Cerdon why the Christians refused to combine Roman gods with

Christian gods, and still keep their own beliefs, whereby the Pope was said to have

answered: “Because we do not bow before anyone but God.” (Yohanna, 1983). The Roman

governor arrested him, and he was killed in the year 106 AD. leaving the patriarchal seat

empty for three years because of subsequent persecution. Nevertheless, after extended

persecutions, Trajan was informed that the Christians were essentially a harmless group of

people, who neither stole nor robbed, but merely sang hymns and prayed. Trajan issued an

edict saying that from that time onward, the ‘race of the Christians should not be sought after

but when found should be punished’ (Eusebius, Bk3, Ch.17).

Despite such occasional violent persecutions, during which many Copts and Christian

believers died, Christians continued to choose their own popes, at times openly, and at others

clandestinely, depending on the State’s position towards them. Towards the middle of the

reign of Pope Demetrius I (191-230), when Septimus Severus (193-211) became Emperor,

persecution of Christians once again commenced, and the Emperor closed down the

Didascalia, the famous theological School of Alexandria. He even issued an edict in 203 AD

prohibiting conversion to either Christianity or Judaism. Persecution continued even more

severely and violently during the times of Emperor Carcalla (211-217), even though in the

year 212 A.D, he had given Roman citizenship to all ‘free’ residents of the empire, with the

exception of the local Egyptians.

Emperors Decius and Gallus also persecuted the Christians, but Gallus stopped the

persecution shortly thereafter. However, since Christians were to be frequently used as

scapegoats, when the diphtheria plague struck Egypt, he was told it was because of the

anger of the Gods for having left the Christians to their beliefs, whereby he once again

resumed persecutions.

The strained Church/State relations persisted, and the Church leaders began to

realize the importance of diplomatically dealing with the State, for their peace depended upon

such pacified relations. Pope Theonas (282-300) worked diligently towards bridging the

elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.”


severed relations with the State, and it was only during his time that the Christians found

relative peace with their Roman rulers. Theonas gave his rulers presents and sought to

please them in diverse ways, offering paeans to the Emperors and the governors, which

gradually restored the confidence of the Roman officials in the Church’s allegiance. That was

why Theonas managed to build the first public church, and Christians began to pray and meet

in public, despite the imposition of legal restrictions against such prayers.

This brief honeymoon did not last long, and with Theonas gone, midway during

Diocletian’s rule (284-305), persecution began once again in the year 300 A.D. That was the

year known thereafter in Coptic Christian history as the Era of the Martyrs, and with which the

Coptic calendar begins (August 29th, 284 A.D). The reasons for that violent phase of

persecution are unclear, but what is known is that persecution continued during the times of

Pope Peter I (300-311), who was beheaded in the process. He was called the ‘last of the

martyrs’ because he had prayed to God that no one else should be martyred after him

(Yohanna, 1983).

The story of why Diocletian persecuted the Christians contains hyperbolic elements

of miracles, myth and fact, and it is difficult to distinguish between the three. According to

Church sources, it had been said that a woman from Antioch wanted to baptize her children,

but her husband, who worked for the emperor, refused. Determined, she traveled to

Alexandria, wanting the Pope to baptize them. On her way, there was a huge storm,

whereupon she decided to baptized them herself with sea water, fearing their death before

baptism. She cut her breast and baptized them with her own blood. After their arrival in

Alexandria, the patriarch wanted to baptize them himself, but the water ‘solidified,’ and he

understood that they had already been baptized. Whatever the case, on her return, her

husband complained to the emperor that his wife left without his permission to go to the

Alexandrian pope, that she also wounded herself on her trip. The Emperor ordered Pope

Peter’s arrest and beheading. Subsequent to this incident, three violent waves of

persecutions against the Christians ensued, and many lost their lives.

But Diocletian’s persecution should be seen from a more panoptic perspective. His

persecutions were not against Egyptian Copts alone, making us question the veracity of this

incident in whole, or in part. His anger raged throughout the Roman Empire, and over the

period of ten years, Diocletian issued several decrees to purge the empire from the

Christians. He ordered the razing of churches, the burning of all Scriptures and holy books,

and ordered all Christians who held positions of honor be degraded, and Christian household

servants be deprived of their liberty (see Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History≠). Further decrees

ordered all heads of churches imprisoned, and compelled to offer sacrifice.

In the year 306, Constantine I took control of the Roman Empire, and many changes

resulted, putting a temporary end to the persecution of the Christians. In 330, he transferred


the capital of Rome to Constantinople, hence marking the beginning of the Byzantine Empire,

and significantly, marking the beginning of the “theocratic” state. Constantine I was the first

Christian Emperor, yet he continued in his belief in other gods together with Christianity, in

fear of offending the pagan gods. He fully converted to Christianity on his deathbed. During

his lifetime, however, he issued the Edict of Milan (in 313) (see Appendix II) which followed

the Edict of Toleration (in 311/313) (see Appendix I) by his predecessor Galerius, to stop the

persecution of Christians throughout the Empire, and proclaimed freedom of worship for

Christians. However, this Edict brought political, and not religious, peace to the empire, and

divisions began to surface strongly and sometimes violently amongst the different Christian

groups themselves.

It was also during Constantine I’s reign that the Council of Nicea was held in 325,

issuing what came to be known as the Nicene Creed (see Appendix V) a version of which is

still read to this day in Orthodox churches.

There was a brief lapse to paganism, however, when Julian (361-363), known as the

Apostate, took power, whereupon he began harassing the Christians once again, and tried to

reverse the effects of his predecessor’s policies. Even eyewitness historians, such as

Socrates Scholasticus, reluctantly call his period one of persecution. Scholasticus explained

that he merely used that term because to him, as a Christian believer, any form of

harassment of Christians was perceived as persecution. Julian, indeed, was not an evil,

tyrannical man. Rather, he was a modest, intellectual and bright young man, who loved

philosophy and the arts. Understanding that martyrdom was highly valued by the Christians,

he refused to provide them with more martyrs, and began using more intelligent methods in

dealing with them. Julian issued a decree, by which he prevented Christians from learning,

and from the ‘cultivation of literature’, lest ‘when they have sharpened their tongue, they

should be able the more readily to meet the arguments of the heathen’ (Scholasticus, Bk.III,

Ch. 12). Julian then enforced freedom of worship, and granted every individual the right to

their own beliefs, in lieu of the freedom of worship for Christians only, which had been given

by his predecessor. He restored all the bishops who had been expelled by his predecessor,

by reasons of disagreement, and reinstated them in their churches. He also embarked on

renovating the pagan temples that had been destroyed by the Christians. More importantly,

he began to reemploy the pagans to prominent posts in the government after the Christians

had usurped them all, and soon began to expel Christians from such posts. According to

church sources, he expropriated all the church possessions (Bishoi, 1905). But such policies

did not continue, because Julian was soon killed in his war against the Persians in 363.

Christianity, however, was not formally legalized and considered the official religion of

the State except under Theodisian I (380-395), and other religions were declared illegal

≠ Details on those edicts may be found in the writings of Eusebius, eyewitness in Phoenicia and Egypt, and also in the writings of Lactantius, eyewitness in Nicodemia itself.


through the Theodisian Code (see Appendix III). This began a new phase of persecutions, but

this time performed by the Christians against the unfortunate pagans.

Intellectual Beacon: the Catechetical School (the Didascalia):

The most significant contribution of Egyptian Christianity to the world was the

heuristic Catechetical school, so called because it introduced the question and answer form

of discussion. The school was said to have been built by St. Mark himself, to challenge

Hellenistic and pagan thought and philosophies, and for the edification of the new Christian

converts. It soon became the most important center of learning and theology in the entire

world. Christian scholars had ‘labored to prove that reason and revelation, philosophy and

theology were not only compatible but also essential for each other’s comprehension’

(Meinarus, 1977).

Consecutive patriarchs of Alexandria graduated from that school, which meant that it

was capable of writing and shaping the history of the Coptic Church and Christianity in Egypt

through its popes. When the School’s international role ended with the schism of Chalcedon,

its main concerns were directed towards more local affairs. Its star lamentably dimmed, and

its glory began to slowly fade away. The Hellenistic component within it, capable of finding

common ground with other civilizations, began to gradually diminish and dwindle. The

Schism, which literally isolated the school and ended its significant, enlightening role, made

the search for common ground unnecessary (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

There were many prominent heads of the school, but the most notable were

Pantaneus, from 181 AD, and the prolific Origen. Pantanaeus, the founding father and first

president of the school, started by bridging the gap between dynastic Egypt and the Greek

gospels, through the propagation of the use of the archaic Greek alphabet instead of the

cumbersome Demotic script, thus rendering the Bible more readily accessible to the Coptic

reader. His successor was Clement of Alexandria, a liberal who wanted to reconcile Christian

tenets with Greek philosophy.

Escape into the Wilderness: the rise of Monasticism

Monasticism is generally attributed to Saint Anthony (died 336 AD), even though

monastic life, and the life of seclusion, had clearly predated him. In nearly all religions

preceding Christianity, the life of hermitage had been well known, even though Orthodox

Christians tend to deny being influenced by such precedents (Amin, no date). Excluding

Indian and Chinese hermits, who were said to have arrived in Egypt to spread their Buddhist

beliefs, there were local hermits from the ancient Egyptian religions, as well as the Jews and

the Greeks themselves. There were suphists who had abandoned life and lived in the temples

of the God Serapis, acting as intermediaries between that God and the people who presented


their supplements to him. Additionally, there were the suphist soothsayers, the

Gymnosophists, who lived by the river Nile valley, in addition to the Heliopolis priests who

lived on subsistence (Amin, no date). Many of them exercised extreme physical deprivation

and self-mortification in order to attain purity and closeness to their Gods.

The Jews who lived in Egypt also had their own hermits. The Therapeutae Jewish

hermits lived around the Mariout Lake, and firmly believed in living outside cities and

luxurious life, in isolated abodes. They were said to begin prayer early in the mornings and to

spend their days in meditation and fasting. In addition there were groups like the Esenes,

who were also Jewish (Habib & Afifi, 1994). Besides all these, the Greeks, with their Platonic

philosophies, also had their temple hermits. Amin suggests that since Egyptians were

illiterate, they could not have possibly been affected by Platonic ideals that were mainly

spread in the Greek language. One may contend that most Egyptians, during that period,

were forced to at least learn spoken Greek for official transactions.

In any case, Christian hermitage initially began when Christians began to flee Roman

oppression into the desert, or inside abandoned temples, living in tiny huts by the river Nile.

They soon moved deeper into the desert, away from all forms of civil life, but in areas where

there was water and palm trees for their livelihood.

The first known monk ostensibly was Frontonius, a wealthy Alexandrine who went to

Wadi’i Natrun (circa 150 AD). Together with 70 other male individuals, he founded what is

known as the Christian ‘kellali’.♦ They had gone into the desert fleeing from the unstable

political and economic conditions of the time. It is commonly believed that many others had

gone into the desert, but were not recorded in history (see Amin, no date; and Yohanna,

1983). Another recorded monk, however, was Saint Paul the Hermit, whom Saint Anthony

had stumbled upon while penetrating the desert alone. Saint Paul had been living in a cave

by the Red Sea, and was nearly 113 years old.

Two major consecutive and distinctive trends in monasticism that still exist to this

day, were eventually formed: the ‘solitary ascetic,’ founded by Saint Anthony, and the

‘common life of the cenobitic monastary,’ founded by Pachomius, and known after his name

(Bagnall, 1996).

Tradition has it that the young Saint Anthony heard a sermon one day in his village,

about Christ asking people to leave their possessions and follow him. He immediately left his

sister in the care of a women’s hermitage, and went out into the desert, embracing a life of

poverty and devotion. His fame spread out, and people followed him, only to form other

solitary settlements around him, which some term ‘collective eremiticism,’ where people seek

a saint and live around him, ‘not merely for initiation and orientation, but also as a measure of

self-defense in the arid desert’ (Atiya, 1967). Such settlements began to multiply in other

♦ Kellalis were independent rooms each inhabited by one monk, and the term applied to a group of rooms inside a fence and governed by one head (Synaxarium).


parts of the country. Besides Pispir in the Eastern Desert, others arose in the Thebain in

Upper Egypt as well as the Nitrean Valley in the desert to the west of the Nile Delta.

The second monastic tradition came with Saint Pachomius, who believed in

communal life and service. He rejected the principle of self-mortification, and believed that

monks in essence should spend their lives in useful pursuits, both manual and intellectual,

while preserving the monastic vow of chastity, poverty and obedience (Atiya, 1967). It was

Basil the Great who later laid down the principles and rules for monastic life, governing its

administration and structure, hence institutionalizing it.

In essence, there were four different ‘environments’ for the growth of monastic life

(Bagnall, 1996): the Pachomians were located in the cultivated land of the valley, sometimes

taking over an abandoned village. They seem to have been built after the style of army

camps. The other extreme is the hermits of the ‘inner circle’ or the more distant desert, which

were some thirty kilometers from the cultivated land, a very large distance in those days with

lack of transportation and paved roads. These hermitages were ‘underground atrium-style

houses, with plans like normal Mediterranean houses belonging to prosperous families, but

sunk in the ground’ (Bagnall, 1996). Bagnall seems to think that even though they lived the

life of self-mortification, they did so largely in ‘a setting designed to remind them of wealth, not

poverty’ (Bagnall, 1996).

A third environment is the desert fringe of the cultivated land, somewhat closer to the

villages, where the monastery lay ‘outside settled society and yet close enough to be

intimately linked to it and readily supplied by it’ (Bagnall, 1996). These monks had ‘some

common facilities, but they lived in small hermitages spread out over a considerable area

called collectively a laura’. These individual cells could be sold, and they mainly had ‘rooms, a

court, a well and other amenities, including cool rooms for the storage of dry bread, movable

doors and even glass in some windows’ (Bagnall, 1996). Bagnall also sees them as ‘modeled

after upper-class houses in towns, rather than after the inhabitants of the poor.’

The fourth was a celibate and distinct life by separate communities of men and

women, carried on in the midst of regular society which was officially denounced and rejected

because it was an unacceptable intermediate state. It was known as the apotaktikos. Despite

the disapproval, ‘such urban houses for communal monastic life no doubt persisted

throughout the fourth century’ (Bagnall, 1996).

In its initial phases, even though celibacy was one of the requirements for becoming

a monk, married men were accepted after abandoning their families. Many Coptic families

began forcing their sons into marriage to protect and ensure the continuation of Christianity,

but even those soon escaped into the deserts and became monks (Amin, no date),

abandoning their new-formed families. One such person was renowned Macarius the Great.

After Chalcedon, ‘an increasingly high proportion of bishops was recruited from the

monastic clergy, and the eventual move of eastern Christendom generally to draw bishops


only from the celibate clergy meant that the monks controlled the hierarchy’ (Bagnall, 1996).

Hence Christendom became dominated by the ‘interests and viewpoints of the monastic

movement’ and there was ‘little to represent the view point of the ordinary clergy, let alone the

ordinary laity’ (Bagnall, 1996; and see also Habib & Afifi, 1994). An evident conflict between

the church hierarchy and monasticism, began to surface, the former wanting to control the

latter, a conflict that is largely persistent to this day.

It is clear though that monasticism was a form of passive resistance, especially by the

poorer peasants who fled economic oppression. This virulent misogyny had adverse effects

on the economy. Abu Seif Yussef believes that this further deteriorated the status of the

economy and agricultural production, since there were hardly any peasants left to plant their

lands and farms, having escaped because of their inability to pay the high taxes levied on

them. Those peasants formed what later came to be known as the anachorete, or the

‘escaped peasants’, escaping the regions or nomes they originally belonged to (Yussef,

1987). Others contend that those who escaped into the desert were the rich rather than the

poor, and that they escaped out of belief rather than poverty or need (Habib & Afifi, 1994). It

should be noted that there were hardly any wealthy Egyptians under Roman rule, and that

those who escaped to the deserts were evidently a mixture of both the relatively rich as well

as the poor, both of whom were still considered second class citizens, and were therefore

ultimately oppressed.

Women’s Monasticism:

As mentioned earlier, before going on his own into the desert, Saint Anthony had

placed his sister in a ‘virgins’ house,’ which denotes the existence of virgin houses even prior

to the official founding of monasticism and monasteries. There is also Biblical mention of such

houses. Ostensibly widowed women had asked to stay under the aegis of the church in

special places called the “virgin houses,” that embraced unmarried women who wished to

abandon life and live a life of celibacy. It seems to be in one of those that Saint Anthony had

placed his sister. Later, the 12th Patriarch of Alexandria, Demetrius, placed his own wife in

one of those houses upon being appointed patriarch.

Clearly, such houses were widespread throughout Egypt, but they were never called

monasteries or hermitages. Amin claims that those houses did not have monastic principles

whether in form or content, because they were in the middle of the villages and not secluded

on its fringes, and also because, according to him, some of the women later married and left

those houses. He also claimed that they were housed mainly by widows and spinsters, who

merely wanted to live under the aegis of the church, for want of better alternatives. Whatever

the case, there is no doubt that women’s monasticism pre-dated men’s, however primitive its

formation and structure. Neither was it easy for women, either traditionally or for personal


safety reasons, to actually go out alone into the desert, and live the life of monks. The only

alternative for them was to live such a life within the “protection” and boundaries of civil life.

To further prove that point, in the writings of Philo, a contemporary of Emperor

Claudius (41AD), and author of On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, we find him

writing about the Christians whom he called the ‘Therapeuts’ and the women with them

‘Therapeutides≠ ’:

‘For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are speaking, and

that the most of them were aged virgins who had preserved their chastity, not out of

necessity, as some of the priestesses among the Greeks, but rather by their own

choice, through zeal and a desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire to live

with it as their companion they paid no attention to the pleasures of the body, seeking

not mortal but immortal progeny, which only the pious soul is able to bear of itself.’

(Eusebius, Bk 2, Ch.17)

Women’s monasticism, therefore, clearly predated men’s, but it is the

institutionalization of such houses that followed the men’s. The institutionalization was

eventually introduced by St. Pachomius, who established two monasteries for women, and

laid down their principle by-laws, whereby women’s official monasticism began to spread

throughout Egypt.

Since institutionalized monasticism was exclusively male until the 4th century, some

nuns lived and dressed like men. One such nun was known as Alexandra, who locked herself

up for ten years, taking her food through a tiny hole in her room (Amin, no date). It was only

when she died that people realized she was a woman. There were other nuns as well, living

independently and separately near the Nitrean desert, which also attracted some European

nuns at later stages. Lydia, a famous writer from Tasaloniki lived an entire year in one of the

kellias in Celia, disguised as a male monk (Amin, no date). Another nun was Apolinaria,

daughter of Emperor Antimous the Great, and who had rejected marriage, gone to Jersulaem,

and form there to Alexandria, where she became a ‘monk.’ She continued to be treated as a

male monk during the times of Macarius the Great, and her gender was discovered only

during her burial procedures (Amin, no date).

Another known example was a woman from Antioch, who was later sainted, and

came to be known as Saint Pylagia. She had gone to Jersulaem wearing male attire, and

Iskandaros, Patriarch of Jerusalem, met with her, and sent her to an Egyptian monastery

≠ Euesbius explains that Philo called them as such because the term ‘Chrsitian’ was not yet well known, and that this referred to ‘healing souls by relieving them like physicians of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshipped the Deity in purity and sincerity’ (Eusebius, Book 2, Chapter 17).


where she stayed for 40 years without revealing her identity. Another is Ilaria, Emperor

Zeno’s daughter, who dressed as a male monk at the age of 18, and went to Saint Macraius.

She came to be known as Monk Illari, and her true identity was revealed only upon her death.

Amazingly, these were not isolated incidents, but were clearly repeated throughout Egypt,

and unfortunately hardly ever recorded.

Papal powers and counter persecutions:

Within a century from the Christianization of the Roman Empire, Christians had

already usurped every political and social office that had been held by the pagans. The

mutual interests of Church and State began to merge, and soon a marriage of convenience

took place. The strength and unity of the empire lay with the Church, and the protection of the

Church lay in the approval of the emperors. The Church became a wealthy institution,

acquiring unprecedented riches, with naval trade fleets that carried grain, silver and

handicraft to other countries throughout the Empire, in addition to the lands bequeathed upon

it by the wealthy Christians, and other contributors (Butler, 1990). Particularly in the periods

following the four Church Councils (Constantinople, Epheseus, and Chalcedon), the Church

became an increasingly powerful institution, thus becoming more and more politicized. The

State, on the other hand, became more involved in religious and ecclesiastical matters. With

these changing, reversed roles, there was bound to be a conflict of interest, eventually

causing tensions.

In Egypt, matters were not very different. Throughout its history, the Church in Egypt

had been a challenge to the state, with a history of State/Church conflicts and alliances. This

tense relationship would persist after the Arab invasion, but would, in fact, take different forms

and shapes (Habib & Afifi, 1994). Following the Christianization of the Empire, the Church as

an institution in Egypt, became empowered, and consequently, its leader, the Pope, likewise

empowered. Egyptian Christianity, indeed, claims to have been the founder of the very term

‘pope’. There were three main Bishoprics: Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. The bishop of

Antioch was called the patriarch, and the bishop of Rome was simply called a bishop,

whereas the bishop of Alexandria was called ‘papa’ or ‘pope,’ literally meaning grandfather.

The first bishop to be called ‘papa’ was Heracles (232-246) who was much beloved by his

people, and this was a term of endearment used by his followers. The term apparently was

derived from ‘ab-abba,’ then became ‘ababa,’ and later changed to ‘baba’ (Yohanna, 1983),

implying ‘family patriarch and leader.’ It was transferred to the Roman Bishopric towards the

11th century, when Gregory 7th, the Roman Patriarch decided in an ecumenical council, that

the name should be exclusively used to refer to the Roman Pope. Arab Historian al-Makreezi,

says that the Alexandrian pope was called ‘baba’ during the times of Anianus and until the

times of Demetrius I. It was then transformed into pope, meaning “father of all fathers,” and

then later Roman popes were addressed by it.


Even during the times of persecution, and in fact at times because of them,

Alexandrian popes had exclusive powers over their Christian congregation. This reached its

zenith after the Christianization of the Roman Empire. A strong hierarchical institution was

already being formed, and the “cult of the Pharaonic deities was replaced by the masses with

historical and fictitious accounts of saints and martyrs, many of whom belonged to the

Alexandrian Hellenistic rather than to the Egyptian world.” (Meinarus, 1977). The widespread

persecutions, which the pagans committed against the Christians, were gradually

transformed into widespread persecutions committed by the Christians against the pagans, in

a natural reiteration of history.

Papal powers increased, and they had been no clearer than with Pope Demetrius I,

who was said to have been the first married pope, and who remained the longest as patriarch

of Alexandria. His cachet was said to have been chiding people during communion, claiming

that he saw Jesus holding his hand and preventing him from giving communion to his

subjects, and revealing their sins to him. He was the first to ‘institutionalize’ the Church of

Egypt, appointing three bishops for the distant regions. It was also this pope who established

the Coptic fasting dates, as opposed to the previous Jewish fasting dates. He also appointed

Origen, and then exiled him because of petty differences between them. Church sources

reluctantly acknowledge that exiling Origen “was perhaps the only mistake this pope had

done, departing from what is right” (Yohanna, 1983). It was not long before some Christians

began objecting to his actions and self-righteousness, questioning his very right to become a

pope, being a married man himself, whereupon the Pope revealed that he had been celibate,

and that he had had no relationship with his unfortunate wife.

The story of Bebnouda is also indicative of Papal powers, when this unfortunate man

was elected pope in the year 282. When it became revealed, however, that he had castrated

himself, he was dethroned six months after his election. The papal powers were such that his

name was wiped out of the history of the patriarchs, and was not counted as the rightful 16th

pope.

The worst forms of papal powers is perhaps most evident during the reign of

Theophilus (385-412), Patriarch of Alexandria, following Theodisius I’s Code, legalizing

Christianity, and prohibiting all other religions. When Theophilus wanted to build a church in a

certain area in the desert, he claimed to have uncovered, while digging, a ‘treasure’ with the

Coptic letter ‘theta’ or ‘Th,’ engraved three times on it. The patriarch claimed that this relic

was 700 years old, dated from the times of Alexander the Great, and that it signified the

divine combination of the three ‘ths’ together: Thaos for God, Theodisius II for Emperor, and

himself, Theolphilus as Patriarch, forming the triangle of God, Emperor and Clergyman, the

latter two being God’s sole representatives. Upon hearing this, the Emperor gave him

permission to transform all the pagan temples into churches.

It was Theophilus, therefore, who thus destroyed the Alexandrian Serapeum, and the

temple of Bacchus, and did not spare the beautiful and exquisite temples at Canopus,


replacing them with monasteries and churches. The same was done with the Temple of Isis in

Menuthis, the most important port in the Delta, which was celebrated as a sanctuary of

Serapis, and visited by numerous pagan pilgrims, seeking cures. In the beginning of the 5th

century, Cyril I, Theophilus’ follower, transported the bodies of two saints to the temple, to

replace the pagan healing cult by a Christian one (Meinarus, 1977).

The Egyptian patriarchs were well aware of the strength of having the Roman

Emperor on their side, and it was for that reason that Theophilus invented the trinity of

God/Emperor/Pope. He understood that through religion, he could constantly manipulating

the Emperor to advance his own aims, which did not necessarily coincide with the church’s

best interests. This is no more conspicuous than in the case when he used his alliance with

the Emperor against his opponent monks, in the infamous case of the Origenists (Amin, no

date). The incident significantly began when a wealthy woman gave a monk called Esodore,

one thousand pieces of gold to buy clothes for the poor women of Alexandria. Her only

condition was that he would not give it to the patriarch, because she knew he would use it to

expand his building feats, instead of giving it to the needy poor. When the patriarch heard of

the generous donation, he demanded that Esodore hand him a portion of it, and the latter

refused because he wanted to keep his promise to the woman. He fled into the desert, but

was pursued by the pope, who claimed he was attacking him because of his beliefs in Origen,

thereby beginning a full-fledged persecution campaign against all Origenists (Amin, no date).

In addition to that incident, the pope had earlier tried to appoint Amonius, an Origenist monk

from Wadi al Natrun, as bishop, but the latter refused, and the pope was enraged. He issued

an edict against all Origenists, calling them heretics, whereby Amonius went to Alexandria to

contest the pope’s edict. The pope slapped Amonius on the face, called him a heretic, and

excommunicated him. The monks returned to their monasteries deeply saddened. To protect

himself, the patriarch went to Nitrea and called for a regional meeting, and discussed Origen’s

works. The council decided to excommunicate all Origenists from any future councils. When

the Origenists refused to comply, Theophilus used the state authority to force them out of the

country, and indeed the Empire. He asked Emperor Arcadius to issue an edict that would ban

the Origenists from Egypt. Following the edict, the pope arrived at the head of an army,

together with the governor of Egypt, and began to expel Origenist monks. The army beat up

the monks, burnt Origen’s books, and indeed burnt some monks to death. The incident was

later known as the rebellion of the Anthropomorphists, who were opposed to Origen’s beliefs

and thinking (Amin, no date). Pachomius threw Origen’s books into the Nile and burnt them

(Amin, no date).

Added to the exclusive papal powers, it soon became clear that the monks of the

desert had become armies ready to fight for their beliefs, and were a force to be reckoned

with because of their large numbers. The Alexandrian popes were therefore invariably

desirous of winning them on their side, together forming a strong coalition. Such powers were

quintessential with Theophilus, who was given the Bacchus temple to transform into a church,

and he used the monks to destroy it, together with other pagan temples.


It was clear that as time passed, dissent was no longer accepted and neither were

intellectual debates. Christianity, which had been governed by the wealth of intellect from

within the Catechetical School, soon became governed by the monasteries. A grave shift

occurred, from the belief in discussions and free liberal thinking, to the concept of obedience

and submission.

The infamous incident with Hypatia, the head of the pagan Neo-platonic school, is

another unfortunate example of the absence of tolerance, and the spread of fanatic

Christianity in the late 4th century, during the episcopate of Pope Cyril of Alexandria (444-

412). It also indicates the tensions that arose between the new religion with its new powers,

and the old religion with its dwindling support. Historians say that Cyril had even “greater

powers” than his predecessor Theophilus, and that from his time onwards, “the bishopric of

Alexandria went beyond the limits of its sacerdotal functions, and assumed the administration

of secular matters” (Scholasticus, Bk 7, Chapter 7). A notable incident occurred, when a

conflict arose between the Jews and the Christians in Alexandria, causing a rift in the

relationship between Cyril and the prefect Orestes. The Jews had been dancing and

celebrating on the Sabbath, with plenty of tumult and noise, and the Prefect received

complaints about that matter, without disclosing the source of the complaint. When he was

about to issue an edict in this regard, the Jews noticed that a Christian was among the crowd

present, and believed him to be inciting Orestes against them. On account of the persistent

challenges to his authority, Orestes himself believed that Cyril had sent spies to oversee his

proceedings. Orestes ordered that man’s arrest, and publicly tortured him. Upon hearing this,

Cyril “sent for the principal Jews, and threatened them with the utmost severities unless they

desisted form their molestation of the Christians” (Scholasticus, Bk 7, Chapter 7). The Jews

became even more enraged. They hatched a plan, whereby every Jew wore a ring on their

finger in order to recognize each other, and went out into the night and slew the Christians,

and burnt the church of Alexander. Upon hearing this, Cyril gathered a group of his own men

and went to the Jewish synagogues and drove the Jews out of the city, after destroying their

property.

Orestes was understandably angry because everyone by-passed him and took

matters into their own hands, and rejected Cyril’s subsequent attempts at reconciliation.

Some 500 Nitrian monks, angry at the Prefect for not reconciling with their pope, decided to

continue taking matters into their own hands. They stopped the Prefect on his way home and

called him a “pagan idolater” and other “abusive epithets” (Scholasticus, Bk. 7, Ch. 7).

Knowing his life was in danger, he professed Christianity before the crowd, but they did not

believe him. One of them, a man named Ammonius, threw a stone at him and wounded him

in the head. His guards fled, but the Alexandrians came to the rescue of their governor, and

succeeded in arresting Ammonius. He was tortured to death. Cyril took his body, gave him

the new name of Thaumasius, and ordained him as a martyr, “eulogizing his magnanimity in

church as that of one who had fallen in a conflict in defense of piety” (Shoclasticus, Book 7,

chapter 14). Many Christians were enraged, knowing that he had been punished for his


rashness and not for genuine Christianity, but Cyril would hear none of it. The animosity

between Cyril and Orestes became even more exacerbated.

Hypatia, daughter of renowned philosopher Theon, and a precocious literary and

scholarly figure in her own right, was arbitrarily dragged into this unpleasant story. She had

earned the accolade of the most respected scholars of her time, and was the distinguished

head of the Alexandrian School. Out of jealousy of her powers and abilities, rumors spread

that it was she who had hampered the development of a healthy relationship between Pope

Cyril and Orestes, even though the facts show that it was Cyril who had repeatedly

challenged Orestes’ sovereignty. Some Christians, mostly monks, ambushed Hypatia on her

way home, took her to the Caesareum Church, stripped her, and then killed her by stoning

with tiles, then finally dismembered and burnt her∉.

The result of all those incidents made the emperor issue an order that the clergy

should thereafter not interfere in political matters, and began limiting the numbers of those

who served in the church (Amin, no date).

East versus West: the Schism - Chalcedon 451 A.D.

The events that led to the schism between the eastern and western churches were

instigated long before Chalcedon, and long before Dioscorus to whom the schism is

attributed. Contrary to Maspero, who claimed that ‘Egyptian national sentiment - a non-

theological factor - may well have been an important issue in the unfortunate division of the

Body of Christ’ (quoted in Meinarus, 1977; and see also Himdan, 1981 for the same opinion),

the schism had everything to do with both church rivalry and politics, than it did with either

nationalism or theology. There was evident rivalry and personal vendettas between the

different patriarchs of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, as well as the bishoprics of

Constantinople, Palestine and others.

Prior to Chalcedon, several council meetings were held that were in themselves

direct confrontations between the different churches for supremacy and control, and that

paved the way for the final schism. During the reign of Pope Cyril, Nestor, the patriarch of

Constantinople had made statements and written books that Cyril considered heresy. Nestor

had basically said that Mary was not the mother of God, but rather the mother of Jesus in the

flesh. To Cyril, this essentially implied that Jesus was divided into two natures (hence the

∉ A full, gruesome account of the incident may be found in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 7, Chapter 15. He writes that the Christians “waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them.”


Biophysite concept), even though Cyril had insisted that Jesus was of one nature (the

Monophysite♣). Nestor had written:

“I believe with certitude that the word of God [Jesus] existed from all eternity, but I

disagree with those who claim that Mary is the mother of God, because she was a

woman and God could not be born of woman. I do not deny that she is the

mother of Jesus, but it is a motherhood in the human nature’ (Yohanna, 1983).

Many followed Nestor, even among the Egyptians, but the church considered this a

capital heresy. Cyril ordered a regional council meeting together with the bishop of Rome,

and this meeting resulted in condemning Nestor as a heretic. Cyril wrote a statement of

twelve points, and sent it to Nestor to sign, if he were to be accepted back into the council

(see Appendix IV). Nestor refused, and wrote back answering every single point in the

document. Many bishops then asked for a general council meeting, and Caesar agreed. The

third Ecumenical council was held in Ephesians in the year 431, and was presided over by

Cyril.

The ensuing imbroglio is a sad case of rivalry and vindictiveness. Fifty bishops

arrived from Egypt, together with the patriarch, and the bishop of Jerusalem. They waited

sixteen days for the arrival of the Eastern bishops and the bishop of Rome, but those had

sent messengers that they would be arriving five days later. Cyril claimed that two

messengers had said that the Roman bishops agreed that the council should commence

without them, and he presented a written approval from Caesar to begin the council. Caesar

himself did not attend, hoping to give the council the liberty of decision, and sent his deputy,

who was himself a supporter of Nestor. Before the council began, this deputy allegedly placed

the pope and several of his followers under a form of house arrest for the night to frighten

them, but they proceeded to attend the council with unchanged minds the following day. The

council eventually met, presided by Cyril, and summoned Nestor three times but he would not

attend. The Council made their own decisions, and condemned Nestor to heresy and to exile:

As in addition to all else, the excellent Nestorius has declined to obey our summons

and has not received the holy and God-fearing bishops we sent to him, we have of

necessity started upon an investigation of his impieties…and as a result we have

♣ The Coptic Orthodox Church currently asserts that it has never believed in monophysitism the way it was portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon: “In [the Council of Chalcedon] monophysitism meant believing in one nature. Copts believe that the Lord is perfect in His Divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His humanity were united in one nature called ‘the nature of the incarnate world’, which was reiterated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Copts thus believe in two natures ‘human’ and ‘divine’ that are united in one ‘without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration’.” (See Father Mathias F. Wahba’s article “Monophysitism Reconsidered,” on CoptNet).


been compelled of necessity both by the canons and by the letter of our most holy

father and fellow servant Celestine, bishop of the Church f the Romans, to issue this

sad condemnation against him, though we do so with many tears. Our Lord Jesus,

who has been blasphemed by him, has determined through this most Holy Synod

that the same Nestorius should be stripped f his episcopal dignity and removed from

the college of priests. (Judgment against Nestorius, Medieval Source Book)

When John of Antioch, accompanied by the Eastern bishops arrived, he was angry

that the council had begun without him, and named the council the ‘council of thieves.’ He

refused to comply with the Council’s decisions, and the Council felt compelled to

excommunicate him as well:

When we had gathered in accordance with the pious decree of the metropolis of

Ephesus some separated themselves from us, a little more than thirty in number. The

leader of this apostasy was John, bishop of Antioch… These men, despite the fact

that they were members of the ecclesiastical community, had no license either to do

harm through their priestly dignity or to do good, because some among their number

had already been deposed. Their support of the views of Nestorius and Celestius was

clearly shown by their refusal to condemn Nestorius together with us. By a common

decree the sacred synod expelled them from ecclesiastical communion and deprived

them of the exercise of their priestly office, through which they have been able to

harm some and help others. (Synodical letter about the expulsion of the Eastern

Bishops, Medieval Source Book)

John of Antioch immediately formed another council, in which they unanimously

condemned Cyril himself, and annulled the decisions of the previous council. Throughout

seven consecutive meetings, discussions went to and fro. The Antioch patriarch wrote to

Caesar explaining to him what had happened, and Caesar sent to Cyril an angry letter and

demanded another council meeting. Finally, the Emperor decided to exile both Nestor and

Cyril. Cyril was arrested and imprisoned, whereas Nestor was kept under house arrest. In

prison, Cyril wrote a book in defense of the 12 articles he had sent earlier, and sent it to

Caesar, who finally ordered his release. He then asked all the bishops to go back from where

they had come.

The Nestorians organized two different councils in Tarsus and Antioch, rejecting the

Epheseus decisions, and considering its members a council of thieves. Caesar asked them

all to try and reconcile their differences, but the Alexandrine pope adamantly refused.

Eventually, in its fifth session, the Council excommunicated John of Antioch and

those who had accompanied him. Reconciliation came at a later date, in the Council of


Ephesians in 433, but with great difficulty. Nevertheless in the end, John of Antioch and Cyril

succeeded in reconciling their differences.

When Alexandrian patriarch Dioscorus took reign, there were already great

differences and divisions among the different dioceses, and both the Eastern and the

Western churches were unable to settle their differences amicably. Another heresy was on its

way, this time by Eutachy. A regional council was formed in 448 that excommunicated him as

a heretic. Eutachy had apparently been trying to answer Nestor, in support of Cyril’s opinions,

but he exaggerated the fact of Jesus’ human nature. He said that Jesus was not truly human,

but was, indeed, beyond human when he was in the flesh, and that his human nature

disappeared because of his divine nature. He, too, was excommunicated in the second

Epheseus Council in 449, over which Dioscorus presided, based on the emperor’s

appointment.

The Roman pope Leon sent two letters to the council, explaining his position

regarding Eutachy, to be read by his representatives in the council. The two letters were

ignored, and the representatives ill-treated. Not only that, but Flavianus, Pope of

Constantinople himself was thrown from his seat and not allowed to speak.

During that time emperor Theodisius died, and his sister Pulcharia ascended the

throne, with her husband Mercian. Mercian ordered another council to convene in Chalcedon

in 451, a city close to Constantinople. Leon’s letters to Flavian were read, and all the bishops

approved their contents. Only Dioscorus rejected the letters and the faith, as read by the

council, and refused to sign. The emperor was angry, and decided to reject that council’s

decisions, which resulted in the excommunication and exile of Dioscorus himself, and he died

in exile in 457.

The Roman patriarch tried to repair the damage that was done, but Disocorus,

together with several Egyptian bishops, adamantly refused. The Orthodox Church claims that

the pope refused because he well knew that “all the bishops of the east were jealous of him

because all the Caesars consulted him in church matters” (Yohanna, 1983), and he therefore

mistrusted their intentions. This was a lost opportunity for reunification, and it marked the

death knoll of any further attempts at reconciliation.

Two major divisions resulted, not only between Eastern and Western Christianity, but

also within Egyptian Christians themselves. On the one hand, there were those who

supported Dioscorus, and those were called the ‘Orthodox Christians.’ The second group

were those who were against him, and were called the ‘Melkites,’ referring to the term ‘malek’

or king, which meant basically the supporters of the Roman Emperor and his church. The

Emperor appointed another Patriarch to replace Dioscorus, but the Copts were outraged, and

they killed him in 458 (Salama, 1982).


No longer securing the privilege of the Emperor’s support, the Egyptian church

became isolated and vulnerable, and once again became an easy prey for persecution and

repression.


Chapter 2 Arab Egypt (I)

From the Arab Conquest to the fall of the Umayyad Empire

Dawn of a new era: Pre-Islamic Egypt

With political unrest gradually spreading throughout the Roman Empire, the Persians,

headed by Chosroes, managed to wrench Egypt from the Roman grip. Their occupation,

which began in 617, lasted for ten consecutive years, only to be regained by Heraclius

himself in 627. When the Persians surrounded Alexandria, they went on a destructive

rampage, pulverizing nearby villages and obliterating monasteries. According to some

estimates, they destroyed roughly 600 monasteries• (Butler, 1990), that housed

approximately 80.000 men, in one single day, and killed at least 600 monks. Disaster befell

everything they passed, on their way to Alexandria, from where they went down the Nile River

to Upper Egypt, and annihilated everything on their way including, monks and monasteries.

Yohanna (1983) narrates one particular incident, where an informer told Chosroes that some

monks were gathered in the mountains near Nikios and that they were a corrupt and wealthy

lot, whereby Chosroes forcefully entered the fortress which comprised several churches, and

killed everyone he met inside it.

Andronicus, however, the then Coptic Patriarch, remained unharmed, whereas the

Melkite Patriarch escaped to Rome (Butler, 1990). Nevertheless, when Andronicus died

shortly after the Persian invasion, neither the Copts, nor the Melkites were able to elect their

popes. The Copts, however, soon choose Benjamin, a humble man who was the first

patriarch from outside of Alexandria. The Melkites decided to hurriedly choose one of their

own as well, fearing the Egyptian patriarch would seize their church’s earnings, and they

chose a man called Gregory (Yohanna, 1983).

Even though the Persians had destroyed Egypt’s churches and buildings, as soon as

they settled down, and were sure of their authority, they began to rebuild Alexandria and

other demolished places, and freedom of worship was once again guaranteed. Copts were

able to once again enjoy relative peace and quiet, but Andronicus nevertheless did not rebuild

the demolished churches or monasteries. Butler suggests that this was probably because the

Persians levied heavy taxes on churches, which probably applied more to the Melkite

churches (Butler, 1990). The population in Egypt at the time was 20 million according to some

estimates, and this included the foreigners, such as the Greek and Roman residents, in

addition to the Egyptian Jews (Zeidan, no date).

• Yohanna says the number is 620.


It was not until Heraclius decided to regain Egypt that problems once again began for

Copts. The Persians were defeated before the Romans, because of their sparse knowledge

of naval battles in which the Romans excelled. Fighting between them ended with a pact, and

the Romans regained Egypt.

Heraclius began a reform period for his widespread Empire, and gathered all the

riches he found in the churches to prepare his army. He expelled the Jews from Jerusalem,

and they were required to stay no closer than a three-mile radius from the city. A gruesome

massacre ensued, when the Christians slaughtered any remaining Jews. The Pope

reassured Heraclius that God would forgive him, and ordered a fasting period for that

purpose. To this day, the event is commemorated with a fast, which is the first week of the

Coptic fasting (Butler, 1990).

Heraclius had clearly realized the weakening of the Byzantine Empire, and decided to

overcome internal conflicts, in order to begin dealing with more pressing external demands

and wars. The Melkites once again began controlling Alexandria, being members of the

official religion of the state, while the Jacobites (or the monophysites) had taken flight in the

deserts of Wadi al Natrun. The Melikte Patriarch Apollinaris, expelled the Coptic hierarchy

from Alexandria, and the pope fled to the desert (Meinarus, 1977).

At this highly critical juncture, Heraclius proposed a union project (Ekthysis), with the

aim of reaching an intermediate path between the monos and the dyos, namely saying ‘one

will’ instead of ‘one nature’. Through this suggestion, he hoped to unify the Church, because

he understood that its unification meant the strengthening of his Empire. The political

agreement between him and the Egyptians would not be accomplished except through

religious agreement. He therefore made the ill-judgment of appointing a man named Cyrus as

governor and Patriarch of Egypt, whom some historians and scholars claim to be al-

Mokawkas. Cyrus was to seek the unification of the Church, and was to use all possible

measures to accomplish his mission. Pope Benjamin refused the suggestion, and escaped

into the desert before Cyrus could meet with him with his proposition. Angered, Cyrus began

persecuting the Copts who refused his project. The timing could not have been worse, to turn

Egyptian public opinion against him, and against the rule of the Roman Empire.

Meanwhile, the governors of the different provinces in Egypt had their own self-

interest to take into consideration, and they opposed the union because they too understood

that a union meant the re-establishment of Byzantine power in Egypt. This also meant that

they would be accountable before the Empire’s administration, not only for their actions, but

more threateningly, for their expenditures.

It should be noted that those “ideological” and political problems existed only in the

northern region of Egypt. The south, however, remained as yet unharmed and untouched by

such controversies, because the Romans remained oblivious of its importance. It is for this

reason that the Copts were more concentrated in Upper Egypt where there was relative

safety (Yohanna,1983), a fact which was greatly reversed in the 20th century.


The Advent of the Arabs:

It was during those turbulent and vulnerable times that Islam surfaced in the Arabian

Peninsula, and from there decided to expand outside the peninusla. There were several

reasons for the expansion, not least among them, the “deological nature of Islam which

convinced the Arabs that they had an essentially religious duty to expand” (al-Sayyad, 1991).

In addition, the ruling elite wished to secure the trans-Arabian trade market. Another likely

factor may have been that the elite saw political expansion a necessity to preserve their

positions at the top of the new political hierarchy (al-Sayyad, 1991). Last, but not least, may

have been “the declining productivity of the Arabian Peninsula and its inability to cope with

the increased population, which lead to a cycle of attacks on neighboring countries” (al-

Sayyad, 1991).

In any event, expansion began when the Prophet Mohammed was alive. In the year

627, the Prophet sent out messages to world leaders inviting them to either enter into Islam or

go to war. Butler suggests that al-Mokawkas, as some Arab historians also claim, did not

receive the message in Egypt, because Egypt was then under Persian rule. However, Persian

rule ended sometime in the year 627, and the Prophet could have sent the message at a later

date in the year. Arab sources claim that there were letters already corresponded between

the Prophet and al-Mokawkas even prior to that. Al-Mokawkas had sent a gift to the Prophet,

which included two slave women, namely Maria and Serine, and the Prophet married Maria

who was a Copt, and who allegedly converted into Islam shortly before her death. Whatever

the case, it was not until Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab’s time that Egypt was once again

targeted by a foreign invasion. It is also claimed that al-Mokawkas had paid the Caliph Umar

Bin al Khattab gizya to overlook invading Egypt (Zeidan, no date).

Al-Mokawkas himself is a historically controversial figure, often confused with several

other individuals. Yohanna claims that al-Mokawkas is not a name but a title, a Greek word

meaning ‘ruler’, and that he was also called the leader of the Copts. His true name, according

to Yohanna, was Girgis ibn Mina. Butler, on the other hand, claims he was not a Copt, but

was actually Hateb ibn Abi Baltaa al Lakhmi, and that he was known as Cyrus, the man

whom Heraclius had appointed as Patriarch to Egypt. To Yohanna, who also mentions Cyrus

as appointed governor and patriarch (Yohanna, 1983), the identity of al-Mokawkas remained

unclear, and whether he was the same person as Cyrus or not, for he uses the name

alternately. In any case, there is no doubt that al-Mokawakas was a title, referring to the

prefect of an Egyptian province, responsible for public security and order, as well as tax

collection. Another writer claims that upon Arab entry into Egypt, there were three known

prefects who were given the same title which essentially also means “most glorious”, and

which the Arabs took to be the man’s actual name (Butcher, 1897). According to the same

source, the prefect of Lower Egypt was Ammen Mena, who detested Egyptians and


continued in his office long after the Arab invasion. The prefect of Middle Egypt, whose

province was on one bank of the Nile, was Cyrus, of whom we know very little except that

some claim it was he who joined in delivering the country to the Arabs. In Upper Egypt,

whose capital was Babylon♦, the prefect was Girgis, or the one called al-Mokawkas by the

Arabs. Girgis was, according to one story and as seen from his name, a Copt himself, but

was also a Byzantine official and an Egyptian, and was the most powerful of all the prefects,

being at such a distance from the Roman administration.

Amr Ibn al-Ass entered Egypt in 639 from al-Farma in the North. He moved on to

Belbeis and found Armenosa, al-Mokawkas’s daughter, who was about to be wed to the

Emperor’s son, and he graciously returned her unharmed to her father in Alexandria,

following a battle she led against them. Arab armies succeeded in occupying the entire Delta

region, and Yohanna claims that they had committed atrocities wherever they went. Yohanna

goes on to claim that when Amr arrived in Nikos, he killed all its people including those who

were on the streets and in the churches (Yohanna, 1983). John the Nicossian, an eyewitness

historian, also asserts that there were widespread killings and damage to the churches. On

the other hand, Severus Ibn al-Mokafaa, wrote that Amr never took anything from churches,

and that he did not commit any kinds of atrocities, but rather protected the church throughout

his reign (Habib & Afifi, 1994). Indeed soon after the invasion, Amr became a strong and

gallant supporter of the Copts, regardless of what happened during the initial invasion.

Contrary to previously held opinions, Yohanna believes that the Copts were not

pleased with the Arab invasion, and that they had tried to fight them back. One such incident

was of two Coptic men, namely Mina and Girgis, who were said to have headed two small,

trained battalions, and fought the Arabs, but were defeated, a story which has its skeptics

(see Habib & Afifi, 1994). It is not far-fetched to assume, however, that the Copts were not

pleased with a new invasion, Arab or otherwise.

Gibbons rationally explains that the Arabs would have retreated had they found

stronger resistance, and had they not found a ‘powerful alliance in the heart of the country.’

Yet he also explains the reason for that assumed zeal, which was, in essence, a reiteration of

history:

The rapid conquest of Alexander was assisted by the superstition and revolt of the

natives: they abhorred their Persian oppressors, the disciples of the Magi, who had

burnt the temples of Egypt, and feasted with sacrilegious appetite on the flesh of the

god Apis. After a period of ten centuries, the same revolution was renewed by a

♦ Babylon has often been confused with Babylonia in Iraq. The original name was said to be Pi-Hapinon or Per-Hapinon, which means The Island of Oon on the Nile. The Greeks deviated the name to Bablyone and both the Romans and Arabs followed (Zeidan, no date). This city was on the Nile and is currently Al-Roda Island.


similar cause; and in support of an incomprehensible creed, the zeal of the Coptic

Christians was equally ardent. (Gibbons, 1782).

In any case, when the Arabs arrived in Babylon, only some Copts remained, while the

others fled towards Memphis. Arabs followed them in hot pursuit, and Yohanna explains that

the Copts lifted two bridges along the Nile, making the Arabs unable to cross over to them,

and remained unreachable by Amr’s troops (Yohanna, 1983).

Finally, a pact was negotiated between Amr and al-Mokawkas, where the latter

agreed paying a gizya, or a special tax money, in return for a safety pact. Given the fact that

Amr returned al-Mokawkas’s daughter unharmed to him, and given the fact that there were

previous correspondences between him and the Arabs, it is not surprising that the latter had

had, to say the least, the will to negotiate with Amr. In spite of Heraclius’ initial rejection of any

pact with the Arabs, he died in the middle of the Arabian siege of Alexandria, and it was his

weakened successor and son who asked al-Mokawkas to finalize the pact.

In that year, according to some sources, the number of those who paid taxes were 6

million Copts, out of a total of 20 million, which was the total population of Egypt, immediately

prior to the Arab invasion.

A few years after Amr settled in Egypt, some monks from Wadi al Natrun heard that a

new nation had gained supremacy over Egypt. More than 70.000 of them walked barefoot,

with canes in their hands, dressed in their ragged clothes, and approached Amr’s

headquarters. Initially Amr thought they were an army coming to fight, but instead, found

them approaching him peacefully, asking him to safeguard their freedom of belief, and

requesting the return of Benjamin, their escaped Patriarch. Amr graciously complied, and

Benjamin returned to his seat, having been in flight for ten years under Roman rule, and three

under the initial Arab rule.

When Amr entered Egypt, there were two major denominations: the Roman Melkites,

who numbered approximately three thousand (al-Makrizi 47), and there were the general

populace, the Copts, who were essentially a mixture of Nubians, Ethiopians and Jews and

they were “in the tens of thousands” (al-Makrizi). In fact, there were nearly 20 million of them.

They were all placed in different administrative positions in the state, but there was a great

enmity between both factions that prevented them from intermingling socially (al-Makrizi).

Amr constantly sought to win the loyalty of the Copts, and therefore took great

measures to reassure them of their safety. He allowed them to rebuild their demolished

churches, and to build new ones, even in al-Fostat, the new Capital he founded (Yohanna,

1983). He also gave them the churches which the Romans had given to the Melkites. Pope

Benjamin began trying to convert those who had joined the Melkite faith, back to the Jacobite

faith. Amr also allowed Benjamin to renovate and rebuild the demolished monasteries, and

gave safety passage to the monks to return and live there.


Cyrus unexplicably committed suicide, and his successor, Peter, refused to stay in

Egypt after Pope Benjamin had seized his churches. He returned to Constantinople, and his

seat remained empty for 60 years (Yohanna, 1983).

Change of heart: the Decline of Alexandria

When the Arabs entered Alexandria, it had three separate and distinct districts: one

for the Egyptians, another for the Romans, and a third for the Jews. From the taxes they had

to pay, their numbers may be calculated: the Jews were 40.000 males, the Romans two

hundred thousand, and the Egyptians more than 600 thousand, not to mention the women

and children. After the Arab invasion, the population greatly decreased, and Arab historian al-

Balathri, wrote that the number of Romans who left Egypt was 30 thousand men, and the

number of Jews was 70 thousand. Al Makrizi wrote that the Copts, during that time, were 300

thousand. In any case, those numbers further decreased after the second opening of

Alexandria (Ashour, 1963).

As soon as Amr settled down, he began to direct his attention to internal affairs. He

did not give the government to the Muslims, but rather left it to the Egyptians, and he and his

Arab troops initially settled in camps or stayed within Alexandria and al-Fostat, leaving the

rest of Egypt in the hands of the Egyptians (Zeidan, no date).

The choice of al-Fostat• was definitely a strategic and military choice. Amr had

wanted to select Alexandria as his capital, but it was the Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (634-

644) who refused because he knew that there was ‘water’, i.e. the river Nile, dividing

Alexandria from his own headquarters. Umar gave orders to his generals not settle in a place

where they would be separated from their Caliph by a river or any water barrier (al-Ali, 1953).

Amr had to choose a place where the Caliph could send him unhindered reinforcement troops

whenever the need arose. Not only was Fostat undivided by water, it was also lay in the heart

of Egypt, joining the north and the south. Alexandria, on the other hand, was vulnerable to

naval skirmishes of which the Arabs were as yet unfamiliar, and the capital therefore had to

be distant from that assailable area (Ashour, 1963). The essential transfer of the capital from

Alexandria to Fostat weakened Alexandria’s status. According to the pact that Amr gave the

• The term Fostat is said to be derived from Fossatum, a Latin word for a moat surrounding a fortress (Zeidan, no date). Fostat, according to some scholars, was not a deliberate choice, but was rather a matter of practicality. A garrison town, it started out as temporary military tents that had been erected south of current Cairo, near Babylon, during the surrounding of that fortress, and this was later transferred into a city following the entry into the fortress. It was conveniently situated, at a distance from the Nile, but because it was close to a mountain, consecutive governors choose other places to live in. Several ‘Fostat-like’ cities had been built throughout the empire, which were basically ‘mass encampments of makeshift tent settlements that in time grew into permanent cities as Arab immigration was encouraged’ (al-Sayyad, 1991). Such garrison towns were built in the initial stages of the Islamic expansion for several reasons, among them ‘the need to establish control over non-Arab populations of the conquered domains, to defend Arabia from invasion…, and to function as the springboards for further campaigns’ (al-Sayyad, 1991).


Egyptians, the Romans had to evacuate Alexandria, which further debilitated and deteriorated

the economic status of that once great city. The absence of its main source of trade and

commerce, which had made it economically flourish had further caused its gradual decline.

Furthermore, the destruction of the fortress surrounding Alexandria helped further

weaken it. Heavy taxes were levied from the people, and the Alexandrians decided to go to

rebel against Amr. A battle ensued in the year 654, and once again Amr found his forces

besieging Alexandria, but being held back by its strong fortress for the second time. He swore

to destroy it, and when he finally won the battle in a surprise attack at dawn, when a guard

secretly opened a door for them, the Romans were taken by surprise, and Amr annihilated

the walls. With the fortress no longer present, the population in Alexandria shrunk and

withdrew inwards, towards the center, abandoning the outskirts and leaving them deserted. It

was natural for people to feel threatened on the outskirts, and to withdraw inwards with their

buildings for security and safety reasons (Ashour, 1963).

The fate of the famous Alexandrian lighthouse is also unknown. Its destruction must

have come sometime after the Islamic entry into Egypt, because it had a distinct impact on

Islamic architecture. Amr had so far not built any mosques, and minarets were as yet

unknown. However once mosques were finally built, the first being Amr Ibn Al Ass’s mosque,

several others followed, and they were all without minarets. It was during the time of

Mosallama bin Mokhaled that minarets were added to all mosques in Egypt based upon his

explicit orders, and were even called the Mosque Lighthouses, referring to the imitation of the

famed lighthouse (Ashour, 1963).

No one knows what happened to the Caesarium either, which Cleopatra had built for

Anthony, and was later transformed into a church in the 4th century AD. In Arab writings

following the conquest, the Caesarium had been mentioned and described with infatuation

and awe, but no one knows what happened to it, nor when it was categorically destroyed

(Ashour, 1963).

The story of what happened to the famous library in Alexandria is a controversial one.

It has been said that it was Amr who had destroyed and burnt it following the orders of his

Caliph. According to this story, a Coptic scholar close to Amr had asked him if he would

permit him to take the books in the library since Amr evidently had no need for them. Amr

said he could not do so unless he asked the Caliph. The Caliph’s answer, according to

several historians, was that if the library contained books that supported Islam, then Islam did

not need them because it was, in itself, the truth. If, on the other hand, it contained books that

were anti-Islamic, then there was still no need for it, because it was against Islam. It was then

that Amr burnt the books, and that he distributed them over all the baths in Alexandria, and

they continued to burn for six continuous months, an exaggeration that was meant to show


the enormity of the library•. This story has been widely disputed, and its veracity doubted.

Whatever the case, the library disappeared sometime following the Arab conquest.

It is clear though, that the victorious Arabs had felt many different reactions towards

the structure and architecture of the cities they conquered, not least among them Alexandria.

Amr sent his Caliph letters of extreme admiration and awe at the newly acquired lands, and

its outstanding buildings. Upon entering Egypt, Amr was awestruck by the beauty of his most

recent acquisition. Egypt’s major cities were mega-cities of beauty and exquisite architecture.

From Alexandria to Thebes, enormous buildings with pillars and surrounding gardens were

abundant, an exquisite and enriching mixture of Pharaonic, Greek and Roman architecture.

Amr wrote to his Caliph:

“I have taken the great city of the West. It is impossible for me to enumerate the

variety of its riches and beauty; and I shall content myself with observing, that it

contains four thousand palaces, four thousand baths, four hundred theaters or places

of amusement, twelve thousand shops for the sale of vegetable food, and forty

thousand tributary Jews. The town has been subdued by force of arms, without treaty

or capitulation, and the Moslems are impatient to seize the fruits of their victory.”

(Cited in Gibbons, 1782).

The Caliph would hear none of the ‘fruits of victory,’ and ordered Amr to check his

zeal. Later, however, he asked Amr to describe to him the Egypt of which he had so often

heard. Amr wrote back in evident fascination, saying:

“O commander of the faithful, Egypt is a compound of black earth and green plants,

between a pulverized mountain and a red sand. The distance from Syene to the sea

is a month’s journey for a horseman. Along the valley descends a river, on which the

blessing of the Most High reposes both in the evening and morning, and which rises

and falls with the revolutions of the sun and moon. When the annual dispensation of

Providence unlocks the springs and fountains that nourish the earth, the Nile rolls his

swelling and sounding waters through the realm of Egypt: the fields are overspread

by the salutary flood; and the villages communicate with each other in their painted

barks.” (Cited in Gibbons, 1782).

On and on, Amr continued to describe the declining glory of Egypt in vivid

romanticism and admiration.

• Gibbons, in his distinguished Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire (1782), has expressed doubts as to the veracity of this story.


But soon, as al-Sayyad rightly notes, such admiration was later replaced, albeit by

other rulers throughout the empire, with feelings of ‘disregard, rejection, and contempt’, and

from one of acceptance and understanding, to one of competition (al-Sayyad, 1991).

Administration under Arab Rule:

Amr divided Egypt into regions, each headed by a Coptic governor who reviewed

people’s individual cases and issued verdicts regarding them. As a new leader in an as yet

unfamiliar country, it was only wise for Amr to bring the Copts closer to him, and appoint them

as governors, scribes, and even tax collectors, taking control of their own country’s

administration.

Amr introduced institutional courts, and divided them into permanent councils,

consisting of prominent members of the community, to issue verdicts. Those councils were

called the diwans, whose members were elected by the people (Zeidan, no date). The laws

of the Muslims applied only to Muslim members of the community, and even when there was

a Coptic individual involved in a case against a Muslim, Coptic ‘defense’ individuals were

allowed to participate in court proceedings (Zeidan, no date).

Amr’s pact with the Egyptians stipulated for head taxes (the gizya), amounting to two

dinars for every male, in addition to taxes levied on land (known as the kherag). This latter

was an escalating tax, depending on the wealth of the landowner. Other taxes included taxes

on churches, public baths, and also ‘hosting’ taxes, the latter being when the Muslims entered

any village or city, whereby the citizens had to host them and provide for their meals and

accommodation (Ashour, 1963). All the money levied was distributed to members of the

diwans, the princes, and the soldiers, each according to their status. The rest was sent back

to the Caliph for the treasury known as the House of Finance, or beit al mal (Zeidan, no date).

Amr was known to have been lenient with the Egyptians in tax collection, and several times

the Caliph wrote to him, to hasten the payments.

In addition to establishing his control over the administration, Amr also began building

and reform, restoring the Nile gauges that had previously been totally destroyed, and giving

great attention to agriculture and irrigation. He even dug a canal joining the river Nile to the

Red Sea, and named it The Believer’s Gulf (Khalig al Momenein) (Zeidan, no date).

Throughout Amr’s governance of Egypt, Copts enjoyed peace and stability. Amr’s lax

tax policy prompted the Caliph’s anger several times, and he soon replaced the more

competent Amr with a harsh man named Abdullah ibn Saad. In trying to prove he was more

efficient than his predecessor, Ibn Saad collected both the taxes and the kherag very

systematically, without accepting any delays. The total amount of money that eventually

reached the Caliph, was more than what Amr used to send him by at least two million dinars.

The story goes that the Caliph mentioned this to Amr saying that the ‘cow brought too much

milk this time’, whereby Amr cynically answered that the cow will probably die of squeezing.


It was on account of such costly taxes that in the year 654, the Alexandrines rebelled

(Ashour, 1963), as has been mentioned before. They indeed sent to Rome requesting their

assistance against their new Arab rulers. Four years after the Arab conquest, the Romans, for

the last time, entered Alexandria, and took full dominion of it. As expected, the Alexandrine

Romans cooperated with the Roman invaders, whereas most of the Copts, fearing the return

of the Melkite control, supported the Arabs.

From that time onward, the situation of the Copts fluctuated between full-fledged

persecution on the one hand, and peaceful living on the other, depending on the governor’s

personality, and the interest of the distant Caliph in Egypt’s local affairs.

The Arabization and Islamization of Egypt:

Towards the end of the 12th century, Arabic had become the dominant language of

the northern part of Egypt, and the South followed towards the end of the 16th century. There

are many biased historical controversies surrounding the Arabization and Islamization

processes. What is certain, however, is that many Copts had converted to Islam following the

Arab Islamic conquest of Egypt, hence by the end of the 10th century and the beginnings of

the 11th, Muslims became the majority of the population. The Coptic and Greek languages

continued to be spoken, and used in scholarly works, but both gradually withdrew, and Coptic

became confined to the monasteries and the church liturgies. The final undoing of the Coptic

language came when Abdel Malik bin Marwan Arabized the diwans, and further in the 12th

century when Pope Gabriel (1146-1131) Arabized the Church’s liturgy for people to

understand it, and then translated the Bible into the Arabic language.≠ This gradual change

into the Arabic language was governed by a matrix of social, economic, political and cultural

factors.

Some scholars claim that Islamization came first and that Arabization was a natural

consequence. They claim that wherever Islam spread, Arabic had to spread as well, except in

≠ There are some claims that the Bible had been translated into the Arabic language even prior to Islam, but those translations were unofficial and sporadic translations of parts of it. Those who support this opinion are prominent writers such as Father Louis Sheikho, and Antoine Baumstark and many others. Gawwad Ali, cited in Wathaek Asreya fi Sabeel al Hewar Bain al Maseeheyeen wal Muslimeen has said that: “It is not far fetched to say that there were Arabic translations of the Bible in al-Heira, because of what was known of its progress in culture and education and because of the presence of many educated Christians there. Muslims found there, upon entry into Heira, several children learning to read and write the Bible, and many of them had become prominent in theology and have become high in the clerical ladder in other parts of Iraq…It is not strange therefore if those people had interpreted the Bible and explained it to people, and it is not far fetched to say that they had written down their own interpretations and translations to make it more accessible to people…” For more on this issue and the supporting opinions, see the above mentioned book.

One important evidence that the Bible had been Arabized in whole or in part is Eusebius’ mention of the Arabian bishops and the heresies that occurred in ‘Arabia’ in a chapter entitled ‘Dissension of the Arabians,’ and how Origen had gone to them to discuss such heresies with them (Bk. 6, Ch. 37).


inner Syria and Western Iraq where Arabization occurred first (Hourani, 1991). The very act of

Islamization:

“carried with it an implication: the acceptance of Arabic as the language in which

revelation had been given, and this, together with the need to deal with Arab rulers,

soldiers and landowners, could lead to its acceptance as the language of everyday

life. Where Islam came, the Arabic language spread.” (Hourani, 1991)

Others contend that Arabization and Islamization were two simultaneous processes

(see Kanawati, 1992), while Others still believe that Arabization preceded Islamization.

The Arabization of Egypt:

There were several stages for the withdrawal of the Coptic language. When the

diwans were Arabized, Coptic remained prevalent and the ‘power balance’ between the two

languages was equated (Yussef, 1987). The influence of Arabization soon became visible,

and the Coptic language withdrew inside the churches and the monasteries. The Coptic

language started to be written in Arabic letters, and interestingly, Arabic began to be written in

Coptic letters.

Several factors contributed to the Arabization of Egypt, but two of those were the

most instrumental. The first is the official change into the Arabic Language. With the

Arabization of the diwans, Coptic employees had to learn Arabic in order to keep their

governmental positions. There was a system of ‘inheriting a job’, which made those

employees teach their own families the language in order to secure their future. The

bureaucratic institution is naturally the daily link between the authorities and all sectors of

society. But more importantly, there were times when penalties were given to anyone heard

speaking or using the Coptic language, such as during the times of Abdallah ibn Abdel Malek,

or the Hakim Be’amr Ellah, or Sultan Bibars (Yussef, 1987).

The second main factor is the Papal Decree of Arabization. Pope Gabriel II (1131-

1145) issued a Papal Decree stipulating the use of the Arabic language in Church services,

besides the Coptic language. This decree was issued because the Pope realized that most of

those who attended the church were no longer able to understand the sermons, nor

participate in the liturgy which uses the old Coptic language. A significant letter was

exchanged in the 10th century between the pope and a man named Habib, which explains

how Arabic had infiltrated all sectors of life to the extent that people could no longer

understand their own language:


“You have mentioned, Habib, that many things have been said about Copts now

regarding their Orthodox faith, and that some of them do not view matters like others

and they call each other apostates, and you are surprised about that. Do not be

surprised because the reason for that is their ignorance of their language, because

the Arabic language has become prevalent, and none of them know what is being

read to them in the Coptic Church, and so they hear without understanding…” (cited

in Habib & Afifi, 1994).

Nevertheless this decree seems to have been a consequence rather than an initiator,

i.e., a consequence to the status quo of Arabization, and how Egyptians no longer understood

liturgies, and did not, itself, cause any transformation.

Some historians add that among the composite factors to Arabization was that Arab

tribes had settled amongst Egyptian villagers and their families, and had gradually integrated

together (Habib & Afifi, 1994), hence making Arabic the spoken daily language of the people.

Arab tribes continued to be attached to the agricultural land, mingling with the local population

leading to their full integration with the original landowners, and intermarriages proliferated.

The final reason that may have contributed to Arabization was that the Copts, particularly

those who have reached prominent official posts during the Fatimide era, have encouraged

writing and translations into the Arabic language (Yussef, 1987).

The Islamization of Egypt:

In the initial phases of the Arab conquest, social factors were equally important in the

conversion process. Even though the Arabs most of the time did not actively coerce Copts

into converting, there was what could be termed “negative coercion” or the subtler forms of

coercion through heavy taxation, through granting them an inferior social and political status,

and through the many restrictions and constraints they had to suffer for their religion. What

came to be known as the Pact of Umar≈ (see Appendix VI) is one such example, where

Christians throughout the Arab Empire were required to dress, walk and ride differently from

their Muslim counterparts, in addition to the additional taxes they had to pay as dhimmis.

Naturally, how seriously such rules and regulations were applied depended mainly upon the

nature of the governor at the time and upon local circumstances. Yet even in the best of

≈ There is a relatively recent historical controversy surrounding the authenticity of that pact. Some historians claim that Umar II Umar Abdel Aziz and others introduced this pact sometime later in the 4th century higri, or during the times of al-Motawakkel, and that such a pact was forged in order to enforce the Caliph’s position. Apparently the first mention of it was by Ibn al Kayem who mentioned the pact but did not mention its details saying that they were famous in their own right and did not need re-writing. Another writer was Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi in short details. Regardless of its authenticity, the impact was unquestionable on Christians throughout the empire (For more on this see Fayee, 1985).


times, “the position of a minority is uneasy and inducement to convert existed” (Hourani,

1991).

The Jewish population in Egypt, as well as throughout the Arab Empire converted

into Islam individually, rather than in groups. The reason for that was not only their ‘strong

communal organization,’ but more importantly because they were not being “identified with

any of the states with which Muslim rulers were at war from time to time” (Hourani, 1991) and

were therefore left to their beliefs.

The situation with the Christians, on the other hand, was substantially different. Many

had links with the Byzantine Empire, and therefore “incurred suspicion in times of war”

(Hourani, 1991). Additionally, the status of non-Muslims was by far more inferior to the

Muslims, and to the Muslim tribes who had come to settle in Egypt. The further and persistent

diminution of their social freedom and status had no doubt contributed to the conversion of

many.

Added to all that, there could be no doubt that the economic factor was a crucial

reason for the conversions. The heavy taxation that was enforced on the Copts, which was, in

essence, an extension of the Byzantine taxation system, induced many to convert. Through

the constant and regular conversions, the gizya money decreased, and governors had to find

a way to balance the lost finances. Abdel Aziz, for instance, forced monks to pay a gizya, and

they had been previously absolved from them. This made many more Copts convert.

Some social restrictions placed on the Copts also made many convert at different

periods of time, especially whenever they felt socially inferior and humiliated. What came to

be known as the Pact of Umar was one such notable example of those constraints, despite

the controversy surrounding its authenticity. But the pact, whether forged at a later date or

not, included the main principles that were applied to the Copts at certain stages of Arab rule,

and the boundaries they were not allowed to cross. The pact, in essence, stipulated for six

rules and regulations that were called ‘obligatory,’ and six others known as ‘favorable.’ The

first group, if violated, broke the pact of safety with the Christians, while the second did not

necessarily break it, but it was left to the local governor’s discretion to deal with the violators.

The obligatory included not mentioning Islam at all, as well as not mentioning the Holy Book

with either bad words or deviation; never calling a Muslim woman an adulteress; never

converting any Muslim into Christianity, or have anything to do with his money or blood; no

Christians were to be used in a war, nor should they help the enemies in their war against the

Muslims.

The favorable rules, on the other hand, that would not necessarily break the pact of safety,

were said to have been written at even later dates, and they in essence stipulated that

Christians should dress differently from Muslims; the sound of their bells should not ring

loudly nor their Book be read in a loud voice, nor hymns sung aloud; their buildings should not

rise above the Muslim’s buildings; they should not drink alcohol in public nor show their


crosses; they should conceal their dead and should not cry loudly over them; and finally, they

were prohibited from riding horses.

In view of such conditions and restrictions, many Copts and Christians throughout the

Empire chose to convert, even though at times, even such conversion did not prevent them

from being treated as second class citizens, such as during the Umayyad period, as shall be

shown later.

But there were many other non-coercive reasons for conversions as well. Some

Copts have indeed converted for self-interest, especially the officials who wanted to be equal

in status to the Muslim rulers, both socially and politically, or, as Hourani puts it, there was a

“natural attraction towards power.” Immigrants into the new cities might convert in order to

eschew the special taxes paid by non-Muslims. Some might have even converted because of

the simplicity of Islam, as compared to the Muslim religion. The very fact of the “absence of a

Muslim church or an elaborate ritual of conversion, the need only to use a few simple words,

made acceptance an easy process” (Hourani, 1991).

Hourani claims that those who converted were primarily those who lived in, or near,

the urban centers of the Arab population and power, where there were the strong, newfound

Islamic institutions such as the mosque, the law court, the diwans, etc.. By the end of the 10th

century, the rural population followed. Other scholars claim that conversion began initially in

rural areas, and was later moved to urban ones, and that the principle justification was

demographic, such as Arab migration and settlement in large numbers throughout Egypt (see

Abu Seif Yussef, 1987).

No doubt migration has contributed towards Muslim population increase, especially

as there was, according to Yussef, high birth rates among them. More importantly, the

governors who were appointed to Egypt arrived with their entire entourage and their families,

and such measures helped in doubling the number of Arab immigrants to Egypt, seven

consecutive times, in less than half a century (Yussef, 1987). The Umayyad Caliphs in

particular, began to send strong Arab enforcement to remote Egyptian villages, to curb

occasional Coptic rebellions, the first of which began in the year 107 higri.

Yussef pointed to five consecutive waves of Arab migration, the first of which was

simultaneous with the Arab conquest to Egypt, and it included large numbers of Arab

Christians, even though this latter has not been established in any other scholarly work. The

second wave was an intentional and deliberate wave, initiated and encouraged by the

Umayyad Caliphs, to strengthen Arab positions and stronghold in Egypt. The third was during

the Abasside Caliph al-Motawakel’s time, and the fourth was during the Fatmide era. The last

migration wave came with Saladdin, which he helped settle in Egypt as a reward for helping

him fight the Crusades. The number of tribes who have settled in Egypt were 244 tribes in

total, 60 of whom were from Adnan and 172 from Qahtan, not to mention other unknown tribal

settlements (Yussef, 1987). Migration ceased towards the 14th century.


Finally, forced conversions and coercion featured also an important factor in the

Islamization of Egypt. In addition to the ‘passive’ pressures that include lower social and

economic status, some Caliphs and governors have used deliberate intimidating methods to

convert the Copts and Christians throughout the Empire, which resulted at times, in group

conversions.

The Caliphate Inherited: the rise and fall of the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750):

Administration:

Many significant changes transpired when the Umayyads took control of the Arabian

Empire. Their reign began with Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufian (661-681), of the family of Uthman,

who had been assassinated by his rivals, and Mu’awiyah at the time had been governor of

Damascus. The first thing he did was immediately transform the Caliphate system from an

electoral, to an inherited one, whereby began the reign of the Umayyad dynasty that lasted

until the year 750. In essence, he transformed a religious institution into a palpably political

one. He also transferred the headquarters of the Caliphate from Medina to Damascus

(Zeidan, no date), a natural choice having been governor there for some time. It is claimed

that the very expressions “Caliph of God” or “God’s Caliphate”, were Umayyad expressions,

invented to support Uthman bin Affan, the Umayyad, in his wars against the Hashemites, and

were in essence the Arab form of the divine right of Kings (Ashmawi, 1989). They considered

themselves the ‘vice-regents of God on earth’ (Payne, 1957). The Umayyad rule was

characterized by being worldly, a “pure monarchy, and a full-fledged sultanate, that had

nothing of religion except in the superficial form. The Caliphs themselves were politicians, and

were generally corrupt, and most of the time unjust (Ashmawi, 1989).

A lover of luxury, one of Mu’awiyah’s principle contributions was terminating Umar’s

rule of preventing Muslims from planting their own land. Umar had prohibited Muslims from

either keeping money, or owning land and farms, because he believed that soldiers should

only be paid from the treasury (beit al mal). He wanted them to be soldiers ‘on the move,’

unattached to land or property (Zeidan, 1911). Mu’awiyah, on the other hand, encouraged

Muslims to private ownership and to agriculture and settlements.

Generally speaking, the Umayyads were a fanatic Arab family who derided and

looked down on those who were not of their racial and familial, tribal, origin. They highlighted

their Arabism, rather than their Islamism, and it was precisely for that reason that the Copts

suffered under their rule. This also explains why even the Copts who had converted to Islam,


who had come to be known as the Mowalis•, continued to be treated like slaves. The

Umayyads believed that they had basically made them a favor by converting them and

showing them the true religion. The Mowalis were therefore prohibited from walking along the

side of any Muslim (Zeidan, 1911), and if they met some Muslim in the market, who asked

them to carry something for them, they had to comply. Additionally, even in marriage, if

someone wanted to ask for the hand of a girl, he had to do so from her Mawla, or protector

and not her family (Ashmawi, 1989)≡. It should be mentioned that it was not only the Copts

who suffered but also all Muslims who were not of the same familial or tribal origins. They

mistreated the Abbassides and the Alawis, and prevented them and others from indulging in

politics, or having to do anything with administration (Ashmawi, 1989) fueling ever increasing

resentment among them.

The taxation system under the Umayyads was arbitrary, and many Copts converted

in ever increasing numbers throughout their reign. Taxes were initially lifted from those who

converted, but that person’s taxes had to be paid by other members of his family or

neighbors, in order not to affect the input to the treasury. When increasingly large numbers

began to convert, and state income decreased, taxes continued to be taken from the Copts,

in spite of their conversion. Many therefore escaped to the monasteries and became monks,

because the monks were the only citizens exempt from taxes. This made Abdel Aziz, one of

the Umayyad governors under Caliph Mu’awiyah ibn Yazid (684), order the statistical

counting of monks, and the levying of taxes on them as well. This was the first official tax

taken from the monks (Zeidan, 1911).

As for the other Copts in general, in addition to the land and head tax, there were

taxes on agriculture paid by the Mowalis. This policy made the peasants escape toi the

nearby deserts, and at times incited sporadic rebellions which al-Makrizi called the Coptic

intifadas.

Social and class distinction became very prominent during that time, and wealth

distribution varied even among the immigrant Arab tribes, and among their leaders, followers

and members (Yussef, 1987). Corruption became prevalent, and moral values eroded. What

could be called the ‘Arab aristocracy,’ consisting of army leaders and the wealthy traders, all

sought to own land, and were indeed given the best of land closest to the Capital (Yussef,

1987) in return for either bribery or favors.

• The term Mowalis means any person not of Arab origin even if Muslim, who has to take a Mawla or protector of Arab origin to protect him and support him (Ashmawi, 19). This did not include only Copts, but also Persians and other non-Arab Muslims. ≡ Some historians contend that the Mowalis in particular were well treated during that period (Hussein Mones in a footnote, in Zeidan, no date), and that the proof of that was the presence of Mussa bin Nosseir and Tarik bin Zeid, both of whom were prominent Islamic leaders. But a closer look at history shows otherwise, and reveals the hatred of the Ummayyads not only to all non-Arabs, but even Arabs who were not of their own tribe, all of which eventually brought about their downfall.


Church and State: marriage of convenience

Mu’awiyah re-appointed Amr as governor of Egypt, but the latter died in the year 663,

and was succeeded by Otba ibn abi Sufian. There were no significant events concerning the

Copts, and they lived in relative peace, with the exception of the economic pressure, until

Said bin Yazid al Azdi became governor of Egypt, during the reign of Yazid bin Mu’awiyah

(681-687). According to Church sources, Said became enraged that the then Pope Isaac

(686-689) did not come forward to welcome him upon his arrival in Egypt, and he immediately

ordered his arrest and imprisonment, until he paid 100,000 dinars. He was allegedly tortured,

until the Copts collected the required amount of money, and was then released.

There was no further harassment until the brief reign of Mu’awiyah bin Yazid, who

appointed Abdel Aziz as governor of Egypt in the year 684. In the incidents with Abdel Aziz,

the church-state power struggle became very apparent. Orthodox churches had been once

again given to the Melkites, and Church sources claim that the corrupt Caliph, Mu’awiyah,

had been bribed to do so (Yohanna, 1983). Nevertheless it is clear that Governor Abdel Aziz

was initially generous and benevolent to the Copts, and that he had treated them with

considerable generosity. In fact, Abdel Aziz had befriended them, to the extent that, after

founding the then affluent city of Helwan, he had asked them to build homes and palaces for

themselves there, and had had the pope visit him there on several occasions. He in fact

transferred the treasury to Helwan, and appointed a Copt named Anastas to supervise it.

Yohanna claims that the change in spirit was because Abdel Aziz perceived the downfall of

the Roman Empire, and no longer needed the endorsement of the Copts, and that he also

feared the pope’s popularity and power (Yohanna 1983). Even though the latter may be true,

he had good reason to do so.

In a very significant incident that cast a shadow over the Church/State relationship,

and brought up the thorny issue of the loyalty of the church, the pope entered into Abdel

Aziz’s disfavor by his own dubious actions. The incident started with a conflict between the

kings of Nubia and Ethiopia, because the Nubian king, even though a Christian, was

supportive of the Muslims, and decided to fight with them against the Ethiopian king. A

delegation from the Sudan arrived to discuss the issue with the Pope, and the latter sent a

letter with them, addressed to the Nubian king, urging him to be a true Christian, and support

the Ethiopian king against the Arabs. Abdel Aziz was informed of the letter, whereby he

immediately ordered the Pope’s execution.

Several prominent Coptic individuals mediated, and asked him to wait until the

message was verified. They forged new letters in the Pope’s handwriting, expressing his

support of the Arabs, and the Pope was miraculously saved (Yohanna, 1983). Despite that

telling vignette, the Pope never returned to the governor’s favor, and was thereon deprived of

the many benefits he had hitherto enjoyed.


Among the new measures taken following that unfortunate incident, was establishing

the principle of papal election in Babylon, rather than in the traditional Alexandria, and this

continued to be the case until the 11th century when the Patriarchate was finally transferred

altogether to Cairo. Papal elections also fell under state supervision, and the final choice of a

pope had to be with the endorsement and sanction of the governor, even though church

proceedings continued to be performed in Alexandria. Abdel Aziz further levied taxes on the

Coptic clergy who had, until then, been exempt from them: it amounted to one dinar per year,

per priest, in addition to 3000 dinars from the pope himself (Zeidan, 1911). Not only that, but it

was reported that when he got enraged at the Copts, he broke the Coptic crosses on their

churches, and wrote plates and placed them all over Egyptian churches that read:

“Mohammed is the greatest prophet and God has not begat nor was begotten” (Yohanna,

1983).

When his successor Abdullah ibn Abdel Malik became governor, during the reign of

Caliph Abdel Malik bin Marwan (684-705), Egyptian diwans were all Arabized. Anastas, the

Coptic administrator, had been responsible for them, and they were all managed in the Coptic

language. Abdullah however, fired him, and appointed Bin Yarbou’a al-Farazi instead. Abdel

Malik also made another important change. Up until his time, papyrus had still been used in

writing♣, and its main industrial headquarters was in Egypt. Papyrus rolls had all carried the

sign of the cross, as well as some Christian verses. Abdel Malik stopped the printing of the

cross and the verses (Ashour, 1963). In fact, in the later part of the 8th century, the technique

of making paper was brought from China, and by the middle of the 10th century, it had

completely replaced papyrus (Hourani, 1991).

Copts nevertheless continued to be occupy manifold administrative positions,

especially the Copts who had converted into Islam. Among the most notable of those latter

group, was Abdel Malik bin Abhar al Kenani, who had lived and taught in Alexandria. During

the Umayyad era, in 717, Ibn Abhar converted at the hands of Umar bin Abdel Aziz, before he

became Caliph.

The Decline and Fall: the long-awaited freedom

Following Abdel Aziz, his son Osba was appointed governor to Egypt, and he began

a new wave of persecution against the Copts. It was during his time that many Copts

converted into Islam, including priests and entire prominent Coptic families, because of the

burden of the heavy taxation that many were unable to pay. When the treasury income

decreased because of the conversions, Osba decided to increase taxation over the monks,

and they had to pay one dinar per monk, in addition to the already established yearly gizya for

each of them (Yohanna, 1983).


In the midst those problems and pressures, the Copts themselves were having their

own internal problems and disputes, especially as to who was to become the next pope.

Whenever external pressure eased, internal pressures and disputes immediately surfaced.

This was especially true regarding the election of Simon I (689-700), during the reign of

governor Abdullah bin Abdel Malik, under the Caliphate of Abdel Malik bin Marwan (684-705).

Following the death of Isaac, Copts differed as to his replacement. Even the governor made

fun of such senseless cacophony, and eventually approved one man who was brought to him.

When the governor asked this person’s nationality, he was told that he was Syriac,

whereupon he asked them why they did not elect one of their own. Upon their insistence, he

finally approved, and Simon was officially made Pope. One of Simon’s major

accomplishments was unifying the Orthodox Church with the Church of Antioch.

Simon was essentially a pious man, who disliked luxury, and chided the clergy for

their extravagance, hence making many enemies. The governor, however, liked him for his

piety and humbleness. Because of the animosity against him, he was subjected to two

assassination attempts by poisoning. When the governor heard, he arrested and executed

the men responsible for them. Church sources claim, without any evidence to endorse it, that

it was the Muslims who finally succeeded in poisoning and killing him (Yohanna, 1983) even

though there was no apparent reason for it, and they had nothing to gain by his death.

Following Simon’s death, the Copts remained without a pope for three years,

because they differed so ignominiously over elections, they were unable to go ahead with the

elections, and their situation became ever more aggravated. Governor Abdullah finally

granted them permission, and Alexander II was chosen as the next pope. The pope visited

him to bid him welcome, but upon seeing him, he immediately arrested him and asked him to

pay taxes. As the sum was very large, he asked to be released to collect it, and he

succeeded in gathering it from the Copts. Two monks however hid some of the collected

money and when the governor heard, he arrested them and they confessed. The Patriarchal

headquarters was closed down, all its possessions confiscated, and the pope himself was

arrested until he collected the same amount of money and presented it to the governor.

No sooner had this eased than internal problems arose once again. Alexandrine

churches demanded the money the previous patriarchates used to send them, and which had

stopped because of problems with the state, and when the pope tried to dissuade them and

then finally refused to pay them, they rebelled and complained to the governor. The governor

appointed a Melkite named Tadros as pope, but was soon rejected by the people and the

original pope returned to his seat.

One of the worst governors to be appointed over Egypt, was Korra ibn Shoreik, (in

709), during the reign of Caliph al-Walid ibn Marwan (705-714). Shoreik constantly made

depreciatory comments regarding Coptic beliefs and rituals, occasionally entering their

♣ Papyrus means ‘from the great house’ i.e. ‘the Pharaonic administration of yore,’ and was the most


churches, and stopping mass and prayers (Zeidan, 1911). He confiscated the property of any

wealthy Copt who died, and annexed it to his own treasury. He added further taxation on the

Copts, which made many escape, or attempt to flee, either abroad, or into the desert. When

Shoreik could not gather enough taxes, he pursued them, and ordered his soldiers to arrest

anyone who attempted to escape (Yohanna, 1983). The Copts did not get rid of his

pressures and harassment except upon his much-welcomed death.

When Caliph al-Walid died, he was succeeded by Soliman bin Abdel Malik, who left

Egypt to its previous governor, but appointed a callous man named Osama bin Yazid for the

kherag and taxes. Wanting to prove his efficiency to the Caliph, Yazid not only increased the

taxes, but also ordered all monks to wear an iron ring on their fingers with their name

engraved on it. This ring was taken from the tax collector each year, as proof that its owner

had paid his taxes. Anyone not wearing the ring had his hand cut off, and if this crime was

repeated, he was murdered. Yazid sent out his men to inspect all monasteries, and

meticulously execute those orders.

When Bishr bin Safwan was appointed governor during the reign of Caliph Yazid bin

Abdel Malik, he was initially generous to the Copts, but upon orders from Yazid, was

eventually forced to implement certain measures against them, including a further escalation

in taxation. Not only that, but Yazid ordered him to ensure that either everyone in Egypt was

converted to Islam, or they should leave the country, after relinquishing their possessions. It

was during that time that many Copts left the country and migrated, and it has been said that

even governmental employees left their positions and escaped with their lives. The country

was therefore left without proper administration. Those who remained behind had to pay

heavy taxes, and many were forced to convert. It was also during that time that many

churches were demolished and crosses torn down and broken (Yohanna, 1983).

When Hanzala bin Safwan ruled as governor of Egypt in 723, he ordered a lion drawn

on the arms of all Copts, and brought the Pope to engrave it on his arm. The pope escaped,

but died a few days later. Safwan brought those who had helped him escape, and tortured

them to death (Yohanna, 1983).

Hisham bin Abdel Malik was one of the most compassionate Caliphs who ruled

during that dynasty. He was kind to the Copts even though his governors were not, and he

was known to eliminate discrimination between people,p articularly that which was based on

religion (Yohanna, 1983). But it was during his time that Copts perpetrated a major rebellion

in the year 725, against his governors who had been persecuting them, and he immediately

expelled the governors and made the necessary amendments. It was also during this Caliph’s

time that the Melkites once again gained the upperhand over the local Copts. Emperor Leo

appointed Cosmos, a Melkite patriarch, which was the first time a Melkite pope was appointed

important writing material, imported from Egypt to the entire Roman Empire.


following the 60 year period without one, from the time of Umar’s caliphate. Some of the their

churches were also restored to them (al-Makrizi).

Abdel Malik bin Moussa was the last, and by far one of the worst, of the Umayyad

governors, under the Caliphate of Marwan bin Mohammed, the last Ummayyad caliph. As

soon as he was appointed governor, he immediately levied heavy taxes on the Copts and

their Patriarch, Khail I. Indeed when Caliph Marwan arrived in Egypt, both he and the

governor arrested both the Roman and the Coptic popes, and ordered them to pay taxes. The

Roman pope managed to pay 1000 dinars and was released, whereas the Coptic was unable

to find that enormous amount of money. He was very severely beaten and tortured and the

Caliph ordered his beheading. It was only when he discovered that the Coptic pope could

help in stopping the rebellion of the Copts that he kept him imprisoned, until he either brought

the money or stopped the rebellions.

The Umayyad’s fanaticism, feelings of superiority, and arbitrary actions had incited

resentment and provoked everyone against them throughout the Empire. When the

Abasssides rose against them in the Levant, Marwan bin Mohammed who had escaped to

Egypt, hoping to secure forces to push back the approaching armies, awaited their arrival. In

Egypt, however, he encountered worse rebellions due to his increasingly arbitrary actions,

further heavy taxation and uncalled-for persecutions, which made the Copts support the

Abassides when they approached Egypt. The Umayyad stability and stronghold over their

own empire was increasingly eroded by their sense of superiority, and this had far reaching

implications for the empire. Apparently the Copts had supported several external invasions, in

the hope that it would remove the Umayyad dynasty (see Ibn al-Atheer; and Zeidan, no date),

hoping to bring about their long-awaited freedom. The Umayyads reportedly sent the Mowalis

to war without ammunition or payment (Zeidan, no date) even though others contend that a

few governors had done that, but were either fired or chided by the Caliph when he was

informed (Mones in Zeidan, no date). In all cases, the Copts were clearly heavily burdened

with the Umayyad, and wished to get rid of them at all costs.

All those attitudes further angered Marwan, who immediately began a widespread

persecution campaign against the Copts. He particularly cracked down on the Coptic pope, in

an attempt to coerce him into halting the flaring rebellions. The pope failed to do so, and his

arrest and torture strengthened people’s will to fight them even more. There are gruesome

accounts of the sufferings the pope and his assistants experienced during that difficult time.

Despite, and perhaps on account of, the strength of the attacks against Marwan

throughout the Empire, he ruthlessly crushed internal rebellions. One notable rebellion took

place in Alexandria by an Abasside follower named al-Aswad bin Nafee’, supported by the

Mowalis (Ashour, 1963). Marwan sent his troops to crush the rebellion. Upon succeeding, he

set up harsh punitive measures against the Mowalis who had supported the Abasside uprisal.

Nevertheless, the Abassides ultimately murdered Marwan a mere month later, near Giza,

hence beginning the 500-year reign of the Abasside dynasty.


Chapter 3 Arab Egypt (II)

Egypt under the Abbassides until the Fall of the Ikhshids

(The Abbassides Dynasty, Tulunids and Ikhshids)

Religious Legitimacy: the Rise of the Abbassides (750-1258)

The Abasside Era is divided into two broad stages: the First Abasside Era, known as

the golden age, and beginning with its rise through Abbas al-Saffah and ending with the end

of al-Maamoon’s reign (813-833). The second stage is the Second Abasside Era, the course

of its decline, beginning with al-Motassem till its final fall under al-Mohtadi (869-870), followed

immediately by the transient rise of the Tulunids.

The Abassides were of the Prophet’s family; Abbas, the founder, was the prophet’s

uncle. Familial ties to the Prophet were of considerable importance during that period

because a Caliphs’ legitimacy depended mainly on his lineal affiliation and close relationship

to the prophet, particularly in the event that such legitimacy was challenged. This religious

and ethnic-inspired policy and claim as to the rightfulness of their rule necessitated that

‘whatever was agreed upon should be seen to be based on the teachings of Islam’ (Hourani,

1991). Basing their rule on the force of religious conviction, there was a need to resolve

mounting religious controversies and disputes, which eventually gave rise to the four Islamic

schools of thought.

The turn towards Baghdad: Administration under the Abbassides

The Abbassides chose Baghdad as their Caliphate headquarters, and it was the

second Abasside Caliph al-Mansour (754-775), who had instated that transformation.

According to some historians, the choice of Baghdad was a deliberate, circumspect choice,

because the Abassides wanted to remain as remote as possible from their predecessor’s

headquarters and centers of concentration. Indeed, they wanted to be closer to their allied

Persians. They therefore chose a city on Degla rather than the Euphrates (Feyye, 1985). Al-

Mansour also frugally weighed his options, selecting a city that was a ‘meeting place of

caravan routes in a fertile plain with its net of water canals’ (al-Sayyad, 1991). He therefore

built a city and named it al-Salam, later to be known as Baghdad.

While building the city, in addition to engineers and architects, al-Mansour employed

a selection of legal, religious and theological scholars, in order to “give religious legitimacy to

his act of building” (al-Sayyad, 1991). The team included the renowned religious scholar Abu

Hanifa, founder of one of the four Islamic schools.


From the beginning, the Abbassides sought neither the assistance, nor the guidance,

of other Arab families or tribes, who might have competed with them or challenged them in

any way. Rather, they sought the help of ‘foreigners’ such as the Persians and Turks, who

had been marginalized during the Umayyad dynasty, and who immediately relished their new

position of strength.

Throughout the Abasside reign, the Persians continued to be their foremost

supporters. In fact, it was a Persian man named Abu Muslim who had instigated strife and

revolt against the Umayyads, their manner of ruling and their corruption, rallying around him

people and armies, eventually helping Abul Abbas defeat them. In exchange for their favors,

the Abassides incorporated the Persians in all walks of life: socially through inter-marriages;

politically through appointing them as ministers and consultants; but most of all in the army, to

the consternation of all others. The consequence of this newfound power was the provocation

of consequential resentfulness and discord among the Arabs, who began to feel marginalized

themselves.

The Caliphs of the first Abasside Era were generally powerful, pompous and

charismatic tyrants, who instantly murdered their subjects or ministers upon suspicion of

disloyalty. Surrounding a Caliph with guards was a security measure that was, indeed,

introduced by the Abassides. During the Umayyad period, and despite their corruption and

people’s hatred of them, the Umayyad Caliphs had walked the streets unguarded. The

suspicious, irascible Abassides, on the other hand, were unapproachable Caliphs, visited

only by privileged guests who were compelled to ‘crawl on their knees to the throne’ (Payne,

1957). Nevertheless, in spite of such suspicions, the Abassides left the administration of the

state and empire almost exclusively to the Persians who, in turn, eventually ‘Persianized’

them: “Persian songs were sung, and Persian wines were drunk, and the courtiers wore

Persian costume’ (Payne, 1957).

Several Arab and Coptic uprisings occurred during the Abasside rule, but were

integrally crushed by the Abbassides. Al-Saffah (roughly meaning the blood-shedder) himself

was a bloody ruler, who began his Caliphate by digging up the graves of his predecessors,

and burning their remains (Ashmawi, 1989). He pursued the Umayyads everywhere, until

none was left alive. He was also said to have staged one of the worst massacres against

them, when he invited their leaders for a banquet and had them all slaughtered (Ashmawi,

1989).

It was also during the Abasside era, under Caliph al-Motamed bin al Motawakkel, that

the division between religion and state took place, separating the Caliph or religious leader,

from the Sultan, or the state-leader (Ahsmawi, 1989). When al-Motawakkel became Caliph

(847-861), he appointed his brother al-Mowafak as Sultan. Before long, power was

exclusively transmuted into the hands of the Sultans, while the Caliphs became mere puppets

who carried out the Sultan’s plans and orders (Ashmawi, 1989). The caliphs themselves were

murdered or had their eyes gouged, if they did not comply with the Sultan’s wishes.


The wealth of the Arabs was never more accumulated and amassed than in the

Abasside Era (Zeidan, no date). Even though the Umayyads had been wealthy, they were

spendthrifts, and therefore spent their money on their own entertainment and luxury. Wealth,

in the Abasside case, was therefore the money left over as net profit in the treasury, after all

expenses had been paid (Zeidan, no date). Perhaps the legends of Haroun al-Rashid’s (786-

809) wealth that abound to this day are indicative of their financial status and adroitness.

The Abassides appointed ‘Ommal’ or governors, who were either of the Caliph’s

family, or were Persians. Previously, governors had essentially been military personnel, and

their responsibility was to collect money and taxes from the population. During the Abasside

Era, this duty was given to civilian Muslims, except for the kherag, which was given to the

local Copts. The collected money was then sent to the governor, who withheld local

expenses, and sent the remaining sum to the treasury. The ultimate accumulation of that

wealth was during al-Maamoun’s time (813-833). A pleasure loving and intellectual Caliph, he

‘established observatories, encouraged music, allowed his court poet utmost license to say

what he pleased, and showed himself to be remarkably liberal’ (Payne, 1957).

Abasside wealth originated from several sources: the kherag, the gizya, the zakat

(alms), taxation on ships, fishing, customs, industrial taxation, and mining (Zeidan, no date).

The Kherag was for land and harvest taxation, and this was plentiful because of the

expansion of the state, and because agriculture was the predominant source of livelihood.

Additionally, the near-absence of wars and major uprisings during their time accounted for

fewer expenses on military and internal security matters.

Because Egypt was distant from the Caliphate headquarters, the consecutive

governors tended to increase taxes in unprecedented forms, despite the fact that fertile

agricultural land had been nearly destroyed during the Umayyads, because people had

abandoned it on account of the increased kherag.

Eyes and spies: Copts under the Abassides:

Initially, Copts were reasonably treated by Abbas al-Safah, because they had

supported him upon entry into Egypt. The Copts, as well as Christians throughout the Empire,

were also used as the ‘eyes’ of the Caliph, hunting for the remaining Umayyads and their

supporters (Fayye, 1985). Some historians claim that this confidence given by the Caliphs to

the Christians, eventually led to their downfall, since later Caliphs and governors, not to

mention people at large, felt apprehensive about them, and naturally distrusted them.

Additionally, the differences and conflicts between the different Christian factions themselves

throughout the Empire, and sometimes within one Christian faction, caused repeated

persecution waves, since each complained about, and reported, the activities of others to the

Caliphs and governors. It was natural, therefore, that as time passed, and with the


consecutive change of governors, many constraints began to be imposed on the Copts,

depending on how the governor perceived them.

Complaints against the Copts abounded particularly during the times of al-Mansour

(754-775). Some Muslims complained about how the Christians in administrative positions

had been mistreating them, obstructing their work, and seeking to gain money at their

expense; in short, dealing with them unjustly. Taking into consideration the fact that they

could not complain against the Persians, it is very likely that such complaints were not justly

founded, and that the Copts could have been used as scapegoats for their frustration. To

appease the protesters, al-Mansour immediately issued a decree to his governors throughout

the empire, ordering them to discharge Christian employees from all administrative positions,

and substitute them with Muslims. This mandate, however, was never actually carried out,

because the Christians held all key positions, and could not be sacrificed in one single wave.

Several constraints were placed on Christians throughout the Empire during different

periods of the Abasside era. Some researchers claim that those constraints existed only in

some parts of the Empire, especially the ones that were previously under Byzantine rule,

such as Egypt and Syria, because the Christians were particularly feared since they were of

the same ‘religion’ as the enemy (Fayye, 1985). Among those constraints, at different stages,

was prohibiting the building of new churches (in 757), the removal of some of their crosses

from the church domes (in 767), the shaving of all Christian males’ beards (in 770), and the

marking with red hot iron (in 770) (Fayye, 1985).

Despite such occasional constraints, Christians throughout the Empire had a

remarkable role in shaping Arab culture. Many of them were physicians, scribes and

translators, particularly translating Greek and foreign culture into the Arabic language. Indeed,

al-Mammoun, who was by all means an intellectual Caliph, founded a translation institute,

known as the House of Wisdom. He dispatched scholars to Rome, to translate some of the

European works in engineering, medicine and physics, despite the sporadic wars between

them. The translators were mainly from among the Christians of all denominations (Fayee,

1985).

It was only during Abasside Caliph al-Motawakkel’s time (847-861) that such

translations ceased for fear of their influence on Arab-Muslim thought. Al-Motawakkel also

revoked many of the privileges the Christians had hitherto enjoyed: he ordered the Dhimmis

to wear different clothes and different colors from Muslims, and prohibited their employment

in the Diwans.

Haroun al-Rashid appointed Abi Jaafar Yussef Yaacoub bin Habib al Ansari to the

post of Judge of Judges, or Supreme Judge, which was a newly established position. He

ordered him to write down the laws of the state, which he did in a book known as the Book of

al-Kherag. The book tackled several issues, among them the treatment of the dhimmis.

According to those laws, Christians were allowed to mingle in the markets with the Muslims

for trade, but were not allowed to sell alcohol or pork. Many of them were wealthy traders,


physicians and bankers, and the book set the amount of taxes they had to pay. Nearly the

same amount was to be paid by the Muslim counterparts as zakat. Churches were to be

renovated; however no new ones were to be built, and crosses were not to be visible. One of

the chapters in the book dealt with the attire of non-Muslims. The attire had to be different,

and that was to principally differentiate the Christians from the Muslims, especially in the

lands that were closer to Byzantium, and this originally applied more specifically to the

soldiers. Al-Ansari, however, stipulated for that change of dress throughout the Empire, and

applied it to all Christians:

“Not one of them should be like Muslims in either dress or what they ride on, or their

appearance, and they have to place belts like strong threads around the waist of

each one of them, etc.…” (Fayee, 1985).

And when matters were further exacerbated, there were debates regarding whether

one should salute or answer Christians, and whether one should buy from their stores.

Debates also surfaced regarding marital matters and personal status affairs, which forced the

Church to review its internal laws to correspond with Islamic laws (Fayee, 1985).

Spurred largely by such repression, many Christians converted to Islam, but it was

obviously and unmistakably clear that they had been converting superficially through words

and proclamation only, and did not take the Islamic religion in earnest sincerity. The

Abassides therefore, wrote out a prolonged statement that the newly converted individuals

had to read aloud and endorse publicly, before being admitted into Islam. For both the

Egyptian Copts and Melkites, this statement included a distorted version of the Nicene Creed

which, in essence, stated that Christians believed in a trinity that consisted of the Mother,

Father and Holy Spirit. The converts also had to proclaim their acceptance and condoning of

polygamy, approve the massacres of monks and deacons, and support the demolishing of

monasteries and churches. (Fayee, 1985)♦.

When Haroun al-Rashid came to power, a man named al-Fadel bin Saleh Ali bin

Soliman was already governor of Egypt, a tough, rigid man, who prohibited festivities,

celebrations, and their accompanying alcoholic drinks. He demolished the churches that had

been built after the Islamic conquest. Even though the Copts tried to save their churches by

bribing him, he refused. When he was discharged from his position, and replaced by Moussa

bin Eissa, the new governor permitted the Christians to rebuild their demolished churches.

Despite such occasional harassment, church sources claim that the Copts had been

relieved and had lived peacefully during al-Rashid’s caliphate. Their only problem with him

♦ Fayye here was citing the book entitled al Taareef bel Mostalah al Shareef by Shehab Eddin bin Fadl Allah al Amri, who died in 1349.


was his propensity to be suspicious of them and of their intentions, which perpetrated

immediate and occasional constraints on their movement and life.

Upon al-Rashid’s death, and while his sons fought over the Caliphate, West Africans

and Andalusians invaded Alexandria. Many Copts living in Alexandria supported the invaders,

in an attempt to get rid of the Abassides. The Muslims, meanwhile, fought against both, and

many churches and monasteries were demolished in the process. When Alexandria was

regained, and Abdulah bin Taher was appointed governor, he ordered the demolishing of

more monasteries, and the burning of churches and their contents, especially the images and

statues that they housed (Yohanna, 1983).

When al-Maamoun became Caliph, he appointed his brother al-Motassem over

Egypt. It was during his time that the ‘last’ and most famous Coptic uprisal took place, known

as the Beshmure uprising. The people of the Delta refused to pay the kherag, and fought

resolutely against the governor’s soldiers. Beshmure Copts in Upper Egypt emulated them,

and turned Egypt into pandemonium and havoc. Many soldiers and citizens were killed in the

process of terminating the rebellion. Al-Maamoun personally arrived in Egypt to check the

rebels, and instantly berated the governors for the Coptic uprising, blaming their slackness

and negligence. Staying two months in Egypt, he immediately dispatched his troops to the

Beshmures, and dealt forcefully with the dissidents. He dispersed them, killing thousands,

destroying churches, and enslaving women and children. Hundreds of Copts converted to

Islam during that period, especially those of the poorer classes who were most afflicted by the

counter-attack (Yohanna, 1983).

It should be noted that until that time, Muslims were rarely found in the villages.

Following the crushing of the Beshmure rebellion, one quarter of the people of Egypt

converted into Islam, and Islam therefore pervaded in ever-increasing numbers throughout

Egyptian villages.

When al-Motawakel became Caliph, he appointed his son al-Montasser as governor

over Egypt, and both unfortunately disliked the Copts. During his time, many orders were

issued concerning the Christians throughout the Empire. Women were prevented from

wearing the certain clothes worn by Muslim women, and were required to wear brown face-

veils, that were customarily worn by prostitutes. Men were required to wear clothes that were

commonly worn by women, in addition to four pieces of material over their clothes, each of a

different color (al-Makreezi). Copts were also required to ride donkeys and mules, rather than

horses, and to mark their saddles with specific symbols. They were also required to mark

their houses with wooden images of monkeys and devils, and were prohibited from lighting up

their torches during their festivities or weddings (al-Makreezi). They were also prohibited from

cooking in public, and were prevented from fixing crosses over their graves. It was natural,

therefore, that many Copts converted, unable to go through such humiliation. Coptic bishops

had to convince their parishioners that dressing in this manner was not shameful, and even


pointed out that Christ himself rode on donkeys and mules, whereas horses were war-like

animals (Yohanna, 1983).

Al-Motawakel also prohibited the Copts from working in governmental posts, and

many lost their jobs, and were consequently impoverished. More notably he prohibited

praying over the dead, closed down many churches, and prevented the sale of alcohol used

in communion.

To make matters worse for the Copts, the Romans decided to attempt regaining

Egypt, and their army marched until Damietta in the year 852. The Abasside governors,

fearing the Copts would side with the Romans, closed down their churches particularly those

in Fostat and Babylon (Yohanna, 1983).

Al-Motawakel was eventually murdered by his own son al-Montasser, who remained

in power for a brief period, after which al-Mostaeein gained power in 862. This latter was kind

to the Copts, giving them back their churches and permitting them to renovate many that had

been previously destroyed.

Images and the Iconoclastic Movement:

The effects of the iconoclastic movement♠ was beginning to strengthen once again in

Europe, and began to take its toll on Christians in the Abasside Empire as well, particularly

the Egyptians. The movement, which had been initiated by Leo III, was based on the constant

deification of imagery inside churches. Gibbons explains that among the reasons for Leo’s

enthusiasm was the

♠ Iconoclasm means ‘image breaking,’ eikon referring to ‘images’ or icons in Greek, and klast meaning break. It refers to the period in Europe, between 726-843. The iconoclastic movement began during the times of Leo III (c, 680-741). The movement expressed a hatred and contempt of images and statues, based on the concept that Christians have reverted to paganism and were glorifying images as idols. This was certainly based on pressures from the then strong Islamic world and also from the Jews. However, an official edict was actually issued by Leo III prohibiting images and iconography, in 730. The Roman papacy excommunicated him on that account, and Leo then set himself up as Emperor and priest. For details on the movement in Europe, and for an excellent comprehensive analysis of the use of images in Christianity, see The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.

A council was formed known as Hiera, or the Synod of Constantinople, (753AD) in which the decision to abolish images was theologically established. It stated that ‘the only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ… is bread and wine in the holy Supper.’ The second concerning iconoclasm was the Council of Nicea, the 7th Ecumenical in 787AD, which returned images to the churches, based on Irene, the regent for Constantine VI who ordered its convening. It stated:

“To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely fantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.”


incessant charge of the Jews and Mahometans, who derived from the Law and the

Koran an immortal hatred to graven images and all relative worship. The servitude of

the Jews might curb their zeal, and depreciate their authority; but the triumphant

Mussulmans, who reigned at Damascus, and threatened Constantinople, cast into

the scale of reproach he accumulated weigh of truth and victory. The cities of Syria,

Palestine, and Egypt had been fortified with the images of Christ, his mother, and his

saints; and each city presumed on the hope or promise of miraculous defense.

(Gibbons, 1782).

Initially, and in the beginnings of Christianity, images had been used with the utmost

concern in the church, being conceptually close to the recently dead paganism. In time, with

the need for tangible images, or what Gibbons calls ‘visible superstition for the benefit of the

multitude’ to support the faith of the common people, more and more images began to find

their way into churches. Those included images not only of the Son of God, but also of his

mother and of the different saints (Gibbons, 1782).

Gibbons explains:

At first, the experiment was made with caution and scruple; and the venerable

pictures were discreetly allowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and to

gratify the prejudices of the heathen proselytes. By a slow though inevitable

progression, the honors of the original were transferred to the copy: the devout

Christian prayed before the image of a saint; and the Pagan rites of genuflection,

luminaries, and incense, again stole into the Catholic Church. The scruples of reason,

or piety, were silenced by the strong evidence of visions and miracles; and the

pictures which speak, and move, and bleed, must be endowed with a divine energy,

and may be considered as the proper objects of religious adoration. (Gibbons, 1782)

This was no more true in Europe than in the Orthodox East, and Egypt in particular,

with the continuous influence of the Pharaonic and Greco-Roman rites. Eastern Orthodox

churches had always depended very heavily on images to address the illiterate and poor

commoners. Belief in the miraculous abilities of some paintings and sculpture was, and

perhaps still is to this day, prevalent. It was, therefore, not surprising that most Muslim

governors who entered Egypt destroyed Christian images, and called the Copts idolaters,

Islam being a religion that strongly opposed icons and images.

A significant incident occurred when Pope Cosmas (851-859) became patriarch of

the Coptic Church, providing a glimpse on the influence of the European iconoclastic

controversy over the Eastern churches. Roman Emperor Michael III (836?-867) ordered the

demolishing of images and statues form churches, hereby reawakening the declining


controversy. According to some sources, the reason for this was that a bishop in one of the

churches had placed a picture of the Virgin Mary with a breast dripping milk, claiming it was a

miracle, for personal financial profit. When the King discovered it was a forgery, he ordered

the abolishing of images and pictures from all churches (al-Makrizi). Cosmas sent to him

messages and debated with him on the issue, until he succeeded in reversing his decision,

finally approving the reinstallation of images. The controversy was settled in favor of the

Orthodox churches♦ for the time being. In fact, the controversy between East and West on

that issue continued for 120 years (Gibbons, 1782).

Corruption and Favoritism: the Decline

Because the Abassides favored the Persians over the Arabs, the latter were

provoked, eagerly awaiting a chance to retrieve their authority and long-lost presitge. When

al-Rasheed’s sons differed over who was to follow their father as ruler, the Persians, as

mentioned before, supported al-Maamoun because his mother was Persian, whereas the

Arabs supported al-Amin because his mother was Arab. This resulted in the eventual death of

al-Amin, and Persian power once again began to increase. When al-Amin was murdered, al-

Maamoun was proclaimed Caliph. He decided that his successor would be an Alawi, which

angered the Abassides, and they began a series of consecutive rebellions (Ziedan, 1911). He

visited Egypt and embarked on fighting corruption there, especially that the governors had not

been only corrupt but had completely ignored his orders. During his reign, despite the

beginning of the weakness of the Empire, culture and the arts had reached their peak, and he

instigated major reforms throughout the Empire.

When he died, their brother al-Motassem ruled, and because his mother was Turkish,

he favored the Turks, trusting neither the Arabs nor the Persians. He went as far as bringing

some Turks and Egyptians to Baghdad, and ordered them to build a town close to him. They

thus increased enormously in numbers. He also brought 4000 Turkish soldiers as

bodyguards, and their continuous presence was a visible reminder of the decline of Arab

power. People were additionally exceedingly enraged by their ruthless abrasiveness. The

Caliph eventually decided to move from Baghdad, which was increasingly becoming perilous

for him, and built himself a new capital at Samraa, a few miles from Baghdad, and closer to

Turkey. This significant move also meant that the Caliphate was being directed towards the

Turks rather than the Persians, and it marked the beginning of the Abasside dynasty’s

downfall.

The consecutive weakened Absasside Caliphs continued to be entrenched in

corruption. During the times of al-Wathek (842-847), who relished grandeur and luxury, both

Muslims and Christians suffered because of his depravity.

♦ There is no mention of that story in the history books that we have consulted, but the only mention


Furthermore, the Empire’s financial status worsened: money began to decrease

because many states had become independent from the Caliphate, and thus the kherag

decreased dramatically. The Caliphs themselves decreased some taxes such as those on

ships. Furthermore, the gizya decreased through many Christian and Jewish conversions into

Islam. To make matters worse, the different governors throughout the Empire began

withholding the money they collected, scarcely giving anything to the main headquarters.

Many irrigation canals and rivers were closed down because of wars (Zeidan, no date), to

prevent enemy ships from passing through.

When al-Motamad became Caliph in 870, a general of his army Ahmed Bin Toloun

(868-883), announced the independence of Egypt from the Caliphate, and proclaimed himself

absolute Sultan over it, hence beginning the Tulunid era.

Independent Egypt: The Tulunids (869-905) and the Ikhshids:

As mentioned before, it was Caliph al-Motassim (833-842) who began using the

Turks as soldiers and warriors, and from that time onward, they began to rise in military ranks

and power. It was from the military ranks that Ahmed bin Tulun rose, and seized power. With

the short advent of the Tulunids, Egypt began its relatively independent stage, and Egyptians

were no longer required to send their taxes to the Caliphate in Baghdad, but rather taxes

were kept to the local ruler. Rulers thus began seeking internal reform, rather than directing

their attention to external policies and sending finances to the Caliphate headquarters.

Ahmed Bin Toloun often chose to stay in Alexandria, and he directed his attention to

renovating and restoring it. He is said to have even renovated the famed Alexandria

lighthouse, whose upper area had been destroyed by an earthquake (Ashour, 1963).

Additionally, as naval battles began to take renewed prominence, Alexandria was provided

with the necessary attention to act as a naval base. Since the Tulunides ruled over Egypt and

the Levant, they needed a strong naval base to connect both areas through the sea.

Alexandria also served as the focal expansion point towards West Africa.

In order to win the affection and support of the Egyptians, Bin Toloun did not

discriminate between Copts and Muslims, and decreased taxes for both; hence a period of

quietude overcame Egypt. His successors, however, were unable to maintain their

independence, and Egypt was once again seized by the Abassides and brought to heel. But

shortly thereafter, in 935, Mohammed Ikhshid• (935-946) proclaimed independence from the

Abassides, thereby beginning the brief Ikhshidi dynasty. Once again his weak successors

failed to maintain their independence. A famous Abyssinian eunuch named Kafur, who

favored the Abassides, helped them regain control, and wrench Egypt from the Ikhshidis.

was of Cosmas convincing the Emperor to reverse his opinion on images (see Yohanna). • The term Ikhshid is taken from an Iranian title meaning prince.


During the reign of both the Tulunids (868-905), and the Ikhshids (935-968), the

Copts continued to be present without discrimination in all positions in the government and

the diwans, having a constellation of social roles, which enhanced their social status. It was a

brief, and much needed period of respite.


Chapter 4 Coming from the East and the West

The Fatimites and the Ayyubis

West Africa moves in: the Fatimites (969-1171)

The Fatimites arrived in Egypt from Western Africa. They rose to power in 909 after

establishing a Shiite Caliphate system in Tunisia, and claiming their right to the Caliphate as

descendants of Fatema, the daughter of the prophet, in order to rival the Abassides’ claim for

the legitimacy of their Caliphate. Al-Mahdi, their first caliph, founded al-Mahdeya, a new

capital after his name, and established it as his headquarters. From there, he managed to

expand and invade both Spain and Sicily, and append them both to his newly founded

empire.

In the year 969, the fourth Caliph, al-Mu’izz, rallied enough forces to invade, and

later append, Egypt to the Fatimite Empire, sending his brilliant general Jawhar al-Sikilli (the

Sicilian), who was of Christian slave origin. Initially, al-Sikilli headed for Alexandria, which he

conquered without significant opposition, then headed for Fostat. A truce was initiated

between Vizier Ibn al-Furat and Jawhar, and a treaty signed, which guaranteed the protection

of Egypt’s citizens. Upon arrival in Fostat, al-Sikilli encountered resistance, which he

immediately suppressed, and nevertheless granted amnesty to all people. What additionally

helped the relatively effortless entrance of the Fatimites into Egypt, despite previous failed

attempts, was the fact that many Egyptians had been sympathetic with the Fatimites ever

since they had sided with the Alawis≠ (Ashmawi, 1989). Moreover, Kafur, the governor of

Alexandria, out of fear of the Fatimites, had also accepted the messengers whom al-Mu’izz

had dispatched, inviting him and the Egyptians to embrace their belief, especially as the

Abassides were beginning to lose control over Egypt. Soon after shifting their main

headquarters to Cairo, the Fatimites lost Tunisia to the Berbers, but from Cairo, they began

their Eastern expansion, appending Syria and Palestine.

Al-Sikilli searched for a site to garrison his troops, and immediately decided upon a

site north of Fostat, where he built Kahirat al Mu’izz (or al-Mu’izz’s Cairo), better known as al-

Kahira♦ (just plain Cairo), by which he wanted to rival the magnificence of the Abasside

≠ The Alawis are the followers of Ali bin Abi Taleb. ♦ Al Kahira is a name that had been given to a bright star observed by astrologers in that era (al-Sayyad, 1991).


Baghdad. The building of Cairo took three years. He began by building his palace and the Al-

Azhar mosque≠, stationed his garrisons around it, then continued to build homes for the

people surrounding them. Eventually, the Azhar became the official state mosque.

The return to Cairo: Administration under the Fatimides

The Fatimites’ principal objective was the spread of Shiism, hence all their policies

were formulated to support it, in order to strengthen their stronghold over the people. In fact,

al-Azhar was built specifically with that intention in mind. Inside it, they founded both a library

and a school, whose primary aim was to spread Shiism.

Initially, the Fatimites founded their empire with the support of both the Arabs and the

Berbers≠. Those two continued to form the bulk of their army, before the Fatimites turned

towards the Turks at a later stage (Zeidan, 1911). This transformation transpired after al-

Mu’izz had become Caliph. In his bid to imitate and rival the Abassides, he resorted to the

Turks, hence inciting competition between them, and both the Arabs and Berbers.

The Fatimite administration typically consisted of diwans, in which the Copts featured

as senior employees, but never as ministers. Caliph al-Mu’izz kept the previous employees,

whether they were Christians, Sunnis or Jews, in their administrative posts. He also

immediately appointed Bin Kalas, a Jew who had converted into Islam, as financial

administrator, collecting the kherag. He replaced the Sunni mosque leaders with Shi’ia

supporters and believers, and appointed a new supreme judge, or Qadi, to rule according to

Shi’ia jurisprudence.

The Hisba and the Mohtassib:

Under al-Sikilli’s rule, the Fatimites began applying the Mohtassib system∗. The

Mohtassib was basically a supervisor of weights, whose duty was to measure food provisions

and check its proper storage. He was normally designated a special place in the market,

where he sat and listened to complaints and investigated wrong-doings. As the system

≠ Azhar probably refers to al-Zahra, which is Fatema’s title. The Fatimites named all their palaces al-Kosoor al Zahera or the al-Zahera palaces, and from there it was called al-Azhar (Hammouda, no date.) ≠ The Berbers were a group of strong warriors who had supported the Shiites in Morocco. They were tribes who had consistently abandoned Islam and were returned by force every time until their final conversion during the times of Mussa bin Nosseir. ∗ Some scholars believe the hisba system was introduced during the Abasside period when al-Mansour appointed Abi Zakareya bin Abdullah for Baghdad markets. Others claim it was always there and that its principles were only laid down during the Abasside period (Nabarawi, 1987). Others still claim it was introduced during the Fatimite era and that it was a powerful system just like the judiciary (Hamouda, no date).


developed, a police corps was placed under his control, to help him carry out the necessary

reforms.

Essentially, there were three systems: the judiciary, the military and the Mohtassib.

The Mohtassib’s duty gradually developed, taking more and more jurisdiction over society. He

began to direct his attention to issues of public security and discipline. Such powers soon

enhanced his status, eventually becoming as strong as that of the judiciary system. The

Mohtassib’s responsibilities, therefore, included judgements in matters that required

immediate verdicts, such as specific criminal cases, and acted as a substitute to the judiciary,

particularly in crimes that required less speed in issuing a verdict. More specifically, the

Mohtassib ruled in cases that dealt with the Shari’a, such as selling pork meat, instead of

ordinary meat.

Later, during the Mamluke times, the Mohtassib system persisted, but its duty

included checking that shops were not in the middle of the road, or were hampering and

obstructing movement, and that food presented was clean. Among their duties was

preventing children from being beaten in their classes (kottab), and preventing overloads on

mules or ships. They were also responsible for reporting any building problems regarding

mosques (Hammouda, no date).

Sane-man, madman: Copts under the Fatimides:

When al Mu’izz arrived in Cairo, the new Capital, in 973, Copts had been mainly

concentrated in Babylon, and numbered somewhere around 5 million (Yohanna, 1983). They

controlled most administrative positions in their hands, and had manifold social roles. Al-

Muizz immediately issued a decree of pardon to all whom al-Sikilli had arrested, and

appointed many Copts and Jews to more administrative positions in the state. Indeed, the

situation of the Copts not only improved during the Fatimite era, but was truly one of their

most relaxed periods throughout their entire history, with one very notable exception: when

al-Hakim became the ruler, as shall be explained shortly.

According to some Church sources, al-Sikilli, even though a Christian by origin, had

sent a messenger to the king of Nubia, inviting him to Islam, whereby the King of Nubia sent

him a message inviting him to Christianity (Yohanna, 1983). This ended further

communication between them.

Al-Mu’izz’s follower, al-Aziz-Bellah (975-996), whose wife was a Roman Christian,

followed the same policy. Generally, he was an intellectual Caliph, who loved books and

collected them in his palace, spending tremendous amounts of money over them (Zeidan,

1911). He even appointed a librarian whose responsibility was not only to tend to his books,

but also to read to him. Not only did al-Aziz continue to appoint Copts in consequential

administrative positions, but he also appointed his wife’s brother, Aristes as patriarch of

Jerusalem, and his brother Arsanius as bishop of Cairo and then pope of Alexandria in the


year 1000 (Mahmoud, 1995). Following her mother, his daughter Set al-Molk also had

considerable influence upon him, being his most favored daughter, and the Copts were

treated with utmost consideration.

Some historians allege that there were some restraints placed around the Copts

during the Fatimite era, particularly because they were allegedly biased towards their own

people. They also claim that they enforced senseless, and unreasonable taxes against the

Muslims (Mahmoud, 1995). Under the pressure of Muslim public opinion, Al-Aziz found

himself compelled to decrease and demarcate the employment of dhimmis in governmental

diwans, which meant substituting them with the Muslims. He went as far as issuing a decree

discharging them from their positions, and appropriating their properties, an evidently

immoderate maneuver to preserve and secure the stability and image of the Caliphate.

Nevertheless, the dhimmis existed in all classes and employments during the

Fatimite era. They were not merely public employees, but were mostly prominent physicians,

scientists, and scholars, a fact that consistently brought them closer to the governors and

consecutive Caliphs.

The Coptic, in fact Egyptian, period of ease and peace, was interrupted by perhaps

the most infamous of the Fatimite Caliphs, al-Hakim Be’amr Ellah (996-1021). Al-Hakim was

initially a devout and fervent Muslim, applying strict and righteous rules and principles over

his subjects. By some little-understood twist of fate, he adopted a new religion known as the

Derareya, a radically distorted teaching of Islam.

Accordingly, he began to contest Islam itself, and soon managed to accrue the enmity of his

own people. Upon reverting back to Islam, and in order to cajole his people into accepting

him, hence strengthening his legitimacy, he began to persecute both the Christians and the

Jews, playing on the fact that many Muslims were repeatedly complaining of their increasing

powers in administration (Zeidan, 1911). Because al-Hakim was known for his madness and

uncontrollable rage bouts, he ordered the seizure of Coptic and Jewish property, stripped

them of their possessions, and ordered them to dress differently from their Muslim

counterparts. In his ever-increasing mad frenzies against the Christians, he destroyed

monasteries and churches, expelled them from their governmental posts, and coerced many

to convert into Islam.

Some historians allege that Coptic persecution during that period was, in a sense,

justified, because they had given special privileges to other Christians, and had appointed

each other, excluding the Muslims, which made al-Hakim reverse his policy of tolerance into

one of persecution (Mahmoud, 1995). This is indeed misleading, since al-Hakim was an

irrational madman, and no reasoning could be used to either clarify or justify his actions. It

should also be emphasized that al-Hakim’s manic policies did not apply to the Copts alone,


but applied to the Muslims as well. He was an essentially mentally disturbed ruler, who issued

some of the most bizarre orders to the Muslims: he prevented them from eating certain foods

that he personally disliked, and ordered them to open their stores at night and close them in

the mornings. At some point he even ordered all employees in the government to convert to

Shi’ism, thereby persecuting the Muslim Sunnis. Many converted to Shi’ism in order to keep

their positions (Ashmawi, 1989). He also prevented certain Sunni rites, thereby alienating the

entire population.

Many peculiar orders were issued that vividly divulged his mental instability. Al-Hakim

ordered the Christians to dress in black attire only, and to place crosses around their necks

that weighed five pounds each (al Makreezi)•. He also ordered the destruction of many

churches, and built mosques in their place. During one of his rampages, he ordered all Copts

and Christians to be expelled from Egypt, and to head for Rome. In a desperate attempt to

appease him, the Christians gathered at his palace door and begged his forgiveness, which

he surprisingly granted them (al Makreezi). Nevertheless, during that time, many Copts

converted (al Makreezi).

But al-Hakim’s most consequential mad rampage was his destruction of the Holy

Sepulcher. This outrageous deed propagated the consecutive Crusader Wars, as shall

shortly be explained in more details. Arab historian Yahia bin Said describes the destruction

of the Holy Sepulcher as such:

“the holy deed commenced on Tuesday, the fifth day before the end of the month of

Safar of the year 400 of the Higra (1009 AD). Only those parts of difficult access were

spared.”

Following its destruction, Christians were prohibited from visiting the rubble for eleven years,

nor were they allowed to pray by the ruins. It was only much later that the Christians

managed to build a sanctuary on the site, following the signing of a peace treaty between the

Byzantine emperor Argyropulos, and al-Hakim’s son and successor al-Zahir (1021-1036), in

which the reconstruction of the Sepulcher was stipulated. Al-Zahir radically reversed his

father’s policy, and went as far as allowing those who had converted forcefully to revert back

to their original faith. In his reform attempts, Al-Zahir went also exempted Pope Shenute II

(1032-1047) from paying the 6000 dinars, which were a prerequisite for the official approval of

a pope. Unfortunately Pope Shenute II proved to be a corrupt man, who himself took bribes to

anoint bishops. He also set down a law that would appropriate the property of any bishop

upon his death. Some bishops’ families actually converted into Islam, to bypass that law, and

• The heavy weight of the cross left blue marks on the neck bones of Christians, and they were therefore known as the ‘blue bones.’


went to the court for their inheritance, winning it all back. Nevertheless, the pope’s arbitrary

law remained unreversed for many centuries later.

When al-Mustansir (1036-1094) became Caliph, Pope Christodoulus (1047-1078)

was appointed. He immediately transferred the papal headquarters from Alexandria to Cairo,

seeing that Alexandria had begun to relinquish its importance. He also wished be close to the

government headquarters, a situation which his position necessitated (Yohanna, 1983). From

that time onwards, a deputy had to be chosen for the Alexandrian churches, while the pope

remained in Cairo. The church had been weakened during the times of the previous pope,

which made many Christians who had no access or knowledge of their faith and religion,

convert into Islam (Yohanna, 1983). This pope therefore embarked on renovating old

churches, and building new ones. He issued 21 bylaws governing the church, among them a

law prohibiting Orthodox Coptic Christians from marrying either foreigners, or non-Orthodox

individuals.

More notably, one of Christodolus’ accomplishments was strengthening ties with both

the Nubians and the Ethiopians. This endeavor enraged Yazowri, the Caliph’s vizier. Yazowri

arrested the pope several times on charges that he was inciting the Nubians against the

Muslims. He also ordered the closure of all the churches in Egypt. When the Caliph, however,

heard of those deeds, he arrested him immediately, and eventually had him killed for inciting

sectarian strife. Nevertheless, when the pope tried to open the closed churches, he was

required to pay taxes for every church he opened.

Between 1057 and 1072, a great famine occurred and many citizens fled Egypt.

Turkish, Sudanese, and slave soldiers, went on destructive rampages, in search of food.

When the Nubian king heard of the famine, he sent food and provisions to the Egyptian

Christians, but those were returned at the border (Yohanna, 1983). In 1073, with the

continuous erosion of the empire, Caliph al-Mustansir perceived that he had totally lost

control over his subjects, and that the empire was in a pitiful state of disintegration. He

therefore sought the assistance of a general of Armenian Christian origin, named Badr al-

Jamali, who subsequently converted into Islam, in order to secure his governmental position

(Yohanna, 1983). Al-Jamali was an ingenious general who succeeded in restoring order and

discipline, initially among the troops, and subsequently throughout Egypt. He also succeeded

in checking the advent of the Turks.

Al-Jamali’s relationship with the Coptic pope was contentious. Once, on hearing that

the Nubian king had destroyed a mosque, al-Jamali instantly arrested the Egyptian pope, and

accused him of inciting those events. Thereafter, all correspondence between the Pope with

either the Ethiopians or the Nubians, were regularly opened and examined.

The price the Caliph paid for al-Jamali’s services, however, was very high indeed. A

military dictatorship was created, and the sovereign title of Commander of the Armies (Amir al

Geyush), was bestowed upon Jamali, instead of the usual civilian vizier. The Caliph was

henceforth reduced to a mere puppet, while viziers were given the title “king”, controlling


everything from levying taxes, to the jurisprudence, and the army. This partition of control

among the viziers procured inevitable conflicts and a further debilitation of the Fatimite

Empire.

Perhaps the most conspicuous and consequential conflict was engendered during

the reign of the last Fatimite Caliph al-Adod, between Shawer and Dergham, both of whom

were governors of different provinces in Egypt. Initially, Shawer sought the assistance of Nur

Eddin bin Zinki of the Levant, to help resolve the conflict. Nur Eddin sent a general named

Shirkuh, together with his young nephew Saladdin, who would rise to fame and power soon

thereafter. When they restored Shawer to power, he decided to rid himself of them both, and

rule exclusively on his own. To accomplish his scheme, he sought the help of the Crusaders

who had already arrived close to Egypt’s borders. Shirkuh uncovered the plot and

immediately had Shawer killed. In the process, and in order to appease the angry Muslim

population against the invading Crusaders, Shirkuh burnt several churches as soon as he

came to power (Yohanna, 1983). Shortly thereafter, and for some unknown reason, he

decided to abandon Egypt to the Crusaders in return for 33.000 dinars. Following his death,

Saladdin set out to take Egypt by storm himself, and chase the crusaders out of it. More

importantly, he refused to proclaim loyalty to the new Fatimite Caliph, and thereby sought

independence, initiating the Ayyubi dynasty.

The Crusades•

The political situation on the international level was beginning to erupt. Following the

partial restoration of church images under Irene in 787, and their final restoration under

Michael III in 843, new theological and juridical issues and controversies began to surface,

which lead to a minor schism under Roman Patriarch Photius (867-870). The schism and

disputes continued to aggrandize, finally leading, in 1054, to what came to be known as the

Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox churches on the one hand, and Roman

Catholicism on the other.

It was during that time also that the Seljuks emerged, conquering Anatolia between

1048-1081, and Asia Minor. The Seljuks were nomadic Turkish warriors who appeared during

the Abasside Caliphate and continued to rise in ranks. It was to them that the Abassides

owed their sovereignty over the Levant, when they checked the advance of the Fatimite

expansionists from Cairo. They also won a victory over Emperor Romanus IV at Manizikert.

• The term “crusaders” was not used during that time, but rather came at a later date. Nor did they see themselves as crusaders, but rather as Holy Warriors. There are several common factors between all the crusades, which made them categorized as such: “All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was t henceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted


The confrontation between East and West, although political in essence, took on a

religious jihad bearing. The issue of Jerusalem was, inevitably, at its core. The passion of the

West for Jerusalem is understandable because pilgrims had been consistently visiting the

holy sites over the centuries. It was therefore not surprising that Western empires wished to

secure safe passages for their pilgrims to visit the holy sites in Palestine. Charlmagne had

made the first diplomatic attempt at securing a safe passage for pilgrims through a pact with

Haroun al-Rashid in 807, where the latter promised the protection of all churches and

Christian sites as well as the secure passage of visiting pilgrims. This safety pact lasted until

al-Hakim’s mad rampages destroyed the Muslim leaders’ trustworthiness.

Even though Constantinople had been severed from the Western Christians in the

Great Schism of 1054, pilgrims continued to flock into Jerusalem, sometimes even in the form

of what was perceived as “small invasions.” One such envoy arrived in 1065, led by the

Bishop of Bamberg. It was a delegation of 12.000 individuals, who often had to fight their way

for their safe passage to Palestine. In 1071 the Seljuks wrenched Jerusalem from Fatimite

control, hence sustaining the desire for a series of “Holy Wars” to save Jerusalem.

The Crusade Wars are generally divided into 8 different crusades, over a period of

nearly two centuries, the first being in 1097. It started when in 1095, Pope Urban II (1088-

1099) was in France, having called for a general council in Clermont Ferraud. The council

met in November of that same year, and passed reforming decrees for the Church. In

addition, the pope also announced that he would make an important speech to the public,

which incited people’s curiosity, and many flocked in to hear him. Urban’s fiery rhetoric

galvanized people into a holy war frenzy, to save the Holy Sepulcher from pagan heretics. In

essence, his message urged all Christians to ‘hasten and exterminate this vile race from our

lands and to aid the Christian inhabitants in time’ (see Appendix VII for entire speech).

The effect of his speech was instantaneous. Urban, however, had reckoned that

dukes and noblemen would be attending his speech, but ended up with the sheer commoners

who knew little about warfare. Nevertheless, they were incensed by the ‘holy’ idea of saving

the Holy Sepulcher.

Urban II’s motives for this provocation are subject to controversy. Several reasons

have been suggested, perhaps a genuine aspiration to save the Holy Sepulcher, but also the

fact that he wanted to boost his position and win the support of Western Europe’s noblemen

in the ongoing Investiture Controversy≡ with the Holy Roman Empire (Crawford, 1997).

Those who had gathered to prepare for the expedition decided to make the Red

Cross their official symbol. They appointed Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy as papal legate and

indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction and inviolability of persons or lands.” (Brehier, 1913). ≡ The Investiture Controversy was a conflict between the papacy and secular rulers of Europe, most notably the Holy Roman emperors, over the control of church appointments. Urban II wanted to abolish lay investiture. (Encyclopedia Americana).


spiritual leader. Urban soon lost control over the movement he initiated when a hermit called

Peter, who lived in Flanders, gained control of it, without the Pope’s approval or consent.

Peter the Hermit was a powerful preacher who believed he was God’s chosen to save the

Holy Sepulcher. He rallied the commoners’ troops and headed for Constantinople in 1096. It

is for this reason that this first Crusade came to be known as the Peasant’s Crusade, or the

People’s Crusade (Knot, 1997).

Upon arrival at the walls of Jerusalem, the expedition was forced to wait for

reinforcement. The European noblemen, with their real armies, who were slow to respond to

Urban, soon followed. Upon hearing of their arrival, the Fatimites expelled the Christians from

Jerusalem, fearful that they would betray them. Jerusalem amazingly fell with ease, and the

walls of the northern side of the city were penetrated. A bloodthirsty killing frenzy and

massacre ensued, when the Crusades mercilessly slaughtered every individual they laid eyes

on, including women and children. The Crusaders even pursued those who had surrendered

and taken refuge either in the Dome of the Rock, or in the synagogues. The effect of all this

unfortunately, was a Muslim hatred not only of the Western Christians, but also of Eastern

Christians and Copts.

After a brief conflict among the Europeans as to who was to govern the city once it

had fallen, a man named Arnulf Malecorne was chosen as Patriarch. He immediately banned

all rites at the Holy Sepulcher, except the Latin rites, hence alienating the local Christians who

had returned to Jerusalem. The result of the first crusade was the establishment of four Latin

states or provinces in the Middle East: the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the

County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The Muslims, meanwhile, began to recover from the “success” of the first Crusade,

which was, in fact, the only crusade that accomplished its objectives. Gathering themselves

together, they began a series of counter attacks. Edessa was regained in 1144, resulting in

the initiation of the second crusade led by King Louis VII of France, and the Holy Roman

Emperor Conrad II. They merely advanced to Damascus, and were forced to retreat before

Nur Eddin’s counter-invasions. The second crusade only showed the Europeans that it was

the Byzantine Empire that stood in their way to a successful Crusade and the saving of

Jerusalem.

In 1168, King Amalric of Jerusalem made yet another attempt to conquer Egypt, but

failed. Shirkuh had, by then, proclaimed himself Vizier, and upon his death in 1169, Saladdin

took over. Amalric once more invaded Egypt but was defeated at Damietta, forced to hold a

truce, and then withdrew. Coptic Church sources allege that during that time, taxes were

levied over the Copts to help cover the costs of the war against the Crusaders (Yohanna,

1983).

In 1171, the last Fatimite Caliph, al-Adod, died, and Saladdin conquered Egypt for the

Abassides once again, proclaiming loyalty to Nur Eddin, despite the fact that he had plans

and aspirations of independence. The Ayyubi Empire began with the death of Nur Eddin. In


1187, Saladdin, regained all of Jerusalem following his famous battle in Hattin, near the Sea

of Galilee. He captured the King of Jerusalem and Master of the Temple, Renaud de

Chatillon, in addition to many noble knights, and held them as prisoners of war, eventually

killing Renaud with his own hands.

The fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Muslims, led to the arrival of the Third

Crusade, led by Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, King Philip II of France, and Frederick

Barbarossa of Italy, who drowned on his way to Jerusalem. Philip was not wholly committed

to battle, and it was left to Richard to fend off alone against Saladdin. Plagued by fights that

broke back in England, and by several misfortunes on the battlefield, Richard was forced to

hold a truce and sign a treaty with Saladdin, after which he headed back to England in 1192.

The treaty signed in September 1192, stipulated that Jerusalem should remain in Muslim

hands, allowing Christians to visit it for pilgrimage. It also stipulated that the Christians were

to keep the cities they had recovered along the coast.

This third crusade failed in regaining Jerusalem, which was forever lost to

Christendom, leaving behind it only bitter memories for the Copts, the Christians, and the

Muslims alike.

The Ayyubis (1171-1260)

Saladdin’s repeated victories, and his brilliance as a general, enabled him to declare

the independence of Egypt and secure absolute power over it. Initially Saladdin had shown

loyalty to Nur Eddin and the Abasside Caliphate in Baghdad, but throughout, he had been

planning to take Egypt to himself, waiting for the opportune moment to announce its

independence. First, he had to secure the necessary support inside Egypt itself. The

remaining proponents of the perishing Fatimite Empire in Egypt conspired against Saladdin,

and committed the fatal mistake of seeking the assistance of the Crusaders. Learning of the

conspiracy, Saladdin aborted the attempt, even as the Crusaders were at the gates of Egypt.

As a twist of fate, Nur Eddin died before he could fully secure Egypt for his Empire,

and his son al-Malik al Saleh, an 11 year old child, became his successor. Once again

Saladdin loyally proclaimed his support of the Caliph, and succeeded in regaining many

provinces for him that other emeers had declared independent, following his father’s death.

Nevertheless, al-Saleh feared Saladdin’s ambitions, and sought the assistance of his cousin

Seif Eddin Ghazi, who went to battle against Saladdin, losing not only the immediate battle,

but also Egypt and several other provinces, to Saladdin.

Administration under the Ayyubis:


Saladdin dedicated the city of Cairo exclusively to his troops, and made it the

Caliphate headquarters. Because he feared the Fatimites and their remaining supporters, he

surrounded the headquarters with his supporters, and built a fortress in the Mokattem Hill for

himself, and as shelter for his troops. The fortress was known as the Mountain Fortress, and

was used as both a palace and headquarters. He also built an enormous fence around it for

protection (Zeidan, 1911).

Saladdin appointed Baha Eddin al Sasadi, more commonly known as Karakosh, as

governor of Egypt, while he occupied himself with fighting back the Crusaders. Karakosh

reconstructed Egypt’s roads and bridges, and contrived major reforms. In the process,

especially as he built the Great Wall around Cairo, Fustat, and the Fortress, he destroyed

many houses and mosques, thus alienating his population. To this day, his name continues to

be synonymous with oppression and dictatorship (Zeidan, 1911).

Saladdin meanwhile continued to be preoccupied with his battles against the

Crusaders for a long time. He defeated them at al-Ramleh, and Hittin followed. He stormed

Jerusalem and regained it for the Muslims. It was then that the battle with Richard the Lion-

Hearted was initiated, and the sweeping victory took place, with many legendary stories of

chivalry and nobility.

When Saladdin died, his sons divided the kingdom between them. Al-Aziz (1193-

1198) took Egypt, and his descendants followed in succession. Al-Malik al-Moazzam bin

Saleh (1249-1250) was the last of the Ayyubis. His downfall came as a result of Mamluke

rebellion against him. The Ayyubi Dynasty ended, and together with it, the 7th Crusade.

Copts under the Ayyubi dynasty:

According to church sources, when Saladdin became vizier in 1161, he ordered all

Copts to wear bells around their necks and ordered all church bells to cease ringing.

Additionally, he ordered all church crosses brought down and destroyed, and appropriated

the property of the church and monasteries (Yohanna, 1983). When he became Sultan in

1171, and while occupied with the Crusader wars, the King of Nubia decided to attack Egypt.

He arrived all the way to Aswan and took many Muslims as prisoners of war. Saladdin

dispatched his army, which freed the prisoners and managed to force the Nubians to retreat,

killing many on the way.

When Karakosh was appointed vizier, he fired all Copts from their administrative

positions, particularly those who had not converted to Islam. It was not long however, before

he restored them to their positions, because there were no experts to replace them. When,

however, he became more secure about their loyalty to him, he began to appoint them to

higher positions. Additionally, Saladdin gave the Copts the Sultan Monastery in Jerusalem, as

a token of his trust.


Saladdin’s successors treated the Copts with varying degrees of courtesy or

harassment, depending upon the severity of the Crusader attacks and the Coptic response to

them. Al-Malik al-Adel (1200-1218), for one, was good to them, and helped many who had

converted during Saladdin’s time, reconvert to their religion (Yohanna, 1983).

During al-Adel’s time, two new Crusades were launched. The first began in 1204

heading for Egypt, but soon diverted course to Constantinople instead which fell under the

Crusader attacks. The second was the 5th Crusade of 1217, initiated by Pope Innocent III,

and headed by Frederick II, even though he had not been leading it himself. The Crusaders

surprised Egypt from Rasheed and proceeded to Foa, which was occupied mainly by Copts.

They killed most of the Copts there, and took many as prisoners, while many others fled the

city. Many Copts also escaped to Ethiopia because of the wars and famine that were

beginning to spread, and were welcomed there by their king. The religious leaders of the 5th

Crusade consistently fought with the secular leaders regarding authority, which in essence

weakened the troops and preoccupied them with petty fighting instead of taking advantage of

their surprise attack, and the unpreparedness of the Muslim troops. John of Brienne, King of

Jerusalem and leader of the Crusade, would not abandon his authority to the clergy, and

neither would the clergy abandon it to him (Yohanna, 1983; and see also Brehier, 1913). The

Christian army was forced to “purchase a retreat” by surrendering Damietta (Brehier, 1913).

Following al-Adel’s death, al-Kamel became Caliph, and the Crusades began their 6th

attack against Egypt, headed also by Frederick II in 1228. In retaliation to the Crusaders

attack, al-Kamel forced the monks to work in building fortresses to protect Egypt, and even

announced he would enlist them in the army. When the Coptic bishops heard of his

intentions, they met with al-Kamel and persuaded him to exempt them, in return for a

substantial financial compensation, and he agree (Yohanna, 1983).

Initially, the Copts anticipated, and desperately hoped, that the Crusaders would save

them. It was not long, however, before they realized that the Crusaders perceived them as a

species almost worse than the Muslims, both of whom, in essence, needed ‘salvation.’ This

was perhaps no more made clear than in the way they had been treated in Damietta,

especially that they immediately appointed a Latin pope instead of the Copts’ own local

bishop. They decided, therefore, “to stay quiet and low and not interfere in the matter”

(Yohanna, 1983), supporting neither warring party.

Ultimately, when the Crusaders lost the battle, the Copts were relieved, and seem to

have expressed it quite clearly, which greatly pleased al-Kamel. Meriting his trust, he decided

to reward them for their loyalty. He went as far as exempting the monks from paying the

designated gizya, and even encouraged the building of many of the churches that had been

previously destroyed.

In 1228, Frederick II decided to go through diplomatic channels, thus winning the

respect and trust of Malek al-Kamel, who was then at war with the prince of Damascus. They


signed a treaty in 1229, according to which Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth were

restored to the Christians.

The final Crusade under the Ayubbis, which was the 7th Crusade, took place in 1249,

led by Louis IX, King of France, otherwise known as St. Louis, during the time of al-Moazzam

bin Saleh. But al-Moazzam died in 1250, and his wife, the strong-willed ex-slave Shagaret al-

Dor♦, who was the first Muslim female ruler in Islamic history, concealed the news of her

husband’s untimely death, until she managed to recall her son from the Levant to fight the

Crusaders. By doing so, she protected the morale of her people and held them together.

Meanwhile, as the King of France was drawing nearer, he succeeded in invading

Egypt, taking Damietta by storm, then marched on to Cairo. His brother’s army, meanwhile,

was fighting in the streets of Mansura, but was defeated, and his battalion completely

demolished. The soldiers’ morale was ebbing, with the heat conditions and the desert

environment, which was unfamiliar to them. Soon, the king himself was cut off from

communication with Damietta, and taken prisoner in 1250, and soon thereafter released. It

was not Louis’s last crusade, for he would lead the 8th Crusade and return to Egypt for a

second attempt in 1270.

The death of al-Moazzam and the ruling of the slave Mamluke woman Shagaret al

Dor, initiated the rule of the Mamluke Dynasty, which was to continue for little over two

centuries.

Francis Assisi: Catholicism enters Egypt

Before closing this chapter with the fall of the Ayyubi dynasty, one must not overlook

a new force that entered into the diversified Egyptian life. Accompanying the 5th Crusade, a

Catholic monk named Francis Assisi arrived in Egypt in 1219. Even though this date is

considered the beginning of Catholicism in Egypt, the presence of Catholics there may be

traced back to the 5th Century. However, from the 5th century until the 13th century, they were

hardly considered a power of any effect at all on the community, and were regarded as a

marginal minority. They were also mostly preoccupied with the on-going battle between the

Roman Catholic Mother Church, and the Byzantine Eastern Church.

Catholics in Egypt mainly constituted the members of the expatriate community, and

foreign residents, in addition to a Coptic minority that had earlier converted to Catholicism.

Catholic monks therefore began their social and religious activities directed primarily towards

those foreign residents, and later extended them to include the Catholic Coptic minority.

Francis Assisi, as a monk, was more interested in the spiritual life of his people, and

he therefore established a monastic system that was solely directed towards spirituality rather

♦ Literally meaning the Tree of Pearls.


than social work, the latter becoming an indelible mark of Catholicism in Egypt beginning with

the 18th century.

Perhaps it is for this reason that there was no apparent conflict between the Orthodox

Church and the Catholic Church during that initial stage, or between them and the Muslims,

as they posed no threat to either. Even though they were directed towards preaching and

proselytizing, they did so largely within their own communities of expatriates, and hence

presented no threat to either religious institution. Catholics in general, were closer in their

rituals, liturgy, and prayers to the Orthodox religion, as opposed to the late-arrivals, the

Protestants, who introduced new forms of prayer, and nearly no rituals. This perhaps explains

why there was no notable confrontation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy during that initial

stage, and it also explains the slower speed with which people converted to Catholicism, as

opposed to their speedier conversion to Protestantism once it was introduced into Egyptian

society. In Catholicism, Copts found similar rituals, and there was basically no need to

convert, whereas with Protestantism, there was a totally new presentation of religion, which

was much simpler and more comprehensible to the people, particularly the poorer,

uneducated classes, hence, their faster conversion to Protestantism.

Catholic missionaries resorted to education as a means of spreading their religion.

The Franciscans began by building schools, and towards the 19th century their schools had

widely spread all over Egypt. The schools were not confined to Catholics, but extended to

other members of society, especially as they were the better schools that provided better and

more advanced education.


Chapter 5

The Slaves and the Sultans Egypt under the First (1250-1382) and Second (1382-1517)

Mamluke Dynasties:

The Mamlukes, literally meaning ‘the owned,’ were of Turkish slave origin, captured

during raids and military conquests. They had been bought from Genghis Khan, during the

Ayyubi dynasty, to form the military, and were trained as expert warriors. It was to them that

the Muslim Empire primarily owes its defense against the Crusaders. Saladdin had bestowed

upon them the greatest honors, and given them ranches, wealth and palaces, which led to the

gradual increase of their power. As they became politically stronger, their desire for exclusive

and independent ruling increased as well. Even though they were free men and women, they

were still known as the Mamlukes referring to their origin.

The First Mamluke dynasty was known as the Bahari Mamlukes, after their garrison

in the north, on Rhoda Island, along the River Nile. They were originally Turks and Mongols.

The Second dynasty was initiated when Barquq, one of the Burgi Mamlukes or Tower Slaves,

took power. The ‘Burgis’ refer to the Mamlukes who were headquartered in the Citadel, and

were mostly Circassians (Sabri, 1991).

The actual first Mamluke regent was Shagaret al Dor, al-Moazam’s widow, ruling only

briefly until a Caliph had been chosen. Being a Mamluke herself, and with the last of the

Ayubbis gone, she was forced to choose a Mamluke husband to act as reigning monarch,

since her rule as a female was widely disputed. Her choice fell on Ezz Eddin Aybak a

Mamluke officer who, upon marrying her, became the first official Mamluke King of Egypt. Not

long after, however, upon learning that he would take another wife, she had him

assassinated, and soon after she, herself, was murdered by Mamluke generals who feared

her powers, and who felt that she had gone too far.

Al-Moazzam, the last male ruler of the Ayubbis, was a corrupt ruler whose interests

centered primarily on wealth and pleasure. His death came at a time when the Mamluke

emeers of Egypt were already rebelling against him, as he was preparing to fight the advent

of the 7th Crusade. As mentioned before, Louis, King of France, was taken prisoner by

Mamluke armed forces. Louis negotiated with them for his freedom, in return for leaving

Damietta, and was sent home after paying a ransom. Some sources claim that the Mamlukes

offered Louis the opportunity of becoming king of Egypt, and that he declined (Zeidan, 1911),

a highly unlikely story, given the fact that he had invaded Egypt to rule it, and would not have

waived such a golden opportunity.

Both the 7th Crusade and the 8th Crusade took place during the Mamluke reign. The

Mamlukes’ great accomplishments, however, were essentially defending the Islamic Empire


against the Mongols, and keeping them at bay, and out of Egypt. Under the leadership of

Sultan al-Zaher Baybars, they succeeded in fighting Houlagou, the grandson of Genghis

Khan, in the famous battle of Ein Galuth• in 1260. However the Mamluke rulers were mostly

competitive rivals, and they killed each other for power. On his return to Cairo, Baybars

beheaded his rival, Sultan Kotoz, and declared himself sole king of Egypt.

Survival of the fittest: Administration under the Mamlukes

The Mamluke ruling system was not consistently hereditary, but was rather based on

the concept of survival of the fittest, where the strongest Mamluke ruled. Nevertheless, under

the Mamluke rule, Cairo became a powerful metropolis, and flourished both economically and

culturally. Baybars’ courts were luxurious, and his ministers and employees very well paid. He

built canals, fortifications and shipyards in Egypt, and during his time, Egypt enormously

prospered. A canal was dug between Alexandria and the Nile in 1311, to encourage trade

between the Mediterranean and Egypt.

One of Baybars’ accomplishments was the restoration of the Abasside Prince al-

Muntassir as Caliph in Cairo, hence eliminating the Shi’ias, and thereby making Egypt the

religious center of the Islamic world. Al-Mustanssir, in essence, acted as a mere figurehead,

while Baybars continued to rule exclusively and ruthlessly. Following his death, Qalawun, one

of his generals, was elected Sultan. He continued strengthening Egypt, and keeping the

Mongols and Christians out of Muslim territory. He also began making use of the Circassian

Mamlukes, rather than the Turkish Mamlukes.

During the Second Mamluke dynasty, governmental administration weakened and

was incapable of carrying out its duties. It also became unable to tend to agricultural land,

which greatly weakened the economy. Worse still, the Portuguese discovered the Cape of

Good Hope in 1488, leading to a commercial and financial recession, eventually leading to

the further weakness of the State, and its fall into the hands of the Ottomans.

Al-No’oot: Copts under the Mamluke dynasty

Throughout the Mamlukes’ two dynasties, Copts existed in all sectors of society; they

were traders, priests and bishops, peasants, servicemen and skilled laborers. While most

Copts belonged to the peasant sectors, hence the poorer and lower middle classes, there

was a large number of them who were employed in the diwans, and who played an important

role particularly in the financial administration of the country.

• Literally meaning Goliath’s Well.


The duty of most Coptic employees was confined to increasing the already prodigious

wealth of the Sultan, and there was no barrier between the wealth of the Sultan and his

ministers, including the Copts (Yussef, 1987). Many Copts therefore succeeded in amassing

wealth, living in huge palaces, and owning servants and slaves. Some of their buildings were

grander than those of the Muslims and their mosques, an unthinkable acquisition in previous

times. Copts were even called Al No'oot, a title normally given to Caliphs only, which

indicated both status and power.

Nevertheless, there were unpleasant and sporadic instances of persecution. Church

sources claim that the main reason for it was the fact that the Copts “complained too much”

(Yohanna, 1983). Their persecution invariably depended upon how far they objected to the

unfair orders they were given and were expected to obey. Some Copts apparently went

beyond complaint, and publicly flaunted tradition and disobeyed orders, going as far as

changing the designated dress code: instead of wearing the black dress they had been

proscribed to wear as Copts, they wore white instead. At times, they went as far as riding

horses (Yohanna, 1983). Clearly this was an expression of silent protest, and came as a

result of the unfair orders, rather than meriting persecution in their own right.

Another important factor contributed to their persecution, namely the continuous

competition between the Muslims and their Coptic counterparts. Such competition prompted

pressures on both the Caliph and the ruling governor to take measures to terminate, or at

least check, Coptic influence and infiltration into all fields of life. As such, despite the fact that

the number of Coptic clerks and servicemen increased during Mamluke times because of

their traditional experience and expertise in particular fields, they were subjected to

occasional harassment whenever their powers and jurisdiction increased.

The Mamluke era is perhaps better known for the prolific writings concerning the

employment of Copts in government. This was engendered by the continuous conflicts

between Coptic bureaucracy on the one hand, and Muslim 'intellectuals' including ulemas,

judges, the Muslim clergy, students at the Azhar, and religious schools, on the other. Those

latter groups had grown steadily in the wake of the flourishing of Islamic cities, which brought

about an increase in the number of schools that were founded to encourage the Sunni

denomination. By virtue of their presence in the diwans, the Coptic bureaucracy began to

positively partake not only in the social scene, but also in the more thorny political one.

Mamluke Sultans on the other hand, in their search for securing power, preferred to overlook

Muslim employees, especially in administering some of the diwans. As an outraged response

to this biased policy, many books were published to specifically demonstrate that Islam

prohibited the use of dhimmis in governmental positions.

Such hostile books engendered more antagonism, and as a result, the Mamluke era

had its fair share of sectarian strife and violence. Several instances of fires occurred for which

the Copts were blamed and tried. An incidence of grave importance occurred during the times

of al-Zahir Baybars. A prominent Coptic government employee was seen riding a horse with


his entourage, followed by a group of Muslims on foot, petitioning him to look into their

business. It was an offending sight to devout Muslims, and the incident was reported to

Baybars. Baybars immediately summoned the Coptic Pope, and threatened him with dire

consequences, unless he made sure the Copts abided by their proper attire, did not ride

horses, and ceased being more superior to the Muslims. The Pope immediately issued a

statement to that effect.

Anorther difficult period for the Copts was during al-Malik al-Nassir’s time. Initially, he

was benevolent towards the Copts. His reign, however, later came to be known as one of the

worst periods of persecution of Copts in Mamluke history. Many incidents of terror had been

narrated during that reign, but for brevity the most significant incident shall be narrated here.

In 1310, widespread demonstrations against al-Nassir took place, protesting the burdensome

taxation system, and his subsequent ruthlessness in collecting them. The Copts in the diwans

were typically used as scapegoats, and denounced for deliberately levying high taxes,

particularly against the Muslims. During the demonstrations, fires and arson spread

throughout Cairo, and a Copt was allegedly caught while torching Baybar’s mosque. He was

arrested together with some Melkite monks, who were accused of being involved in the

arsons, and were all tortured until they confessed and admitted their guilt. A monastery in

Mokattem was burnt down, and overwhelming hate-demonstrations against the Christians

swept Egypt.

The Mamluke administration, however, decided to deal severely with those incidents,

arresting two hundred Muslims for looting, riots, and killing rampages, and hanged them all on

Bab Zewila. The Christians who were caught, on the other hand, were given less severe

punishments, and were made to ride their donkeys backwards and were paraded around the

city.

As a result of those incidents of strife, many churches were closed down, and

remained closed for several years. In 1329, when the King of Ethiopia heard that Coptic

churches had been demolished or closed down, he wrote to Egypt’s sultan and threatened to

demolish the mosques on his land unless the churches were reopened or restored. The

sultan immediately complied with his wishes (Yohanna, 1983).

In addition to such incidents, al-Nassir issued constrictive orders against the Copts,

especially regarding attire. Coptic sources mention that when a Copt wanted to leave his

house during that period, he borrowed the yellow headdress of a Jew, in order not to be

harassed on the city’s streets (Yohanna, 1983). Feeling increasingly insecure about their

governmental positions, the Copts therefore created special financial systems and accounting

principles that made it exceedingly difficult for the government to get rid of them (Yohanna,

1983).

During al-Malik al-Salih’s time (1352), some Muslims once again complained of

Coptic domination in the government, perpetrating another destructive mob-rampage,

disregarding strict governmental orders to stop. The Sultan was coerced into issuing an edict,


prohibiting the employment of Copts in governmental positions, even if they converted into

Islam. The edict also stipulated that anyone who converted was not only prohibited from re-

converting into Christianity, but was also prohibited from seeing his family unless they too

converted. Moreover, if a Copt died, Muslims inherited his property together with his family.

Added to all that, al-Salih seized Coptic endowments, and divided them among his Mamluke

emirs.

To add insult to injury, the Coptic pope was forced to sign and approve the edict

(Yohanna, 1983). As a result, many Copts converted into Islam, and it was noted that in the

city of Qalioub alone, more than 450 Copts converted into Islam in one single day (Yohanna,

1983).

Influence of the Crusades on the status of Copts:

The hatred against the Copts during that era is largely attributed to the Crusader

attacks. Perhaps the most significant phenomenon was that the Jews were not persecuted,

and their status was generally much better than that of the Copts. The reason for such an

apparent contradiction was that the Copts were perceived, as in previous dynasties, to have

been of the ‘same religion’ as the ruthless invaders, and therefore merited persecution. There

is no doubt that the intensity of the Crusader attacks awakened, and perhaps enforced, long

dormant suspicions against the Egyptian Christians, with regards to their loyalty. Islamic

intolerance towards the Copts were clearly augmented during the periods of the Crusaders’

attacks The Copts themselves were essentially confused as to loyalty, but the Crusader wars

revealed the existence of an enormous, unbridgeable gap, between Eastern and Western

Christians. The unfortunate Copts were at times, particularly when the Crusader attacks

increased, literally stranded between two hostile powers, that of the Muslims living with them,

who considered them of the same religion as the West, and those of the Western Christians

who considered them nothing more than ignorant enemies.

The Ethiopians, and the Fall of the Christian Nubian Kingdom

One of the breaches that occurred between the Copts and the Crusaders concerned

both the Ethiopian and the Nubian Chruches. The Coptic Church suffered severely from the

Crusader endeavors at tempting Ethiopian rulers to unite with them, in order to surround, and

therefore control, Egypt, from both the north and the south. Soon after the discovery of Cape

of Good Hope, the Portugese sought to convince the Ethiopians to change the Nile route

away from Egypt. The Egyptian Church found itself in an impasse, and the strained political

Egyptian-Ethiopian relationships imposed an immense amount of pressure upon the Coptic

Church. During al-Ashraf’s reign in 1422, a conspiracy was discovered between the


Ethiopians and the Crusaders to attack Egypt, but was thwarted, leaving behind it more bad

feelings and soured relationships (Yohanna, 1983).

Regarding the relationship between the Kings of Nubia and the Mamluke Sultans,

the Christian rulers of Nubia agreed to pay taxes to the Arabs, which was then known as the

'Coptic tax’. There were unstable relationships between the two, ranging between periods of

silent anger, to outright instabilities and unrest. Since the Nubians followed the Egyptian

Church, some Nubian Kings occasionally raided Egyptian land whenever they heard that the

Egyptian Patriarch was being mistreated, or was forced to pay a large fine.

When the Nubians desisted from paying the annual taxes to the Sultans, both Sultan

Baybars (1260-1277), and his follower Sultan Qalawon, contrived military raids against the

Nubians and defeated them. Those defeats, combined with internal instabilities in Nubia, led

to the quick fall of the Christian Kingdom. Islam began to spread from the beginning of the

13th century, and from then onwards, the Egyptian Church failed to have any influence on the

Christians of Nubia.

Ottoman Egypt

The Ottomans were of nomadic descent, and were originally warriors of the Seljuks.

They were a blend of several tribes of diversified origin, among whom were the Tartars

(Zeidan, 1911). In 744 one tribe managed to conquer the others, and rule over them.

Between the 9th and 10th centuries they converted into Islam (Ashmawi, 1989). In the 13th

century, Othman I, after whose name the empire came to be known, proclaimed

independence, and from that time the empire continued to expand from the Euphrates to the

Danube. In 1453, the Ottomans took Constantinople, the last of the Byzantine strongholds,

and in 1517, under Selim I, they annexed Egypt to their empire after defeating and killing the

last Mamluke sultan, Tuman Bek. Despite being powerful and skilled warriors themselves, the

Mamlukes fell to the more technologically superior Ottomans. From that time onward, Egypt

became a province of the empire, even though the Mamlukes continued to exercise fair

degrees of power and authority.

Before the Ottomans came to power in Egypt, the Abassid Caliph continued to

govern from Cairo as a religious authority, despite the successive dynasties, because the

Caliphate was confined to men of Arab origin. Even though the consecutive rulers invariably

sought to enforce their legitimacy through religious unity, particularly over newly conquered

territories, not one single ‘foreign’ ruler dared claim the Caliphate, including the Berbers, the

Kurds, the Turks, and the Persians. None ever claimed lineage to the Prophet, and hence the

Caliphate continued to be in the house of the Abassides.

When the Ottomans arrived in Egypt, however, they were the first non-Arabs to claim

both the Caliphate and the sultanate (Zeidan, 1911). Upon invading Egypt, Selim I forced


Caliph Mohammed al-Motawakkel, the 18th Abasside Caliph, to abdicate, and sent him to

Turkey. Selim I rationalized that his hegemony, and the strength of his empire, would be

further empowered through assuming control of the religious institution.

The first non-Arab sultan to assume the title of Caliph, therefore, was Selim I.

Nevertheless, none of the Ottoman rulers was ever really called ‘Caliph’; they preferred

‘Sultan’ from the very start (Ashmawi, 1989). The sultans resorted to the title and its

subsequent concept of divine ordinance, only during rebellions, mutinies and insurrections,

using their position to morally and physically subvert the rebels (Ashmawi, 1989). Even then,

it did not carry with it any “claim to the kind of universal or exclusive authority which earlier

caliphs had been acknowledged to possess” (Hourani, 1991). The actual powers of a Caliph

had long been lost.

Control of the Ottoman Empire rested with the ruler and his family, and there were

hardly any problems in succession and transition of power from one member to the other

(Hourani, 1991). At the head of the government was the “Sadr el Azzam” or the grand vizier,

with a number of others under his control, and he also controlled the army and the

administration (Hourani, 1991). The balance between the central and local government often

interchanged, and yet the local government continued to be loyal to the house of Othman

(Hourani, 1991).

Divide and Rule: Administration under the Ottomans

Egypt under the Ottomans was a centralized bureaucratic state, governed from

Turkey by an entity called the Sublime Porte, and different local governments, all of which

were accountable to the central one. Egypt was divided into 12 provinces, each ruled by a

governor or “Bek”, appointed by the diwan or the Shura council (Zeidan, 1911), and was

accountable to it. Out of fear of rebellions and the proclamation of independence of the

different states, the sultans of Turkey devised a system of ruling to ensure the continuation of

their power, and the loyalty of their subjects and governors. They divided authority equally

between three different bodies: the first was the Pasha, or the ruler of Egypt, who lived in the

fortress and was prohibited from leaving it for any reason. His duty was to report the Sultan’s

orders to both the people and his government, and supervise the execution of such orders.

The second were the corps or “wegak”, where the Sultan placed 6000 soldiers in Cairo and in

the main cities. Their duty was the protection and preservation of peace and order, as well as

collecting the kherag. There were six different corps, to which a seventh was added during

the times of Sulayman the LawGiver (1520-1566). The Shura council consisted of the leaders

of those corps.

The most important of those wegaks were the Janissaries, a highly disciplined

infantry formed by a system known as the devisirme, devised originally by Murad II. It


essentially consisted of recruiting young Christians from Balkan villages for conversion into

Islam, and for service in the administration. They were then organized in an infantry corps

under that name (see Hourani, 1991; and Zeidan, 1911). The Janissaries were held under

strict control: they were not allowed to marry while in service, nor master, or get involved in,

any trade. If they married after retirement, their sons were not allowed to enter the corps

(Hourani, 1991).

Just like the Mamlukes, it was not long before the Janissaries became a military

feudal class with extreme powers in their own right. When Selim III (1789-1807) attempted

reform and tried to replace them with a new order, he was immediately massacred. The

Janissaries were eventually destroyed in a massacre in 1826, under Sultan Mahmud II, in his

reform attempts.

The third power in the Ottoman administration were the remaining Mamlukes who

basically hated both the Pashas and the Janissaries, hence maintaining the balance in

power, since they normally supported the weaker side in order to strike at the stronger

(Zeidan, 1911). It was in that manner too, that the Sultan maintained his own control, playing

all three powers against each other.

The Ottoman period is characterized by the rise of a ruling class dominated by wealth

and power. Sultan Suleyman the LawGiver announced from the beginning of his rule that the

land of Egypt belonged to him alone, and that he merely gave it to the farmers for agriculture.

Society was sharply divided into a ruling class called the asker, literally meaning ‘soldiers,’

who consisted of the high officials and members of the different corps. They had their own

judicial regime. The second were the raeya literally meaning ‘the flock,’ which consisted of

different tawaef or a number of groups, each dealt with separately, and under separate sets

of laws (Hourani, 1991). Additionally, a new prominent class was formed, that of the ulemas,

in a broad sense, ‘including all those who exercised functions in law, education or worship,’

and those numbered as many as 4000 (Hourani, 1991). They also ruled according to a code

of laws, other than the Shari’a, that fell with the fall of every sultan (Ashmawi, 1989).

Dressed in black and blue: Copts under the Ottomans

Generally, the Copts chose to live in Upper Egypt, since being there made them

traditionally out of the reach of the government’s ‘heavy arm.’ It also continued to live in

relative purity from all the different waves of invaders, and therefore continued to be a much

safer haven.

Egyptian society in general was divided into groupings or clusters, based on ethnic

origin and/or religion. Each cluster lived almost exclusively in certain areas of the country that

were normally named after them. The Copts and the Jews had their own clusters and

communities, even though this did not prevent them from intermingling and interacting in


transactions, trade, and even social life, with other sects and members of the community,

whether with other minorities or with the Muslim majority (Afifi, 1992). Even though such

clusters could be a method for empowering them, it nevertheless made them vulnerable and

easy targets for destruction, once the mobs decided to go after them.

Within those semi-exclusive districts, many Muslim families chose to live, and

mosques were built inside them, in order to ensure Islamic supremacy (Afifi, 1992). Such an

arrangement often resulted in occasional skirmishes between the Copts and the Muslims,

that were quickly resolved whenever the administration was strong, and that caused strife

whenever the administration weakened. The Copts were also influenced by Islamic

teachings, and at times were polygamous, a phenomenon that was greatly battled by the

church (Afifi, 1992).

Generally, in the early Ottoman period, the Copts did not have any influence in the

higher administration. No Egyptians were permitted in the military, whether they were

Muslims or Christians, and both were treated with disdain as inferior Arabs. The peasants

and laborers of both religions continued to live together in poverty and oppression.

Nevertheless, the Copts suffered even more, paying the extra gizya, and typically, at

occasional intervals, being asked to dress differently.

Laws and regulations regarding the dress code persisted from preceding dynasties,

and their enforcement, or lack thereof, depended greatly upon the economic and social

conditions of the time. That was especially true during periods when the Copts expressed

anger against those laws, and rebelled openly, starting to dress like the Muslims. Such

behavior prompted some Muslims, and particularly members of the Muslim clergy, to

complain, once again provoking a tenacious adherence to the dress code. Those regulations

were also sometimes used as forms of collecting money, where the dhimmis had to pay a

bribe in order to lift the constraints placed around them.

Generally, throughout the Ottoman era, Copts were required to wear blue hats, while

the Jews were required to wear yellow ones, in addition to the rope-like belt around their

waists. The color white, however, was reserved for the Muslims. Towards the year 1580,

during the rule of governor Hassan Pasha, Copts were required to change their hats to black.

This color did not continue for long, and the blue color was soon restored. Nevertheless,

there were strict orders to both Copts and Jews, prohibiting them from wearing red-colored

hats, or have the hat’s fringes in the color red, since this was perceived as a sign of royalty.

Additionally, capes were not to be longer than ‘ten arms’ because a large cape indicated the

wealth and status of its owner (Afifi, 1992).

In 1677, the Mohtasseb issued orders to the Copts to dye their hats black. The

Mohtasseb also prohibited them from wearing woolen clothes, and ordered the women to

refrain from wearing any white capes or dresses since that was a Muslim woman’s color. The

dhimmis were also prohibited form wearing expensive shoes, clothes or capes, and were not


allowed to wear the favorite colors of Muslims, which were, in addition to white, the green and

red (Afifi, 1992).

The dhimmis were prohibited from painting the exterior of their houses in bright

colors. They were additionally prohibited from acquiring Muslim women slaves. The first

mention of this last regulation was in 1702, and the second in 1722, and then again in 1786

(Afifi, 1992). Sometimes there were orders prohibiting Copts from acquiring slaves in the first

place, and some sources mentioned they were allowed to have black slaves and not white

ones (Afifi, 1992). Regarding public baths, there were occasional orders requiring the Copts

to hang a single bell around their necks upon entry, while the Jews were required to hang

two.

The economic power of the dhimmis however was apparent in a significant incident,

when a dhimmi individual (whose religion was unknown) attempted entering into a bath, and

was asked to wear the bell. Indignant, he marched out and refused to comply with the order.

From then on, many non-Muslims boycotted public baths, which greatly affected the bath

owners’ economy, to the extent that they presented petitions to the governor to review his

orders. The governor immediately complied (Afifi, 1992).

Notwithstanding such major restrictions, gradually, and in the second half of the 17th

century, the status of the Copts in the administration started to improve. This was mainly on

account of the trade relations between Europe and the Empire, which continued to grow

steadily, leading to the subsequent growth of the importance of both the Christians and the

Jews. The Jews worked predominantly as moneylenders and bankers; whereas the

Christians were intermediaries between the European traders and the Ottomans, and also

worked in their customary occupations, as accountants, and tax farmers (Hourani, 1991).

Additionally, there was a need to employ Copts because of their traditional expertise in

administrative matters, and they were given many prominent positions, especially in financial

and accounting matters (Yohanna, 1983).

The greatest enemy of the Coptic Church, however, was not the Ottomans but the

Roman Catholics, particularly during the later Ottoman period. Catholics had continued to

grow steadily in Egypt, which greatly threatened the Coptic Church, as conversions into

Catholicism continued to increase. Roman Catholic missions pervaded throughout the

Empire, with the blessings and silent consent of the Ottomans. The Franciscans existed as

‘custodians of the Catholic shrines in the Holy Land’ (Hourani, 1991), and they prohibited the

Copts from visiting Jerusalem. From the late 16th century, a number of schools for training

priests were set up by the Roman Papacy. By the 17th century, the number of priests

increased greatly in the Middle East (Hourani, 1991). This led, in essence, to the

development of a ‘distinctive Christian culture expressed in Arabic’ (Hourani, 1991). In 1684

the Franciscans, with the approval of the Ottoman rulers, sent a Catholic missionary to Upper

Egypt, and the Jesuits sent another missionary to Cairo. Those missionary expeditions halted

in the 40s of the 18th century.


During the reign of Coptic Pope John XV (1613-1623), heavy taxes were levied over

the Copts, and monks and priests were not exempted from them. The Catholics had by then

spread throughout Upper Egypt. In 1731 Pope Clement XII of Rome tried recruiting some

Copts to learn Catholicism in Rome, but failed. He wrote a letter to Pope John, asking him to

submit in obedience to the Catholic Church, in return for their assistance and support, but the

Pope declined the offer. Clement’s follower, Pope Benedict 14th, rejected the talks in the first

place, and closed the door before all discussions with the Coptic Church (Yohanna, 1983).

After the fall of Ali Bek the Great (1760-1766), the Vatican once again sought to secure the

endorsement of the Coptic Pope, and his acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the Roman

Pope, in exchange for their protection. This protection also meant exempting Copts from

paying taxes. The proposal was once again declined by the Coptic Orthodox Papacy.

As conversions into Catholicism increased, many problems arose in marital and

familial matters. This prompted the Coptic elite community to complain to the local emeers.

The governor of Egypt immediately issued an order giving the Coptic Pope the right to ‘do as

he wished’ with his flock, and to act as judge among them (Yohanna, 1983). The

representative of the Roman Pope in Egypt also signed an agreement with the Coptic pope in

1794, which in essence sought to preserve the rights of both the Orthodox and the Catholics,

especially in marital matters. The agreement stipulated for several provisions that ensured a

safe distance between both churches, as well as their sovereignty over their own (Yohanna,

1983). It stated among other things, that those who were already inter-married (i.e.

Catholic/Coptic), should be free to pray in any church they liked, but no new inter-marriages

were permitted between. It also stipulated that everyone had the right to pray wherever s/he

wanted, and no one was to be coerced into praying in a particular church. Finally, once

problems arose, it stipulated that it was inappropriate to resort to governmental courts; rather,

the matter should be resolved between the heads of both churches.

The Decline and Fall:

At the pinnacle of their power, the Ottomans conducted major expansionist wars

against their neighbors, the Byzantine Empire, the Austrian Empire, the Russian Ceasars,

and in the Balkans. Their decline nonetheless began prematurely, in the late 16th century.

The second century of the Ottoman rule witnessed the disintegration and consequent

fragmentation of the Empire, mainly for internal reasons, having to do with the economic and

social formation of the Ottoman ruling system itself. The increasing powers of the devisirme

class, and the degeneration of the consecutive sultans and their ruling classes, were main

reasons for such disintegration. Moreover, the Mamlukes continued to dominate the Empire,

persistently trying to establish a new Mamluke dynasty to replace the Ottomans, who were,

by then, barely visible.


External factors contributed to the disintegration as well. The European infiltration of

the Ottoman Empire, especially after 1683, was an important factor. Countries like France,

Austria and Russia, sought the reformation of certain ethnic and denominational

characteristics, for the benefit of European expansion in the world. In light of those foreign

interests, an alliance was formed between European traders and the missionaries, and

Ottoman markets were being invaded in the name of religion. Eventually, the weakness of the

Empire led Napoleon Bonaparte to invade Egypt.

The French Expedition

In the wake of several successful conquests, Napoleon Bonaparte decided to invade

Egypt, in an attempt to control the East, and literally give the British a serious economic and

political blow, in their route to India. He saw Egypt as a ‘vantage point from which England

could be destroyed’ (Tuchman, 1956). He set sail in 1797, convincing his army that they

would acquire enormous wealth and untold benefits from this expedition, bringing a great, lost

empire back to France.

Napoleon's armies landed in Alexandria in 1798, and he conquered it almost without

significant resistance•. Bonaparte’s generals issued a statement to the people, which was

prepared and read aloud in the Arabic language≡. It aimed, fundamentally at reassuring

people as to the ‘noble’ intentions of the expedition.

Bonaparte then headed for Cairo, which he also seized after insignificant skirmishes

with Egyptian troops, and a battle known as the Battle of the Pyramids in July of that same

year. During that time, Egypt had been governed by two leading Mamlukes, Murad Bey and

Ibrahim Bey. Murad Bey tried to confront the army, failed and was forced to flee. Ibrahim Bey,

on the other hand, fled from the start.

The British fleet, headed by Nelson, having learnt of Bonaparte’s endeavors, set sail

behind him in hot pursuit, and arrived in AbuKir, North/East of Egypt. A battle ensued with the

French, and the French naval army was demolished. The result was that communication

between Paris and Bonaparte was severed, leaving the French army isolated, fending off on

its own. More importantly, they were forced to depend upon Egyptian support against both the

British and the Ottomans, with their strong Mamluke leaders. The British had long decided to

support the Ottomans, despite centuries of hostilities between the Christian West and the

Muslim East, because the weakened Empire was effortlessly manipulated. They wanted to

secure the route to India, and wanted to check the advance of Russia’s Tzars, who were

beginning to direct their attention towards the Middle East. They also justifiably feared the

• Egyptian leader Mohammed Korayem fought strongly in defense of Alexandria. He was executed by the French. ≡ For details of this speech, see al-Gabarti.


expansionist French. In 1799, they concluded a treaty with the Sublime Porte guaranteeing

the integrity of Turkish dominions for eight years (Tuchman, 1956).

Bonaparte’s strategy was based on subduing the Egyptians by courting the Muslims.

He professed his support, in return for their exclusive submission to him, and as long as they

did not assist either the Mamlukes or the Ottomans against him. He went as far as

announcing his conversion into Islam. Unfortunately, this strategy was fruitless, and neither

the Muslims nor the Copts believed him. Rather, he fell into disfavor with both. Coptic sources

considered this behavior “natural for people who followed the Vatican” (Yohanna, 1983).

Egyptians felt derision for him and his troops, despite the fact that from the time he entered

Egypt, he employed both the Copts and the Muslims equally and without discrimination, into

his administration. He also began setting up schools for training and teaching them different

kinds of skills, including military skills.

Despite such courting attempts, Bonaparte dealt rigorously with any manner of

dissent. In October of that same year, 1798, the Muslim clergy gathered in the Azhar mosque,

calling for the resistance of the ‘heathens.’ It was a justified protest against foreign invasion,

but under a typically religious umbrella. A major rebellion ensued, and many Frenchmen were

slaughtered in the streets. Tragically, the rebels also turned against the Copts, when the

mobs considered them enemies, again being of the same ‘religion’ as the French (Yohanna,

1983). Many were slaughtered, and several churches were burnt down. The Copts fled their

homes and abandoned their districts. The resistance was ruthlessly crushed. Not long after,

when the French relatively settled in Egypt, the Copts sought their support against the

occasional aggression of the Muslim majority, and were promised protection (Yohanna,

1983).

Bonaparte appointed General Klebar as governor of Egypt. Klebar succeeded in

eliminating many Ottoman and Mamluke strongholds. Eventually, he succeeded in securing a

form of solidarity with Murad Bey, but was soon assassinated by Suleiman al-Halabi, an

Egyptian of Syrian origin. Menou replaced him, but left when the French fleet departed in

1801, under British pressure.

Even though the French stayed a mere three years in Egypt, their accomplishments

were largely significant. Among such achievements was their success in destroying many

Mamluke leaders, hence weakening the Mamlukes, and helping in their eventual destruction

under Mohammed Ali. The ever-increasing powers of the Mamlukes was one of the Ottoman

Sultan’s greatest concerns, to the extent that he prohibited the arrival of more Mamlukes from

other provinces in the Empire, in order to prevent them from regaining their strength in Egypt

(Sabri, 1991).

To Egyptians, despite its numerous shortcomings, the Expedition was no less

beneficial. Egyptians had long been isolated from the outside world, ignorant of all forms of

technology and progress. Most were helpless peasants and fellaheens who survived on

agriculture and land production. The Expedition helped expose Egyptians to the outside


world. Upon arrival, Bonaparte immediately sought reform and endeavored to encourage all

sects in society, in order to ensure their loyalty and support. He ordered the construction of

streets and highways, in addition to planting trees on either side of roads, and introduced

nighttime street lighting (Sabri, 1991). Prior to the Expedition’s arrival, scholars in Egypt

thought they had all forms of knowledge, but upon seeing the new library that was introduced

by the French, and the different fields of science and knowledge, they were clearly

disconcerted.

One of Bonaparte’s major accomplishments for Egypt was that he set his scholars on

the prestigious project of describing Egyptian life and landscape in a unique and scholarly

work known as La Description d’Egypte. Moreover, Bonaparte introduced the printers into

Egypt, and published two newspapers in French. He established diwans comprising scholars

and members of the Egyptian clergy, to act as a form of shura council for him, and they soon

acquired unsurpassable strength and powers. The diwan consisted of 12 members, half of

whom were Christians, and their duty was to look into matters of the notary public’s

administration, inheritance problems, and property ownership (Riad, 1979). Many Copts were

given prominent government positions, such as the ministries of the Interior, Justice, and

Commerce. Many others enlisted in the French army, and were given the title of generals

(Riad, 1979), once again inciting suspicions as to their allegiance.

Despite such tremendous reform measures, the Egyptians continued to dislike the

French, more particularly because of their progressively heavy taxation system.

Copts and the Expedition:

The French Expedition’s significant book, The Description of Egypt, is an important,

if not exclusive source, on the situation and status of Egyptians in general, during the time of

the Expedition. In addition to the demographic and geographic description of Egypt, they

presented a detailed description of the lives and mannerisms of the people. As such, they

also discussed what they called ‘the forgotten Christians.’ Even though their analysis was

sometimes biased, and at times revealed a true lack of knowledge of the Egyptian people and

culture, the book remains to be an excellent source of information.

With regards the Copts in particular, being the main concern of this research, the

scholars of the Expedition began by describing their external physical features, not much

different from the Muslims. They then went on to describe their social positions and status.

According to the scholars’ observations, the Coptic Christians were divided into two major

sects. The first were the Catholics, who followed the Pope (meaning the Roman pope). The

second were ‘a group of heretics who followed their own pope, and were also followers of

Eutychus and Nestor, but with several differences, denying the double nature of Christ’ (Part

I, p.22). In addition to those two, there were the Romans, the Armenians, and the Maronites.


The Copts in particular, with their different denominations, remained, according to the

scholars, in complete isolation, and were more concentrated in Upper Egypt which was a sort

of ‘cradle’ to them.

Regarding employment, the book explains how the Copts played a minor role in

employment positions, yet continued to work in administrative matters under the Ottomans,

such as keeping the financial and tax records as well as ownership and property records

(Part I, p. 26). They noted that generally, it was the Coptic Pope who governed the Coptic

community in all matters, except in criminal affairs that required criminal accountability. The

priests, on the other hand, were mostly uneducated at best, and illiterate at worst, capable of

reading the liturgy only in the Coptic language, which was the only place this language was

used (Part I, p. 29).

The Copts, according to the Expedition’s observations, sent their boys to schools, but

not their girls, except in very rare cases. Nevertheless, an interesting observation was that

many Coptic girls went to school in Upper Egypt, whereas in Cairo, the Expedition did not see

a single Coptic girl in any school (Part I, p. 31).

In addition to the Expedition’s book, one controversial figure perhaps stands out most

clearly during that era, remembered perhaps by some as a traitor, and by others as a very

nationalistic Egyptian. A wealthy Copt, known as al Moallem Yacoub, or Teacher Jacob, he

joined the French army soon after its arrival into Egypt. To this day, Jacob is considered a

traitor of his country, for having participated with the French against the Ottomans. Others

contend that both the Ottomans and the French were invaders, and that Jacob merely

favored one over the other (Riad, 1979). The fact remains, however, that Jacob was the first

Egyptian to demand independence, and who had worked out a plan for the autonomy of

Egypt, which he intended to present to the French government. His plans never took off, as

he died prematurely on his way to France (Sabri, 1991)≠.

But Jacob’s involvement was not only in a proposed plan for independence. He had

actually succeeded in rescuing many Copts from inescapable slaughter when he built a

fortress known as Jacob’s fortress, surrounding the Coptic district. It was in this fortress that

he had concealed many Copts when the French Expedition’s authority began to weaken, and

the Ottomans tried to reclaim Egypt. Jacob positioned towers all around the fortress, and

stationed his soldiers, whom he had carefully trained, to protect it. A minor battle ensued, as

they fought single-handedly against the Ottomans. Many of his people lost their lives in this

battle. Among Jacob’s other contributions was that he fought with the French, and eliminated

many Mamlukes, destroying their strongholds in Upper Egypt.

≠ Jacob had apparently planned to discuss the independence project with England, considering England the country that would support him most in his independence plans, being the one that would benefit most from it. He had planned to keep his mission secret from the French, until he managed to get out of Egypt and arrive in France, from whence he would leave to England. The documents with the strategy entitled ‘Plans for the Independence of Egypt’ are now in Britain, and have been recovered among the papers of the British Foreign Ministry under the title ‘Independent Egypt, the 1801 Plan’ (Sabri, 1991).


But the controversy surrounding Jacob’s character and motivation stem from a

proposal he presented to the French, to found a national army consisting of Coptic youths. He

gathered 2000 youths from Upper Egypt, forming the bulk of his proposed army, and the

French trained them for battle. This highly dubious behavior emitted all the wrong messages

to the Muslims, regarding the already much doubted allegiance of the Copts. On the other

hand, the Copts themselves were unhappy with the arrangement. They had always been

exempt from the military, and were not ready to relinquish their Coptic youths for a cause they

did not essentially believe in. Many of the youths’ parents therefore, complained to the Coptic

Pope, Mark VI, and in spite of his intervention, Jacob refused to release the boys (Yohanna,

1983).

The Copts, as was clear from the Expedition’s description of them, were not always

favored by the French, especially when the French tried to court the Muslim majority. When

General Minou converted to Islam, he immediately fired all Copts from governmental

positions, in order to further please the Muslims, but soon had to re-hire Jacob as financial

advisor. When the Expedition left Egypt, Jacob left with them, and he died on the way to

Marseilles, where he was posthumously celebrated with the highest honors (Riad, 1979).


Chapter 6 The Modern State

From Resistance to Independence Mohammed Ali to the 1923 Constitution

Mohammed Ali (1769-1849), Father of the Modern State

Founder of the Egyptian modern state, Mohammed Ali was a brilliant but ruthless

leader, whose reforms included all aspects of life: economic, social, political, cultural, and

military. He also founded the entire Egyptian infrastructure, which survives to this day.

Initially, the Ottoman Sultan appointed Mohammed Ali, an Albanian officer who spoke

no Arabic, to head an army to expel the French with the aid of the British. When the British

demolished the naval fleet in Abi Kir, Mohammed Ali had been one of the participants in this

battle. Soon thereafter, he was sent to Upper Egypt to destroy Mamluke strongholds.

Mohammed Ali succeeded in accomplishing every feat he set out to accomplish, but his

ambition drove him to use new tactics and innovative strategies. He played the Sultan and the

Mamlukes against each other, and heightened their fears of each other, eventually losing no

time in betraying both. He then convinced the Ottomans to appoint the much-loathed

Khorshid Pasha as governor, and pretended to have no interests in power. Khorshid Pasha

ill-treated the people, which led them to demand his resignation, and the appointment of

Mohammed Ali instead. The Sublime Porte issued a firman (decree), in July 1805, with the

appointment of Mohammed Ali as governor of Egypt, and thereafter Mohammed Ali became a

power more superior than the Sultan himself.

The British, however, had their own eyes on Egypt, and now turned against

Mohammed Ali who had supported them against the French, and who had even fought on

their side. They entered Egypt through Alexandria, headed by General Frazer in 1807. In a

brilliant show of power, Mohammed Ali defeated Frazer’s army, and forced the British to

withdraw, after signing a withdrawal agreement.

The road was paved before Mohammed Ali not only to take full control of Egypt, but

also to further expand beyond it. Understanding the magnitude of Mamluke power, his

primary strategy was their total elimination. In 1811, he organized a banquet for their leaders

in Saladdin’s Fortress, and massacred them mercilessly, and one Mamluke escaped to tell

the story. His primary rivals gone, Mohammed Ali embarked on an expansionist policy, with

Bonaparte as his role model, and annexed the Sudan, Syria, and some parts of Greece, to

his newly founded empire.

In 1840, both the British and the Ottomans had become more and more

apprehensive of his ever-expanding powers. They formed an alliance that sought to limit his


powers. He was forced out of all the annexed territories, and was permitted to keep only

Egypt and the Sudan. He was also forced to reduce his army to a mere 18.000 soldiers. With

the support of France, and in return for those conditions, Mohammed Ali was granted relative

autonomy. He managed to form what came to be known as the khedivate•, a form of

monarchy in which his children were to succeed him in power, through an 1841 firman of the

Sublime Porte.

Generally speaking, Mohammed Ali's strategy was founded on the creation of a

strong and contemporary modern military power, the reconstruction of the administration, the

modernization of industry, and the creation of a modern education system. He sent students

on scholarships abroad and brought in experts in the different fields. He developed new

agricultural and irrigation systems, and sought to improve agricultural production, building

dams and canals. Among his most prominent accomplishments is the barrage in al-Kanater

over the River Nile, which is, to this day, considered an architectural genius.

Mohammed Ali depended mainly on foreign experts, but was also careful to make

use of local expertise, whether it was Coptic or Muslim. Typically, he made use of Copts

particularly in financial and accounting matters, of which they had the traditional unsurpassed

knowledge and expertise. Nevertheless, Copts apparently did not benefit much from

Mohammed Ali’s education reform policy, since his aim was to basically graduate efficient

cadres for the army to aid him in his expansionist ambitions. Copts were prohibited from

enrolling into the military, and in consequence, benefited nothing from this education policy.

Neither were there any Coptic members among the students he sent abroad for scholarships.

His choice of students was primarily from among the Azhar students, an institution that was,

and still is, exclusive to Muslims (Habib & Afifi, 1994). Additionally, when Mohammed Ali

formed a Supreme Council to aid him in the administration of the country, he excluded the

Copts from participation in it (Yussef, 87).

In the beginning of Mohammed Ali’s rule, the Coptic population in Egypt was at its

lowest statisitcal level. According to Mohammed Ali’s population count, there were a mere

150 thousand Copts≡, ten thousand of whom lived in Cairo and Fayoum, while the rest were

concentrated in Upper Egypt (Lane, 1836). In 1855, by the end of Ali’s rule, the Coptic Pope’s

count of them was 217 thousand, which was still, despite the increase, the lowest population

• The term khedive is a Pharsee term which means God or Lord and it denotes independence (al-Ayoubi, 1922). Consecutive rulers of Egypt since Mohammed Ali were given this title, in addition to the title of Caliph, a title that was not used. The titles of the Ottoman nobility persisted in Egypt until the 1952 Revolution, which abolished all titles. The two main titles of nobility were Pasha and Bey, the former being the higher in rank. The titles were borne by members of the ruling family and the aristocracy, and could be bestowed upon subjects if the king so wished. The title khedive was replaced with king when referring to the ruler of Egypt, when Fuad I proclaimed Egypt a kingdom in 1922. ≡ Edward Lane, a contemporary of that period, and who wrote his famous book The Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians in 1836 wrote that there were 150.000 Coptic Christians, 5000 Greeks, 2000 Armenians and 5000 Jews (Lane, 1836).


count ever (Yohanna, 1983)♥. Although Mohammed Ali primarily employed Armenians and

Romans, in fear of strengthening the Copts, he soon began employing them as well, as they

increasingly gained his trust. But regardless of their employment, Mohammed Ali strictly

prohibited their persecution, and in fact dealt very firmly with anyone accused of initiating

sectarian strife (Yohanna, 1983). Particularly interesting was the fact that a fatwa was issued

by Ismail al-Wahbi, a Muslim scholar, prohibiting the persecution of the Copts for their support

of the French, since, according to him, they were justified in doing so, to protect their honor

and property (Yohanna, 1983).

When the French departed from Egypt, in the beginning of Mohammed Ali’s reign,

they left behind them feelings of bitterness and anger against the Copts for their association

with the French troops. They had also been appointed to high and prominent administrative

positions, which increased public resentment against them (Yohanna, 1983). Yet in the year

1810, Pope Peter VII was elected patriarch of the Orthodox Church. Peter the Great, the Tzar

of Russia, conscious of Mohammed Ali’s powers, decided to court the Coptic community and

win their support. He dispatched one of his princes to discuss cooperation with the Coptic

pope, in return for their protection, which the pope diplomatically declined. The conversation

between them is one that the Coptic Church proudly narrates. The prince expressed concern

about the Coptic situation, and the pope answered him: “You are ruled by a king who shall

die, but I am ruled by God who never dies.” This greatly impressed not only the Russian

delegate, but also Mohammed Ali, who personally paid the pope a unique visit, thanking him

for his loyalty, and bestowing upon him a “position like that of Mohammed Ali himself”

(Yohanna, 1983).

According to Edward Lane, a Western contemporary of Mohammed Ali’s, the Copts

were not required to dress differently from their Muslim counterparts, even though many of

them adhered to the original dress code and rarely changed it, preferring to continue wearing

darker colors (Lane, 1836). Both the men and the women were allowed to wear white

headdresses, just like Muslim women (Lane, 1836).

With the support of the State, the Pope’s powers increasingly magnified, and the

Church seized the opportunity to increase its endowments. When a Copt wished to sell his

house in Cairo, the pope immediately bid for it, and no one else was able to enter the auction

against him. Houses were therefore sold to the church, regardless of the low price the pope

had placed on it (Lane, 1836). The Coptic language had, by then, completely retreated only

within the church walls, in church documents and liturgy. The Church continued to read the

liturgy in Coptic, together with its Arabic translation, because the Copts hardly understood any

Coptic. Additionally, the clergymen themselves had the Coptic liturgy transliterated into Arabic

letters, to enable them to read it themselves (Lane, 1836).

♥ The whole population of Egypt then was 2.5 million, which means they represented nearly 6%.


Copts, however, continued to pay the gizya, in addition to the taxes which the

Muslims paid. The gizya, as was customary, depended upon the social status and wealth of

its owners. Yet the status of the Copts and their employment positions began to dramatically

improve, and many of them acquired titles such as “Bey”. They continued to be accountants

and record-holders, and some were traders. They also worked as jewelers, engineers,

architects and carpenters, and the poorer classes or peasants worked in agriculture just like

the Muslims (Lane, 1836). Copts also began riding horses, having been denied that privilege

in the pre-Mohammed Ali periods. And even though they were still denied entry into the

military service, this was considered a privilege, and the Copts were not complaining (Lane,

1836).

An interesting observation made by Lane, was that the Copts were clearly hostile to

people of other denominations, more than they were of the Muslims, and in fact they despised

them more than the Muslims despised foreigners (Lane, 1836).

Successors:

Mohammed Ali’s successor was his grandson Abbas I (1848-1854), who ruled even

as Mohammed Ali lived, while his grandfather’s mental health was increasingly deteriorating,

and was, indeed, considered insane. Unfortunately, Abbas reversed his grandfather’s

policies, and the country’s situation deteriorated dramatically under him. His policy was based

on both fear and stagnancy: controlling people through fear, and keeping all matters stagnant,

stifling any form of progress (Sabri, 1991). He closed down the schools his grandfather had

so meticulously and strategically opened, and expelled foreign experts in all fields. He

continued to reduce military power and personnel, until the army comprised a mere 9000

soldiers. Abbas also sided with the British, and he used them to strengthen his authority

against the Ottomans. In return, he had to accept the building of the Egyptian railroad system,

which the British insisted on constructing to facilitate the route between England and India,

even though it is generally attributed to Abbas’ ‘accomplishments.’ In addition, Abbas

attempted to expel all Copts and Christians, whom he hated with a passion, from Egypt,

unless they converted (Yohanna, 1983). His attempt failed through none other than Sheikh al-

Bagori, the then Grand Sheikh of the Azhar, who pleaded on their behalf (Mena, 1995).

Abbas’ calamitous reign was followed by his reformer uncle, Said Pasha (1854-

1863), who sought to spread justice and peace, and instituted major reforms regarding local

governors throughout Egypt. Local rule had long been left to the whims of the local leaders,

and Said reversed this policy, centralizing government, and making the local leaders

accountable to it. In 1855, he exempted the Copts from paying the gizya. Moreover, the

Copts who had been prevented from carrying any form of arms, especially following the

experience with Teacher Jacob’s small Coptic army, were allowed to join the army (Yohanna,

1983). In 1856, Said issued the Hamayouni Decree, which, among other things, permitted the


Copts to enlist in the military (see Appendix VIII). However, when Muslim soldiers allegedly

mistreated them, they complained to Pope Cyril IV, who, in turn, complained to the British and

asked for their assistance. Said Pasha once again exempted them from military service÷

(Yohanna, 1983).

In his reform attempts, Said went as far as founding a government council to limit his

own jurisdiction and powers, helping Egypt on the road to true democracy (Sabri, 1991). He

founded several ministries, such as the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Finance, and

more notably, the Ministry of Defense. He directed his attention to military reform, revitalizing

it lamentably at the expense of the country’s budget, placing enormous strain on Egypt’s

financial situation, thereby beginning Egypt’s debts (Sabri, 1991).

A significant incident regarding the Copts occurred during Said’s time, involving Pope

Cyril IV. The Ethiopian and the Egyptian governments were entangled in a border dispute,

because the tribes on either border refused to abide by the artificial, political borders that had

been set up, and persistently continued to traverse them, and conducted mutual raids.

Instead of sending troops, Said chose the more peaceful process, and asked the Egyptian

Coptic Pope to intercede with the Ethiopian Emperor, being Pope of Egypt, Nubia and

Ethiopia. He equipped him with a riverboat, accompanied by an enormous entourage, and

dispatched him on his peaceful mission in 1856. Emperor Theodore came out close to the

borders to greet the Pope with honors. On his way, news came that Said was in the Sudan,

where he had gone on a state visit to establish and pledge certain reforms. The Emperor,

believing the Pope’s arrival to be a conspiracy, paving the way for Said’s attacking troops,

immediately arrested him, with the intent of killing him. The Pope sent messengers to Said,

begging him to depart from the Sudan and clear the misunderstanding. When Said complied,

Theodore apologized to the Pope, and released him (Riad, 1979 & Yohanna, 1983). After an

entire year’s absence, the Pope returned with a signed treaty between the two countries. The

Copts greeted him with unprecedented festivities, during which priests walked the streets

dressed in full clerical attire, lifting their crosses and parading down the streets. It was from

that time that the Copts began to once again pray and exercise their rituals in public, without

harassment (Riad, 1979).

New Missionaries: The Evangelical Church (from 1854)

Another player on the religious scene, entered during that period. The bulk of

Evangelical missionaries arrived in Egypt following Mohammed Ali, even though they had

been arriving as individuals rather than groups, prior to that, and continued to do so for

several centuries, before a final organized church was formed. The first individual Lutheran

÷ Al-Bishri claims that some church sources have denied this story, and that Cyril never asked for British intervention, nor pled on anyone’s behalf for exemption from the military (1988). The pope in fact, supposedly issued a statement to that effect.


missionary to Egypt was Peter Heyling who arrived in 1633, and remained for one year. He

was followed by several other individual missionaries who were on their way to establish

Churches either in Ethiopia or in the Levant.

The first official evangelical delegation, specifically targeting Egypt, arrived in 1854,

following the recommendations of the Allegheny Synod• of the American Presbyterian

Church, which took place the year before (Salama, 1982). Their first mission was to learn the

Egyptian Arabic language, having stayed in Syria for over ten years as missionaries, and

learnt the Syrian dialect. In 1860, the first Synod was established in Egypt, under the name of

Evangelical Nile Synod, with a mere seven members. During its first meeting, John Hogue, a

Scottish priest, was ordained a missionary priest, hence being the first missionary priest

nominated by the Egyptian Synod.

Hogue had arrived in Alexandria in 1856, and was considered the real founder of the

Evangelical Church of Egypt. The beginnings of evangelical work was through the founding of

small schools for education, comprising 7 or 8 students, in addition to some social work,

including medical assistance. The missionaries also basically spent their time visiting other

Christian schools in Egypt and learning the Arabic language. Initially the missionaries

organized their meetings in their own home building, which served both as home and service

place, in a building they bought in an area downtown Cairo, known as Moski. They initially

gave their sermons in English, but soon learnt Arabic and began to give Arabic ones. Those

who attended the sermons were usually small numbers of Coptic Christians, coming mainly

out of curiosity rather than any serious conviction.

By 1873, the missionaries managed to buy a land in Azbakeya, and built their first

official church on it in 1876. Soon, missionary work spread out to other areas in Egypt. In

1865, Hogue went to Assiut, in Upper Egypt, and established the first two Evangelical

schools, one for boys and one for girls. Egyptian converts into Evangelicalism began to join

the churches in both Cairo and Assiut, and some were ordained as priests.

The first incident that attracted the attention of both the Egyptian officials and the

Egyptian Orthodox Church to the Evangelicals, was in 1896, when they presented pleas to

the officials in Assiut to change the village market day from Sunday to Saturday, to keep the

Lord’s day. This plea was signed and supported by prominent and elite Orthodox individuals,

and soon spread to other parts of the country (Salama, 1982). The petition was denied.

Just as with the arrival of Catholicism, the presence of another yet ‘new religion’

brought with it more personal status problems, especially as the numbers of converts began

to relatively increase. Hearing of this problem, Sultan Abdel Mejid issued a decree in 1850,

granting the deputy of the Evangelical denomination, Stephan Agha in Costantinople, the

right to look into all the personal status and social affairs of his denomination. The local

• The term Synod is derived from Roman “Senato”. It refers to the meetings organized to look into certain affairs concerning the church.


Evangelical Church, however, rejected the decree and the appending new bylaws, and

offered another set of bylaws instead. Offended, the Sultan refused, then later in 1878,

appointed an individual called Girgis Barsom as deputy for Egypt alone. From that time

onward, new bylaws to organize the administration of the Evangelical denomination were

established, including elections of the deputy and personal status bylaws.

The Synod continued to be appended to the American Presbyterian Church until

1926, after which it became independent both administratively and financially (Salama, 1982).

The final break and independence was announced in 1958.

Generally speaking, the conversion to Protestantism was by far faster and greater

among the poorer Coptic Orthodox individuals. Even though the Catholics had a more active

social influence, through founding schools and socially active organizations, conversion to

Catholicism was much slower. The reason may be that the Protestants had a more revivalist

method, and were, in many ways, different in concepts and sermonizing methods, hence

capable of attracting individuals who found it simpler and different from Orthodoxy. The

influence of Presbyterianism was felt among the poorer areas, and particularly in Assiut.

Because Protestantism was puritanical and revivalist, it ironically found many followers

among the most conservative.

Typically, Evangelicals were convinced that Muslims needed to understand more

about the Bible, but more notably, they felt that their primary mission was evangelizing to the

Coptic Orthodox, whom they felt were by no means related to Christianity. This drove them to

target the Orthodox community, trying to convert them to their own methods and concepts of

belief.

In 1871, Father Tadros Yussef, an Egyptian Evangelical, was ordained priest of the

Egyptian Council of the Presbyterian Church. He began writing the minutes of the council in

Arabic, which was the real beginning that paved the way for the rise of Egyptian Coptic

Evangelicalism. The Church then gained independence from the American Church in 1908,

when the financial and administrative departments were severed from the mother church.

This was fully realized in 1926. However, it continued to be a member of the General

American Presbyterian Council. In 1958 this relation was also severed, and the Anglican

Synod replaced it. The foreign movement was then fully replaced by a national, local

movement. The schools that were heretofore appended to the Americans and the

missionaries, came under the control of the Egyptian Synod.

The Coptic Orthodox Church’s Reform Movement:

Because Mohammed Ali’s policy was based on excluding the Copts from the

education reform movement, the influence of the foreign missionary movement in founding

schools to embrace the excluded Copts was enormous (see al-Gabarti). However, it should


also be noted that half the scholarships Mohammed Ali sent abroad were of Turkish origin or

descent, and not even Muslim Egyptians, because he had aimed basically at strengthening

the army from which all Egyptians had been excluded (al-Bishri, 1988). Added to that,

Abbas’s policies, which included the expulsion of prominent scholars from their teaching

posts, and sending others to the Sudan, such as with Rifaa al-Tahtawi (Mena, 1995), helped

in the further deterioration of education among the Copts. The poorer Copts were particularly

vulnerable, and they fell easy prey to the ‘new religions’: Protestantism and Catholicism.

By 1896, there was a total of 186 Protestant schools for both girls and boys, with a

total of 11014 students (Habib & Afifi, 1994). Perceiving this as competition for the souls of

his congregation, Pope Cyril IV (1854-1861), began a reform movement in his church, and

later came to be known as the Father of Reform. One of his methods to counter this

penetration, was to increase the number of schools for the education of Copts. The schools

he founded taught all subjects, including the Coptic and Arabic languages (Mena, 1995). Cyril

also ordered a printer to be bought from the French, and organized a great celebration when

it arrived (Yohanna, 1983). More importantly, he founded what was known as the Sunday

School, and the Sunday School Movement.

The Beginning of the Sunday School Movement:

Pope Cyril IV sought to reform the Church from the inside, in order to counter

external influences, especially those brought about by the Protestant and Catholic

missionaries. There were other forces at work as well: the rise of new Islamic movements, the

secularist reforms and revolutions from the beginning of the 19th century, all of which

contributed to the need for internal reform (Shukri, 1991). The Pope however sought to reform

methods rather than concepts, and he therefore began building schools, as mentioned

before, to counter the missionary schools. He also reformed the administration of the church's

wakfs (endowments), and financial records. One of his immediate successors, Pope Cyril V

(1874-1927), continued in the same vein, but further gave attention to the education of the

clergy. This renewal and revitalization of methods was by no means accompanied by a

renewal in conservative religious thinking, eventually forming a gap between the newly

educated clergy and population on the one hand, and the Church's conservative leadership

on the other.

The church’s conservatism began to gradually change nonetheless, with the

involvement of Arch Deacon Habib Guirguis (1876-1951). Girguis began his life as a deacon,

and was later appointed as a personal aide to Pope Cyril V, and Arch Deacon of the Grand

Cathedral. He was also later one of the nominees for the papal seat following Cyril’s death.

Already the Church was beginning its outward reform, as has been previously

mentioned, hence the road was somewhat paved for Guirguis to instigate and encourage


further changes. Guirguis is better known for his initiation of a new generation of the clergy,

more suitably educated, cultured and by far more enlightened, while at the same time

adhering to the Church's conservative ideologies and basic thought. This was particularly

evident when he acted as the first chairperson of the newly established Clerical School.

Guirguis began by changing the preaching and sermonizing methodology, reforming

clerical schools, and more importantly attempting to appoint priests solely form the graduates

of the clerical college, in order to ensure a minimal standard of education, befitting the new

reforms and modernization. He encouraged the translation of books into Arabic, which

gradually brought about new thoughts and concepts that were essentially unorthodox. He

further encouraged the writing of books, as well as giving special attention to the press. Most

importantly, Guigris founded the Sunday School Movement•, which was based on all the

previous ideas.

Although himself a conservative in thought, Guirguis acted as a mediator between the

Layman's Council and the Church's leadership. He was nearly the only person who could

somewhat comprehend the Laymen’s demands, being a layman and a reformist, while at the

same time, able to support the conservatism of the church’s leadership, being a conservative

in concepts and ideologies himself. Hence while Pope Cyril IV presented a reformation of the

religious aspect of the church, Guirguis presented the reformation of the more social aspects,

and the ability of the Church to influence the public.

Reform and Debt: Ismail (1863-1879) and Tewfik (1879-1892):

It was during Said’s time, in 1859, that the digging of the Suez Canal began, under

French supervision. The British were undoubtedly displeased, fearing the French would gain

control of the Indian route, which necessitated their immediate involvement in Egypt. Said,

even though well intentioned, left behind him a legacy of debt, and through digging the Suez

Canal, of which his great grandfather Mohammed Ali had been wary, he unwittingly opened

the door for further European interest in Egypt. Mohammed Ali understood that the Suez

Canal would increase interest in Egypt and draw unnecessary attention to it, and he rejected

the idea when it was suggested to him. Under Said’s successor, the brilliant but superfluous

Ismail, the Suez Canal was inaugurated in1869, opening a convenient route from the

Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

Ismail, an adamant reformer, spent lavishly on the inauguration ceremony, and

commissioned Verdi to write and compose the famous Opera Aida for its festivities. He

introduced parliamentary reform and gave great attention to culture, building the famed Opera

• As is clear from its name, the name Sunday School is an imitation of the popular Western Sunday School. It was for this reason that in the 50s, the name was changed to Church Education (Mena, 1995).


House, which was inaugurated with Verdi’s Rigoletto. As a reformer, he issued a decree in

1878, establishing the first cabinet in Egypt’s history, with Nubar Pasha, an Egyptian Christian

Armenian, as its Prime Minister.

Ismail was generally a supporter of the Copts, and under his rule they were employed

in prominent governmental positions, as well as in the Shura Council from 1866-1869 which

he established (Yussef, 1987).

Unfortunately, the price of his financial extravagance was perilously high. Egypt fell

into a web of heavy debt, and was forced to sell the Suez Canal shares to Britain in 1876, for

the meager amount of 4 million pounds, being on the verge of bankruptcy. Yet Ismail was

adamantly against foreign intervention in Egyptian affairs, which upset the British who felt

Ismail a threat to their economic, and in fact defense, stability. A mere few days after buying

the shares, and the British immediately formed a committee to ‘study Egypt’s financial debt

situation.’ They sent one mission after the another with the apparent allegation that they were

attempting reform solely to protect their financial interests, whereas in fact they were

continuing to strengthen their stronghold over Egypt. In 1879, because Ismail had stubbornly

continued to oppose their intervention, they persuaded the Ottoman Sultan to depose him,

and appoint his son Tewfik in his place. What began as a financial debt was eventually

transformed into a justification for political intervention, and a ‘political debt’♣ (Sabri, 1991). A

Debt Commission was formed by decree in 1876, and it indeed acted as ‘a government within

a government’ (Sabri, 1991).

Loyal to his supporters who brought him to power, Tewfik immediately expelled the

leaders of the growing Egyptian national movement, and once again confined military posts to

non-Egyptians. By 1879, an official people’s party was forming, assuming the name of the

National Party, and in its program included articles that stipulated for equality between all

citizens, Muslims, Copts and Jews (Habib & Afifi, 1994). Its blaring Islamic rhetoric led to

several sectarian incidents, especially as people considered the people’s revolution to be a

form of jihad against all Christians, which of course included the Coptic Christians. Riots

became widespread, and the homes of many Christians were destroyed. General Ahmed

Orabi, leader of the nationalist movement, immediately ordered the halting of the attacks, and

petitioned all Egyptians to protect Coptic lives and properties (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

Because of Tewfik’s military bias, outraged Egyptian generals, led by Orabi,

submitted a petition to Tewfik in September 1881, in which they demanded an investigation

into the bias against Egyptians, and rampant mistreatment and corruption. They led a

♣ According to Egyptian and British documents, Ismail received only 42 million pounds whereas the formal debt was up to 90 million. Until 1882, Egypt had been able to pay its original debt and its 6% interest rate, but was still under debt with the phantom debt of 90 million (Sabri, 1992). In fact British expenditures were 10 million for the Canal, and another 30 million had been invested in Egypt on other projects (Lloyd, 1996). With other foreign debtors, the sum may have well reached over 60 million. However, Ismail expected that revenues from cotton would remain the same. The American Civil War


demonstration to the Khedeive’s official residence in Abdeen Palace, presenting their petition

in person. Initially, Tewfik rejected their demands but was then forced to accept them,

because of the intensity of the uprising. He knew, however, that he could count on British

intervention to help reinforce his position on the throne, and indeed, the British came to the

Khedive’s rescue, in opposition to the nationalist movement.

In 1882, headed by General Sir Garnet Wolseley♠, the British invaded Egypt through

Alexandria, and arrived in Cairo through the deception of De Lesseps who had promised

Orabi the British fleet would not cross the Canal. The odds perilously against him, Orabi was

exiled, and the British occupation of Egypt began. To appease the revolutionaries, the British

announced that it was a necessary temporary measure, and promised to evacuate Egypt as

soon as they reinforced the Khedive’s position, a promise that was only partially fulfilled thirty

years later, because it defeated its own purpose. The Khedive had, by then, completely lost

his people’s support because of the further British intervention, whereby his presence

continued to depend on British presence in Egypt. Realizing that vulnerable situation, the

British kept the khedive on the throne, and confined themselves to giving him advice through

a Consul-General. The military presence of the British troops, however, made this ‘advice’

increasingly obligatory. Soon, the initial military intervention, under the guise of protecting law

and order, and securing the safety of the Suez Canal, ‘changed in the course of about three

years to the assumption of ultimate control over Egypt’ (Lloyd, 1996).

In the initial stage of the occupation, some Copts who hoped for impending relief from

their Ottoman rulers, immediately supported the occupiers. This was particularly apparent

when some Muslim clerics announced, during that time, that Islam was in danger because of

Coptic participation in governmental positions, which constituted a threat against their very

existence, hence inciting them to seek relief elsewhere (Habib & Afifi, 1994). In general,

however, during that period, there was no significant Coptic participation except following

Orabi’s exile, when Pope Cyril V was personally among those who petitioned on his behalf

with the Khedive.

The British Occupation: 1882 till the outbreak of the 1919 Revolution

Following the British occupation, Egypt was in effect governed by three different

forces: the distant Ottoman Sultan, as the supreme leader; the puppet khedive, providing the

facade of autonomy; and the British, who were the actual rulers, through their Consul-General

Sir Evelyn Baring, also known as Lord Cromer (1883-1907). Cromer continued to enforce his

position as the actual ruler of Egypt, while ‘maintaining the khedive on his throne and the

in 1860 had blocked cotton exports from America, which increased the price of Egyptian cotton, and Ismail borrowed against expected cotton revenues (Lloyd, 1996).


legal fiction of Turkish over-all sovereignty’ (Tuchman, 1956). This façade was important to

reduce the risk of offending other European countries with expansionist ambitions. From then

till the outbreak of World War I, two more consul generals were to govern Egypt: Sir Eldon

Gorst (1907-11), and Lord Herbert Kitchner (1911-1914) who later became England’s

Minister of Defense.

Upon invading Egypt, the British immediately undertook the inevitable task of

dispersing the Egyptian army, under the excuse and pretense of reducing expenditure. They

shut down many local schools, and set up British teaching schools in their place. Prominent

positions in the government became confined to British personnel, which meant the exclusion

of all Egyptians, and the absence of any hope of their attaining status and position. As

puppets, there was the khedive in power, with his Egyptian government administered by his

Egyptian ministers. This initiated an informal conflict between the British on the one hand, and

the government on the other, for authority. Egyptian employees, including the ministers,

headed the opposition against the British in its initial stages, from 1882 till 1895, after which

the opposition involved the entire nation, through its parties (Sabri, 1991).

Cromer laid down strenuous financial policies, and set his own priorities, according to

the British agenda, succeeding in reducing Egypt’s debt from 97 to 87 million pounds,

between 1883 and 1900 (Lloyd, 1996). His priorities were retrenchment, reform of civil

service, improvement of peasants and lower classes, whereas recognition of national feelings

was at the end of his list, if at all (Lloyd, 1996).

The French, with their interests elsewhere in the Middle East, left Britain to take care

of the debt issue. In 1904, the British occupation was internationally sanctioned, and the

French acknowledged British rights in Egypt, in return for acknowledging their own rights in

Morocco. Fearful of increasing British powers, Sultan Abdel Hamid decided to support the

Germans against the ever-increasing hegemony of the British, at the outset of World War I.

This shift away from the British had many reasons, foremost of which was the British ever-

increasing powers in Egypt, as well as the German support for the modernizing groups

gaining power in Turkey (Lloyd, 1996). It proved to be a fatal error, for which the Ottomans

paid very dearly, leading to the eventual disintegration of their Empire. Moreover, the shift

provided the British with the much-needed justification to close their grip on the Middle East,

particularly Egypt and Palestine. Seizing the opportunity, they immediately proclaimed Egypt

a Protectorate in 1914, and ‘persuaded’ the Sublime Porte to depose Khedive Abbas II, who

had then been on a state visit to Turkey, and replace him with his uncle Hussein Kamil. The

Egyptian foreign ministry was abolished, and foreign affairs came under the responsibility of

the British High Commissioner in Egypt♣, especially in matters that had to do with the contact

with representatives of other foreign countries (Abdel Nur, 1992). In 1906, the infamous

♠ General Wolseley was then known as ‘England’s only general,’ because of his expert war abilities (Lloyd, 1996). He won the battle against the Egyptians at Tel al Kabir. ♣ The title High Commissioner began after the start of WWI. Prior to that, it was General-Consul.


Denshewai incident• occurred, which flared up national sentiments and further increased

animosity against the British.

In 1907, two Egyptian nationalistic parties were formed for the first time in Egypt: the

Nationalist Party, led by Mustafa Kamil (1873-1908), an Egyptian lawyer, who died one year

later; and the Umma Party, headed by Hussein Abdel Razik, who believed in negotiations

with the British, and a gradual process by which Egypt should gain independence. Other less

significant parties were formed within the same period, and during the span of ten years,

some of which were foreign parties, such as the Free National Party, while others still were

formed with the sole purpose of expressing allegiance to the ruling regime.

The most significant party, however, was formed in 1918, and was the mass-based

Wafd Party (literally ‘delegation’), rising out of the Egyptian nationalist movement. It began as

a delegation, which gathered around it people from all walks of life, and soon developed into

an official party under that name, as shall be explained in details.

Zaghlul, its founder, had become Minister of Education in 1906, then Minister of

Justice in 1910, and was a staunch opponent of the British occupation. The formation of the

party began when Zaghlul, together with some of his colleagues, presented Sir Reginauld

Wingate, the British High Commissioner (1917-1919), with a petition on November 13th, 1918,

to grant Egypt autonomy, accepting the reservation of keeping the British as supervisors over

the Suez Canal. From then on, that day became an annual national celebration day, known

as the National Jihad Day (Struggle day)≠ (Abdel Nur, 1992). Members of this small

delegation decided that they, in fact, had no authorization from the people, and did not

represent anyone but themselves on the official level. They therefore wrote out a proxy form,

and distributed it to different organizations, institutions, clubs and individuals, requesting their

signature, by which they would delegate them to speak on their behalf. Among the clubs the

form was sent out to, was the Coptic, elitist, Ramsis Club, whose members immediately noted

that the delegates did not have a single Copt among them. They immediately dispatched

three prominent Copts to Zaghlul, with the suggestion of including some Copts in the

delegation. Pleased with such enthusiasm, Zaghlul asked them to suggest names. They

chose Sinoot Hanna Bey and George Khayyat, both of prominent Coptic families. When

Khayyat was asked to pronounce the pledge of allegiance to the delegation, he asked Zaghlul

what the situation of the Copts would be, once their representatives joined them. Zaghlul

• A group of British soldiers were shooting pigeons in a village called Denshwai near Tanta, and the wife of a local Egyptian Muslim imam was killed. Villagers surrounded the officers, and in the ensuing imbroglio, two British officers were wounded. In a fit of panic, the British officers randomly opened fire on the villagers. A fight erupted in which one British officer was killed, and a peasant killed in return. The British rounded up peasants from the village, arrested them and brought them to a farcical court, in which four peasants were sentenced to death, and many others to hard labour. The sentences were executed immediately and publicly, in order to make a profound statement of policy. Th head of that court was the Coptic Boutros Ghali, who then became Prime Minister in 1908. He was a supporter of the British protectorate. When he was assassinated, the issue among some Copts became a “religious question rather than a political assassination” (Yussef, 1987).


answered that Copts had both rights and duties just like their Muslim colleagues, whereupon

Khayyat read the oath (Abdel Nur, 1992).

The delegation, hence the term ‘Wafd’, asked for permission to travel to Paris and

present Egypt’s case before the world. They also insisted that both the Egyptian Minister of

Culture (al-Maaref), Adly Yakan Pasha, and Prime Minister Rushdi Pasha, join the delegation.

When they were repeatedly denied this request, the Prime Minister presented his resignation,

which was accepted. The delegation continued to write petitions to many leaders around the

world, among them President Wilson of the United States upon his arrival in Paris, but they

received no response whatsoever. Instead, they were arrested and exiled to Malta, in March

1919.

The expulsion of the leading nationalists led to the eruption of widespread

demonstrations throughout Egypt, in what came to be known as the 1919 Revolution. The

demonstrations began with university and school students, and soon spread throughout

Egypt, comprising men, and women of all classes and employments, as well as both Copts

and Muslims. Coptic clergy gave fiery nationalist sermons in Muslim mosques, and Muslim

clergy gave similar sermons from church pulpits. Egyptians of all walks of life were for once

unified around a nationalist cause.

The events that led to the 1919 revolution were essentially varied, but they

culminated with Zaghlul’s exile. Basically, there were many reasons not least among them the

treatment the Egyptians received at the hands of the British during the war. Many Egyptians

were forcefully recruited, and Egyptian crops were seized and sold at very cheap prices,

affecting and weakening the Egyptian economy. This was particularly true of Egyptian cotton,

a policy that led to the eventual impoverishment of Egyptian peasants. In addition, martial

laws were declared at the onset of the war, and military authorities replaced civilian ones,

adding more constraints on the freedoms of people. Most insulting of all, was the draft

constitution which Sir William Bronite, proposed in 1918, which stipulated for the founding of a

parliament in Egypt, whose majority of members were to be British (Sabri, 1919).

Following the eruption of the revolution and the paralysis that swept the entire nation,

Wingate was recalled to London, and he refused to return when he was denied the request to

permit the delegation to travel to Paris. He was soon replaced by General Allenby (1919-

1922), who arrived on March 25th, and granted the nationalists permission to travel, as well as

permitting the released exiled members to join them on route. Only then did the revolution

cease. Rushdi Pasha requested permission to once again form a government, and

permission was granted. In the new government, Yakan Pasha was appointed as Minister of

the Interior. This government continued for a mere 12 days, after which unfortunate events

led to its resignation. Lord Curzon, the British minister, announced that the revolution in Egypt

was a non-popular one, and that Egyptian governmental employees did not partake in it.

≠ For details of the meeting with Wingate, see The Diaries of Fakhry Abdel Nur’s, 1992.


Offended, governmental employees went on strike on April 2nd. Rusdhi Pasha was asked to

form his government again, but failed to convince the Egyptians to return to work, when their

demands were not complied with. Among their demands was the lifting of the protectorate,

and the lifting of martial laws, which the British adamantly refused. Rushdi Pasha again

resigned.

The delegation departed from Egypt on April 11th, and arrived in Paris to finally

present their case in person. The day following their arrival, Parisian newspapers announced

that the United States sanctioned the British protectorate over Egypt, which had been

announced on December 18th, 1914 (Abdel Nur, 1992). This dealt the delegation a heavy

blow, and they understood that their petitions would fall on deaf ears.

When order was once again restored to Egypt, the British sent Lord Milner as head of

mission≡ in December 1919, to investigate the means of granting independence to Egypt,

while safeguarding British interests. Arriving in December of 1919, the mission was boycotted

by the Egyptians, and massive strikes and demonstrations took place, because they wanted

to address the government rather than the people’s ‘delegation’. The Milner Committee

realized they would have to address the delegates, as they were the sole acknowledged

representatives of the people. Mohammed Said Pasha, the then Prime Minister, resigned in

November before the commission’s arrival, when the British insisted that he meet with the

commission against the people’s will. A new government was formed, and this time a Copt

was appointed as Prime Minister, namely Yussef Wahba Pasha, which was met with

widespread anger by the Egyptians. Appointing a Copt was an evidently deliberate attempt,

on the part of the British, to incite suspicion and anger against the Copts and their loyalty, and

Wahba was rigorously criticized. When the Copts realized the transpiring damage, they

immediately issued angry statements, expressing their rejection of Wahba’s appointment and

his acceptance of it. Some Coptic youths went as far as taking matters into their own hands,

when, on December 18th, they chose a Coptic called Irian Yussef Saad, to assassinate

Wahba Pasha. The Prime Minister survived the attempt, and Saad was arrested, and later

released when Zghalul formed his own short-lived government in 1924 (Abdel Nur, 1992).

Upon his return to England, Milner decided to meet with Zaghlul, and they formed an

agreement in 1921, whereby Britain agreed to revoke the protectorate and begin negotiating

a treaty. In March 1921, Adly Yakan Pasha was appointed Prime Minister, and formed a

government, which immediately announced that its first priority was negotiating independence

with the British. They invited Zaghlul and his delegation to join the negotiations, and began

discussions as to who the members of the official delegation would be. Tragically, a rift

occurred between Zaghlul and Yakan Pasha, and the delegation was divided. The essence of

the rift was that Zaghlul wanted the head of the delegation, and the majority of its members,

to be of the Wafd party, being, in his opinion, the real representatives of the people. Yakan

≡ The mission’s members included Sir Rennell Rodd, General Sir John Maxwell and Sir Cecil Hurst who were familiar with Egyptian affairs.


rejected Saad’s request, especially with regards heading the delegation, which, according to

him, should have been ‘governmental’, since protocol prevented a people’s delegation from

undertaking formal discussions regarding independence≈.

The Yakan group came to be known as the ‘moderate’ group, because they believed

in gradual independence, and slow negotiations. After Yakan left the government, he formed

a party known as the Ahrar Dostoreyoon, or the Constitutional Free Men. Zaghlul’s group, on

the other hand, came to be known as the ‘conservative’ or ‘extremist’ group, who believed in

immediate change, and in people’s representation. When the rift occurred, all the Coptic

members of the Wafd party continued to support Zaghlul except for one Copt, namely Tewfik

Doss÷.

An official delegation was finally formed in May 1921, headed by Yakan Pasha, and

left to England to begin the thankless task of bilateral negotiations with Lord Curzon. The

Adly/Curzon negotiations headed towards irrevocable doom when it came up with a draft

declaration, which included humiliating and unacceptable articles. It stipulated for the British

right to send British troops at any time and place to Egypt; denying Egypt the right to any

agreements with any foreign country except with Britain’s permission. The implication of the

draft meant that the Egyptian foreign minister was obliged to work closely with the British High

Commissioner. Last but not least, the declaration stipulated for the presence of two British

consultants, a financial and a judiciary, whereby Egypt should take Britain’s permission before

agreeing to any foreign loan (Abdel Nur, 1992). Yakan refused to sign the declaration, and

returned to Egypt.

Zaghlul and the Wafd party organized several demonstrations, wrote fiery articles,

and gave speeches against both the declaration, and Yakan’s government, which forced the

government to resign. A popular meeting was planned in December, but Lord Allenby issued

a statement warning people away from it. Zaghlul and his partners were placed under house

arrest. Exhibiting enormous courage, Zaghlul refused to comply with those orders. He was

arrested, together with a group of his colleagues, taken to Suez, and exiled to Seychelles.

Among those exiled were the two more prominent Coptic members of the Wafd Party:

Makram Ebeid♠ and Sinoot Hanna. Meanwhile, Wassef Ghali and Wissa Wassef, both of

≈ For details of Zaghlul’s and Yakan’s opinion, see their newspaper interviews cited in Abdel Nur, 1992. ÷ The Coptic supporters were Wassef Butrous Ghali, Sinoot Hanna, and Wissa Wasef, in addition to Fakhry Abdel Nur. The only Muslim supporter who remained with Saad was Mostafa al-Nahas Pasha (Abdel Nur, 1992). ♠ William Makram Ebeid was a Coptic wealthy elitist, who had been working in Britain for Zaghlul and the Wafd party, spreading his speeches, and writing to newspapers on his behalf. Upon his arrival to Egypt, following the failure of the Adly/Curzon negotiations, he announced that his ‘national name’ was now Makram Ebeid, which was more of an Arab name, dropping the more foreign and Christian ‘William’ (Abdel Nur, 1992). Ebeid later became Prime Minister, heading the Wafd party, until he formed his own party towards the end of the 40s, due to a further rift among party members, which shall be discussed later.


whom were also Copts, found themselves on their own, and they therefore signed a

statement against the British, and published it in the press. The Wafd Party was once again

divided as to whether they should separate the issue of independence from the issue of

releasing Zaghlul and his partners. The Copts, among them George Khayyat, Wissa Wassef,

and Wassef Ghali, insisted that the latter was a priority. They issued another statement to that

effect, and published it in four newspapers. All four newspapers were consequently banned,

and the Wafd members arrested.

Lord Allenby left to England to negotiate a more acceptable declaration, and present

it to the Sultan. In the ensuing declaration, known as the February 28th, 1922 Declaration,

Britain declared Egypt’s independence, while keeping four reservations until further

agreements could be negotiated. Foremost among them, was the protection of minorities in

Egypt♣. British governmental and administrative employees finally departed from Egypt, after

40 years of complete control (Abdel Nour, 1992), but neither withdrew their troops, nor

relinquished their control of some governmental institutions≡. The Suez Canal in particular,

remained under their strict control, because the Canal had by then become integral to British

economy and defense.

In 1923, Zaghlul and his partners were allowed to return from exile, and they arrived

in amidst widespread festivities. The first Egyptian Constitution was formed and took effect

that same year. It declared Egypt a monarchy, and Fouad I was declared king. The title

‘sultan’ was forever abolished, and Egypt was free of Ottoman rule for the first time in four

centuries. The constitution, of course, had its drawbacks, since it gave the king the right to

suspend parliament, as well as giving him exclusive powers over religious institutions,

particularly theAzhar (al-Bishri, 1988). Soon, law 15 for the year 1927 was issued, regarding

the king’s authority over both religious institutions (see Appendix IX). Nevertheless the

constitution itself had a very positive effect, providing the Egyptians for the first time, with the

official opportunity to discuss their politics, and participate in political life and decision making.

In 1924 the Wafd Party won the elections, and Zaghlul formed his own government,

in which he included two Coptic ministers.

Copts under British Occupation:

The Copts, like all other Egyptians, were most certainly affected by the British policy

of expelling employees from the government and replacing them with British employees.

♣ The reservations were: securing British transportation and route in Egypt; protecting Egypt against any foreign intervention; protecting foreign interests and minorities in Egypt; the Sudan issue (Abdel Nur, 1992). ≡ It should be noted that the British employees (1051 in total) who left Egypt, were paid substantial compensation and pensions. Some of those who had left and taken their compensation were even returned once again during the Zeiwar Pasha government, with new contracts (al-Bishri, 1988).


Indeed, the British had disposed of many Coptic employees, and replaced them with Syrians

(Yussef, 1987). As shown above, the Copts were significantly active in the Egyptian

nationalist movement during the 1919 Revolution. It was a crossroads, where the Copts had

to either support the British occupiers and hence direct a blow to the Muslims, and in

particular to the Ottoman Empire, or support the Muslims and hence support the Ottomans

themselves. With the rise of the Egyptian nationalist movement under Zaghlul, which rejected

both choices and stressed independence and equality, they were able to find their identity.

The Copts were active in other ways too, namely reorganizing themselves. In addition

to the Layman’s Council, the Tewfik Coptic Organization was founded in 1891, and it

established several schools for the education of Copts. This was followed by the founding of

several other Coptic organizations and clubs, such as the famed Coptic elitist Ramsis Club.

The Copts also founded two newspapers: al-Watan, founded by Michael Abdel Sayed,

considered a moderate newspaper; and Misr, founded by Tadros Bey al-Mankabadi, who

himself participated in transporting Orabi’s troops, but whose newspaper represented the

more conservative and extremist Coptic views, encouraging, at times, British occupation. The

Copts also founded the Coptic Museum in 1900, which began as an individual collection of

some Coptic artifacts, and later expanded into a museum, and was officially recognized as

such in 1931 (Riad, 1979). Furthermore, the Clerical School was founded in 1893.

Significantly, as Copts increasingly participated in public life, the number of monks

decreased from 1003 in 1870, to a mere 189 by 1910÷ (Riad, 1979). Priests were chosen

from among the lesser-educated individuals, which brought a deterioration in church cadres,

and in its ability to cope with Egypt’s modernization. It was for that reason that Habib Guigris’s

reform, and subsequent clerical school, were of extreme importance during that period, since

it graduated priests of high caliber.

According to some estimates, Copts by the time the 1919 Revolution had begun,

occupied 45% of prominent governmental positions, and took in a total of 40% of the gross

national income; whereas the Muslim majority took 44%. They owned one fifth of agricultural

land, in addition to their banking finances (Habib & Afifi, 1994). They were also well educated

because of the large number of missionary and Coptic schools that existed.

During the drafting of the constitution of 1923, a drafting committee was formed,

which included four Coptic members as ‘representative’ of the Coptic community•. Both the

Wafd and the Nationalist Parties boycotted the drafting committee since they believed that the

constitution should be drafted by a popular and national committee, rather than a committee

formed under existing martial laws (al-Bishri, 1987). The committee nevertheless continued

its duties, and foremost in their discussions was the issue of a Coptic quota, which was

÷ In an interview in 1990, Pope Shenuda, said the monks are currently 600 (Fawzi, 1990). • The Coptic members were Ellini Fahmi, Ilias Awwad, Tewfik Doss and Bishop Youanas, Bishop of Alexandria. The representative of the Jewish community was Yussef Aslan, and of the Syrian, Yussef Saba.


particularly supported by Tewfik Doss. The Coptic community, headed by the Wafd,

powerfully voiced their opposition to Coptic representation in parliament. They insisted that

representation would mean granting Copts rights that were denied other Muslims, and was

therefore not a proper basis for equality and justice. In fact, a meeting of more than 500

people rallied in the Patriarchate, on May 18th, organized by the Coptic Wafd members, in

which they spoke fervently against Coptic representation (al-Bishri, 1988).

As mentioned before, the beginning of the 20th century was a period in which parties

were beginning to be formed. From the start, the Copts disliked Mustafa Kamil’s Nationalist

Party, because even though he had called for independence from Britain, he did not call for

independence from the Ottomans (Riad, 1979). More importantly, Kamil’s rhetoric was purely

Islamic, which alienated the Copts, and it was for that specific reason that when his party was

formed, there was only one Coptic member, namely Wissa Wassf, who was then dubbed a

Judas by the Copts (Riad, 1979). It was not long, however, before Wassef resigned, following

an incident in August 1908. Sheikh Abdel Aziz Gawish, the editor-in-chief of the al-Liwa

newspaper, the official spokes-paper of the party, wrote an article entitled “Islam, a Stranger

in its own country,” in which Gawish likened the Copts to the Negroes of the Congo (Riad,

1979)•.

From the beginning, though, the Copts joined and supported the Umma Party,

because it was outspokenly secular, and forthrightly opposed to Kamil’s ideas and rhetoric .

They then joined the even more secular party of the Wafd, because of Zahglul’s more

straightforward secular ideas, and his constant emphasis on equality and citizenship. They

were also disillusioned with the Umma Party, when its spokes-paper refused to support them

against Gawish, by not publishing several of their articles in answer to him (Habib & Afifi,

1994). During the 1919 Revolution, as has been mentioned before, Coptic participation was

one of the most prominent in their history. Many had been arrested and presented before

British and Egyptian military courts, because of their activities with Zaghlul and the Wafd

Party.

In 1908, Akhnoukh Fanous, a prominent Coptic lawyer, announced the formation of a

Christian Party, which he significantly called the Egyptian Party. In its program, he

announced that its aim was ensuring equality of all citizens, stressing his ‘secular’ tendencies,

in opposition to the Islamic discourse of Mustafa Kamil’s party. The party’s program,

however, called for a parliament where foreigners constituted half its members; a stipulation

that evidently aimed at securing British support (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

• Another incident is mentioned about Mustafa Kamel when Lord Barring asked him about his nationality and he answered: “Egyptian, Ottoman.” Barring asked: “And is it possible to have two nationalities?” the latter answered: “There are no two nationalities, but actually one because Egypt is appended to the Sublime State, and the follower is no different from the leader.” (Riad, 1979, citing The Diaries of Ahmed Shafeek Pasha). The number of Copts in the first general assembly of the Umma Party was 16, whereas its total

members were 113 (Yussef, 1987).


In 1911, some Copts called for the organization of a Coptic conference to discuss

their problems and demands, stirred by, among other things, the assassination of Prime

Minister Boutros Ghali a year earlier, which many claimed to be because he was a Copt. A

committee of prominent Coptic members was chosen, the most outspoken of whom was

Akhnoukh Fanous. The conference took place in Assiut, amidst widespread controversy, and

people were divided between those who objected to it, and those who supported it. The

government reluctantly agreed to the conference, but wanted it transferred from Assiut,

because it had a majority of Copts, and feared inciting strife. The organizers refused, and

threatened the government with foreign intervention through the different consulates (al-

Bishri, 1988). The government therefore sent to the consulates requesting them not to

interfere with Egypt’s internal affairs, whereby the consulates answered that their

representatives would attend merely as objective observers.

What further aggravated the matter was that some of the conference’s leaders were

mainly Protestant Evangelicals, foremost of whom were two prominent families: the Wissas

and the Khayyats. Clearly, the request to hold the conference in Assiut was primarily because

of the weighty Protestant presence there. It should be noted however that the original reason

for the conference was not to look into Coptic demands as opposed the government, but

rather ironically, Coptic demands as regards the church’s internal problems, and the status of

the Layman’s Council. The conference was to be convened in 1910, but following the

assassination of Boutros Ghali, it was delayed one year, and gradually began to have a

different agenda (al-Bishri, 1988).

The British repeatedly tried to prevent the convening of the conference through the

pope, but they failed (Riad, 1979). The Copts believed there were three enemies to the Coptic

issue: the government, Sir Eldon Gorst, and the National Party (Riad, 1979). Their demands,

therefore, centered around equality in employment based on skill and efficiency;

parliamentary representation; religious and literary education of Copts especially as taxes

were paid by all members of the community; establishing Sunday as a holiday; and the

government’s treasury’s expenditure to be spent on all structures equally.

Among those who not only attended the conference, but indeed inaugurated it, was

the Bishop of Assiut, despite the Pope’s wariness, though not rejection. Those who

denounced the conference, believed it was incited by the British, in order to justify British

presence in Egypt as protectors of the Copts. They therefore called for an Egyptian

conference rather than either a Coptic or an Islamic one. The government, on the other hand,

was also opposed to it, and when it attempted to cancel it, it succeeded only in inciting those

who originally opposed the conference. They attacked the government for its intervention in

freedom of organization, and addressed the organizers themselves, pleading with them to

abandon the idea on their own, and not through governmental intervention.

In spite of all the misgivings, the conference was organized, and surprisingly,

stressed unity as opposed to strife (al-Bishri, 1988). Contrary to what everyone thought, it


succeeded in enforcing national unity. Nevertheless, there continued to be residues of hard

feelings, accumulated by the attacks prior to the conference. Sir Eldon Gorst therefore

encouraged the organization of another conference, called the Egyptian Conference, in

response to the first Coptic one. Mohammed Fahmi al-Nadouri, mentioned in a newspaper

that he was commissioned to organize a ‘religious’ conference in Alexandria, to which he

would invite Muslims, Israelis and non-Coptic Christians, to discuss the ‘Coptic issue,’

especially the bias of Coptic personnel against non-Coptic employees. Among those who

participated in this second conference were prominent, enlightened, and intellectual figures of

the Egyptian community. It was convened in April 1911, and it denounced all Coptic demands

suggested in the preceding conference, including rejecting the idea of a Sunday holiday, as

well as the idea of a religion-based party.

It should be stressed, however, that both conferences, even though organized upon

the initiative of biased and perhaps at times fanatical individuals, were later overpowered by

enlightened individuals, who succeeded in inhibiting feelings of strife, and encouraging unity

and harmony instead. The result of both conferences was notable: both stressed unity as

opposed to strife, and both acted as vents for long-suppressed anger, which, indeed, helped

ease the tension on both sides (al-Bishri, 1988). The heightened Egyptian sentiments were

then re-directed towards more productive labor, when both Muslims and Copts participated in

the 1919 Revolution.

Crisis between the Pope and the Laymen: The Founding of the Layman Council

Following the death of Pope Demetrius II (1862-1870), church affairs were conducted

by Bishop Mark of Beheira, who became its deputy for two years until the election of the new

pope. Bishop Mark asked for the aid of prominent Copts to help him administer the heavy

church burden. Members of that committee soon asked to be established as a formal

institution, acknowledged by both the government and the church, whose duty was to

administer the church’s affairs and endowments. The reformers of the church, headed by

Boutros Ghali, made use of the absence of a pope to establish a reform council (al-Bishri,

1988). The Bishop of Beheira asked Ismail Pasha, then Khedive of Egypt, to formally

acknowledge the permanent council. The government immediately approved, and a council

was formed, consisting of 24 members, with Boutros Ghali as its deputy, while the would-be

pope was to be its chairperson. It was officially acknowledged as the Layman’s Council in

1874, and it was this council which elected Cyril V as patriarch, one year later.

Following Cyril V’s election, a set of bylaws was written, to govern the Layman

Council’s jurisdiction. Basically, the Council's bylaws and regulations stipulated that the

Council's duties included the management of Coptic internal affairs, the supervision of Church

properties, monasteries and schools, gathering documents and accounts, inspecting


resources and expenditures. It also stated that it should administer schools and help the poor,

keeping records of churches, priests, monasteries and monks, properties and documents.

The bylaws stipulated that the Personal Status Court of Copts had the jurisdiction to look into

matters of divorce and marriage.

Church sources claim that the council ‘did not perform its duty’ and that it gradually

self-dissolved. The fact is that Cyril himself began to gradually liberate the council of some of

its duties, then dissolved it altogether. When the laymen approached the pope to renew

elections and re-establish the council, he refused, unless the bylaws were changed in such a

way as to provide him with more power. They, in turn, rejected this suggestion, and asked the

then Khedive, Tewfik, to intervene. Tewfik immediately called for a meeting to discuss the

matter and ordered the formation of the council with the decree of 1883. Ghali was once

again chosen as deputy, while the Pope remained head of the council. The Pope, meanwhile,

called a meeting of his bishops and priests, and formed a clerical council, which decided that

it was no layman’s business to interfere in church matters. They presented their decision and

request to the Khedive.

During that time, Boutros Ghali, who had by then been appointed Prime Minister, was

in England. Upon his return, the Khedive delegated him to the mission of resolving the

impending crisis with the Layman’s Council. He made peace between the conflicting parties,

but soon informed the Pope that it was the people’s wish to re-form a council. The Pope

expressed his approval, on condition that the bylaws were changed. The Khedive insisted the

council be formed immediately, because people were complaining, and Boutros Ghali

informed the Pope, following severe and unpleasant discussions, that they would form the

council in spite of his opposition. Ghali made a forced entry into the partriarchate, in 1892, to

enforce the establishment of the council, and yet offered the Pope the presidency of the

council. The stubborn Pope declined and sent letters of complaint to the Khedive.

In spite of his objections, the council was elected, and its first meeting was chaired by

Ghali himself, who was chosen as deputy. The Pope wrote a letter to the newspapers

announcing that he had not given his consent. He repeatedly tried to meet with the Khedive,

but the latter just as stubbornly, refused. In despair, the Pope decided to approve the

formation of the council, and wrote the Khedive a letter to that effect, asking to meet with him.

The latter still declined, and wrote a letter to Ghali asking him to inform the Pope not to

address him directly.

Matters were further aggravated when the council realized the pope would not give

in, and removed him from the presidency, appointing a deputy to carry out his duties. A

decree was issued to that effect in 1892. The Pope continued to complain, and that time went

as far as calling upon foreigners to intervene on his behalf with the Khedive, but the latter still

would hear none of it. A temporary truce was held following the intervention of the Russian

consular. According to the agreement, the bylaws were to change, keeping the monastic

endowments in the hands of the Pope and also keeping him as president of the council. They


also agreed that a clergyman should carry out the chairmanship of the Council, in case of the

Pope’s absence, and that the Pope had the right to appoint one third of the Council without

elections.

Matters soon exacerbated once again when the council decided they had

reservations on the agreement, and wanted to add specific terms, whereby the Pope

adamantly refused. Towards the end of 1892, the council revoked the agreement, and a

deputy was appointed to replace the Pope in the council. The Pope immediately issued

orders with the expulsion of any bishop who agreed to replace him, without his express

permission. True enough, the appointed bishop was excommunicated, the doors of the

patriarchate - the council’s official headquarters - were closed down, and the bishop

prevented from entering. The council immediately formed a new council comprising priests

and bishops, and gave them the jurisdiction over church affairs, while ordering the Pope’s

banishment to the Abu Moas monastery in Natroun Valley, where he remained for one year.

He returned following numerous petitions sent to the Khedive by the Copts, on his behalf.

Upon the Pope’s final return on February 4th, 1893, he gained more popularity, which

made him even more conservative and obstinate than ever before. He asked for a Layman’s

committee to work with him, rather than the established council. It was not long before the

council itself was once again dissolved because of its tied hands. In 1905, new elections took

place, but Cyril managed to coerce the government into issuing a law in 1908, that would

make his deputy a clergymen, instead of the elected deputy. There were demonstrations

against the Pope because of his stubbornness. In 1912 another law was issued, which placed

the endowments outside the jurisdiction and supervision of the council.

It should be noted that Pope Cyril was not only a merely obstinate pope, but came to

be better known for some of his more nationalistic sentiments. Al-Bishri claims that there was

a ‘political struggle’ behind the Pope’s obstinacy, rather than a religious one. He based this

claim on the fact that Ghali was a dubious figure, over whom many historians have differed,

and that the support the Pope had was only because he was opposed to Ghali, even though

Ghali was calling for reform. Additionally, Ghali was considered a supporter of the foreign

colonialists, and the Church was likewise suffering from infiltration by foreign missionaries,

which was why the Pope was angry at him and the so-called reformers. This, however,

seems to be far-fetched, because the matter was, indeed a personal, non-political and non-

religious issue. The Pope evidently wanted powers in his hands, whether his opponent was

Ghali or some other layman, particularly that he rejected the idea of a council in the first

place.

The Layman Council’s Crisis Persists


Following the 1919 Revolution, the national movement was able to embrace, and

hence emphasize, reformation and enlightenment. In the first parliamentary rounds of the

Wafd government, Dr. Sorail Gerguis, a Coptic member of Parliament presented a draft law to

amend the bylaws of the Layman's Council. The draft stipulated the cancellation of the two

amendments which Cyril V had added consecutively in 1908 and 1912, and a return to the

bylaws of 1883. After deliberations, Law No.19 for the year 1927 was issued, after making

amendments according to the Pope's request concerning Church endowments. The

clergymen opposed it, and refused to apply the law. This resulted in a council meeting, in

November 1928, based on a decree issued by Mohammed Mahmoud Pasha, the then Prime

Minister, stipulating that the Pope reserved the right to appoint heads of monasteries, and to

form a committee for the properties of monasteries, which included the Pope himself, his

deputy, six clergymen members, and four members of the Council. The Pope continued to

reject the amendments, until a major, destructive fire, occurred in the Moharrak Monastery,

revealing a gross mismanagement of Church endowments. The Council intervened without

consulting the new Pope, John XIX.

The conflict with the clergy continued to intensify, especially with regard the Council's

bylaws. In addition, a new conflict arose, revolving around the modernization of the Church,

concerning the bylaws for electing a Pope. This was especially apparent in the period

following the death of Pope Cyril V in 1927. The conflict between those who called for

modernization on the one hand, and the clergy on the other, centered essentially around the

concept of the monkhood, or chastity, which the clergy found essential for a Pope, while the

contemporaries asked that this condition be cancelled. This condition was invalidated during

the times of Pope John XIX’s election conflict, but was restored during the times of Macarius,

and persists to this day. Another conflict had to do with the formation of the electorate council,

and finally about bishops nominating themselves for the position of Pope, which was

considered untraditional, since all popes were essentially elected from the different

monasteries.

Cyril died in 1927, and the new elections revealed that there was no established

method of choosing a pope. Several suggestions were made, and three nominees chosen,

namely John, Macarius, and Habib Guirguis. John was supported by both the government

and the clergymen, whereas Macarius was supported by the reformer laymen, which put the

odds of winning against Macarius. Typically, one of John’s supporters was Tewfik Doss,

known for his continuous alliance with, and support of, the government and the king. He had

supported John essentially to return a favor, because John had supported him during the

drafting the constitution of 1923, when he suggested the quota system for the Copts. The

king, on the other hand, supported John because the reformers were mainly Wafd Party

members, and the king wished to strike at them. Another important reason was that being

‘authority’ himself, he sided with the church institution’s authority over the laymen’s authority,

particularly as the clergymen themselves supported John. It was therefore natural, as al-

Bishri observes, that the king would support the official institution from which he would expect


loyalty thereafter. Through his control over both the Azhar and the Church, the king

undeniably had more control over his people.

The Copts were enraged because they continued to hear rumors that the government

was intent on appointing John whom they considered corrupt and conservative, and an

interrogation was made in parliament, regarding the government’s intentions. The then Prime

Minister, Adly Yakan, denied any such plans. Nevertheless, King Fouad issued a royal decree

in 1928, appointing John ‘temporarily’ as pope. The reformers suddenly found themselves

confronting a royal decree, rather than a corrupt individual and institution. Their support of

Macarius waned, being ill-prepared to go against the king’s wishes. The irony is that John

was a bishop, whereas the church’s traditions prohibited bishops from becoming popes. John

won the elections with the support of the government, against his rival the reformer, and more

enlightened, Macarius. He was officially pronounced pope in December of that year, by royal

decree.

The rage against John, however, did not wane, and newspapers continued to attack

him, and indeed question the right of the king to interfere in the church’s internal affairs.

Returning the favor in 1937, the Pope sent a letter to the king, which was then printed

in all newspapers, expressing not only his undivided support of the king, but the undivided

support of all the Copts, addeding that they had supported the king’s family from the time of

Mohammed Ali. This letter was in response to the claims that the Wafd Party, which was

opposed to the king’s policies, was a Coptic Party, and the Pope apparently feared that the

Copts might be ‘punished’ if the king felt they were his enemies (al-Bishri, 1988). Once again

John succeeded in enraging the Copts, and they immediately attacked him for his

collaboration with the palace, and for considering the Coptic people an entity that was

separate from the general Egyptian public (al-Bishri, 1988).

John died in 1942, with suspicions of corruption surrounding his staff and aides,

especially his secretary Joseph Guirgis. Once again the problems regarding the elections of a

new pope arose. This time the reformers had braced themselves, and Macarius was once

again nominated. He won the elections, with the support of the council. Typically, the

reformers continued to be his staunchest supporters from the previous round of elections,

whereas those who supported his opponent Joseph, were the clergy and the people with

dubious relations with the king and the state. Maracius was old, and his strength was waning,

and he soon changed from reformer, to a stubborn man, who tried to limit the jurisdiction of

the Layman’s Council, just like his predecessors. In 1944, when pressures became

overbearing, he left to the monastery, vowing never to return despite repeated pleas. When

he finally returned, he continued to support the clergy as opposed to the Council, until his

death in 1945.

Joseph immediately succeeded him, and a royal decree was issued in 1946, officially

appointing him, during the second ministry of Ismail Sidki Pasha’s government. Joseph was a

much-despised man, particularly on account of his entourage of corrupt followers, the most


infamous of whom was Malak Guirguis. Their corruption and animosity to the Council went as

far as mutual police complaints. In 1951, the police had to intervene when the pope and his

men barged into the Layman’s Council’s headquarters during an elections process, and beat

the people present; an incident that led to the resignation of the deputy.

In 1954, the Pope was attacked in his headquarters by a newly formed group of

young men, known as the Coptic Umma (literally Coptic Nation), and was forced him to sign

two documents: the first, announcing his resignation, and the second, calling for the re-

elections of both the Holy See and the Layman’s Council. They then kidnapped the Pope, and

restrained him in a women’s monastery. He was soon returned, following their arrest, and

they were taken before a military court.

Those unfortunate incidents ended the pre-1952 Revolution period and the period

immediately following the 1952 Revolution, exposing the church at the peak of conflict with its

own people, calling for the support of the government against them. It was a period of marital

bliss between state and church, to the detriment of freedoms, enlightenment, democracy and

reform.


Chapter 7 The Rise of Religious Movements

Disintegration of the Liberal Period

In the consecutive elections following 1924, existing parties continued to compete for

government, and they succeeded at various times, until 1952. Sometimes the liberal Wafd

Party won by sweeping majorities, and at others it was other parties, especially those that

collaborated with the king, or formed alliances together to defeat the Wafd. Nevertheless,

members of the Wafd Party continued to form a majority within parliament.

The period between 1928 and 1942, represented a form of democratic withdrawal,

and hence a resurgence of discrimination against the Copts, lapsing back to the pre-1919

Revolution period. Throughout that time, the Wafd succeeded only twice in forming a

government, and that, for short periods of time, because the king and the Ahrar Party formed

an alliance to deal it crippling blows. Tragically, the alliance manipulated religious sentiments,

which had an anticipated adverse effect on social cohesiveness. Typically, they began

constraining employment positions against the Copts (al-Bishri, 1988), to win the support and

blessings of the rising religious fundamentalist movements.

The Constitutional Free Men Party, headed by Yakan, repeatedly won the elections

through rigging them. Yakan changed his liberal ideas and concepts, into ones of radical

support of the king and his policies. His party went as far as supporting the king in his wish to

proclaim himself Caliph, and re-awaken, indeed restore, the Caliphate system, which had

been abolished by Turkey itself. King Fouad saw that the road was paved for the acceptance

of such a move, since Egypt was the country of the prominent Azhar institution, which would

ensure Egypt’s religious, and hence preeminent, leadership in the Muslim world. Not

surprisingly, the British supported the king in his endeavor, in order to conveniently weaken

the Wafd’s popularity, especially as the king was easily manipulated, and under their

disposition♥. Fortunately, the attack against the restoration of the Caliphate system came

from within the Azhar itself, which immediately issued condemning statements. The more

enlightened Azharites realized that the restoration of the Caliphate system essentially meant

the revocation of the constitution, and a restitution of the exclusive one-man rule, albeit with a

Shura council, which was a particularly vulnerable situation, given the presence of foreign

occupation.

♥ Earlier, in 1915, the British had also supported the restoration of the Caliphate by Hussain Ibn Ali, the Sherif of Mecca. Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Cairo, negotiated its restoration in what came to be known as the Hussain/McMahon Letters, where Hussain made the suggestion to McMahon, requesting British support, against the Turks, in return for his allegiance to them.


More dangerously, the king and his allies began using ridiculous religious aberrations

as election weapon, spreading the rumor that the Wafd Party was, in essence, anti-Islamic,

because it was controlled by the Copts (al-Bishri, 1988). They went further than that, and

claimed that the state’s institutions should be re-considered in light of the presence of

minorities, and therefore a quota system should be introduced in parliament, as well as in

employment positions (al-Bishri, 1988), which resulted in constraining employment positions

against the Copts.

Generally speaking, however, even when the Wafd’s government came to power,

three ministries were particularly closed against the Copts, namely, the Ministry of the Interior,

the Ministry of Justice (al-Hakkaneya), and the Ministry of Culture (al-Maaref). There were

justifiable reasons for that exclusion: the Ministry of Culture supervised religious institutions,

and the Ministry of Justice supervised the Shari’a judiciary (al-Bishri, 1988). But the

discrimination against the Copts went further than that. They were never promoted to

headmasters of schools, contrary to the first two decades of the 20th century. They were also

prevented from any promotions as heads of courts, even though they were not prohibited

from entering the judiciary system itself. In fact, the first Coptic head of court was Riad

Rizkallah, during the Wafd’s last government in 1951 (al-Bishri, 1988). Additionally the

discrimination in the police academy and the military, resulted directly from the king’s policies,

since he had given himself the constitutional right to appoint and expel army generals, from

which he excluded the Copts (al-Bishri, 1988).

The King ruled without parliament between 1931 and 1933, which gave him

exceeding and unrestrained powers. Sidki Pasha’s government came into power in 1931, and

its first decision was placing the Coptic Museum under its supervision, which was considered

by many Copts an attack on Coptic sovereignty. Many other ministers were engaged in a

policy of aggravation against the Copts, for no other reason than to provoke the Wafd Party,

and secure the support of the rising religious movements. In 1934, the Minister of the Interior,

al-Izabi Pasha, during Abdel Fattah Yehia’s government, issued a decree in which he

stipulated for 10 conditions for building churches, which made it literally and physically

impossible to build any. Those conditions survive to this day (see Appendix VIII).

One of the significant incidents that took place, generating a great deal of controversy

during that withdrawal period, was when Sidki Pasha’s government issued Law No. 46 for

1933, making primary education mandatory. The law stipulated for teaching the Quran as a

mandatory subject, as well as providing after-school periods for Quranic instruction. The law

went on to state that Christian children were absolved from attending those classes (al-Bishri,

1988). This led to a Coptic uproar, where the Copts demanded the introduction of Christianity

as a subject, for Coptic and Christian students. In the meantime, they took immediate

subsequent measures, that included pulling their children out of public schools, and enrolling

them in Coptic ones, as well as encouraging Coptic organizations to establish new Coptic


schools. Typically, such measures adversely affected equality concepts, and encouraged

sectarian disharmony and discrimination.

Indeed, al-Bishri narrates another impending complication to this outrageous policy,

when the Copts began sending their children to private Coptic schools. The parents were

penalized because, according to the law, mandatory primary schooling meant, in essence,

‘public’ schools. This seemed to imply that the Copts were being forced to attend public

schools, in order to study the Quran. To avoid those arising complications, Law No. 40 for

1934 was issued, placing Coptic schools under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture.

When the Wafd Party came into power in 1936, it attempted introducing the Christian

religion in public schools, to Christian students, especially in those schools that had more

than ten students per grade level. The attempt failed, particularly with the already prevalent

accusations that the Wafd Party was Coptic (al-Bishri, 1988). Significantly, among those who

were against the introduction of the Christian religion in schools, was the Muslim

Brotherhood. According to al-Bishri, their opposition was not in order to provoke the Wafd, but

was in fact, an ideological belief, by which they perceived it as an encouragement of

proselytizing and spreading heresies.

Another important controversy arose, which necessitated the Pope’s intervention,

regarding the teaching of Quranic verses in the Arabic teaching texts of poetry and language.

A flier was sent to all schools regarding the mandatory studying of Quranic verses, in the

Arabic language classes. The Pope strongly protested, saying that Christian students should

be exempted from studying the Quran. The government retracted its decision, and made it

non-obligatory for Christian students (al-Bishri, 1988).

Farouk: the Ultimate Disillusionment

In 1935, Farouk, King Fouad’s son, succeeded him on the throne. Initially, all parties

enthusiastically welcomed his ascension, especially as he was the first ruler to speak the

Arabic language, and seemed to be a very promising change from his predecessor. Because

he was very young and under age, however, existing parties decided to make use of him to

advance their own ends. Some, and particularly Crown Prince Mohammed Ali, suggested that

Farouk be crowned in a religious ceremony at the Azhar, where he should be proclaimed

Caliph, a return to King Fouad’s unsuccessful attempt. Not surprisingly, the Wafd’s enemies

strongly supported the suggestion, whereas the then government of the Wafd vehemently

opposed it. It was a renewed opportunity for the Wafd’s accusers to sustain their attack

against them, and accuse the Wafd of being controlled by the Copts.

The Wafd eventually succeeded in impeding a religious ceremony, but the entire

period of the 30s continued to be a difficult time for Egypt in general, and the Copts in

particular. In 1936, Farouk signed the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, by which the British were


officially granted the right to remain in the Suez Canal, in return for ending the British

occupation. In 1937, the Wafd’s Makram Ebeid became Prime Minister, and the palace allied

with the Azhar, then headed by Sheikh Mostafa al-Maraghi, to once again spread the rumor

that the Wafd was a Coptic party, headed by a Coptic prime minister.

In 1940, another ministerial decree was issued, prohibiting Coptic teachers from

teaching the Arabic language in schools, which left many unemployed. In addition, they were

prevented from entering the police academies (Yussef, 1987). Copts were also excluded from

many prominent positions, particularly in the army, police and administration (al-Bishri, 1988).

It was significantly noted that whenever the Wafd came into government, newspapers wrote

that Copts were being employed more than Muslims in governmental positions, and that they

were even being unjustly promoted. Such claims were proven false when other newspapers

statistically proved otherwise (see al-Bishri, 1988).

The Muslim Brotherhood

Following the ultimate fall of the puppet Caliphate system under the Ottomans, and

the proclamation of an Egyptian, independent, monarchy, two new radical movements began

to rise, and were formally established as the Ikhwan al-Muslimun (the Muslim Brotherhood),

and Shabab Muhammed (Mohammed’s Youth), in 1928. They were by no means the first.

There had been several religious organizations prior to that period, but were more socially

inclined, than politically involved. The events that brought about their rise began prior to the

1911 conference in which religious sentiments were misdirected, and politics were constantly

confused with religion. With the advent of the British colonialists, there came the concept of

‘people’s organizations,’ or non-governmental organizations, and hence several such

organizations burgeoned. Particularly prominent were the expatriate organizations. Soon,

however, Coptic, as well as Islamic, organizations began to rise. Both the Coptic and the

Islamic organizations were involved with community development rather than with any

political activism. Moreover, missionary work increased, to the consternation of both the

Muslim majority, and the Coptic Pope.

The Muslim Brotherhood rose in 1928, out of a need within the Islamic community for

political involvement, and the restoration of an ‘Islamic ruling system’, perhaps even the

Caliphate. Al-Bishri alleges that the rise of the Brotherhood was the direct outcome of several

missionary incidents, and the upsurge of feelings that Islam itself was being threatened. He

particularly mentions three incidents. The first significant incident, which had long-lasting

consequences on Egypt’s future and indeed freedom of belief, was the Zoymer incident.

Zoymer was an American missionary minister who, out of missionary fervency, entered the

Azhar in 1926, and began distributing proselytizing brochures. The Azhar’s ulemas

reproached him, and the incident passed without consequence. Zoymer, nevertheless,


repeated the same action in 1928, this time entering the Azhar with three foreigners, among

them a woman. Exceedingly provoked, the students in the Azhar flared up beyond control.

The ulemas sent messages to the then Prime Minister, Mustafa al-Nahas, asking him to

prohibit missionary activities in Egypt. Zoymer formally apologized to the Azhar, but the

incident had long-lasting repercussions in Egypt.

The second incident occurred also in 1928, but took place in Turkey. It was the

supposed attempted conversion of a Muslim student into Christianity, by her headmistress in

school, coupled with a simultaneous similar incident in Alexandria, Egypt. The school in

Turkey was closed down, and the teacher sent to trial, yet both incidents left residues of

bitterness within the Muslim community.

The third significant incident was the convening of an international missionary

conference in Jerusalem, in April of 1928. Rumors spread that Islam was being attacked in

the conference halls and sessions, and Palestine reached a boiling point. Fiery telegrams

were sent to Egypt, inciting public opinion. The government failed to take any action, because

Egypt was still a protectorate, and the missionaries were safeguarded under British authority.

Several other similar incidents occurred, until the termination of foreign capitulation with the

Mentro Convention in1937, by which Egypt gained full sovereignty over its lands.

Other scholars add further reasons for the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist groups.

Abu Seif Yussef sites the increase of imperialist pressure, and the violent methods practiced

in Morocco and Libya to crush nationalist movements. Most of all, the spread of Zionist

concepts and pressures in Palestine also constituted an important factor in inciting feelings of

rage and of being more or less cornered (Yussef, 1987).

All those incidents combined, impart growing sentiments of threatened identity, which

eventually gave rise to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the more radical Mohammed’s Youth.

Both organizations accented the need for an ‘Islamic’ community, and an urgency to restore

of the Caliphate system. Both organizations also expressed belief in the Umma, which

comprised all Muslims and Islamic nations, rather than either the ‘nation’ or the subsequent

‘Arab nationalism’ concepts. But where the Muslim Brotherhood called for a reformation of

society, and discussed the role of Islam in lieu to minorities, ensuring their ‘appropriate’

treatment and protection, the Mohammed’s Youth group strongly emphasized that they would

not deal with minorities in any form, shape or manner (Yussef, 1987).

Not surprisingly, from the outset, Copts were wary of the Muslim Brotherhood, since

they stressed religious identity, which gave rise to even more radical organizations, such as

Mohammed’s Youths (Yussef, 1987). The entire nation was also just emerging from the

liberal period of the 1919 Revolution, and was evidently disinclined to regress to the more

constraining periods, in terms of either status or responsibilities. Moreover, al-Banna, the

founder of the Brotherhood, made no effort in forming a sound theoretical basis that would

reassure the Copts as to their position. Making nationalism synonymous with religion was,

without a doubt, inadmissible to the Copts, and they continued to reject the Brotherhood.


Particularly damaging was the fact that in spite of al-Banna’s constant verbal reassurances,

his spokes-newspaper wrote articles that were directed against the Copts (al-Bishri, 1988).

During the 30s and 40s, Muslim Brotherhood members carried out clandestine

military drills and training maneuvers in the desert, mounting occasional terrorist attacks on

their political opponents, or against establishments they considered un-Islamic. Additionally,

during the 40s, they conducted successive attacks targeting Coptic churches and property.

With the lamentable and ceaseless attenuation of the Wafd Party, Islamic radicals succeeded

in finding their way, with the forthright support of the king and his allies, to the wider populace

and grassroots people. The Brotherhood, in particular, formed alliances with the king and

other parties in order to win elections against the stronger Wafd.

In 1940, a draft law was presented to parliament prohibiting religious proselytizing,

beyond the designated places for it, confining it to people of the same religion. This included

prohibiting children from hearing, or attending, religious meetings, in which something other

than their own religion was being discussed. The law was rejected in parliament.

When the Brotherhood became a strong political and economic force, it began a

series of assassinations and bomb attacks that included the assassination of Prime Minister

al-Nokrashi Pasha. The confrontation with the government ended with widespread arrests of

the Brotherhood members, and the murder of their leader, Hassan al-Banna.

Misr al-Fatah:

Another significant group, which played an important role on the Egyptian political

scene of the period, was the Powerful Egypt Party (Misr al-Fatah), founded in 1933. Its

agenda was an absurd combination of secular and Islamic rhetoric, and its main strength lay

in opposing the Wafd Party. Among its members were a handful of Copts, and nevertheless it

failed to gain any significant popularity. Its motto was ‘God, the Nation, and the King,’ which

clearly indicated its alliance with the palace. It tried repeatedly to ally itself to the Brotherhood,

but the latter persistently refused. The leader of the party, Mohammed Hussein, went as far

as changing the party’s name to the National Islamic Party in 1940, in order to court the

Brotherhood, and gain the sympathy of its followers. This came at a time when Islamic

sentiments were highly charged, and seemed to be louder than the secular discourse. Ahmed

Hussein, the party’s leader, was trying to win the ‘believers’ on his side. The change in name

also came at a time when the king was trying to establish himself as a Caliph, criticizing the

Wafd Party’s leaders for rejecting his suggestion, accusing them of Coptic infiltration and

control (al-Bishri, 1988). Ahmed Hussein seized the opportunity to express his support of the

King and show his Islamic inclination, and called for the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate

system. To prove his point, he went as far as organizing attacks against nightclubs and liquor

stores, in the name of Islam.


Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood’s leader, perceiving Hussein’s persistent attempts

at courting him and the Brotherhood, rejecting his advances and refused any joint

collaboration, even though both were trying to undermine the Wafd. Two months after

changing the party’s name, Hussein once again restored its previous name.

The Coptic Response:

By the mid-40s, a Christian party was formed in response to the Islamic movements,

namely the Christian Democratic Party, whose secretary general was Ramsis Gabrawi. By

the early 50s, another Coptic Party was formed, the Coptic Umma, headed by Ibrahim Hilal, a

young, Coptic lawyer. The first party attacked the Wafd, and supported the King. Its main

agenda called for the application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for

writing the Arabic language in Latin transcription. The second party was formed in 1952, and

called for the restoration of the Coptic language, and the founding of a Coptic broadcasting

system. It also called for a ‘return to the original Biblical words,’ wherefrom stems all the

sciences, a call that was essentially very similar to the Muslim Brotherhood’s regarding Islam

(Yussef, 1987). They wore special clothes for their festivities, with the Pharaonic key of life,

‘Ankh,’ was drawn on the front (Yussef, 1987). It was the same Ibrahim Hilal who later

kidnapped Pope Joseph.

In 1947, there was a confrontation between the Wafd and the Brotherhood in the

Suez area, which resulted in the burning of churches, the attack against a Coptic school

during which three individuals were burnt to death, as well as several other similar incidents

(Yussef, 1987). The Brotherhood in essence, aimed at embarrassing the Wafd government,

and the Royal Palace immediately seized the opportunity to demand its resignation.

Unfortunately, this demand was supported by the Christian Democratic Party (Yussef, 1987).

World War II and its aftermath

In 1936, the Anglo-Egyptian treaty was signed between Britain and Egypt. By then

the Muslim Brotherhood and the Powerful Egypt Party had succeeded in gaining considerable

popularity. In 1937, the Mentro agreement was signed, ending British Capitulation.

With the outbreak of World War II, the nationalists supported the British, in the hope

that the British would grant them true independence once the war was over, but their

aspirations were once again smashed. The King, on the other hand, was inclined towards

more pro-axis sympathies, and was joined with the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1942, the British

surrounded the King’s palace with their tanks and heavy artillery, and forced him to replace

the then Prime Minister Ali Maher with al-Nahas Pasha of the Wafd Party. It was both a


British and a Wafdist change of heart, because their interests coincided at that particular

moment in history, when they came together for the first time. As a result, a major rift

occurred between Makram Ebeid and Mostafa al-Nahas, because al-Nahas accepted

cooperation with the British, resulting in Ebeid’s resignation from the Wafd, and the formation

of a new party that came to be known as al-Kotla. Unfortunately, and for the first time, Ebeid

attempted drawing the Copts towards him, and his newly formed party, but the Copts did not

respond. Such actions drew criticism from the already antagonistic enemies of the Wafd

Party. The palace, in return, seized the opportunity and attempted attracting the Copts,

encouraging them to leave the Wafd (al-Bishri, 1988). In a desperate bid for power, Ebeid

unfortunately formed an alliance with the King and the Palace, against the Wafd (al-Bishri,

1988).

Yet in 1952, elections took place and the Wafd Party won a majority of seats in

parliament, headed by Mostafa al-Nahas as Prime Minister. He repealed the 1936 Treaty and

the Sudan agreement of 1899, which led King Farouk to depose him. Anti-British

demonstrations and riots erupted, and were ruthlessly crushed by the British army. A group of

young, unknown officers, who called themselves the Free Officers, clandestinely organized,

and eventually lead, a successful coup d’etat. They deposed the King, and soon thereafter

abolished the constitution and the monarchy, and declared Egypt a republic.


Chapter 8 The Republic 1952 till today

The Free Officers’ revolution was, by all means, a minor military coup, led by General

Mohammed Naguib and a group of his colleagues. Being a virtually unknown group, with no

mass-based followers, they owed their success mainly to the weakness of the Egyptian

government, and the fragility of the monarchy. This was especially true following the

unsuccessful war of 1948, against the newly established state of Israel•. Being the first

Egyptians to rule Egypt in over two milleniums, they soon secured the support and

sympathies of the majority of the population. They also won the support of the by then more

popular Muslim Brotherhood, and indeed there were members of the Brotherhood among the

Free Officers’ group. Their primary goal was the abolition of foreign intervention, and the

establishment of a new state, ruled exclusively by the Egyptians. It was an accomplishment

that they succeeded in establishing, but with many drawbacks. They had to deal with the

remnants of a bygone era, and with both the strengths and weaknesses of the already

existing political and social systems.

Th Free Officers deposed the King, and gave the British an ultimatum to leave the

country, eventually signing a treaty in 1954. General Naguib contacted the Azhar, shortly after

coming to power in 1952, and gave its leaders distinct assurances that the Revolution would

apply Islamic principles, and carry out religious reform, based on the Azhar’s requirements

(al-Salhi, 1992). Shortly thereafter, General Gamal Abdel Nasser took power, deposing

Naguib, who allegedly represented a would-be liberal and democratic tendency, and placing

him under house arrest. Thus began the Nasserist era.

Nasser’s relationship with the Brotherhood soon soured, and after initially alienating

them, he began to ruthlessly eliminate them, following their failed assassination attempt

against him, in 1954. The fallout was a result, in part, of Nasser’s Soviet orientation, which the

Brotherhood disapproved of. Not only did Nasser upset the Brotherhood, indeed, Nasser’s

pro-Soviet policy induced the United States of America to withdraw its support of the High

• Following the revolution, Naguib had apparently announced that he had been opposed to the 1948 war against Israel, and that ‘the man chiefly responsible for the war against [Israel] was the deposed King Farouk.’ Ben Gurion, in his speech before the Kenesset on August 18th, 1952, announced that even though he welcomed Naguib’s statement of good-will, he was certain that ‘Naguib’s opposition to the invasion may have been merely military’ and that there still remained to be seen Egypt’s position as to whether they wanted war or peace with Israel.


Dam project, which Nasser was planning to undertake through their financial support. In

retaliation, Nasser declared the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company in 1956, which, in

turn, angered the European colonialists. With virtually no Western supporters, and with the

problematic internal front, Nasser’s vulnerable position encouraged a tripartite aggression

during that same year, when Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt, and the Canal Zone

was closed down. Egypt could not have countered the attack in any way, but, as Lloyd

observes, world opinion had changed dramatically, because the new international

conventions that were in effect, following World War II, meant that wars between richer and

poorer countries were unacceptable (Lloyd, 1996). The Soviet Union threatened Britain and

France with nuclear war, and the United States refused to supply them with oil, and more

importantly, refused to support he exchange value of British currency, which would lead to the

devaluation of the British pound (Lloyd, 1996). Following an immediate UN resolution, the

aggressors were forced to evacuate Egypt, and a new treaty was signed between Britain and

Egypt in 1956, stipulating for a total evacuation from Egypt.

Generally speaking, in spite of Nasser’s charismatic and inspirational character, his

regime was largely oppressive and non-democratic. He illegitimized the multi-party legacy of

Egyptian 20th century, and enforced a dictatorial, one-party system, hence destroying the

democratic tradition that had been burgeoning since the beginning of the century. Once

again, in 1967, the Israeli army single-handedly attacked Egypt, demolishing its fleet, and

occupying the Sinai Peninsula.

Amidst such momentous changes, the Copts had their own anxieties, in addition to

the general concerns of other Egyptian citizens. Like all Egyptians, the Copts initially

welcomed the concept of independence, but were particularly more anxious than others. The

Church, with its traditional, diplomatic mannerisms, officially expressed its support of the

revolution. Nevertheless, one of the main reasons for Coptic anxieties, was that there had

been no Copts involved in the Free Officers’ coup, and the movement was essentially without

a popular base. Moreover, the Free Officers were closely associated with the Brotherhood,

and initially had a magnified Islamic rhetoric and message. The last, and perhaps most

notable reason, was that the agrarian reform laws, which President Nasser implemented in

1952, and the subsequent nationalization laws in 1961, meant the confiscation of land and

properties, much of which belonged to wealthy Copts. This incited some to believe that the

reform movement deliberately targeted the Copts.

Nasser, furthermore issued two presidential decrees, the first in September 1957,

enforcing religion as a mandatory subject in schools, to increase religious consciousness.

This was a direct contradiction to the previous era’s introduction of religion in schools as a

non-compulsory subject. The second decree was the reformation of the Azhar University,

confining it exclusively to Muslim students. Such measures increased Coptic alienation and

began the first waves of Coptic migration.


Some scholars, such as Abu Seif Yussef, claim that the reason for the absence of

Coptic members among the Free Officers was that during the monarchy and the pre-

revolution period, there had hardly been any Coptic generals in the army in the first place.

This was based on the king’s policy of discrimination, especially as opposed to the Wafd

Party.

In any case, during the drafting of the 1953 constitution, 6 Copts out of a total of 50

members were included in the drafting committee, which ensured Coptic participation. Nasser

made no effort to secure Coptic presence in the ministry, except some ‘exceptional’ measures

that had already been rejected by the Copts, such as the appointment, instead of nomination,

of 10 Copts to parliament, which essentially constituted a form of quota system. Nasser

therefore established this principle in the temporary Constitution of 1956, stipulating for the

President of the Republic to appoint 10 individuals to parliament following the elections

process. This unfortunate situation confined their role in parliament, and set them apart from

other elected members (Hanna, 1980). It also meant that the Copts in parliament were only

the state-approved Copts, and not any true representatives of the people.

Nasser also chose his ministers from the technocrats, who were generally

specialized in their particular fields, and were mostly university professors and academics,

rather than politicians (Hanna, 1980). As such, they were essentially mere puppets, with no

significant influence in either parliament or the ministry, and were merely there for cosmetic

purposes. In spite of all the drawbacks, Nasser’s regime did not encourage any form of

discrimination against the Copts, especially in employment positions, or in enrollment in the

different universities, and his policy affected all Egyptian citizens equally.

As expected, the Copts felt immense relief with the fallout between Nasser and the

Brotherhood (Hanna, 1980), but nevertheless understood that it was impossible for them to

resume their previous political life, because of the constraints placed not only on them, but on

all Egyptians, regarding political participation. They became resigned to that type of existence

because they understood that their situation was no worse or better than their Muslim

counterparts, and that the regime was a one-man leader regime, where the presence of

others was virtually impossible (Hanna, 1980).

Immediately following the revolution, the first wave of Coptic migration to Western

countries began, as shall be discussed at the end of this chapter. The Church, as an

institution, on the other hand, was less influenced by the Revolution, because it had already

been under the government’s control. It merely exchanged partners in its state/church

marriage, from monarchy to republic. Just like the pre-revolution period, both the Azhar and

the Church institutions continued to be under strict governmental control. The Nasserist

regime began to deal directly with the clergymen and the Patriarch, as representatives of the

Copts, totally ignoring the ‘elite’ Coptic community, which had been in relative control,

especially through the Layman’s Council. A new elite class arose, comprising the new Coptic

technocrats, whose duty was essentially to fulfill the government’s commands. Their role in


the church was basically enforced through their role in the government (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

As expected, Nasser did not support the Layman’s Council, precisely because it continued to

depend mainly on the Coptic elite, who were considered enemies of the revolution. The

Layman’s Council was put on hold, and the church’s clergy took full control of church affairs.

Once again, the role of the Coptic elite decreased, while the role of the clergy increased,

whereas the Church’s role was confined to obeying, and supporting, the Nasserist regime

and policies (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

Nasser’s policies eventually led to the elimination of the political elitist class, and the

rising of a new middle, bourgeoisie class. This made the pressure groups no longer the elite,

particularly through the political Wafd Party, which forced the Copts to resort to the church as

their only ‘party’, as it became increasingly stronger with the support of the dictator

government. A minority of Copts joined the communist party; many, joined the Sunday

School, the Clerical School, and the monastries. The church, in essence, replaced the

political party, in the absence of democracy (Shukri, 1991). At the same time, a Muslim

minority continued to join the Muslim Brotherhood.

Pope Cyril VI was elected in 1959, a pious man with no political interests or insight.

His relationship with Nasser was amicable, to say the least. When a church in Upper Egypt

was attacked, the Clerical Council convened and issued a statement, which they distributed

to all churches, as well as to the presidential palace, and government. To reassure the

Copts, Nasser went as far as inaugurating the Coptic Cathedral, in a gesture to prove the

government’s good will. He also donated a hundred thousand pounds for the church’s

inauguration (Shukri, 1991).

Within the Church itself, however, there were still two distinct trends, warring over

control of the church: the conservatives, and the modernists. The modernists were mainly the

new generation of educated monks, of whom the traditional monks disapproved. Pope Cyril

acted as a mediator between the two, and indeed encouraged the educated trend, even

though he apparently gave great weight to the opinions of the conservative bishops and

priests, because they had succeeded in exiling Pope Joseph before him♣. In 1962, Cyril

appointed three bishops, two of whom without a diocese, for services and education. It was

the first time bishops were appointed without a diocese (Shukri, 1991). Tensions arose

between Pope Cyril and one of his assistants, the bishop of education (later to become Pope

Shenuda III), because even though Cyril had repeatedly encouraged Shenuda’s initiatives

and intellect, the latter continued to disobey and displease him with his relatively modernist

views.

In 1967, Egypt was defeated in its war against Israel. The continuous falsifying of

facts, and the misleading statements made by the Nasserist regime, whether before or after

the defeat, as to the strength and abilities of Egypt’s military power, led to widespread

♣ This opinion was given by Pope Shenuda in an interview with Ghali Shukri, in Shukri, 1991.


disillusionment with the Nasserist regime. Egyptians turned inward and upward: inward

towards their religious institutions, and upward towards God, and the newly found faith,

seeking answers to their distress. In particular, the Copts responded with the alleged

appearance of the apparition of the Virgin Mary in one of the churches in a lower class area,

to which people of all walks of life made pilgrimage, to see the supernatural miracle. It was,

by all means, an expression of frustration, disillusionment, and even fear of the future, and

several alleged appearances continued thereafter, whenever the Church felt threatened in

any form.

Nasser’s attempted resignation, which was tearfully rejected by the majority of

Egyptians, was another expression of disillusionment and disbelief. When Nasser died in

1971, Pope Cyril issued a statement, citing Nasser as one of the most significant leaders of

the century. Cyril died five months later, which drew the curtain over the Nasser/Cyril

honeymoon, and began a new era of conflict between the Church and State, with two new,

obstinate and steadfast leaders.

The post-revolution Layman’s Council’s plight:

The Layman's Council was re-organized in 1956 while Joseph II was still alive. In

1957, a law was issued that replaced all the Church Wakfs (endowments) with stocks on the

government. Copts complained of the seizure of their monasteries and churches, which led

the government to issue another new law, limiting the land ownership to 200 acres for

churches and monasteries. A public committee was formed, to supervise Coptic Wakfs,

stripping, in essence, the Layman's Council of its duties.

As the issue of Papal elections persisted, a Presidential Decree was issued,

stipulating for new by-laws that met the clergymen’s demands. The Layman's Council

presented a petition to the government, demanding democratic elections, but the government

ignored them. Pope Cyril VI was chosen, in spite of the fact that he won the least number of

votes, because of the secret ballot casting in the temple.

Immediately following the new Pope's election, the Layman's Council began its

conflict with him. It declared that it did not have enough money to pay for the expenses of the

Papal headquarters, nor for the churches in general, and announced that they had to borrow

from the Coptic Tewfik Organization to pay the salaries of some priests and employers. When

they stopped paying the salaries altogether, the Pope immediately resorted to President

Nasser, who paid off the church’s debt, and dissolved the Layman's Council. Nasser also

formed a committee to administer the Church's endowments, and the Church succeeded in

paying all its debts. The Council remained dissolved until Pope Shenuda III, Cyril’s successor,

reestablished it, immediately following his election in 1971.


The Sadat Era: National Schizophrenia

The feelings of humiliation as a result of the defeat, led the Egyptians to seek

answers and solutions in religion, hence Nasser’s successor had to deal with a disillusioned,

frustrated and religiously charged population. Anwar al-Sadat, one of the original Free

Officers, was elected president, following Nasser’s death. His ascension to power brought

about major changes in the state’s policies, not only regarding its internal affairs, but also

externally, in its relations with the world. Sadat re-directed Egypt away from the socialists and

Russia, expelling the Soviet experts, and turning towards the West and capitalism, in what

later came to be known as the ‘open-door’ policy. Sadat also attempted to instigate economic

reform, and chose to privatize the public sector, and free the economy. At some point, this

policy backfired, when, in 1977, he tried to remove many of the food subsidies, which resulted

in widespread riots and unrest, in what he called the ‘gang intifadah,’ or ‘uprising’, but which

later came to be more commonly known as the ‘poor’s intifadah.’

Triumphing in the 1973 war against Israel, Sadat brought hope of a new era,

especially as he persistently and verbally, expressed desire for major, more democratic

changes in his policies, in the initial stages of his ascension to power. Sadat indeed

announced the beginning of a new era of democracy, and his first initiative was releasing all

political prisoners, including the Muslim Brotherhood members. He attempted to restore the

multi-party system, in order to expand political participation, but reversed his pro-democratic

policies, following his much debated peace initiative with Israel.

Because the socialists had been in control throughout he Nasserist era, Sadat sought

the assistance of the Muslim Brotherhood, their eternal enemies, to eliminate them. As

mentioned before, upon coming to power, Sadat immediately released the Brotherhood

members who had been imprisoned during the previous regime. Many of them returned from

exile, having fled during Nasser’s regime to other Arab petro-dollar countries, amassing

enough wealth to later strongly impact Egypt’s economy. On the other hand, Sadat arrested

and imprisoned both the leftists and the Nasserists. Even though, or perhaps more

accurately, because of, Sadat’s Western orientation, the re-rise of the Brotherhood coincided

with a rise in conservatism and fundamentalism, vehemently opposed to the West, no less

than it had been with the Soviets, leading to the eventual assassination of Sadat, in 1981.

Sadat did more than change Nasser’s policies, despite claims of ‘continuation.’

Contrary to the politically secular Nasser, Sadat indeed encouraged religious revivalism in all

aspects of life. In 1971, he went as far as changing the constitution, whereby article 2 which

stated that ‘Islam is the religion of the state,’ became more specific with the addition ‘and the

Islamic Shari’a one of the main sources of legislation’ [my italics]. In 1979, the constitution

was once again amended, and the same article changed into the ‘Islamic Shari’a is the main

source of legislation’[my italics]. Even though the Church did not officially object to the

wording, it remained, together with the Copts, wary of Sadat’s policies. Their worst


expectations came true when in addition, Sadat released and pardoned the previously

imprisoned Brotherhood members, encouraging them in order to counter the socialists,

leftists, and the remnants of the previous regime. More significantly, Sadat adopted the

slogan of Egypt as a country of ‘Science and Faith', and elevated an image of a ‘Believer

President.’ To further promote a religious image, Sadat began giving an annual speech on the

Prophet’s Birthday, as well as broadcasting himself with his government, on television, during

Friday prayers.

By 1972, Sadat organized a meeting with the heads of the permanent committees of

the People’s Assembly, following student anti-government demonstrations, led by the leftists

who had full control of the students’ unions and leagues. The students were, in essence,

protesting the autocratic rule, emerging from the frustration and disillusionment of 1967,

demanding explanations for the defeat. Moreover, they wanted a change in the political ruling

system, and demanded more freedoms and democracy. Sadat, according to eyewitnesses

who attended the People’s Assembly’s committee meeting, was in favor of conducting a

dialogue with the students, whereas some members suggested the founding of Islamic

groups in all universities, to respond to them instead≈ (Shukri, 1991). Not only that, but some

of those present in the committee, immediately offered donations for the founding of such

organizations. The suggestion was carried out immediately, but the government soon lost

control, as different splinter groups began to burgeon. Among those groups were the Takfeer

wal Higra group, and the Jihad, both of whom believed in abandoning, and eventually

attacking the atheist, jahileya society, seeking a return to the Prophet’s time. They also

demanded the application of the Shari’a. Ironically, though not surprisingly, they were against

the government itself, which had originally helped in their birth, especially as Sadat’s

Western-oriented policy continued to provoke them. In essence, the government, which

founded them, suddenly abandoned them, and left them to mushroom on their own.

In other provocative actions, Sadat went on to change the personal status laws, in

what came to be known as ‘Jihan’s laws,’ referring to his wife. To the Islamic fundamentalist

groups, this meant that Sadat was interfering in, and altering, the very Shari’a. Additionally,

Jihan Sadat’s very prominence in public life, as opposed to other Arab, virtually unseen, First

Ladies, promoted another unacceptable Westernized image. The pro-West, pro-Islamic,

schizophrenic image, culminated with Sadat’s visit to Israel, a visit that was attacked as an

individual solution, based on an individual initiative, rather than a more collective, Arab and

national consensus, and thus perceived as a betrayal of the Arab cause.

Sadat initially encouraged both the Azhar and the Church, once again broadening the

role of religious institutions in politics, as long as those institutions remained under his control.

Coptic secularists’ and laymen’s roles continued to decrease, while the role of the clergy

≈ According to Mostafa Kamel Murad, who attended the meeting as head of the economic committee in the People’s Assembly, those who made that explicit suggestion were Osman Ahmed Osman, Yusef


continued to increase. The Copts who wanted to work in politics, or as ‘Coptic

representatives,’ had to do so from within the church institution (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

Additionally, realizing the influence of the Copts abroad, and the potential of their economic

power, Sadat formed a new ministry and called it the ministry of immigration, headed by a

Coptic minister, to address the problems, prospects, investments, and issues of immigration.

The ministry was dissolved soon after Sadat’s death.

The fallout between Sadat and the newly elected pope, came at an early stage, and

culminated in the pope’s arrest and exile in a monastery, ending only after Sadat’s

assassination. Just as the relationship between Cyril and Nasser was known for its

amicability, the relationship between their followers Shenuda/Sadat became famous for the

inverse reasons. The State/Church post-Revolution honeymoon was thus over. Shenuda was

chosen as pope in 1971, the same year Sadat was appointed president of the Republic, and

they began their tempestuous reign together.

In the first two weeks of November 1972, following the afore-mentioned meeting with

the heads of the Parliamentary committees, the infamous Khanka incidents occurred, to be

followed by a series of sectarian strife incidents that continued to sweep the country for the

following two decades. According to the unique, official governmental fact-finding report of

November 13th, the incidents began on the morning of November 6th, when unidentified

individuals set fire to the Friends of the Holy Bible Organization's premises in Khanka, which

the Copts in the area had been using as a church, without acquiring a license. The land on

which the society had been built was owned by Bishop Maximus of Qalyubeya, which he

soon transformed not only into a society, but into a church, bypassing the law which required

presidential approval. A member of the people’s local assembly objected. On the 6th, the

morning of the Muslim Adha Feast, the ‘church’ was burnt down. On the 12th, with the silent

approval of the pope, and indeed in coordination with him, a large number of priests, in their

customary black attire, arrived in their cars, accompanied by a large number of Copts, with

the intention of praying inside the burnt church. The authorities had already been informed

that the Clerical Council, which had convened in Cairo, had taken a decision to pray inside

the church, and they tried to dissuade the procession before reaching its destination, but the

clergymen proceeded with their plans. The incident passed without trouble. In the evening,

however, a large number of Muslims gathered in the nearby Sultan al-Ashraf mosque, and

walked out in a demonstration, protesting the Coptic morning response, allegedly heading for

the police station to file a complaint. According to eyewitness reports, as they passed a

grocery store owned by a Copt, they heard gun shots, and thought the grocer was firing at

them. Later investigations of the grocer’s weapon, revealed that no shots had been fired from

it. The demonstrators proceeded to his house, as well as other Coptic homes, and set them

on fire.

Mikkawi and Mohammed Osman Ismail, the then governor of Assiut (Article by Murad in Al-Ahrar newspaper, cited in Shukri, 1991)


Sadat immediately ordered the formation of an investigative, fact-finding committee,

later to be known as the Oteifi Committee, after its chairperson (see Appendix IX). In spite of

its many shortcomings, it was commendable in that it was the first ever such official report,

describing and analyzing the situation from different angles. In its final analysis, it noted that

sectarian incidents had increased between 16/6/1970 and 12/11/1972, and that such events

expressed a status of anxiety, which was misdirected, and left randomly in the hands of

fanatics and extremists. The report went on to narrate a series of revealing incidents, that

might perhaps shed light on some of the problems that eventually led to the outburst in al-

Khanka. First, a report was clandestinely circulated, which was allegedly an official report,

regarding missionary activities in Alexandria, claiming the conversion of several Muslims into

Christianity. The government was silent on that issue, and did not respond to the allegations,

nor denied the veracity of the report. Second, during the drafting of the new constitution in

1971, Pope Shenuda, who had then been recently appointed Pope, and, contrary to the

previous pope, began writing articles in newspapers, discussing ‘political’ issues, such as

Egypt’s relationship with Israel. Correspondingly, attacks against Christianity were rampant in

the different national newspapers, with the silent approval of the government. Thirdly, another

report surfaced and was also widely circulated, once again attributed to security sources,

written in a seemingly official manner, about an alleged meeting of Pope Shenuda in

Alexandria, and things he had allegedly said about the Muslims. The report claimed the pope

was inciting the Christians to increase in numbers and wealth, and to seek the

impoverishment of the Muslims. Once again, the government did not respond to the alleged

report, which implicitly implied it was an authentic document. The only official response came

in the form of an internal memo, directed to members of the Socialist Union, and other

officials, explaining the fraudulence of the report. As a consequence to the government’s

immobility, Coptic clergymen organized a meeting in Alexandria in July of 1972, with

resolutions that they immediately carried out. They sent written statements to the officials,

and members of the people’s assembly, demanding the protection of their beliefs and

freedom of religion, saying that ‘martyrdom was better than living a life of humiliation.’ When

the report of the alleged papal meeting was circulated, the Khanka incidents occurred. The

government responded by issuing a law to protect national unity, on September 1972.

The Oteifi report concluded that there were three primary reasons that incited direct

confrontation between the Christians and the Muslims: the licensing for building churches,

Christian missionary work, and finally, the spread of Islamic religious books that attacked

Christianity, and vice versa. In the end, the report recommended that the Church present the

government with an annual plan for building churches, in order to acquire immediate licensing

whenever possible.

The report was, by all means, an exceptional one, for it pointed out, for the first time,

some of the problems that were inciting strife, and incriminated the government because of its

policy of looking the other way, rather than resolving the problems. Its recommendations,

much as they fell short of the essence of the report, were, still not carried out, and matters


continued to aggravate, not only between the Muslims and the Christians, but also between

the Church and the State. Sadat never forgot that the pope had given his blessings to the

clergymen’s procession and statements.

From that time onwards, there were clear indications of arising tensions, and of

forthcoming confrontation between the Church and the State. As mentioned in the Oteifi

report, Pope Shenuda, had been writing articles that, according to many observers, carried

ambiguous meanings: on the one hand encouraging obedience to the state, but on the other,

explaining that disobedience was an occasional requirement. Indeed, the Pope went as far as

discussing ‘peaceful’ and ‘passive violence,’ which included, according to the Pope’s

definition, ‘despondent silence and withdrawal’ (in Habib, 1990). Such insinuations not only

provoked the state, and set it on guard, but succeeded in provoking the new rising Islamic

trends.

A mere one year into Sadat's reign, both the Islamic radicals and the Church, his

initial allies, felt betrayed, because each perceived Sadat favoring the other, and hence each,

in turn, turned against him. The Church felt that Sadat’s policy was, at best, condescending

towards the radical’s attacks against them, as well as towards the increasing incidents of

strife. The radicals, on the other hand, felt that Sadat was, in fact, hindering the application of

the Shari’a, which he had promised to implement during the amendment of the constitution,

on account of the Copts (Habib & Afifi, 1994).

When the Pope complained to Sadat, following the landmark Khanka incidents, about

the Copts’ ina+bility to build or even renovate churches without permission and presidential

decree, Sadat promised he would grant him 50 new churches annually. According to Pope

Shenuda, he had repeatedly ‘conveyed’ to President Sadat that there were repeated arson

incidents against churches, and attacks against Copts, ‘supported by documentation,’ but

Sadat had neither responded, nor approved to even meet with the Pope (interview in Shukri,

1991). Neither did the Church get the 50 churches Sadat had promised, and cointued to

ignore the Pope's repeated pleas for governmental intervention to safeguard the Copts from

further aggression. Initially the Church, as was customary, responded with patient silence,

waiting for the right moment to speak out. However, the Pope claims that the rift that incited

him to react, was when Sadat began to ‘talk inappropriately about the Coptic leadership

[meaning himself], and to use sectarian expressions which he had previously condemned, in

a manner that flared religious sentiments’∞ (interview in Shukri, 1991).

In 1977, the government announced its intention to ‘apply the Islamic Shari’a,’

concerning apostasy, in what it called the Redda law [apostasy law]. The Azhar presented a

draft law to parliament, stipulating for the execution of apostates and enforcing the hodood

system. In response, the Coptic Church called for a Christian religious conference, the

∞ The Pope himself consistently denies that the reason for the rift was the Church’s opposition to Camp David accords in 1978, and the signing of the Peace Treaty with Israel, in 1979, and says that it started long before that (interview in Fawzi 1990).


second in the history of Egypt, on January 17th, 1977, and the convening members issued a

strong statement. Although the authorities prohibited the statement’s publication and

circulation, the grave impact of the conference was distinctly visible, and Copts circulated the

document among themselves. The statement essentially discussed several aspects: freedom

of belief and of exercising rites; the protection of the family and Christian marriages; equality

and equal opportunities; and the representation of Christians in local councils. It also included

warnings of the explosive fundamentalist trends and movements, and demanded the

cancellation of the Ottoman laws that restricted the building of Churchses, and the freedom to

publish the Christian history and heritage. One of the conference’s resolutions was making

the period between January 31st to February 2nd, a period of uninterrupted fasting. More

importantly, it declared that the conference would remain assembled until the authorities

complied with their recommendations.

The following two days, on January 18th and 19th, 1977, Egypt witnessed the uprisal

of the poor, with widespread demonstrations that swept the nation, because Sadat had

removed bread, and some other food, subsidies. The focus on the Coptic conference slowly

dissipated, and Coptic demands remained unanswered, and the situation unchanged. The

migratory Copts, residing in the United States, Canada and Australia, began organizing their

own conferences, and issued statements that fundamentally had the same outlines as the

local conference’s demands. Their letters poured into the Presidential offices, as well as the

People's Assembly. Because those letters were very similar in demands and complaints to

the local conference’s demands, Sadat assumed that there was a conspiracy and

coordination between them, with the sole intent of embarrassing him and his government.

In July of that same year, a public conference was organized by some Islamic

institutions and groups, under the auspices of the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, Dr. Abdel Halim

Mahmmoud, in response to the Coptic conference. Their statements were widely publicized,

and published in the state-run Al Ahram newspaper and others, the following day. They

declared that the State Council has already referred the draft apostasy law to the Ministry of

Justice, in preparation for referring it to the Minister's Council, and at a later stage to the

People's Assembly. The Council approved the draft law with regards theft and robbery, and

defined an apostate as “every Muslim, male or female, 18 years or older, who willfully leaves

the Islamic religion, whereby s/he should be punished by hanging.” The apostate, however,

was to be given a 30 day period to repent, after which, should s/he persist in apostasy, the

punishment should be carried out. Pope Shenuda and the Holy See convened several times

following that announcement, and declared another period of fasting between Monday,

September 5th, 77 till Friday, September 9th.

In March 1978 there were confrontations once again between Muslims and Copts in

Upper Egypt, especially Menya and Assiut. Several Churches were burnt and some priests

attacked, one of whom was murdered in Samaloot, Menya. The Church of Abu Zaabal was

burnt in Cairo. The reaction was immediate, and 90 priests led a protest demonstration.


During the years 1978 and 1979, as friction continued to augment, several officials and

writers began calling for the immediate implementation of the apostasy law. By the end of

1979, Sadat, in a desperate bid to get even closer to the USA, his sole allies, sent Egyptian

youths, with money and arms, to fight in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union. Those

trained men returned more fundamentalist and radical than ever before, ready to attack Sadat

himself (Hanna, 1986).

On March 26th, 1980, Pope Shenuda issued a statement objecting to the Islamic

Shari'a as the basis on which laws were to be applied in Egypt for non-Muslims. He

expressed anxiety about the fact that religion was replacing nationalism, and announced that

the Easter prayers that year would not take place, as a form of silent protest, going as far as

prohibiting the Egyptian television from broadcasting the feasts’ liturgy. Instead of attending

the Good Friday prayers, the Pope decided to go with his bishops to one of the monasteries

in the desert, announcing that he would pray to God to “free [us] from the pressures [we are]

suffering form.” He also gave orders to all his clergymen in all churches throughout Egypt, not

to accept the traditional greetings on the occasion of the Easter celebrations, by any official

delegation or individual representing the government. Furthermore, the Copts in the migratory

countries, continued to raise havoc against the Egyptian government abroad, and did not stop

their demonstrations until they got word that the government withdrew the proposed law

(Hanna, 1980).

Adding insult to injury, following the Camp David accords, the Pope prohibited the

Copts from visiting Jerusalem, as long as it remained under Israeli occupation. The Pope had

initially congratulated Sadat on his initiative to visit Israel, expressing the Church’s initial

official position, then soon turned against him. He was particularly hostile to the Israeli

government, because in 1967, the government of Israel had seized the Sultan Monastery,

and given it to the Ethiopians, which also caused a rift with the Ethiopian Church♣. The

monastery was, according to the Coptic Church, appended to it, and under its authority, ever

since Saladdin had given it to them as a gift. The Coptic Church went as far as taking the

Israeli government to an Israeli court. Even though the verdict was in its favor, the Israeli

government refused to comply, and did not hand the monastery back to the Egyptians. The

Egyptian Church considered this a political matter.

Sadat considered the Pope’s encouragement of boycotting Israel, a form of further

disobedience, coming from the religious institution he believed he was controlling. It was

therefore essentially those three incidents that were the last straws that provoked Sadat: the

♣ The rift with the Ethiopian Church had other reasons as well. When the clergymen and Ethiopians came to the Pope and asked him to bless their newly elected pope, whom they chose to replace the already existent pope, accusing him of corruption, Pope Shenuda refused. He told them that no other pope could be chosen when the original pope was alive, and to remove him, they have to have a court order proving his corruption. They refused and elected a new pope in spite of Pope Shenuda's objections, which he considered disobedience, and refused to acknowledge the new pope, causing a grave rift between the two churches.


fasting, the cancellation of the celebrations, and prohibiting the Copts from visiting Israel

(Shukri, 1991).

The Pope claims that there were no ‘trends’ supporting Sadat within the Chruch, and

that those who supported him basically represented themselves (Shukri, 1991). Unfortunately

there were trends that supported Sadat, even from within the Church, and this became

obvious from the Layman's council's reaction to the drastic measures Sadat took against the

pope, as shall be seen later. Among those who expressed support for Sadat, was Bishop

Matta al-Miskin, a prominent, old and prolific monk, after which his relation with the pope

soured.

In 1980, in his customary May Reform Day speech, Sadat announced implicit and

explicit threats against the pope, accusing him of trying to form a Coptic country in Upper

Egypt, and trying to make himself a political leader. In June 1981, one of the most serious

and much publicized sectarian incidents occurred in an informal settlement in a Cairo suburb,

known as al-Zawya al-Hamra [literally, the Red Corner]. Sadat later claimed that the incidents

started as a fight between two individuals, a Christian and a Muslim, and soon accelerated

into a full-fledged sectarian incident, when the two families became involved, and then the

entire neighborhood joined in. A closer look, however, reveals much more. A Copt owned a

piece of land, and he had a court order granting him possession of it, whereas a nearby

factory wanted to change it into a mosque for its laborers. The government responded by

issuing an administrative decision, transforming the land, subject of the conflict, into a

mosque, totally disregarding the court order. The Copt and his family attacked the aggressors

and a full-fledged strife occurred. The incident clearly indicated that it was not an isolated

incident, but that there had been constant escalation of strife and rising bitterness between

the Copts and the Muslims over a long period of time. More significantly, it showed how the

biased governmental intervention had made it even worse, seizing the land through

administrative decree, despite the fact that the owner had a court order with its possession.

In August of that same year, Sadat visited the United States, and Pope Shenuda, in

an act of good will, sent a delegation of Copts, headed by Bishop Samuel, to welcome the

President during his official state visit. The independent Coptic organizations in America,

however, published a paid advertisement, in both the Washington Post and the New York

Times, expressing rage and anger at the treatment of Copts in Egypt. They organized

demonstrations in front of the White House, against Sadat, as he met with President Reagan,

and another demonstration in front of the Metropolitan Museum, where he was inaugurating

the new section of Pharaonic artifacts. Back home, the Public Prosecutor announced the

death of three individuals and the wounding of 59 in a bomb explosion near the Masarra

Church of Shubra. This meant that both the Islamic and Coptic sides were deliberately trying

to embarrass Sadat during his visit to his ‘friends’ in Washington. Sadat felt humiliated and

embarrassed, and strongly believed that the Pope had orchestrated the entire episode to


embarrass him. Even though the government withdrew its proposed apostasy laws, President

Sadat was ready for revenge.

On September 5th, 1981, in an inflammatory speech (see Appendix X), Sadat

acknowledged the role of the clergy in ‘calming’ the sectarian incidents, and suddenly

reversed his pervious assertion of the state being one of ‘science and religion’ into one of ‘no

religion in politics, and no politics in religion.’ He then went on to make several stunning

announcements: the arrest of individuals who have, in any manner, shape or form, threatened

public unity; the confiscation of the finances of some organizations and institutions that

threatened public unity; and the revoking of the licenses given to some newspapers and

publications that also threatened public unity. In addition, Sadat announced Presidential

Decree No. 491 for the year 1981, repealing Presidential Decree No. 2772 for 1971, which

stipulated for the appointment of Pope Shenuda as patriarch. He also announced the

formation of a committee of five bishops, to which he delegated the pope’s duties, while the

pope was placed under house arrest at a monastery

A public referendum for his decisions was conducted. Not surprisingly, the typical

Coptic technocrats, who had been hired by the state whether as the state’s official journalists

or as ministers, approved the measures. Not only that, but the Layman’s Council held a

meeting on September 23rd, 1981, in which the five member committee attended, and issued

a statement that fully and wholeheartedly supported Sadat’s drastic measures (see Appendix

XI). The statement revealed the extent of state control over the Council, especially as it spoke

of the ‘enormous success of the referendum’ which was known to have been forged. It also

revealed the complexity in the relationship between the Council and the Pope, which had

hitherto been unseen.

The Copts in general, however, were outraged, as were all other factions in society.

Sadat went on to arrest more than 1500 individuals from the diverse political and religious

affiliations, among them 22 priests and bishops. He succeeded in literally provoking

everyone, leaving himself alienated and alone. This necessarily led to his assassination on

October 6th, 1981, at the hands of the very people whom he had previously encouraged, the

members of the Islamic fundamentalist groups.

The Mubarak Era

Mubarak arrived in power amidst a torn country, following his predecssor’s

assassination, the September arrests, and the application of martial laws, which he extended

for another indefinite period of time. Mubarak was a military man, and his legitimacy

emanated not from being a member of the Free Officers who organized the Revolution, but

from being a leader of the military forces in the victorious 1973 October war against Israel. He

began his rule in December 1981, trying to pacify the nations' divided people, and attempting


to mend all the broken fences. He therefore began, like his predecessor, by freeing all the

political detainees, including those who were arrested in Black September.

But the first years of Mubarak’s rule, as remnants from the previous era, were

plagued with unrest and riots, including labor strikes and student demonstrations. In the

beginning of 1986, there was the workers' strikes in Kafr Al Dawwar, followed by the outbreak

of the Central Security Forces which led to a curfew, and the calling of the military to pacify

the rebellion of the forces, who had destroyed public and private property. In the following

months, a series of violent incidents, organized by some religious groups, occurred, where

they destroyed video shops, liquor stores, and movie theatres. Additionally, Egypt was

plagued with sectarian incidents that continued to increase in the period between 87 till 93,

with its peak in 92.

Sectarian incidents also began to take on a more sweeping aspect, where an entire

village, based on unfounded rumors, would go out in search of Coptic homes and shops to

set them on fire. In 1990, sectarian strife incidents Menya, led the government to take more

serious measures, and transfer of the head of Security in Menya, together with 14 officers,

followed by the dismissal of the governor of Menya himself.

Throughout, the government seemed incapable of doing anything, especially in

Upper Egypt where strife incidents increased, and the Islamic groups took control, leaving it

virtually under siege. After having been the safe-haven for the Copts for many centuries,

Upper Egypt virtually became a danger zone, surrounded not only by the fundamentalists, but

also by government officers, soldiers, and tanks. Many Copts chose internal migration,

abandoning Upper Egypt and moving towards the city, closer to the government, so to speak,

where it was by all means, relatively more secure. The Islamists during that period, issued

fatwas permitting their members to attack Coptic property, especially jewelry stores, in order

to fund their anti-governmental activities. Moreover, they enforced a system of unofficial taxes

over the Copts, known as the ‘etawa’, which the fundamentalists collected, threatening to

murder the Copts or members of their family if they refrained from paying. In addition to

funding their clandestine activities, the aim of those local, extremist groups was primarily to

embarrass the government before the world, and eventually bring about the government's

downfall. When those attacks failed to attract enough attention, the extremists decided to

attack foreign tourists visiting Egypt. Immediately, the government intervened, and began

cracking down on the fundamentalists and seeking them out in their desert hideouts.

The year 1992 alone witnessed 37 attacks against Copts. In that same year,

fundamentalists also assassinated writer Farag Foda, a Muslim secularist, for his enlightened

writings, that were satirically directed against them, and at times were supportive of the

Copts’ plight.

Despite cracking down on the fundamentalists, at times even destroying entire

villages and taking their families hostage, the government continued in its concurrent policy of

Islamizing the state. The media continued to use Islamic rhetoric, that at times was


provocative to the Copts, especially when it attacked Coptic beliefs through its prominent

television sheikh stars. Religious programming continued to consume a large space of air-

time. At the same time, on the level of politics, the government constantly chose inefficient

ministers of interior. One of them, namely Abdel Halim Moussa, was not only sympathetic to

the Islamist extremists, but indeed went into what he called ‘dialogue’ with them, allowing

them certain freedoms, and more drastically looking the other way, in return for ceasing their

attacks against tourists. His policy backfired when news of the ‘dialogue’ and compromising

actions reached the press, and he was fired from his position.

Several assassination attempts occurred, against government ministers, officials and

journalists, among them the Minister of the Interior, as well as the Minister of Information.

By 1995, the government decided to take more drastic measures, and indeed

cracked down even more heavily on fundamentalist strongholds in Upper Egypt, and made

more effective security plans. The instances of attacks and bombings became more and more

wide spaced, even though they became more violent. This included the attack in 1996 in

Sharkeya and Assiut, almost simultaneously, against two peaceful villages, Al-Badari and

Kafr Demian, where church property was destroyed and Coptic homes and shops burnt

down. In 1997, another violent attack occurred in Abu Kerkas, Menya, where 9 young Copts

were killed inside their church when a group of fundamentalists showered them with bullets.

Moreover, attacks against tourists also took place in 1996, in Cairo, where an entire Greek

group of tourists was killed, and a more drastic one in 1997, in Luxor, when more than 70

tourists of diverse nationalities were massacred.

Towards the end of 97 and throughout 98, the government had been basically

reversing its policies, with regards the constant Islamization of the state. The media changed

its policy, with the introduction of the heretofore unacceptable films and television shows that

discussed and addressed the problems of fundamentalism. It has responded to the Coptic

and secularist demands of prohibiting the offending programs in television that attacked

Coptic beliefs. Additionally, it has returned many of the seized lands and Coptic endowments

to the Coptic Church.

The economic condition of the Copts remains to be one of their most notable

accomplishments, and which enforces their position in society through their customary

economic prowess. They currently form a wealthy minority in Egypt, having resorted to private

enterprise, which remains out of reach of any passive or direct discrimination activities. They

are also independent physicians, engineers and small business owners. Nevertheless, the

problem of building churches persists, causing occasional conflict in some remote fringe

areas throughout Egypt. Moreover, the statistical count of the Copts remains to be resolved,

with the constant conflicting counts between the government and the Church, where the

former puts them at 8 million, excluding the migratory Copts, and the latter puts them at 6

million or less.


The Return of the Pope:

The pope’s release was not immediate, and it took Mubarak three years to make that

move, after attempting to pacify the warring nation. In 1985, the pope returned to his position

by presidential decree No. 6 for the year 1985, which stated the ‘re-appointment’ of the Coptic

pope. But the pope indeed had to go through another series of stressful events before his

final restoration to the patriarchal seat. The Pope was tried before a farcical court that had

been founded during Sadat’s time, known as the Morals Court. This court consisted of judges

and public figures, and was more of a political court than a legislative one. It was established

by law No. 95 for 1980, and was called the law of Protecting Morality from Shameful Actions.’

One of the Pope’s lawyers committed the legal error of presenting a petition before this court,

objecting to the Pope’s house arrest. Even though the court should not accept a petition

unless the petitioner was present in person, with his/her lawyer, the Pope’s petition was

accepted, and a court procedure began, under case No. 23 for the year 11 judiciary, on

January 3rd, 1982. The prosecutor announced a series of accusations against the pope,

which included inciting sectarian strife and endangering society’s peace, as well as inciting

people against the regime and using his position as a political, rather than a religious leader.

Clearly, Sadat’s rhetoric and accusations were still being used. The Pope’s lawyers

immediately withdrew the case, but the court nevertheless continued without them, and the

petition for the Pope’s release rejected, even though no condemning verdict was made. The

Morals Court itself was also cancelled.

The Pope’s lawyers then took the case before the State Council, and it was

registered as case no. 934, for the year 36 j., in 1983. The court once again rejected the

appeal, but went on to cancel the committee of five as well, which essentially meant leaving

the church without any form of leadership or representative before the government. It was

only in 1985 that the Pope was restored to his position by presidential decree.

Mubarak sought to revive the multi-party system. The Wafd Party was resurrected

during Sadat’s time, but was dissolved in protest against Sadat’s policies. The High

Administrative Court however, in 1984, voted for the return of the New Wafd Party.

Unfortunately, it returned under a weak and incompetent leadership, greatly influenced by the

rising religious trends. Indeed, many prominent Coptic intellectuals joined the new Wafd, but

were soon disillusioned and resigned form it, when its leadership formed an unexpected

coalition with the Muslim Brotherhood for the elections of 1984≈.

Today, the number of Coptic monks, according to the Pope, climbed once again to

600, not to mention the nuns, and there are 12 monasteries, and 6 nunneries (Shukri, 1991).

≈ Among those who joined the Wafd and then later resigned were prominent intellectual and writer Louis Awad, as well as Muslim intellectual Farag Foda, who was later assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists in 1992.


The monasteries acquired large spaces of land, and visits by secularists and lay-people to

the monasteries has drastically increased (Shukri, 1991).

Coptic Migration:

Following the 1952 Revolution, and the dissolution of the multi-party system, people’s

political participation in general ceased, with the exception of the chosen technocrats. The

Copts in particular were doubly affected, with the added tension of the rise of the Islamic

fundamentalist rhetoric, and the appropriation of their property. Contrary to their Muslim

counterparts, many chose to migrate. Throughout the 50s and 60s, Coptic migratory waves to

Western countries and Australia began, forming what has come to be known as the Coptic

migratory community. Not only had the Wafd Party been eliminated, but even prior to the

Revolution, it had already weakened, and had lost its popularity, leaving the Copts without

alternatives for self-expression. During the first and second Coptic migration waves in the 50s

and 60s consecutively, many Coptic intellectuals and scholars migrated. It is estimated that

the number of Egyptians who migrated to Canada between 1962-1975 was 5427, among

them 4399 Copts and 506 Muslims. During that same period, the number of Copts who

migrated to Australia and the USA were 4789 and 3314 Copts. By the year 1977 the numbers

reached 85 thousand to Canada and the USA.

During the 70s and 80s, some migratory Copts found relief to their anxieties through

indulging in a political role, albeit from afar, demanding 'Coptic rights' and defending Coptic

'persecution' in Egypt. Some formed their own support groups, while others sought to criticize

the Egyptian government through the media, to pressure for more rights to the Copts still

living in Egypt, constantly seeking to provoke international public opinion for more action and

involvement. Their role during Sadat’s time was particularly prominent, organizing

demonstrations and publishing paid-advertisements in international newspapers, in support of

the ‘Coptic cause.’ This has drawn criticism from the Orthodox church itself, and the various

organizations living in Egypt, especially when their often misguided and misinformed

publications cause government backlashes in Egypt. Some of those migratory Copts have not

only attacked the government of Egypt, but have also attacked the Coptic Pope, at times

accusing him of cooperating with the government against the local Copts, and at others

accusing him of corruption. This has caused the Coptic Pope to repeatedly condemn their

actions, and shed doubtful light on their motivation.

Several organizations have been formed in the diaspora, the most prominent of which

is the American Coptic Organization, which issues a publication entitled The Copts. This

organization does not only call for Coptic rights, but in addition stresses Coptic identity, and

attacks the Egyptian political system. Others are found in Canada, France, and Britain, but

they do not have a broad-based membership and followers. Indeed the majority of the Copts

in the diaspora are staunch supporters of the Church, and totally uninvolved in politics.


Migration, in general, undoubtedly denoted Coptic unrest and anxiety. Economic

reasons also cannot be overlooked, where some migrate in search of better economic

opportunities. In the communities to which they migrate, however, Copts are faced with a

different set of problems which is no less threatening to their identity, and it is mainly for this

reason that they sought to build their own churches, that teach their children Coptic Orthodox

Christianity. According to Pope Shenuda, the number of the migratory Copts has increased

dramatically, which necessitated the building of 100 Coptic Orthodox churches throughout the

world, 35 of which in the US alone, as opposed to only two churches in the beginning of his

reign (Shukri, 1991). In Australia, there were 2, and now there are 11. In Britain there was

one, and none in Europe, whereas now there are 22 in Europe alone. In addition, there are

churches all over the Arab World, and the African continent (Shukri, 1991).


Conclusion Survival and Adaptation

Neither ‘forgotten’ nor are they the ‘happiest’

It would be a grave error to consider the consecutive persecution waves against the

Copts as a purely religious-based one, and to take it out of context from the situation of the

Egyptian population at large. The truth is that persecution mostly affected the poor and

downtrodden, even at the best of times, whereas the wealthier Egyptian Copts managed to

somehow survive, often paying the designated taxes, and more often than not securing their

employment positions and social status. It was the poorer Egyptians, the peasants and the

fellahins, who suffered the most, and who carried the heavy burden of persecution and

oppression, whether financially or socially. Having said that, one cannot overlook the

persecution of the Copts as christians during specific eras, either by fanatical rulers or by

deranged, manic ones, and it is interesting to see how the Copts managed to survive to this

day.

One of the probable answers as to how they survived throughout many centuries, is

their ability to accommodate their new rulers, and to adapt themselves to the new systems.

Indeed they were ingenious in devising methods of survival, even under the most oppressive

rulers. From the beginning of Christianity in Egypt, the Copts succeeded in retaining a deep

faith and loyalty to their religious beliefs and identity. This strong belief helped strengthen

their will to survive and to carry on the heritage given them by their forefathers. There was no

way they would have willfully abandoned either their religion or their language without

serious, drastic measures taken to bring about this transformation, and hence needed more

than mere occasional oppression and harassment. Mass expulsion from employment

positions and the threat of long-term economic starvation certainly was a major contributor to

their transformation, as was the Arabization of the governmental institutions.

Indeed, those who were unable to survive persecution simply vanished into the

desert and invented a monastic system that ensured their personal safety, as well as the

protection of their identity. Not to undermine the faith aspect of it, their escape was infinitely a

mixture of strong belief and escape; yet one can hardly call abandoning a wife and several

children, under stressful economic circumstances, a question of pure faith. Significantly

during the times of persecution and heavy taxation, the number of monks increased. It

decreased dramatically when more freedoms were granted, and reached its lowest numbers

in the very brief democratic and reform periods, such as those of Mohammed Ali and of the

1919 Revolution periods. This is attributable to several factors, not least among them is that

freedom of religion was freely granted under those circumstances, which made an escape to

protect one's beliefs, or to exercise one’s religious rites, redundant.


The very geographical distribution of the Copts also reveals another more

uncontrived method of survival and adaptation. When the Copts began to constitute the

minority, they lived, as did other minorities in Egypt, within their own confined districts and

villages, mostly in Upper Egypt, their traditional safe haven, distant as it was from external

attacks, and from the on-going conflicts taking place largely in the North. Soon, however, they

realized that living in isolation, even though serving as protector of their integrity and identity

made them vulnerable to periodic mob attacks. They therefore began to live within other

districts and with other members of their community and they intermingled socially, as much

as the majority of the population permitted. Sometimes their intermingling was met with

disdain, as seen in the different Arab eras, and at others they were met with downright

indifference. Mostly, they were met with plain suspicion. Only following Mohammed Ali’s

reform movement and the modernization of Egypt did they begin to finally have some serious

integration in society, particularly when the religion factor withdrew as a priority in the list of

the modernization process. Their attempts at intermingling is even clearer in contemporary

20th century Egypt. Threatened by their existence in the remote Upper Egypt, which

increasingly became a danger zone to them following the increase in fundamentalist

movements, they began an internal migration process, once again adapting to the new

circumstances and changing their abode closer to the governmental strongholds.

The fact that the Copts managed, in one instance, to concoct a new accounting

system to protect their employment positions, thus making themselves indispensable to

Egypt's economy, is one such brilliant method, and one that has been repeated throughout

different historical periods. They also excelled in specific skills that were almost exclusive to

them, making them useful individuals in the community, and hence difficult to either overlook

or eliminate.

Another method of survival which the Copts rarely used was actual fighting and

rebellion at different points in history. Contrary to previously held opinions, the Copts were

neither passive observers of history nor of their oppression. True, they were a peaceful

people, but there were times, though, when they rebelled against their oppression, and some

went as far as carrying arms against the aggressors. As time passed, however, most of those

rebellions became increasingly economic-based. The Beshmures is an important case in

point. But such rebellions diminished as their numbers continued to decrease, and they had

to re-invent new methods for survival and adaptation.

When they could no longer initiate outright rebellion, the Copts indeed helped in the

rise and fall of the many dynasties that ruled them. They have aided new comers and brought

about the downfall of existing ones. Generally, they supported neither the invaders nor their

rulers, whenever Egypt came under threat, because they did not know the new comer, while

at the same time were miserable under the existing one. At times, though, they supported the

new invaders, particularly when their own ruler was oppressive towards them, in the hope of

attaining some form of freedom. This was repeated during the Roman Empire, but was never


more clear than during the Arab conquest of Egypt, and in the later stages. They certainly

contributed in bringing about the downfall of the Ummayyads and in the rise of the Abassides.

Later, the Copts even supported the Crusaders at some point, and later realized they were

better off under their existent rulers. There were lessons learnt very carefully, and later

applied particularly during the 20th century, when the Copts resigned their allegiance to their

Arab counterparts. But the impact of foreign intervention continued to haunt the Copts, and

they continued to be looked upon with suspicion. They therefore constantly had to defend

their positions and prove their allegiance to their rulers, for which they were generally

rewarded. The strength of foreign intervention normally dictated how the Copts were treated

internally. The very fact that the Copts were perceived to be ‘of the same religion as the

European invaders’ more often than not aggravated their position, and contributed to their

mistreatment, particularly by the general population, more than by the rulers themselves. This

was clear during the French Expedition, as it was during the Crusader wars, when massacres

against them occurred, and when, more benignly, taxes were exerted from them to help

finance the battles against the Crusades.

The last, but certainly not least factor that contributed to the survival of the Copts is,

ironically, the nature of persecution itself. There can be no doubt that persecution in general

helps strengthen any faith, even specific dogmas, and not just religion, and this is no more

true of Christians than it is of any minority. Certainly the brilliant Julian the Apostate realized

this concept, and noted that the Christians thrived on the concept of martyrdom, hence only

increasing in numbers, and strengthening their faith. Whether they constituted the majority, as

in the late Roman times, or the minority as in the late Arab times, the Copts drew upon the

concept of martyrdom to help in their survival, and to hold the church itself together in one

cohesive whole. They particularly looked up to the church and the popes for support, and in

times of deep stress, they sought the sanctity of the church for refuge.

But the Church was not always a victim, since there can be no doubt that the nature

of tyranny itself is a tricky one. The Church, no less than any other non-democratic, powerful,

and formal institution, went through the typical cycle of weakness and oppression, followed by

strength and oppression of others, then weakness once again. When the Copts succeeded in

taking power, they themselves, through the ingenious contrivance of the triangle of God,

Emperor, and Pope, embarked on successive waves of persecuting those who differed with

them not only in religion, but even in opinion. This is no more true of the Copts as it is of the

European dark ages and the Inquisition periods. Books were burnt and people

excommunicated or literally persecuted for their opinions and ideas that differed in any way

with the formal Church. Some went as far as murder for the so-called protection of religion, an

argument that no doubt has its adherence among extremists of all religions and beliefs to this

day.

An unfortunate but albeit true fact, is that when the local church's external foreign

threats decreased, its internal ones invariably increased. Following the institutionalization of


the Church, and the Christianization of the Roman Empire, the battles surrounding the papal

elections aggravated. What was once performed in holiness and faith, increasingly became a

battleground, spurring hostilities not only on the local level, but also among the different

churches worldwide, culminating in pathetic schisms and fragmentation. Personal conflicts

and antagonisms, combined with doctrinal variances, aggravated matters, and eventually

procured the splintering of the Church, not once, but twice: initially into East/West churches,

and then later into West-East/ West-West churches. The outcome of the schisms was

profound.

The conflicts between the nominated popes and their rivals went to outrageous

measures, and there were instances when even external observers made fun of them or

ridiculed them. This happened with the Roman Emperors who were caught in the middle of

warring bishops, and were more often than not amused at the church's constant conflicts and

controversies. It was repeated under the Muslim Caliphs who enjoyed witnessing the same

conflicts, and repeatedly expressed their surprise at the manner in which the papal elections

were handled. It was again repeated under the different Khedives, especially following the

formation of the Layman’s Council, when the two authorities literally competed over church

control.

Another notable point is the very relation between Church and State, which alternated

from marriage of convenience, to honeymoon, to eventual clash and conflict, in constant

repetitive cycles. There can be no doubt that the Church/State marriage inevitably served to

fortify the status of both institutions; and yet more often than not, proved to be the eventual

downfall of both. Whenever the state-backed churches withdrew their support of their rival

churches, the state likewise withdrew its support, and systemic persecutions followed. This

situation made some regions vulnerable to foreign intervention and invasions, since the locals

refused to show allegiance to their rulers who backed a church they were hostile towards.

Realizing this dilemma, the rulers constantly sought the unification of the church at the

expense of the local church, hence further alienating it and, in frustration, initiating oppression

and persecution. A point in case is when the Roman Emperor Hercules tried to unify the

church in Egypt in order to fend off the on-coming Arab invasion, but failed when the Coptic

Orthodox Church refused to support his new initiative. In this case, both the church and the

state fell.

There are, indeed, positive aspects to the schisms. The major schisms that occurred

throughout history succeeded in attenuating church authority over people, which could be

seen as a blessing in disguise. The schisms that occurred between the different churches

revealed the Church's vulnerability, as an institution, to human errors of judgement, in lieu of

the image of invincibility, which the strong hierarchy of the church preferred to portray.

Religion, though, continues to be a strong tool for control over the people, and this

statement is true of all religions and faiths. The Roman Empire used emperor-worship to

ensure people's loyalty, and later used Christianity for the same purpose. The consecutive


Islamic dynasties have used religion to unify their widespread empire, and wielded the

weapon of religion, particularly against foreign invaders. Religion also was a legitimate

method of justifying all sorts of tyranny, individual and state corruption, as well as wars. This

is true not only of the Crusader wars, but also of the expansionist Islamic movements

throughout the different dynasties. The very Caliphate system, which moved from one of

election to one of inheritance, is a point in fact. The Copts, however, did not have that

expansionist and belligerent opportunity because they essentially had a brief period of control

over their own destiny, during which this potential was quite vivid.

Sadly, when Church/State relations were at their best, the Church tended to use the

state to reinforce its own position with the people, and not only vice versa. This was repeated

with the Roman Empire as much as it was with the consecutive Islamic Empires, and until the

modern times. Pope Theodisius was one such flagrant example, using the Emperor's support

to expel the Origenists and his rival monks, and to even kill some of them. Similarly, in

several election processes, the would-be-popes resorted to the state for support against their

opponents. In recent history, Khedive Ismail backed the pope's rivals in the Layman's

Council, even though the Pope had repeatedly tried to incite him against them. To a lesser

degree, Pope Cyril VI used President Nasser to control, and eventually eliminate his rivals in

the Layman's Council which was liquidated because they differed with him.

But relations with other members of the community strengthened from the times of

Mohammed Ali, then continued to strengthen during Khedive Said’s time, when all inhibitions

against their full participation was removed. It certainly paved the way for their fuller political

participation in the 1919 Revolution. It was evident that whenever democratic and certainly

secular environments were available, the Copts succeeded in fuller participation in all aspects

of life, and particularly in politics. Whenever such concepts regressed, the situation of the

Copts likewise regressed. In the contemporary post revolutionary period of 1952, the Copts

withdrew, as did other active members of the political life in Egypt, as the degree of political

participation itself diminished and eventually disappeared. With its gradual resurfacing during

the decades following Sadat's rule, the Coptic role was minimal, and confined to the typical

governmental technocrats. The Church became the formal spokes-institution on behalf of the

Copts, and the role of the Layman's Council continued to decline. The church also took an

unconventional confrontational role during Sadat's time, but a new period of silence and

respect has been reinstated between Church and State. The role of the migratory Copts,

though, is no less important, despite their more often than not, misdirected, but certainly well-

intentioned efforts at 'protecting the rights of the Coptic people,' and speaking out for on their

behalf.

At present, the Copts continue to adapt and to devise new methods for their

survival, and the survival of their heritage, continuing to learn from their long history. They

have thrived under democratic systems, that have given space and freedoms for all beliefs

and trends, and it is that very system which they, together with other Egyptian citizens, are


constantly trying to achieve. They are indeed, neither Bonaparte’s forgotten minority, nor are

they the Brotherhood’s ‘happiest’ minority. They are just that: Egyptians.


References A- Primary Sources: • Abdel Nur, Fakhry. Mozakkarat Fakhri Abdel Nur (The Diaries of Fakhry Abdel Nur:

the 1919 Revolution). Cairo: Dar al Shorouk, 1992. • Al-Gabarti's History. • Al-Makreezi. Tareekh al Kaneesa. • Coptic Synaxarium. • Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Beginning of 4th Century AD. • French Expedition Scholars. La Description d’Egypte. Translated by Zoheir al-Shayeb.

Cairo: Madbouli. • John the Nicossian's manuscript regarding the Arab conquest. The Coptic Orthodox

Library, Cairo. • Lane, Edward. The Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. Library of

Entertaining Knowledge, 1836. • Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History. End of 4th Century AD. • Severus, Bishop of Al-Ushmuinain. Tareekh al Batareka (History of the Patriarchs of the

Coptic Church of Alexandria). 10th Century AD. • Crusader primary documents, and the consecutive Ecumenical Council documents, from

the Ecole Initiative, the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Skip Knox’s The Byzantine Empire of Boise State University, 1998; and Paul Crawford’s Crusades, 1997.

• Documents pertaining to the Sadat era, including Sadat’s speech of 1981, the Oteifi Report, and Pope’s court trial, from Maurice Sadek’s Mohakamat al Baba Shenuda, Ahdath Wathaek (The Trials of Pope Shenuda, a Collection of Documents), Cairo, 1991.

• Interviews with Pope Shenuda III, in different newspapers and books, including Mahmoud Fawzi's exclusive interviews with him.

II-Secondary Sources: A- English References: • Al-Sayyad, Nezar. Cities and Caliphs. On the Genesis of Arab Muslim Urbanism. NY:

Greenwood Press, 1991. • Atiya, Aziz S. A History of Eastern Christianity. London, 1967. Reprt. 1968. • Bagnall, Roger S. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993,

reprt. 1996. • Baynes, Norman H. The Byzantine Empire. London, 1950. • Brehier, Louis. ‘Crusades.’ The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913. • Butcher, Edith L. The Story of the Church of Egypt. London, 1897. • Gibbons, Edward. The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1782. • Hourani, Albert. A History of the Arab Peoples. A Time Warner Company, 1991. • Knox, Skip. The Byzantine Empire. Boise State University, 1997. • Lloyd, T.O. The British Empire, 1558-1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. • Meinarus, Otto. Christian Egypt, Ancient and Modern. Cairo: American University,

1977. • Payne, Robert. The Splendor of Persia. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957. • Tuchman, Barbara. Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to

Balfour. New York: Ballentine Books, 1956. B- Arabic and Translated References:


• Afifi, Mohammed. Al Akbat fi Misr fi al Asr al Osmani (Copts in Egypt under Ottman Rule). Cairo: The Egyptian Book Organization, 1992.

• Akoush, Mahmoud. Misr fi Ahd al Islam. (Egypt under Islamic rule). Cairo: Dar al Kotob, 1941.

• Al-Ali, Saleh. Al Tanzeemat al Ijtimaeya wal Iqtisadeya fi al Basrah. Beirut: dar al Talia’a, 1953.

• Al-Ayoubi, Ilias. Tareekh Misr (History of Egypt during the times of IsmailPasha, from 1863-1879). Two volumes. First printing 1922. Cairo: Madbouli, 1990.

• Al-Bishri, Tarek. Al Muslimoon wal Acbat fir Etar al Gamaa al Kawmeya. (Muslims and Copts in the context of nationalism). Cairo: Dar el Shorook, rprt. 1988.

• Al-Salhi, Magda. Dawr al Azhar al Seyasi. (The Political Role of Al-Azhar). Cairo: Research Studies, 1992.

• Amin, Hakim. Derasat fi Tareekh al Rahbaneya wal deireya al Misreya (Studies in the history of Egyptian Monkhood and Monasticism). No publisher, no date.

• Ashmawi, Said. Al Khilapha al Islameya. (The Islamic Caliphate System) Cairo: Dar Sinaa, 1989.

• Ashour, Mohamed Hamdi et al. Tareekh al Iskandareya wa hadaratha monz akdam al osoor (History and Civilization of Alexandria from Ancient Times). Alexandria, 1963.

• Awad, Louis. Tareekh al Fikr al Misri al Hadeeth. (History of Modern Egypt). 2 vols. Cairo: Madbouli, 1986.

• Bishoi, Bishop. Al Khareeda al Nafessa fi Tareekh al Kaneesa (The History of the Church). Five Volumes. 1905.

• Butler, Alfred G. Fath al Arab Li Misr (Arab Conquest of Egypt). Translated by Mohammed Farid Abu Hadid. Cairo: Madbouli, rprt. 1990.

• Fayye, Maurice Johan. Al Maseehya fi al Dawla al Abasseya. (Christianity in the Abasside Empire), 1985.

• Habib, Rafik et al. Tareekh al Kaneesa al Misreya (History of the Coptic Church). Cairo: al-Dar al-Arabeya, 1994.

• Habib, Rauf. Tareekh al Rabana wal Dereya fir Misr (History f Monkhood and Monasticism in Egypt. Cairo: al-Mahaba, 1978.

• Hanna, Milad. Na’am Acbat, laken missreyeen (Copts but Egyptians). Cairo: Madboli, 1980.

• Hammouda, Abdel Wahab. Safahat min Tareekh Misr fi Asr al Soyouti. (The Hisatory of Egypt in the times of al-Sayouti). Cairo: al Dar al Misreya, no date).

• Hassan, Selim. Misr al Kadeema. (Ancient Egypt). Cairo: al Kawthar, no date. • Hendeya, Amin. Tareekh al Kholafa’a (History of the Caliphs). Cairo: Dar Hendeya,

1913. • Himdan, Gamal. Shakhseyat Misr: Derasa Fi Abkareyat Al Makan. (Egyptian Identity)

Cairo: Alam Al Kotob, 1981. • Kanawati, George. Al Maseheya wal hadara al Arabia (Christianity and Arab Civilizatin).

Cairo: Dar al Thakafa, 1992. • Mahmoud, Salam Shafei. Ahl al Zimma fi Misr fi al Asr al Fatemi al Awal (People of

the Book in Egypt under the Fatimides). Cairo: the Egyptian Book Organization, 1995. • Mansour, Ahmed Sobhi. Shakhseyat Misr baad al Fath al Islami (Egyptian Identity

after the Islamic Conquest). No publisher. 1984. • Mena, Talaat Zikri. Habib Guigis wa torathoh al taalemi (Habib Guigris and his

Educational Heritage). Cairo: Sunday School printing house, 1995. • Nabarawi, Fatheya. Tareekh alNozom wal hadara alIslameya (History of systems and

Islamic Civilization). Jeddah: al Dar al Saoudia, 1987. • Nessim, Soliman. Tareekh al Maseeheya fi Misr (History of Christianity in Egypt).

Beni Sweif: 1991. • Riad, Zaher. Al Maseeheyun wal kawmeya al Arabia (Christians and Arab

Nationalism). Cairo: Dar al Thakafa, 1979. • Sabri, Mohamed. Tareekh Misr min Mohammed Ali ela al Asr al Hadeeth (History of

Egypt from Mohammed Ali to the Modern Age). Cairo: Madbouli, c. 1905, rprt. 1991. • Salama, Adeeb Naguib. Tareekh al Kaneesa al Engeeleya fi Misr (History of the

Evangelical Church in Egypt). Cairo: Dar al Thakafa, 1982.


• Shenouda, Zaki. Mwsooat tareekh al Akbat wal Maseeheya (Encyclopedia of the history of Copts and Christianity). No publisher, no date.

• Shukri, Ghali. Al Akbat fi watan motaghayer. (Copts in a changing nation.) Cairo: Dar al-Shorouk, 1991.

• Yohanna, Menassa. Tareekh al Kaneesa al Kepteya (History of the Coptic Church). Cairo: al-Mahaba, c. 1910, rprt. 1983.

• Yussef, Abu Seif. Al Akbat wal Kawmeya al Arabeya (Copts and Arab Nationalism). Cairo: Arab Unity Studies, 1987.

• Zeidan, Gorgi. Tareekh misr al hadeeth men al Fath al Islami ela al Aan (Contemporary History of Egypt from the Islamic Conquest till now). Vol. 1. Cairo: Al Hilal, 1911.

• Zeidan __________ Tareekh al Tamadon al Islami (History of Islamic Civilization). No publisher. No date.

• _________________. Misr al Osmaneya (Ottoman Egypt). Cairo: Dar al Hilal, 1911.


Select Bibliography I- Primary Sources: Christian Sources: - Al-Mokafaa, Severus Bin. Kitab Misbah al Akl. With an Introduction by Father Samir Khalil al

Yasooi. Arab Christian Heritage Series. Cairo: Al Alam Al Arabi Publications, 1978. - Frederic A. Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. 14 vols. London: 1933-1958. - The Duke University Papyrus Collection. - The Facsimile Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. 14 vols. Leiden, 1972. - J. Quasten. Patrology. 3 vols. Westminster, Md. 1951-1960. - Patrologia Orientalis. - The works of Origen, particularly the Hexapla and Tetrapla. Muslim Sources: - Al-Aloosi. Beloogh al Irab fi Ahwal al Arab. - Al Balathri, Ahmed bin Yehia bin Gaber. Rafee el Isar an Kodat Misr. - Al-Banna, Hassan. Mozakarrat al Dai wal Daeya. Cairo: Dar al Shihab, 1966. - Al Kindi, Abu Amr Mohammed Yussef. Kitab al Wolah wa Kitab al Kodah. - Al-Seyouti, Galal Eddin Abdel Rahman. Kitab Tareekh al Kholafa. - Al-Tabari, Abu Gaafar Mohammed Gareer. Tareekh al Tabari. - Ibn Abdel Hakam, Abul Kasam Abdel Rahman bin Abdullah. Kitab Fitooh Misr wal Maghreb wal

Andalus. In translation Charles C. Torrey, ed. The History of the Conquest of Egypt, North Africa and Spain: Known as the Futuh Misr of Ibn Abdel Hakam. New York: Yale University Press, 1930.

- Ibn al Kayyem. Ahkam Ahl Al Zemma. - Ibn Asaker. Tareekh Demeshk. II- Secondary Sources:

A- English References - Atiya, Aziz Sorial. A History of the Egyptian Patriarchs. 1948. - ______________. Crusade, Commerce and Culture. 1962. - ______________. Crusades in the Later Middle Ages. 1938. - Attawater, D. The Christian Churches of the East. 2 vols. Milwaukee, 1948. - Barrett, David B., ed. World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Study of Churches and

Religions in the Modern World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. - Burmester, O.H.E. The Egyptian or Coptic Church. Cairo, 1967. - Butcher, A.J. The Story of the Church of Egypt. 2 vols. London, 1897. - Butler, A.J. The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt. 2 vols. Oxford, 1884. - Duchesne, L. Early History of the Christian Church, from its Foundation to the 4th Century.

English trans. by Claude Jenkins. 3 vols. London, 1950. - Cameron, Alan. Circus Factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxford, 1976. - Clarke, S. Christian Antiquities in the Nile Valley. Oxford, 1912. - Dicey, Edward. The Egypt of the Future. London: Heinemann, 1907. - Fortescue, A. The Lesser Eastern Churches. London, 1913. - Fowler, M. Christian Egypt: Past, Present and Future. London: 1901. - Groves, C.P. The Planting of Christianity in Africa. 4 vols. London, 1948-1958. - Hardy, E.R. Christian Egypt, Church and People. New York, 1952. - Heikal, Mohammed. Autumn of Fury. New York: Random House, 1983. - Kidd, B.J. The Churches of Eastern Christendom, from AD 451 to the Present Time. London,

1927. - Latourete, K.S. History of the Expansion of Christianity. 7 vols. New York, 1937-1945. - Leeder, S.N. Modern Sons of the Pharaohs: A Study of the Manners and Customs of the

Copts of Egypt. New York, 1918. - McMichael, Alfred Harold. A History of the Arabs in the Sudan and Some Account of the

People who Preceded Them and the Tribes Inhabiting Darfur. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967.


- Marty, Martin E. and Scott Appleby. Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economics and Militance. University of Chicago: 1984.

- Mitchell, Richard. The Society of the Muslim Brothers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. - Momigliano, A. ed. Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century. Oxford.

1963. - Munro, Dana C. Urban and the Crusades. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895. - Richard, Donald. The Coptic Bureaucracy Under the Memelukes. Cairo: Ministry of Culture,

1972. - Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon. London, 1953. - Springborg, Robert. Mubarak’s Egypt. Boulder, Co: Westview Press, 1992. - Waterbury, John. The Egypt of Nasser and Sadat: The Political Economy of Two Regimes.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. - Waterman, W.L. et al. Coptic Egypt. New York, 1944. - Worrell, W.H. A Short Account of the Copts. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1949. - W.R.Clark. History of the Christian Councils. Edinburgh, 1871-1896. 5 vols.

B- Arabic References - Abdel-Malek, Anwar. Nahdet Misr: Takawon al Fikr wal Ideologia fi Nahdet Misr al Wataneya:

1805-1892. (The Progress of Egypt: 1805-1892). Cairo: Egyptian Book Organization, 1983. - Al-Abbadi, Mostafa. Misr min Al Iskandar al Akbar ela al Fath Al Arabi. (Egypt from Alexander

the Great to the Arab Conquest). Cairo: Egyptian Anglo Bookshop, 1975. - Al-Bayoomi, Zakareya Seliman. Al Ikhwan al Muslimoon wal Gamaat al Islameya fi al Haya al

Seyaseya al Misreya: 1928-1948. (The Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian Politics: 1928-1948). Cairo: 1979.

- Al-Beri, Abdallah Khorshid. Al Kabael Al Arabeya fi Misr fi Al Koroon Al Thalatha al Oola Lelhigra. (Arab Tribes in Egypt the first three centuries of the higra). Cairo: International Book Organization, 1967.

- Al-Kashef, Sayeda Ismail. Misr fi Fagr Al Islam: Min Al Fath Al Arabi ea Keyam A Dawla Al toloneya. (Egypt in the Dawn of Islam: from the Conquest to the Tulunid Dynasty). Cairo: Dar Al Fikr Al Arabi, 1947.

- Al-Masri, Iris Habib. Kessat al Kaneesa al Kepteya. (The Story of the Coptic Church). Alexandria, 1979.

- Al-Masri, Sanaa. Hawamesh al Fath al Arabi li misr: Hekayat al Dokhool. (The Arab Conquest: the Stories of the Entrance). Cairo: Dar Sinai, 1996.

- Anis, Mohamed. Dirasat fi Wathaek Sawret 1919. (Studies in the 1919 Revolution Documents.) Cairo: No date.

- Bahr, Samira. Al Akbat fi Al Hayat al Seyasa al Misreya. (Copts in Egyptian Political Life). Cairo: Anglo Egyptian Bookshop, 1984.

- Fawzy, Mahmoud. Al Baba Kirolos wa Abdel Nasser. (Pope Cyril and Abdel Nasser). Cairo: Dar al Watan Publishing, 1993.

- Girguis, Fawzi. Derasat fi Tareekh Misr al Seyasi monz al Asr al Mamlooki. (Studies in the History of Egypt from the Mamluke Dynasty). Cairo: Al Dar al Misreya, 1958.

- Gregorious, Bishop. Wathaek Leltareekh...Al Kaneesa wa Kadaya al Watan wal Dawla wal Shark al Awsat. (Historic Studies: the Church and the Issues of Nation and State). Cairo: Theological Bishopric for Studies and Coptic Culture and Scholarly Research, 1970.

- Habib, Rafik, et al. Al Ihya al Deeni wa Seraa al Tabaki fi Misr. (Religious Revivalism and Class Conflict in Egypt). Cairo:Al Dar Al Arabeya Publications, 1991.

- Habib, Tewfik. Tizkar al Motamar al Kipty al Awal. (Remembering the First Coptic Conference). Cairo: Al Akhbar Printing, 1991.

- Hamroosh, Ahmed. Kesset Sawret Yolio. (The Story of the July Revolution). Beirut: Arab Institute for Research and Publications, 1960.

- Hanna, Milad. Naam Akbat lakin Misreyoon. (Yes Copts, but also Egyptians). Cairo: Madbouli Bookshop, 1980.

- ___________ Misr lekol al Misreyeen. (Egypt for all Egyptians). Cairo: Dar Soad al Sabbah, 1993.

- Hatta, Philip, et al. Tareekh al Arab. (History of the Arabs). Beirut: Dar Al Ghandoor Printing and Publishing, 1974.

- Ibrahim, Saad el Din. Eadet al Itebar lel Raees al Sadat. (Giving Sadat his Due). Cairo: Dar al Shorouk, 1992.

- Kamel, Mourad. Hadaret Misr fi Al Asr Al Kepti. (Egyptian Civilization in the Coptic Era). Cairo: Al Alam Al Arabi Publications.


- Kelada, William Seliman. Al Maseeheya wal Islam fi Misr. (Christianity and Islam in Egypt). Cairo: Dar Sina, 1993.

- Khalaf-Allah, Mohamed Ahmed. Al Moassasat al Deeneya fi Misr. (Religious Institutions in Egypt). Cairo: National Center for Social and Criminal Studies.

- Mahmoud, Hassan Ahmed. Hadaret Misr fi al Asr al Toloni. (Egypt’s Civilization in the Tulunid Era). Cairo: Al Nahda al Misreya Bookshop, 1962.

- Milad, Salwa Ali. Wathaek Ahl Al Zemma fi Al Asr al Osmani wa Ahameyet-ha al Tarikheya. (The Importance of the Dhimmi Documents in the Ottoman Era). Cairo: Dar al Thakafa Printing and Publishing, 1983.

- Mohamed, Anwar. Al Sadat wal Baba: Asrar al Sedam bain al Nizam wal Kaneesa. (Sadat and the Pope, between the Regime and the Church). Cairo. No date.

- Ramadan, Abdel Azeem. Al Fikr al Thawri fi Misr qabl Thawrat 23 Yulio. (Revolutionary Concepts in Egypt before the July 23 Revolution.) Cairo: Madbouli, 1981.

- ____________________. Tatawor al Haraka al Wataneya fi Misr min 1918-1936. (Progress of the Egyptian Nationalist Movement in Egypt from 1918-1936). Cairo: Dar al Kitab al Arabi, 1968.

- ____________________. Al Ikhwan al Muslimoon wal tanzeem al sirri. (The Muslim Brotherhood and the Clandestine Movements). Cairo: Dar Rose al Yussef, 1982.

- Riad, Zaher. Kanisat al Iskandareyah fi Ifriquiah. (The Church of Alexandria in Africa). Cairo, 1962.

- Rizk, Yonan Labib. Al Ahzab al Seyaseya fi Misr: 1907-1984. (Political Parties in Egypt: 1907-1984). Cairo: Dar al Hilal, 1984.

- Shukri, Ghali. Al Sawra al Modada fi Misr. (Counter-revolution in Egypt). Cairo: Al Ahali Book Series, 1987.

- Sobhi, Mohamed Khail. Tareekh al Hayat al Neyabeya fi Misr Min Ahd Saken al Khan Mohamed Ali Pasha. (The History of Parliamentary Life in Egypt from the Age of Mohammed Ali). Cairo: Dar al Kotob, 1939.

- Sorial, Riad. Al Mogtama Al Kepti fi Misr fi al Karn al Tesaatashar. (Coptic Society in Egypt in the 19th Century). Cairo: Al Mahaba Publications, 1984.

- Tager, Jack. Akbat wa Muslimoon monz al Fath al Arabi ela aam 1922. (Copts and Muslims from the Arab Conquest till the year 1922). 1951.

- Tadros, Ramzy. Al Akbat fi Al Karn Al Eshreen. (Copts in the 20th Century). Cairo: Gareedat Misr, 1910-1911. 4 vols.


Appendices


Appendix 1� Edict of Toleration by Galerius (311 AD)

Among other arrangements which we are always accustomed to make for the prosperity and

welfare of the republic, we had desired formerly to bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to provide that even the Christians wh had left the religion of their fathers should come back to reason; since indeed, the Christians themselves, for some reason, had followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity, which perchance their own ancestors had first established; but at their own will and pleasure, they would thus make laws unto themselves which they would observe and would collect various peoples in diverse places in congregations. Finally when our law had been promulgated to the effect that they should conform to the institutes of antiquity, many were subdued by the fear of danger, many even suffered death. And yet since most of them persevered in their determination, and we saw that they neither paid the reverence and awe due to the gods nor worshipped the God of the Christians, in view of our most mild clemency and the constant habit by which we are accustomed to grant indulgence t all, we thought that we ought to grant our must prompt good order. But we shall tell the magistrates in another letter what they ought to do. Where fore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for their safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the republic may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes.

This edict is published at Nicomedia on the day before the Kalends of May, in our eighth consulship and the second of Maximinus.

_____________________________________

• Original Latin text of both Appendix I and Appednix II, found in Lactantius, and merely a Greek translation in Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, Book VIII, and X, 5). Both texts translated in the University of Pennsylvania, Dept. of History, Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, (1897?-1907?), Vol. 4; pp.28-30.

---------- Tadros. Christianity in Egypt. 2007

Appendix II

The Edict of Milan (313 AD)

When I, Cosntantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Agusutus fortunately met near

Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought - among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion. Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, these, moreover who have obtained the sam by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal t the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that it to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done, so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed.


169

169

Appendix III

Theodisian Code XVI.i.2 Banning of Other Religions

It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession that religion which was delivered to he Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus ad by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation and the second punishment of our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict. [from Henry Bettenson, ed. Documents of the Christian Church, London:Oxford University Press, 1943. Short extract used under fair-use provisions]


170

170

Appendix IV Excerpts of the 3rd Letter of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius,

with the Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril and Accepted by the Council of Ephesus

Translated by P.E. Pusey, Oxdford, 1872.

To the Most Pious and Devout fellow minister Nestoris Cyril and the co-assembled Synod in Alexandria from out of the Province of Egypt, greeting in the Lord.

…. Lo then together with the holy Synod that has been gathered together in Great Rome, under

the presidency of the Most holy and Most devout our brother and co-minister the Bishop Celestine, we do testify to thee in this third letter too, counselling thee to refrain from the so crooked and perverted doctrines which thou both holdest and teachest, and to choose in place of hem the Right Faith which was delivered to the Churches from the beginning through the holy Apostles and Evangelists who have both been eye-witnesses and ministers of the word. Or if thy piety do not so, according to the ordinance set forth in the Letters of the afore-mentioned most holy and nost pious Bishop and our co-minister of he church of the Romans, Celestine, know that thou hast no lot with us, nor place nor rank among the Priests of God and His Bishops.

…. These things have we been taught to hold by the holy Apostles and Evangelists and the whole

God-inspired Scripture, and by the true Confession of the blessed Fathers: to all of them must thy Piety too assent and consent without any guile. The things which it is necessary that they Piety anathematize have been annexed to this our letter:

1- If anyone confess not that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh), be he anathema.

2- If any one confess not that the Word of God made Flesh, be he anathema. 3- If any one sever the Persons of the One Christ after the Union, connecting them with only a

connection of dignity or authority or sway, and not rather with a meeting unto Unity f Nature, be he anathema.

4- If any one allot to two persons or Hypostases, the words in the Gospel and Apostolic writings, said either of Christ by the saints or by Him of Himself, and ascribe some to a man conceived of by himself apart from the Word That is of God, others as God-befitting to the Word alone That is of God the Father, be he anathema.

5- If any one dare to say, that Christ is a God-clad man, and not rather that He is God in truth as being the One Son and that by Nature, in that the Word hath been made Flesh, and hath shared like us in blood and flesh [Heb. 2:14], be he anathema.

6- If anyone one say that the Word That is of God the Father is God or Lord of Christ and do not rather confess that the Same is God alike and Man, in that the Word hath been made flesh, according to the scriptures, be he anathema.

7- If anyone say t hat Jesus hath been in-wrought -in as man by God the Word and that the Glory of the Only-Begotten hath been put about Him, s being another than H He, be he anathema.

8- If any one dare to say that the man that was assumed ought to be co-worshipped with God the word and co-glorified and co-named God as one in another (for the co-, constantly appended, compels us thus to deem) and does not rather honor Emmanuel with One worship and attribute to Him one Doxology, inasmuch as the Word has been made Flesh, be he anathema.

9- If any one say that the One Lord Jesus Christ hath been glorified by the “Spirit”, using His power as though it were Another’s and from Him receiving the powr of working against unclean spirits and of accomplishing Divine signs upon men; and does not rather say that His own is the Spirit, through Whom He hath wrought the Divine signs, be he anathema.

10- The Divine Scripture says that Christ hath been made the High Priest and Apsostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1] and He hath offered Himself for us for an odor of a sweet smell to God the Father. If any one therefore say that not the Very Word of God was made our High Priest and Apostle when He was made Flesh and man as we, but that man of a woman apart from himself as


171

171

other than He, was [so made]: or if any one say that in His own behalf also He offered the Sacrifice and not rather for us alone (for He needed not offering Who knoweth not sin), be he anathema.

11- If any one confess not that the Flesh of the Lord is Life-giving and that it is the own Flesh of the Word Himself That is from God the Father, but say that it belongs to another man than He, connected with Him by dignity or as possessed of Divine Indwelling only and not rather that it is Life-giving (as we said) because it hath been made the own Flesh of the Wpord Who is mighty to quicken all things, be he anathema.

12- If any one confess not that the Word of God suffered in the Flesh and hath been crucified in the Flesh and tasted death in the Flesh and hath been made First-born of the Dead, inasmuch as He is both Life and Life-giving as God, be he anathema.


172

172

Appendix V The Nicene and Coptic Creeds

The Nicene Creed

The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion - all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them. [Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series (New York: Charles Scribners, 1990].

The Orthodox Creed

Truly we believe in One God, God the Father, the Almighty, creator of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; True God of True God; begotten, not made; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us and for our salvation descended from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became Man. He was crucified for us during the reign of Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried. He arose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to the heavens, and sits at the right hand of His Father. He will come back in His glory to judge the living and the dead; and His Kingdom shall have no end. Truly we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Life-Giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father; we worship and glorify Him together with the Father and the Son, who speaks through the prophets. We believe in one Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, and we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of our sins. We await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


173

173

Appendix VI

The Pact of Umar (7th Century)

This pact is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, which formed the patter of later interaction. We heard from Abd al-Rhaman ibn Ghannam (died 78/697) as follows: When Uar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with hi, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows: In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you: We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated n the quarters of the Muslims. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, their qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas. We shall not mound on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals. We shall not sell fermented drinks. We shall clip the fronts of our heads. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists. W shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any roads of he Muslims or in their markets. We shall\ not bury our dead near the Muslims. We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims. We shall not build houses over topping the houses of Muslims. (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”) We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma] and we become liable to penalties for contumacy and sedition. Umar ibn-al-Khattab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims”, and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.” From al-Turtushi, Siraj al Muluk.


174

174

Appendix VII Pope Urban’s Speech

Calling for the First Crusade Council of Clermont, France, 27 November 1095. For you must hasten to carry aid to your brethern dwelling in the East, who need your help for which they have often entreated. For the Turks, a Persian people, have attacked them, as many of you already know, and have advanced as far into Roman territory as that part of the Mediterranean which is called the Arm of Saint George. They have seized more and more of the lands of the Christians, have already defeated them in seven times as many battles, killed or captured many people, have destroyed churches, and have devastated the kingdom of God. If you allow them to continue much longer they will conquer God’s faithful people much more extensively. Wherefore with earnest prayer, I, not I, but God exhorts you as heralds of Christ to repeatedly urge men of all ranks whatsoever, knights as well as foot-soldiers, rich and poor, to hasten to exterminate this vile race from our lands and to aid the Christian inhabitants in time. I address those present; I proclaim it to those absent; moreover Christ commands it. For all those going thither there will be remission of sins if they come to the end of this fettered life while marching by land, crossing by sea or in fighting the pagans. This I grant to all who go, through the power vested in me by God. Oh what a disgrace if a race so despicable, degenerate, and enslaved by demons should thus overcome a people endowed with faith in Almighty God and resplendent in the name of Christ! Oh what reproaches will be charged against you by the Lord Himself if you have not helped those who are counted like yourselves of the Christian faith! Let those…who are accustomed to wantonly wage private war against the faithful march upon the infidels in a war which should be begun now and be finished in victory. Let those who have long been robbers now be soldiers of Christ. Let those who once fought against brothers and relatives now rightfully fight against the barbarians. Let those who have been hirelings for a few pieces of silver now attain an eternal reward. Let those who have been exhausting themselves to the detriment of body and soul now labor for a double glory. Yea on the one hand will be the sad and the poor, on the other the joyous and the wealthy; here the enemies of the Lord, there His friends. Let nothing delay those who are going to go. Let them settle their affairs, collect money, and when winter has ended and spring has come, zealously undertake the journey under the guidance of the Lord. Fulcher of Chartres A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem: 1095-1127, Bk I, Ch. III Translation: Frances Rita Ryan, 1969.


175

175

Appendix VIII1

Excerpts from the Hamayouni Decree

The Hamayouni firman (decree) was issued in 1856, and continued to be enforced for 78 years. It essentially sought to achieve equality between the Muslims and the Copts, to help in the progress of the Egyptian modern state. The most important stipulations in the decree are the following: - Enforcing all previous laws concerning Copts, especially those of the independent personal status laws, as those areas are particularly closely connected to the Christian religion. - The formation of the Layman's Council, consisting of the clergy and the secularists, to administer the financial matters of the Church, and to discuss the personal status affairs. - The request for building Churches is to be presented by the Pope to the Sultan, and a license is to be issued for it. - No one is to be prevented from exercising their rites, and no one is to be punished in any way for doing that, nor should anyone be forced to abandon his or her religion. - Ensuring that equality between Muslims and Christians in employment. - Military training and participation is a duty for all, regardless of religion. - All terminology that discriminates between people on the basis of religion should be abolished from all diwans, and offending people on a religious basis is forbidden.

*******************

The Azabi Pasha Decree of 1934

In February 1934, al-Ezabi Pasha, Minister of the Interior, issued a ministerial decree, adding ten conditions that had to be met, for acquiring licensing for the building of Churches. The conditions were: 1- Was the land on which the Church was to be built, an empty piece of land, or an agricultural land? Is it owned by the person presenting the request? Land ownership papers have to be appended to the presented request. 2- What is the distance between the spot on which the church was to be built, and the surrounding mosques? 3- If the land was empty, was it situated amidst places owned by the Muslims or the Christians? 4- If it was situated amidst a Muslim area, did the Muslims there have any objections? 5- Was there another Church belonging to that denomination in the same town or village? 6- What was the distance between the nearest Church belonging to that denomination, and the town in which the requested Church was to be built? 7- What was the number of Christians in that area? 8- If the land on which the Church was to be built was close to the bridges on the Nile River, or public utilities belonging to the Ministry of Irrigation, an approval should be acquired from the Ministry itself. If it was close to the railway tracks, the competent administration should also provide approval. 9- An official report should be written of all the previous investigations, and it should also point to the surrounding buildings of the requested spot on which the Church was to be built, and the nearest shops of a public nature, including the distances between these shops and the Church. This report should be sent to the ministry. 10- The person presenting the request should have an architectural plan with the ration of 1/1000, and those papers should be signed by the head of the denomination, and the engineer who has expertise of the area on which the church was to be built. The competent administration should investigate the truthfulness of the papers, and should sign it, and presented it with the investigation papers.

1 Translated from Arabic by Marlyn Tadros


176

176

Appendix IX1 The Oteifi Report

The formation of the fact-finding Committee, regarding the sectarian incidents in al-Khanka. Source: the People's Assembly's official minutes of meeting, November 28th, 1972. Decision with the formation of the Committee: The People's Assembly, in its session dated Monday, Shawwal, 1392, which is November 13th, 1972, decided forming a special fact-finding Committee, based on the President's request, regarding the recent sectarian incidents in al-Khanka, and presenting a report to the council regarding the truth of what happened. This Committee was formed, headed by Dr. Gamal al-Oteifi, deputy to the council, and with the membership of Mohammed Fouad Abu Hemeila, Albert Barsoum Salama, Kamal al-Shazli, Dr. Rushdi Said, Abdel Monsef Hassan Zein, and engineer Moheb Steeno. The limitations of the mission: This decision is considered the first exercise of the right to form a special fact-finding Committee regarding a particular subject, under the new constitution, according to articles 16 and 47 of the bylaws. With the formation of the fact-finding Committee in the sectarian incidents that have recently occurred in al-Khanka, the Committee found it necessary to point out, through its research into the circumstances that surrounded these recent incidents and the factors that led to it, that the incident at al-Khanka was one of the incidents that have been repeated during this year. This generally and basically points to the factors that affect the relationships between the different factions in this society, and whether they were fabricated, or ill-intentioned, and how far it threatens national unity under the current sensitive circumstances that we are passing through, in our fight against the Zionist enemy and international imperialism. The Committee, therefore, discusses in this report the Khanka incident as a significant incident that expresses an unhealthy atmosphere that has pervaded the social relationships during this year. It will then discuss those relationships in general, and analyze them, then present specific recommendations to resolve them. The Committee's procedures: The Committee began its work with a meeting organized by its chairperson, with the Prime Miniter and the Minister of the Interior, and the Public Prosecutor, the day immeidately following its formation, to discuss the circumstances of the incident, and to begin its work with a clear picture. Since the Public Prosecution was as yet conducting its investigation, and so that no interference would occur between its procedures and the criminal investigation, the Committee saw it was sufficient to ask for a report of the incidents from the public prosecution. It also requested another report from the Ministry of the Interior, which would contain narration of similar incidents that have occurred over the past year. The Committee then began its procedures as follows: 1- On the morning of Tuesday, November 14th, 1972, the Committee organized a meeting in which

its chairperson presented a primary picture of the incidents that occurred in al-Khanka, on November 6th and 12th, 1972, in light of the verbal information which he had received from thePrime Minister and the Minister of the Interior and the Public Prosecution. On November 6th, a large number of priests arrived in al-Khanka with their cars and some Coptic individuals, and proceeded towards the burnt premises of the Friends of the Holy Bible Organization, and conducted their prayers there. In the evening, a large number of people from the al-Ashraf Mosque gathered, and walked out in a protest demonstration, during which an individual



177

177

named Ghali anis Bishai [a Copt] allegedly fired shots in the air over the demonstrators' heads with a licensed gun. Some of the demonstrators proceeded to his house and to other houses belonging to Copts, and set them on fire, and damaged them, without causing any injuries occurring. After the Committee listened to this primary presentation, it discussed its work plan and identified the information it needed from the different sources.

2- On Wednesday November 15th, 1972, all the Committee members went to al-Khanka, accompanied by General Mostafa al-Sheikh, the deputy to the Minister of the Interior for Public Security,which the Ministry of the Interior has assigned, based on the Committee's request, to facilitate its mission. The Committee visited the places where these incidents occurred, and discussed the matter with the authorities at the police station and the municipality and the socialist union. It also listened to the comments of those whose homes and shops had been attacked. It therefore saw the premises of the Holy Bible Society, in which the Copts of Khanka used to pray, and which had been subjected to arson on the morning of November 6th, 1972. It also saw the remains of the fire, and the damage in the home of Rizk Saleeb Ateya, the photographer, and also in his shop, as well as in the homes of Girgis Erian Soleyman, Ghobrial Girgis Erian, Halim Hanna Naamallah, and Ghali Anees Said Bishai.

3- In the evening of that same day, the Committee received the secretary of the socialist union, of the Quliobeya governorate, and the secretary of the district, and it also met with Mr. Abdel Qadir Berry, elected member of parliament for the socialist union at the district, and whom the victims had accused, in the investigation, of provoking the incidents. It also met with Sheikh Zein al-Sawi al-Badawi, Imam of the al-Ashraf mosque, where the people had gathered on the evening of Sunday November 12th, 1972. The Committee asked the secretary of the socialist union of Quliobeya governorate about his information and observations, and he presented them at a later stage.

4- On Thursday, November 16th, 1972, the Committee met with His Holiness Pope Shenuda III, Patriarch of the Copts, in the Patriarchate, and in that meeting listened to his observations. It also met after that with the Honorable the Grand Imam Mohammed al-Fahham, of the Azhar. This meeting was attended by the secretary general of the Islamic Research Institute, Honorable Dr. Abdel Rahman Bisar, and the Scholarship Director at the Azhar, Dr. Abdel Moneim al Nimr, and the executive director of the Grand Sheikh's office, Honorable Sheikh Salah Abu Ismail.

5- The same evening, the chairperson of the Committee met with an informer, who had sent the Speaker of the Parliament a message informing him that he had information explaining the circumstances leading to the incidents. The Committee then met with him again for discussion on November 18th, and informed the public prosecution to interrogate him. The Committee had also received two messages from Hawamdeya, from Mr. Ibrahim and Mr. Saad al Abassi, head of the Islamic Religious Services in Hawamdeya, warning of an arising problem regarding the dome of the Supporters of the Holy bible Organization in Hawamdeya, which had been used as a church a few years before, without licensing. The Committee saw that this kind of conflict provides a picture about some of the aspects that cause repeated conflicts. It therefore invited the complainers, and was able to resolve the issue, and preserving the status quo.

6- On Saturday November 17th, 1972, the chairperson of the Committee met with Honorable Dr. Abdel Halim Mahmoud, Miniser of Endowments and al-Azhar, and attended a meeting with General Hussein al-Rakhawy, deputy to the minister's office, regarding security. He then met with Engineer Ibrahim Naguib, member of the socialist union, and the head of the Patriarchal Endowments Committee. With him, it also met with Mr. Zakareya al-Berri, professor of Islamic Shari'a at the Law School, Cairo University, and secretary of Religiou Affairs in the Committee for proselityzing [Da'awa] and thought, at the socialist union. Joining the meeting was Honorable Sheikh Hussein Hamid, assistant professor of the Islamic Shari'a at the Cairo University Law School, and one of the experts of the legislative Committee at thecouncil regarding the Islamic Shari'a. The Committee reviewed during that meeting, the statement which the socialist union had prepared, regarding national unity, and the necessity of eliminating any causes of discrimination. In the same evening, the chairperson of the Committee met with Mr. Ali Abdel Azeem, member of the Quranic Lessons Committee of the Islamic Research Institute, who showed him some books that he perceived as offensive to the Islamic religion. The chairperson of the Committee, during that meeting, contacted Mr. Talaat Khalid, the person responsible for publications at the ministry of information, to understand the process of censorship on religious books.

7- On the same day, the Committee received a notification from Dr. Ayesha Rateb, Minister of Social Affairs, with the amounts of money the ministry gave as compensation to those who had been


178

178

harmed in any way during the Khanka incidents, after the Minister and members of the ministry had visited the place where the incidents took place on November 16th. The Committee also received notification from Mr. Mohammed Hamed Mahmoud, First Assistant Secretary of the Arab Socialist Union, that a deacon in a church in Kafr Ayub, Menya al-Kamh, was distributing booklets of his writings on 6/11, whose content was suspicious. The Committee also received two messages, one from Reverend Dr. Abdel Masseeh Estefanos, complaining of an old incident regarding what he called seizing of the land of the Holy Bible Organization in Alexandria, at the pretext of building on it a mosque. Another was from Abdel Fattah Bishi, including a general accusation to certain unmentioned factions, that were trying to incite sectarian strife in the Public Transportation Organization. The competent administrations were notified of both messages.

8- On the morning of Sunday November 18th, 1972, the Committee received some of the inhabitants of al-Khanka, who presented information regarding the incidents. It reported them to the Public Prosecution. On that same evening, the Committee met with Bishop Samuel, Bishop of Services, and Bishop Dimadios, Bishop of Giza, and Father Zakareya Gayed, of the St. Mark church in Heliopolis, and listened to their observations.

Section I:

The incidents of al-Khanka In order to identify the incidents, the Committee used the reports of the Public Prosecution, which is the judicial power responsible for the investigation. At the same time, it reviewed what other competent bodies had presented to it, and reviewed the report which had been presented about those incidents and was presented to His Holiness Pope Shenuda. It also moved to the scene, and through observation and discussion with the competent individuals, it was able to infer the correct incidents. The incident of Monday, November 6th, 1972:

Since 1946, the Friends of the Holy Bible Organization had been active in al-Khanka as a religious organization, registered with the Ministry of Social Affairs. Nearly a year ago, lawyer Ahmed Azmi Abu Sherifa [a Muslim] sold a piece of land he owned, near his house in the area called the Boulak area in al-Khanka, to a man called Mohammed Saad al-Gilda, a laborer at the Gabal al-Asfar farm, which he, in turn, sold to a Christian man. The ownership contracts continued to move from one to the other, until it reached Bishop Maximus, bishop of Qalyubeya. At the time, it was believed that it would be built as premises for this organization. It was actually fenced and rooms were appended to it, and the organization moved there. In the beginning of this summer, a prayer temple was built inside it, and its garden was prepared in a manner that allowed the conducting of religious services. Father Marcus Farag, the priest of the Abu Zaabal church which is three kilometers away from Khanka, led the services there every Friday, because he was busy on Sundays with his original church in Abi Zaabal.

Since the organization had not acquired a presidential decree licensing it to build a church, the administration made the president of the organization, Shaker Ghabbour, promise in writing that he would not use it as a church except after acquiring a license. Using the place as a church without a permit has provoked some of those living in the district of Khanka, among them Abdel Qadir al-Barri, who is a financial inspector and member of the local assembly in Qualyobeya governorate. There is no indication that this objection took any violent shape, or was a general point of concern.

On the morning of the incidents, November 6th, 1972, the first day of the Adha Feast, the prosecutor was informed that a fire burnt the building, and it was clear the fire had spread to the ceiling which was made of wood, and also to everything there, but not the wet walls. The prosecution’s investigation was unable to know who the arsonist was. However some of those who slept in the building to guard it said in the prosecution’s investigations that they saw a number of individuals throwing flammable bottles from outside. The firemen were able to put off the fire with the help of some of the Muslim and Christian neighbors.

Without entering into the procedures of the criminal investigation, and what the general prosecution could find regarding the incrimination, there are several facts that must be taken into consideration:

1- the people of Khanka had always lived in peace, and they were models of cooperation and unity. When a factory in the nearby area of Abu Zaabal was attacked by the Israeli phantom airplane raids, in February of 1970, when seventy laborers were killed and 69


179

179

injured, they were all charged against the enemy because the bombs did not differentiate between a Muslim and a Copt.

2- The previous head of the city council was a Copt, and he stayed in that position nearly 12 years. His name was Adeeb Hanna, and throughout his time, there were no sensitivities. When his successor, Mr. Adel Ramadan, was appointed in March 72, the Holy Bible Organization celebrated his new post in its new building to which it had moved. A large number of Copts occupy important positions, especially in the field of health and psychiatry, where the percentage of Coptic [public] employees increased to over 60%, for their number is 38, among 59 employees (according to the statistics presented by the city council’s president). The number of Coptic employees in that center is 111 out of a total of 856 employees.

3- The building of the Holy Bible Organization, whose ceiling and things were burnt, is a small building, in an isolated area, not frequented by many, and lies to the Eastern side of the city, surrounded by some Muslim homes. It did not have a license as a building, and neither did it have a license as a church. But the fact of the matter is that church rituals were being performed there, without the administration approaching them, and through tolerance on their part. Some Muslims of Khanka gathered contributions to build a mosque extremely close to that place, and its building indeed began.

4- The population of Khanka, according to the population count published in 1960, was 21863, among them 615 Christians. But the information we were presented by the city’s council says the Christians are no more than 36 families. The Committee asked for information from CAPMAS, after its chairperson contacted General Gamal Askar. From the answer it received, it is clear that the number of Christians in Khanka in 1966 was 692, and by 1972 it increased to 803, whereas the total Christian population (the city and the villages) reached 2552 in 1966, which increased to 2963 in 1972.

5- The incident has been greatly exaggerated when presented to His Holiness the Pope, and what further increased tension is that a few months earlier, a similar incident occurred in Sanhoor, near Damanhoor. In the report that has been presented to His Holiness the Pope about this incident, one would understand that the place had been completely demolished, and that the firemen were slow to come and put it out, and that the conspirators had prevented the firemen from fulfilling their duty. The report also included suspicions of the procedures of the investigation and its lack of objectivity. The Committee’s inspection of the crime scene revealed that the fire extended only to the wooden ceiling, and the wooden furniture, and that had the firemen not intervened, the fire would not have been put off without further damage. The incident was described as a church burning, even though there is no official church permit, and as such it constitutes a sacrilege. The incident was therefore described with provocation. The Committee presented is findings to the Pope, and his Holiness agreed not to approve the report that had been presented to him, and wait for the results of the investigation.

6- On the other side, the Committee transferred all the information it has received about accusations against certain individuals in participating or perpetrating the commitment of that incident, to the general prosecution to deal with it himself.

The incident of Sunday, November 12th, 1972

In the morning of that day, some tour buses and private cars and taxis, carrying nearly 400 individuals, wearing their clerical dresses, normally worn by priests and deacons, proceeded to Khanka. The authorities had learnt that the Clerical Council in Cairo had taken a decision to pray on Sunday in the premises of the Friends of the Holy Bible Organization, in which the fire had burnt, and which the Copts living in Khanka had been using as a church. The security forces, which hurriedly came from the govenrorate’s capital, stopped them near the village of Kalag, which lies on the road to Khanka, in an attempt at stopping them, lest this large number of them would lead to dire consequences, and asked them to send a limited number of them, but they insisted on proceeding and accomplishing what they intended. The security forces therefore decided to take the necessary measures. The procession walked on foot in a long procession, singing religious hymns, with some priests in the front. When they arrived at the premises they placed loud speakers, and the liturgy started and was made twice, in order to include all that huge number of people. They then left without any incidents occurring. It has been claimed that some of their extremists uttered some harsh words,


180

180

protesting the incident at this building the week before, portraying it as a sectarian incident for which the state authority had not taken the appropriate measures.

In the evening, when the Muslim youths of the city returned, having been in their universities, factories or offices outside the city, the picture was narrated to them about what happened in the morning, and they considered this a challenge and a provocation for their feelings. They gathered in the Sultan al-Ashraf mosque, which lies at the Western side of the city, together with Sheikh Zayd al Sawi al-Badri, the Imam of the mosque, and they proceeded towards the police station in a procession that cried “Allah Akbar,” and the authorities there asked them to leave. Sheikh Zayd al-Sawi left after advising them to part, whereas some continued on their way to the headquarters of the socialist union. As they passed by a grocer’s called Ghali Anees Bishai, the sound of gun shots was heard, and some claimed that this grocer had fired them. The grocer indeed did have a licensed gun, even though the criminal lab has not proven that it had been recently used. This led to the further provocation of the people, and they proceeded hurriedly to this grocer’s home and set it on fire. Among those people, were those who used that opportunity to steal. They also burnt other homes such as belonging to Anees Bishai, Halim Neam Allah, Rizk Saleeb Ateya, Girgis Erian, Gobrial Girgis Erian, and the photo shop belonging to Rizk Saleeb Ateya, as well as breaking the glass of the pharmacy of Dr. Kamil Fahmi Ekladios. Some of the demonstrators also went to the premises of the organization and burnt one of its rooms appended to the building, which was used as a church. Nevertheless no fatal injuries occurred, and 3 individuals were slightly injured by coincidence, among them two Muslims. A number of people were arrested for theft or arson and damage, and the general prosecution decided to temporarily arrest nine individuals.

Without going through the criminal accusations, there are facts which the Committee was able to reveal:

1- The incident occurred on Monday November 6th, and it should have been kept within its correct boundaries. It would have been proper policy to be kept within such limits. As Pope Shenuda told the Committee members, that after the incident he has visited the Grand Sheikh of the Azhar, and congratulated him on the occasion of the Feast, without letting this incident leave any residues in his soul, had it not been what appeared to be that the hand of justice was unable to identify the people responsible for those incidents, and some feared the investigation would end as previous investigations have ended, and no strong initiatives have been taken. Those who went to pray there did not mean to go to Khanka in a procession, but they walked on foot after the security forces stopped them and tried to convince them to change their minds.

2- The church prayer procession could have been subjected to conflict, with its obvious protesting motivation and provocation, but it passed peacefully as a result of the genuineness of the consciousness of national unity which had been settled in the Egyptian people’s hearts for hundreds of years.

3- We should register the honorable position of some priests, among them Bishop Ibrahim Ateya, who gave a speech after the prayers in the premises of the organization which was used as a church, announcing that he who has committed the arson was an ill-motivated individual who is neither a Christian nor a Muslim, and he praised national unity between the two peoples of this nation.

4- The extra security forces that were called in the morning following the gahtering of the priests to pray in Khanka, returned after the people left, and after the matters were quieted down, and they left some forces to secure the place. After the evening incidents, they were reinforced with central forces to protect order.

5- The Minister of Social Affairs immediately visited the places where the incidents occurred, and decided, based upon the directions of the president, immediate compensation for those who had their homes or work places set on fire. The Friends of the Holy Bible Organization took two hundred and ten pounds, which constituted the estimated amount of damage. She also gave L.E.200 to compensate the damage for the house and shop of Rizk Saleeb Ateya, and L.E.150 each for Halim Hanna Nemat Allah and Anees Bishai, and to Gaber Masood Gaber compensation for the damage to his shop, and L.E.30 for the pharmacy of Dr. Kamil Fahmi Ekladios. The minister received a thank you note from Wagih Rizk, representing all the Christians in Khanka.

Section II Reasons leading to the Sectarian Strife Incidents


181

181

Our people have drawn their national unity throughout generations of its long history, a unity that enabled them to stop the invaders and keep their own national identity, hence becoming a part of its heritage. This unity was able to stand before the attempts at discrimination which the colonialists had tried to impart to us. This unity seemed most clear when the crescent and the cross joined together during our national struggle in 1919, under the motto of Religion for God, and the nation for all. This unity is what enabled us to confront the invasion of 1956, and enabled us to stand and fight after the defeat of June 1967. Yet it is noticeable that in our national history, some of those sectarian incidents were fabricated whenever our national struggle reached its climax, which happened in 1911, and again following our battle against the colonialists in the Suez, in 1952. Nevertheless, we could not claim that this country, however much the feelings of national unity increase, could be isolated from individual incidents or cracks that could happen between people belonging to different factions, whether it was non-religious or religious.

But when those separate incidents occurred in periods of every few years, it has clearly increased in the last two years, reaching 11 incidents between 16/6/1970 and 12/11/1972, ten of which occurred as of August 11th, 1971. Those incidents express a status of tension, enhanced by a strong religious trend that is moving without proper guidance that would distant the danger of fanaticism. It is also engulfed with exaggeration, in which some well-intentioned individuals also participate, without perceiving that spreading discrimination and hatred among the different sects is the weapon that the imperialists have used to weaken the strength of this nation, and taking away its attention from its principle concern which is independence.

The Introductions

From the study which this Committee has conducted, it has come to the following conclusions

regarding the reasons that led to the increase in this state of tension: 1- During 1970, an individual incident occurred in Alexandria when two Muslim youths

converted to Christianity under the influence of different circumstances. News of this spread among the people, and was the subject of comment and criticism by some Sheikhs in mosques, protesting missionary activities. The Ministry of Endowments in Alexandria prepared then a report and presented it to Sheikh Ibrahim Abdel Hamid al-Labban, deputy to the governorate for Daawa affairs, with the results of his research regarding the religious deviousness of some students in the area of Gleem and al-Raml in which he mentioned the dangers that face those youths as a result of the missionary proslytizing attributed to some priests. It also included a number of assumptions that reflect the fears of the presenter of the report regarding such dangers. In 1972, nearly two years after the presentation of this report, which is considered an internal report and not for publication, wicked hands reached it and photocopied it, and printed it out by stencil, and widely distributed it. The report included some imaginary issues, attributed to the Coptic clergymen, which would provoke any Muslim who reads it, and make him believe the issues that have not even been proven nor evidence given. Some of it even is hard to believe in the first place. This made some mosque Imams discuss it in their sermons and strongly condemn it. The result was that many Muslims were upset, and the seeds of doubt towards their Coptic brethren planted. In spite of the spread of the report, the competent authorities and the media did not confront it or deny it, probably believing that it would have a limited effect and that it would go way. The hand of justice was also unable to reach its perpetrators.

2- When the reform movement of the revolution’s path took pace in May 15th, 1971, all people were called upon for participation in preparing he permanent constitution. It was clear that the designated Committee had then roamed about the country and it was clear to it that a strong trend existed that called for considering the Islamic Shari’a the source of legislation. On the other hand, Coptic citizens stood by freedom of belief, and especially repealing the laws constraining the building of churches. It was not clear enough that the call for applying he Islamic Shari’a contradicts freedom of belief and exercising religious rights which the constitution has stipulated for all, and hat Islam and Christianity were messages of tolerance and love, believing in God. In that environment in which the concepts of freedom and the sovereignty of the law pervaded, and the state lifted the motto of the science and religion state, Bishop Shenuda was elected as patriarch


182

182

of Alexandria towards he end of October 1971, and was formally appointed on November 14th, in a celebration attended by the Prime Minister and prominent statesmen. It was also broadcast over the television and radio, and was the focus of attention through the media. It was clear that the new Pope began broad activities in the service of the church and the nation. As soon as he was elected, he gave a lecture about Israel at the Press Syndicate, which was translated in five languages. He also published a weekly article in some newspapers every Sunday, and announced some church organizations to support its spiritual message and reform some of the social problems inside the church in a scientific and spiritual manner. He is the first Pope in contemporary history who was head of the Clerical School. It seems that some sensitivities sometimes emerged about such broad activities, even before Pope Shenuda was elected. Al-Hilal magazine published a special issue about the Quran in December 1970, and Pope Shenuda wrote an article in it entitled ‘the Quran and Christianity’ showing the points of agreement between Islam and Christianity. Some Imams in mosques discussed the article, according to the magazine itself in its February issue of 1971, and it also published other comments on that article. When Pope Shenuda announced, upon his election, that he rejected any call to permit divorce for Christians except for adultery, and that any such divorce was not approved by the church, he was met on the other side with a rejection of any calls to reform the marital status laws concerning the Muslims, or any arrangements following a divorce. The same happened with any call for reforming the Clerical School, or restoring Alexandria’s prominent place and leadership in Africa, despite the fact that many other Copts, who had always cooperated loyally with the State [had said the same things] (such as Dr. Kamal Ramzi Steeno, in an article entitled ‘Our Wishes under Pope Shenuda’s Era’ in al-Ahram, November 15th, 1971). The same sensitivities were perceived by the Committee’s members with some Christian clergymen regarding some Muslim publications about the psalms, the Old Testament, and the Trinity. From these different points, sensitivities continued to rise about everything being published by Christian clergymen, within the Christian doctrines, about their understanding of Islam, as well as anything the Muslims believed within their Islamic doctrines, about their understanding of Christianity. The Committee was able to see, during its meetings with Pope Shenuda on the one hand, and the Grand Imam of the Azhar and the Minister of Endowments on the other, the high sensitivity regarding everything that was being published. It reached a stage where there was sensitivity about any sentence in any article that might be misunderstood or misinterpreted. It was a sensitivity that religious authorities should have risen above, or else any comment or opinion was bound to be surrounded with danger.

3- Following all that, people have spread news about another report, other than Sheikh Ibrahim al-Laban’s report, which was described as an official security report, about a meeting organized by Pope Shenuda III on March 15th, 1972 at St. Mark’s Church in Alexandria. The report was widely distributed, and was formed in such a way as to seem like a genuine official report. It contained alleged statements by Pope Shenuda in this meeting. Even though the report was clearly fabricated, many people believed it, which gave the wrong impression that there was a Coptic conspiracy, as stated in the report, to make the statistic numbers of Copts equal to that of the Muslims, and seek the impoverishment of the Muslims and the wealth of Christians, so that the country would be restored to its original owners the Christians, from the hands of the Islamic invaders, as Spain returned to Christianity after an Islamic colonialism that lasted eight centuries. Despite the danger of that fabricated report, and its impact on some Muslims who distributed it or talked about its contents, there was no official response to reveal that it was fabricated. If the Socialist Union has recently issued a statement announcing its fabrication, it would have been useful if it had not been distributed only to the organizational base of the Soiclaist Union members. Some extremists have used this fabricated report and distributed it, with comments that incited hatred and malice. This caused a reaction, perhaps its worst forms was in a conference organized by the Christian clergymen in Alexandria on the 17th and 18th of July 1972. They took decisions and sent telegrams to the authorities, among them the People’s Assembly, all regarding what they called protecting Coptic rights and the Christian religion, and that without this, martyrdom was better than a life of humiliation. It was a position that was much criticized by all the Christian denominations themselves.


183

183

4- All those circumstances combined have pointed to the danger which began to threaten national unity, which made President Sadat, on July 24th, 1972, discuss only one issue which was national unity. During the convening of those sessions, the President announced that there were attempts being contrived at raising suspicions with regards the internal front, and that they were now raising suspicions with regards national unity. There were pamphlets distributed holding those meanings, brought in from abroad, and specifically the United States of America. But this nation is one, and its sky is one, and its people are one. The President announced that he would call upon the People’s Assembly in an emergency meeting, to issue a national unity law. He did, indeed called for an emergency meeting in August 1972, and prepared a law for the protection of national unity, that was enforced following its publication in the official newspaper on September 27th, 1972. In this law, there was one prominent meaning which should be in all our consciousness, that national unity is based on respecting the primary components of society, as stipulated for in the constitution, especially freedom of belief and opinion, which would not infringe upon other freedoms or the primary components of society. In spite of the issuance of that law, an attack was carried out against the building of the al-Nahda Orthodox organization in Sanhoor, Beheira, on 8/9/1972 (criminal case 3103 for 1972 – Damanhur). On October 29th, 1972, (case number 654 for 1972 – Supreme State Security) some individuals printed one hundred copies of the afore-mentioned fabricated report about the Pope’s alleged meeting. Finally, the unfortunate incidents of the Khanka occurred. The Committee would like to draw the attention that the protection of national unity law is nothing but a legal framework for this protection, which must in essence, find its guarantee with every citizen, with the state authorities, and with the political administration, and most specifically, with the religious authorities.

The Reasons The Committee appreciates the value of the efforts that have recently been done on the political and media level, to emphasize the importance of protecting national unity, especially the statement which the Secretariat of the Arab Socialist Union had announced regarding the valuable announcement which the press syndicate has broadcast, and which is considered a model which other popular organizations should have followed, and should have been used in Friday sermons and in the morning lessons in schools. But unless we delve deeply into that problem, follow the reasons that led to it, and made recommendations to resolve it, we fear that the follow-up will stop when spirits are relaxed and the situation more stable, and hence our interest in finding permanent solutions, rather than temporary pills will diminish, which will threaten the return of that deep illness, even more dangerous and perilous than before. Through the discussions it has made and the studies it has conducted, the Committee was able to reveal a number of direct reasons that breed constant friction, and that could be a fertile soil for planting discrimination and hatred, and the disbanding of national unity. We summarize them into under three titles: a- Licensing to build churches:

Ever since Amr Ibn al-Ass won his war against the Roman Byzantines who had ruled Egypt, and Copts began enjoying the freedom of worship, this Arab victory has released the Copts from the oppression and persecution conducted by the Byzantines, and guaranteed them freedom to exercise their religious rites. The Muslims permitted the Copts to build new churches and celebrate their feasts. The Nile Feast was a public one in which the governors, the Muslims and the Copts took part. The Abasside governors al-Laith bin Saad and Abdullah bin Laheifa built churches, and said that it was not part of Egyptian architecture, but that all churches in Egypt had not been built except under Islam and the period of the Prophet's disciples (this is to be seen in Islam's Book and the Dhimmis, by Dr. Ali Hassan al-Kharbotli, one of the publications of the High Council of Islamic Affairs, p. 167). Afterthat, al-Aziz Bellah, one of the Fatimite Caliphs, married a Coptic woman, just like the Prophet Mohammed when he married the Coptic Maria, and asked his followers to take care of the Copts. In our modern history, building churches, renovating them or restoring them falls under the Hamayoni Decree, issued by the Sublime Porte on February 1865, which then represented a


184

184

reformist movement, and dealt with several issues, among them protecting the rights of all non-Muslim sects. The Hamayoni Decree also permitted the building of churches and their renovation by licensing from the Sublime Porte. …[quotes the Hamayoni Decree]. Many Coptic churches are so old, no one knows anything about applying the Hamayoni Decree. But in February 1934, the deputy to the Minister of the Interior issued a decree with the conditions that need to be met to permit the building of a church, which was called the Ten Conditions. Even in the presence of such conditions, that are still applied to this day, when the administration is certain about their fulfillment, a republican decree is issued with building the church. The Committee asked CAPMAS for the number of existing churches in Egypt, and it responded that they were 1442. Meanwhile the information we got from the Ministry of the Interior about the number of registered churches with it were 500, 286 of which are Coptic [the rest would be other denominations]. This difference may lie in that some of those churches had been built before the Ministry of Interior's decree in 1934, and also that some had been built without licensing and republican decree. It was clear also that the total number of churches that have acquired licensing in the past ten years was 127, of which 68 were Coptic Orthodox. Out of that number, 22 new churches were built, and 4 were renovated or rebuilt, whereas the remaining 42 were old churches. The Committee discovered that one of the most important reasons that led to friction and conflict was not implementing an easy method of issuing those licenses, without the issuance of a republican decree every single time. Issuing such a decree needs time, and many times the place itself, on which the church was to be built, changes in surroundings, such as when a mosque is built close by and therefore breaks one of the ten conditions. As a result of the slowness of the procedures, many Coptic organizations resort to establishing those churches without licensing. In some cases, the administration is tolerant of that, and in others the person responsible for the organization is interrogated. This makes a contradiction, between the sovereignty of the law on one hand, which is the principle which the constitution has established in article 46, and which says: "the State guarantees freedom of belief and freedom of exercising religious rites," and which is different from previous constitutions that guaranteed the protection of the freedom to perform religious rights according to the customary traditions in Egypt. Under the 1923 constitution, the administrative court of the State Council issued a verdict on February 26th, 1951, saying that exercising religious rites for all sects is a constitutional right, within the limits of the law and the traditions, but it nevertheless cancelled the Minister of the Interior's decision which refused to give license to build a church, because of the small number of the denomination, and the court said in its verdict that there is nothing in the law that puts a minimum limit to the number of individuals who have a right to build a church. In spite of that, the reorganization of the administration of churches is not, in itself, considered an infringement on the freedom to exercise religious rights. However it is still necessary to review once again the Hamayoni Decree, and the Ministry of the Interior's decisions in this regard, in order to prevent the state which has spread, of converting some buildings or houses into churches without licensing. This sometimes leads some people to take matters into their own hands, without resorting to the state authorities. The Committee has reviewed the incidents hat occurred in the last two years, and has found that most of them go back to the building of those churches without licensing, and the conflict between the administration or the people with them. It needs to be mentioned however, that many of those churches are no bigger than a small room or a small yard without bells or domes, and these could be licensed by the Minister of the Interior. The Committee therefore suggests reviewing the licensing procedures, with the aim of simplifying them. The Patriarchate however should present their annual plan for building churches to be studies by the competent administration all at once, instead of each individually, and instead of leaving the matter to individual initiatives made by organizations or individuals, without proper scientific planning.

b- The Daa'wa and Missionary work [proselytizing]:

The Daa'wa, religious education, and values and morals are all issues that our society have to safeguard, according to our new constitution in article 17. The State also is obliged to safeguard those principles. Mosques, churches, and schools all provide a basis for the religious daa'wa. Since many of the complaints that have engendered sensitivities goes back to what has been repeated from mosque sermons or church pulpits, or to any missionary activities conducted by some organizations, the Committee has given this matter its utmost consideration.


185

185

From the mosque statistics which the Committee has received from the Ministry of Endowments, the number of mosques that are appended to the Ministry do not exceed 4000 mosques, whereas the popular mosques are much more than that number. The Ministry has nothing to do with the appointment of its Imams or sermonizers. Law 157 for 1960 had been issued, and decided that the Ministry of Endowments should administer the mosques, and should also supervise the zawaya [prayer corners] with which there a Ministerial decision has been issued, and directing its leaders to perform their religious duty in the proper manner. The explanatory note of that law, which the Minister of Endowments had prepared, explained the reasons for putting those mosques under the Ministry supervision, among them that a large number of those mosques do not have anyone who could carry the responsibility of education and guidance. Leaving the status quo, would only decrease the value of religious guidance, and weaken the confidence in the mosques' messages, especially that what was being said from the pulpits was being said in the name of God. This necessitates placing a supervisory system over those mosques, which would accomplish the higher objectives of religious education and the guidance of youths and their protection from any external influence. The Minister of endowments answered in a question presented to him at the People's Assembly, that this law should have been applied through placing 1000 mosques each year under the ministry's supervision, which happened in 1961. But the matter ended with the fact that there were not enough funds to continue, because appending a mosque to the ministry needs L.E.500 annually, to say the least, and we therefore would require L.E. 8 million to append civil mosques. The Minister of Endowments announced that as of the year 1973, he would try and append 1000 mosques annually (from the minutes of the 34th meeting of the People's Assembly, on May 28th, 1972, answering a question presented by member Salah al-Taroti, and another by Karima al-Arousi, regarding this issue). Although the Committee understands the financial conditions and the priorities of the battle, it believes that undoubtedly, placing those mosques under the total supervision of the Ministry of Endowments would prevent any exceeding of limits in the sermons. In order to accomplish this, the Ministry of Endowments must exercise its supervisory role over the administration of those mosques and corners, and guiding its leaders to fulfill their roles in the proper manner. The Committee also suggests in this regard, that the appointment of the Imams of those mosques should be with the approval of the Ministry of Endowments, after ensuring that he has the proper conditions to be appointed in a mosque, and assuring his proper understanding of religion. It should likewise supervise the sermons he preaches so that they would not go beyond their own religion to criticism or offenses against other religions. The Committee also noticed that those who preach in churches could also exceed the limits, if the preachers were not taking care of their limits, talking only of their religion and calling for the truth, goodness, and virtue. But since the appointment of a church's priest is also through a decision made by the competent bishop or the Patriarchate, then it alone is responsible for supervising that he is carrying on his religious duties, and it is accountable before the state, should any exceeding occur. The Committee also noticed that the information which it had requested from the Ministry of Social Affairs, that the number of Islamic organizations in Egypt are 679, whereas the orthodox Christian organizations are 438, all of which receive annual, periodical contributions from the Ministry, with the amount of L.E. 49290 to the Islamic organizations and L.E. 25785 to the Orthodox organizations. All these organizations fall under administrative supervision according to law 32 for 1964 regarding NGOs and private institutions, which allows the competent administration to decide the merging of more than one organization together who work on the same issues, to unify its administration. It also permits the Ministry to dissolve it, by ministerial decision, for diverse reasons, among which are if it commits a gross contradiction to the law, or if it opposes the public order or morality. The Committee, through analyzing the incidents that have been investigated by the general prosecution, regarding sectarian activities, and through its discussions with the competent authorities in the Azhar and the Patriarchate, that some of those organizations have members who have allegedly distributed pamphlets that are offensive to other religions. Also, some of those organizations have mushroomed in one single district, which does not permit them to efficiently carry on their messages and responsibilities. Some of them also exercise missionary activities, whether it was to Muslims, or even within the different denominations of Christianity, even though its missionary activities should extend to Africa and the outside world, not to the Egyptian


186

186

citizens, whose freedom of belief has to be protected from any fabricated influence. All this made the Committee point to dangers emanating from the increase in the number of organizations working in the same field, and whose leaders must have the correct understanding of religion, and a tolerant view of other beliefs, distant from despicable fanaticism, going only for moral and national discipline. This then means the increase in the Ministry of Social Affair's supervision of such organizations. The Committee also noticed that after religious education became a mandatory subject in curricula according to article 19 of the new constitution, schools have become places of da'awa. The schools that comprise Muslim and Christian children should have organized religious lessons for the Coptic children to learn their religion, and those lessons should show the truths of religion in a wise and broad-minded manner, distant from fanaticism.

c- Censorship on Religious Books: Through its study, the Committee noted that some religious books that have been published in Egypt, by Muslim authors, attack the Christian religion, and vice versa. In both cases, there are complaints that the other's doctrines are being attacked. The Committee has reviewed some of those books which the Azhar perceived as spreading concepts that offend the Islamic religion, and it also reviewed some of the writing and speeches which the Patriarchate saw as offending the Christian religion. The Committee saw that some of those books have not been sent for review to the censorship on publications, even though the printer and the publisher are both known. The Committee also saw that some of those books, among which is a book called The Quran: a Nazarene calling in a series called Towards an Islamic-Christian Dialogue, printed aborad. Mr. Ali Abdel Azeem, of the Islamic Research Institute said that the name of the author printed on that book, a Mr. Haddad, is a pseudonym, because the book could not come except through a specialized group in religious issues with large knowledge in both the Islamic and the Christian religion. He also noted that it was full of mistakes and misinterpretations that were meant to distort Islam, and that such books have come from abroad without being prohibited by the censorship on publications. The Committee also noted that the publications law No. 20 of 1936, which is still in effect, allows the Prime Minister to issue a decree, prevent the distribution of a book inside the country, especially those that offend religion and which could affect public peace. As for the publications that are issued abroad, the administration has the jurisdiction to prohibit them from entering into the country in the first place, whenever that was necessary to protect public order, morality or religion. The administrative court of the State Council had previously supported the Prime Minister's decision, in its verdict in May 11th, 1950, with the confiscation of a book that offended religion in such a manner as to provoke negative sensations and sentiments. The Committee also noted that the censorship on publications could have a more positive role under emergency laws, which has been the case since June 5th, 1967. While reviewing the system of religious books, the Committee noted that some of it had been distributed before getting a permit from the Islamic Research Institute, whereas some used to be reviewed by the Secretariat of the Socialist Union, and at other times by the employees of the censorship administration themselves. The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Culture and Information place a strong system that is effective and enlightened for the censorship on religious books, with a broad mind and without transforming this censorship into a weapon in the face of freedom of scientific research, or to enhance stagnancy and conservatism. It should also guarantee the protection of the principles of religious publications in a country whose religion is Islam… On the political level, within the secretariat for religious affairs, specialized religious offices should be established, to which we may refer should conflicts arise. The Committee also noticed that since September 12th ,1961, no elections occurred with regards the Coptic Orthodox Layman's Council, which is the representative institution existing together with the Clerical Council. The Council was therefore unable to perform its duties. The beginnings of a conflict had started between the Layman's council and the Clerical Council in 1955, and was repeated in 1961, which resulted in that the then Pope had requested that the new elections, that were to be conducted on July 12th, 1961, should not take place. The Committee recommends that the Ministry of the Interior take the necessary measures to ensure that the Layman's Council could fulfill its obligations, according to the Sublime Porte's firman of May 14th, 1883, and according to


187

187

law No. 48 for 1950, which allow the Layman's Council to be temporarily administered by a group of representatives of the denomination, until further elections were conducted.


188

188

Appendix X1 Sadat's speech before

the People's Assembly and the Shura Council, September 5th, 1981.

In the name of God. Brothers and Sisters.

My sons and daughters, representatives of the Egyptian people in the People's Assembly, the Shura Council, and in the consultants body.

First I would like to apologize for having interrupted your vacation, after you have worked honorably and remarkably in the previous parliamentary season, and you have every right to take your vacation. But as you have heard me in my address at the University of Alexandria, when I discussed the issue of the strife that occurred in al-Zawya al-Hamra… I find it my duty, as we are accustomed together, to present to you this matter, and through you, clarify it to all our people, so that we could proceed on the path that we have drawn for ourselves in our constitution, through Shura [consultation], consulting with all people, in every decision we make. After reading the prosecution's account, as I promised you, and as I said in Alexandria, after reading the prosecution's account, I had to put before you the entire picture. As I said, I sensed that the matter was critical, and that it required us all to make a stand…a stand by which we account for ourselves, and also make accountable every person who toys with the destiny of this country, particularly after our destiny has become ours, and the land has become our land, and the will, our will… and no one could talk any more, except for the benefit of Egypt which, is above everything.

The prosecution's report regarding the Zawya al-Hamra incidents says that on 12/16/81, the manure factory of the Public Institution of Egyptian Poultry, reported that an individual named Kamel Marzook Samaan took a piece of land owned by the factory, which was being prepared for expansion, in order to build a prayer section for the factory's laborors. The dispute was resolved through administrative decision No. 6 for 13/6/81, issued by the municipality of Northern Cairo, and it stipulated for the eviction of the individual. The decision was carried out, and the dispute ended thus. It therefore began with a chance dispute, that could happen anywhere, and when people on both sides intervened, the issue was resolved. This was on 12/6. The evening of 17/6, a dispute occurred between members of two families, Maurice Sarofim Ibrahim and Mohammed Mohammed Soleyman, because dirty laundry water was thrown from the former's balcony onto the latter's. The dispute resulted in the slight injury of some members of both families, that required medication for a period not exceeding 20 days.

So far, we also find that the matter, five days after the first incident, was between two families. Two balconies, with laundry, and unclean water dropped over the second. It ended with a fight between members of both families, and they were cured in no more than 20 days, which means it was a trivial issue. However, some rioters used those two incidents within a sectarian framework, far from the truth, and exaggerated in portraying it, spreading rumors that deaths and injuries occurred. Many people therefore rushed without thinking, to commit the unfortunate incidents that occurred. That was how the matter was transformed from a purely individual incident, which often happens between members of the same family or sect. It was taken up by the depraved hands of those who want to toy with this country's interests for their own ends, through inciting citizens and violating their security and national unity. By that, they aim at raising suspicions as to internal peace and stability, using the rashness of some youths, their youthful ages, their immaturity and inability to comprehend, leading them, after stimulating their religious sentiments, to participate in the incidents that occurred. Nothing proves this as much as the fact that the number of youths arrested was 39, between the ages of 14 and 18. Unfortunately, those incidents did not differentiate between those who participated in them, and the innocent bystanders. An example is that a child named Mo'taz Aymen Ali, only two years old, was hit by a bullet that killed him, for nothing other than being, through sheer coincidence, in the balcony of his home. The prosecution also proved that some of those who were killed or injured, were not from that particular community in which the incidents occurred, but were there by coincidence, for some personal business. Some bullets were also fired by shop owners, to drive away the mob.



189

189

At the same time, the mass base of our genuine people, the majority, in an honorable fashion that reveals how the Egyptian people, both Muslims and Christians, care for national unity, refused to participate in those incidents. Their genuineness was also apparent in individual gestures, such as that narrated by Christian citizen Fekri Nemr Aziz, in the investigation, that a Muslim family insisted on hiding him in their home to protect him, because he was liable to be injured by the mobs. The prosecution also pointed to the role of the religious leadership, who showed a real sense of responsibility when they immediately condemned the incidents, and announced that participants in them had departed from the principles of all religions that call for brotherhood, love, and peace. It also pointed to the policemen’s efforts, and their wisdom in controlling the situation, which decreased the numbers of the injured, and prevented more property damage. The seizure of weapons in the area, revoking the licenses that had been given to some people, according to the Minister of the Interior's right in the law of arms and weapons..this, too, had its significance in the protection of public security, which was an essential measure under such circumstances. Such necessary measures helped protect public security, and it was particularly relevant to the quick measures the prosecutions made, as soon as they were informed of the incidents, under the rule of law. All this put matters into perspective, and exposed the mobsters, revealing the whole truth, so that such incidents, perpetrated by a small minority, may not be used again to damage our national unity, which we all cherish.

Those incidents have resulted in the following deaths and injuries… but the numbers changed, and the paper with the changes has not reached me yet. But the Minister of the Interior is with us, and he could tell us the changes.

The Minister of the Interior told me, there were 112 injured, and here it is written 15 killed. The prosecution officially notified us with those numbers: 17 killed, 7 of whom were Muslims, 9 Christians, and one unknown.

Second: 102 were injured, and the changes came and they became 112, among them two officers and three soldiers from the central security forces. It should be noted that some of the injured have not reported their injuries as soon as they occurred, and the reporting came later, after the incidents came under control, and quietude was restored to the neighborhood.

Third: there was damage in 171 places, both public and private properties, which the prosecution has inspected. In many, the damage was slight.

Fourth: Some shops and apartments had been robbed, and their contents stolen. This was done by the opportunists, who have manipulated the delinquents to dabble with the security of citizens and their work places. The prosecution interrogated the injured, the families of the deceased, and witnesses. It has also inspected the damaged places, and determined the damage that was caused, and questioned the owners. It also interrogated those who had been arrested during the incidents, and who, until the evening of Friday 26/6/81, numbered 226 individuals. To this date, 27/6/81, 111 have been released, and 115 are still under arrest pending the investigation. They have been charged with hiding stolen possessions. Those were 115, in 27/6/1981, the date of this report. What is the number now, Nabawi [the Minister of the Interior]? 115, or whatever… and in Alexandria 57 were arrested, and the investigation is still pending the criminal laboratory’s and the coroner's office’s reports, regarding the autopsies, and the cause of injuries. In addition, there is the examination of seized weapons. The public prosecution in this report placed the complete truths before the public opinion, so that it would leave no room for dubious rumors, that might portray the incident in a manner contrary to what it really is. The prosecution's report is finished, as you have heard, and the dead are 7 and 9. The incident, as the prosecution explained, began with a non-sectarian occurrence… people living in one place… once they fought, and attacked each other. But it could have passed just like the first time, which the prosecution here has explained, which was dated the 16th, during which it intervened regarding the land about which the local municipality and the people also interceded, and the subject was closed.

This incident could have well ended in the same manner, but because of the conflict in the second incident, and the constant charging that is occurring on either side, where Muslims are being charged, and the Copts are also being charged… it started to take the shape of sectarianism, where the Muslims supported the Muslims, and the Copts supported the Copts. Sectarian strife, in truth, was not asleep, no… sectarian strife had been alive since 1972. In 1980, and from this very panel, I have given my speech regarding the church…

Meanwhile, those who are called the ‘Islamic groups’ continued the charging process, and prepared themselves. But during that time, they were directed solely towards assisting male and female students… but there is a certain line drawn for these Islamic groups, so that through it, in time, they could become widespread and grow, unpursued, because they were not really doing anything. But work is continuing, and in Alexandria, as I narrated to you in 72, when sectarian strife began, the two sides were Copts and Muslims. You have always heard me say that when, for instance, a journalist or a


190

190

writer in any newspaper, journal, magazine, writes from the viewpoint of malice, I do not waste my time with them. Never. But I am telling them: “Open a file, so that when the day comes, and this newspaper or that magazine writes something harmful to national interest, the whole dossier shall come to me.” And this is the reason for what you are seeing today. I got only 1 over 100 from what I have read, and repeatedly read, word for word.

Before I forget, about the incident of Zawya al-Hamra. I here have a report which I shall leave with you - with the speaker of the house - that says that more than 119 individuals who have participated in the Zawya al-Hamra incidents were criminals, habituated to crime… as well as the thieves from the thieves’ intifada of 77. There were those who had been arrested 13 times before, and others 5, 7, 14, 15, 30, and 7. Twenty two, with all their names… so that when I said that 77 was indeed a robbers' intifada, some did not agree, and claimed that it was the will of the people, and that it was a people's intifada!

I shall now go back to my speech. There was charging on both sides: charging on the Islamic side, made very quietly, and without any extraneous aspect to it; and charging on the Christian side, with substantial fanaticism. As we know, every action has a reaction. When the summer of 72 came, we had not yet gone through our war. I then said that we were perhaps all torn to pieces, and that perhaps that was one of the consequences of fragmentation, and the defeat… I called upon your council for an exceptional meeting in the summer, and we issued the law of national unity, which was afterwards attacked by those who call themselves the opposition, saying it was a law that constrained freedoms. Why did I do that law then? Because I wanted to tell both sides: “Shame on you! This is not the time… because we have a revenge, and we want to take it - by the Canal - and we have a defeat which we want to wipe out of our history.”

I said perhaps the law of national unity, giving severe punishment, might perhaps be an impediment to this... but it was not. Sectarian strife continued, as you know, until it reached inside the university, in October 72. Before that, in July, I had expelled the Soviet experts in 72. They entered [the university], and the communists’ aggravation continued, in addition to the rightists’ aggravation, because of the minister I had expelled from the ministry then, in addition to sectarian strife - all that was in October, November and December of 72. You heard me say that our military condition was exposed. I began to resolve the problem, and worked on a fact-finding mission, from within the council, in which Christians and Muslims participated. It worked on its report, and went to the Azhar, and then to the Patriarchate, and the crisis ended.

It was my estimation that the crisis had ended. Quietly, as you had heard me, when the head of the church, Bishop Shenouda asked for Churches, I told him: “Don't you want to be a leader…no, you have a right to demand churches. How many do you want?” He told me 30 to 35, and I said: “No, make them 50.” By this, I was giving a message, that the issue was not at all one of control, nor of trying to impose the will of Muslims over Christians, or this or that, especially in the building of churches, over which there had always been problems… I am telling him - and actually told him then - when I said: “Make them 50,” I told him I will not take permission and say: “Please, how many shall I give Bishop Shenuda?” No. I am the decision maker in this country, and I trust that my people, the Muslims, will understand exactly as their brethren the Christians, what I mean, because we are mature, and we have bypassed the stage of sectarianism, and sectarian strife. We have bypassed the imperialists who have infused strife between Muslims and Christians when they were here, and they were the ones who unfortunately left all those seeds.

By this message, I wanted to tell him this, and I left, thinking that the matter was closed. But no, it was not, and the matter continued to dissipate for some time, and then resurface again; then go down one more time, and so on.

It was very natural that the Islamic groups would react. Natural, because as long as there is an action on one side, there will be a reaction on the other. We began to hear those things called the “Islamic Groups,” and that they were different from the Muslim Brotherhood. They said the Islamic groups were something else. And the incidents began – and continued until 1980, last year, when I came and told you about them, when the incidents had reached their maximum - with what happened as an action from the head of the church and those with him, and they had a reaction that was multiplied a hundred times by the Islamic groups, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

In the beginning, I wish to tell you one thing. In the beginning, I wish to tell you that the Muslim Brotherhood, as an organization, does not officially exist. They are illegitimate, because according to the decision of the Revolution's leadership council, they were liquidated. There isn't, therefore, any organization, and it has no right to issue a journal either.

I want to add more. I saw Bishop Shenuda, but I also saw al-Telmessani, and told him what I am telling you now: “Telmessani, the organization is illegitimate, based on the decision of the


191

191

Revolution's Leadership Council. Write a new request, and send it to the Ministry of Social Affairs, so that you may register the organization again.” Until this happens in the spirit that we all know, the spirit with which I told Shenuda to take 50 churches, not thirty or 35…. I told Telmessani also to present a request, also so that the journal takes its place, but… no religion in politics, and no politics in religion. The Islamic groups began to look inside themselves… all that time they took was enough to crawl into the flammable material that we have: the youths, or the university students. And they took their time from 1972 till 1981, and then started to flex their muscles. This was true, not only from 1981, but also about two or three years ago. You heard me. I was in Upper Egypt, and in Menya University, a professor told me: “Help us, because our situation is unbearable.” By God those are children and let us give them a chance, and we truly did give them a chance. Unfortunately this was taken to be a weakness on the part of the authorities, by either side, whether the Islamic groups and the Muslim Brotherhood, or by Bishop Shenuda, in our Coptic church. Until we arrived at the Zawya al-Hamra incidents.

What happened in Zawya al-Hamra? Only what I told you before. But what made me stand in the University of Alexandria and tell you that when I get back from America, I will talk to you about the Zawya al-Hamra… if it had been within the limits of the prosecution's report, it would have ended, because fights happen. No. The Minister of the Interior in the Zawya al-Hamra, even though he had been criticized by some parties who said he worked in politics instead of security… his position is a political position before being a security position. Whatever he resolves through politics is certainly much better than whatever he resolves through security and the involvement of forces. We should thank him for that, not blame him.

I told him: “What do you have, Nabawi?” He told me: “I contacted Helwan quickly…” That was in Zawya al-Hamra, towards Sharrabeya… which means Northern Cairo… and

Helwan is in the southernmost part… “I called Helwan because the Sheikh there had been told while at prayer, that 400 Muslims were killed by the Copts.”

The al-Nur mosque here, in Abasseya… statements and leaflets… when were they done? Who paid for them? What is all that charging so quickly? When the incidents occurred in Sharrabeya, Helwan was also moving, and the Sheikh in the mosque came out with 1500 people. Had Nabawi not called him and asked him to stop that nonsense, and that there were no 400 killed, nor 100, nor any such nonsense….

On the Christian side, the same thing… churches burnt and 300 Christians killed… and as we have seen, [the numbers are] 7 and 9, and one unknown.

What is the significance of this? What made me pay serious attention to that issue was this: that if the same thing happened tomorrow - and it happens all the time between friends, where the people of both balconies… just an ordinary story, throwing a bucket over the laundry… it happens every day within one family, within one house, within one village… and all that is happening every day… But the charging is continuing. What further attracted my attention was, guess what? The mosque called al-Nur mosque in Abasseya, and all the Islamic groups, and organizations… there is a difference between Islamic groups, universities, and organizations registered with the Ministry of Social Affairs… and we know all the groups… But what's new, is that the organizations registered with us, who are supposedly [run] by sane people, gathered in al-Nur mosque, and [they cried] "Islam is finished, Muslims, Islam is finished, Muslims…[to the] Jihad…!" Half a kilometer away from it lies the Cathedral, and Pope Shenuda. Half a kilometer on the same street of this al-Nur mosque… the same was being said: "Christianity is finishing. The Copts are being ambushed by the Muslims, and they are being arrested…" All right. This could happen. If in Sharrabeya this is the picture, and it left such consequences that must be resolved… then if we are in a future stage, what will happen? Where will this state go?

That is the reason why I called you, to ask you to put that issue before you, through our people… And as usual I got up… well, bring me all the dossiers, and all that has been written… and I stayed for 10 days, reading and analyzing. What did I find?

When al-Telmessani came to me, I had planned to get him into the Shura Council, considering that we have the right to appoint some individuals. That way, we would have Copts appointed, and also al-Telmessani, so that inside the Council people would begin to know each other. As we said, the Shura Council is a family council… I did not know then, that the Islamic groups and the Muslim Brotherhood, as I will show you now - there is nothing called Islamic groups and others Muslim Brotherhood - they are all one. The Brotherhood apparently wanted to avenge itself of the 1923 Revolution … but why revenge?

I was surprised. I can understand that Shenuda could make a mistake, because he wants to be a leader of the Copts, and a political leader, and also wants to achieve personal goals… feeling that the


192

192

Copts are persecuted… he wants to do something. I wanted to understand why. I continued to understand of course, and the proof is that I met with Telmessani… I met him in Ismaileya when I gathered the Islamic groups there. I called him and said: "Isn't it shameful, Telmesani, to write in your al-Daawa [newspaper] that America sent Mamdouh Salem, when he was Prime Minister, to strike the Islamic groups because they were a danger to them?… Isn't it shameful to say those words, Telmessani… Do we get orders from anyone, and do we accept that?” When there were 15.000 Soviet experts, as soon as I smelt the odor of the Soviet Union trying to force their will on us, I got them out in a single week.

I told him this to his face, and he was unable to answer, even though I did not know… Let us see the issue of al-Daawa, which, as I told you, is illegitimate… al-Daawa and the Muslim Brotherhood organization are both illegitimate, as I told Telmessani… but in the spirit of the family, I told him go and register, and get permission, but from here and there. Let al-Daawa continue, but no politics in religion, and no religion in politics.

While forming the government, I appointed Albert Barsoom Salama [a Copt], as Minister of State, and then because of his actions… they told me he will say it is I who brought you a third minister… because to them it is a question of numbers. What is their population count? [What are] the positions they are in? Two ministers I got you… But I feared this would become a standard principle, that the attitude similar to Bishop Shenuda's, would bring results. No. When I appointed Albert, I did not think how many Coptic minister, and how many Muslims there were. Never. By my nature, 2,3,4,5 could be governors, 2,3,4,5. I was sending a more dangerous message. This message was one day, in the new city of Tenth of Ramadan, where, for the first time in the history of the Copts, the government built a church, at the expense of the state, without the request of the Copts. Why? Because we have entered a new stage, and it was a message saying that the issue of building churches was nonsensical, and we are done with it, and have passed it, so do not waste your time on it anymore. The Azhar participated in placing the foundation stone.. the Azhar participated, even though you all know how agitating this is for the Azhar. I forced them, and I was fierce with them… and true enough the foundation stone was laid, for the mosque and the church - the Azharite and the Christian. But no one understands by signs. Then I said I was a Muslim president of a Muslim country, where Muslims live next to Christians, and the people are also one.

My message was not understood - by the Muslims in particular. The first message of the church of the Tenth of Ramadan was directed primarily to the head of the church. It meant: “Do not waste the state's time about a church and nonsense. Here is the state building one, so do not waste our time.” But he did not understand that when I said ‘a Muslim leader for a Muslim country,’ it was directed to the Islamic groups and the others. [It meant] that a Muslim president of a Muslim country will not accept that the harming of any individual, especially if he was of the People of the Book, which means a Christian or a Jew. Never - from near or far - because our Quran says that. It says we should believe in what came to Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. Both sides did not understand, and I therefore have to make them understand.

This is the speech I have to direct to the people now, after taking the measures that I have taken, and I shall read it to you, so that it reaches people through you.

Consensus measures shall be taken, according to article 74, and it has executive decisions that will be broadcast now, because I have signed them, regarding the religious groups, the laws required, the organizations, and the legitimate activities. You will see all, but now, God willing, I shall read out the statement.

For some not so short a time now, some destructive factions, over the period of different stages, have tried to incite sectarian strife among the people of this nation, and have drudged very hard to destroy its national unity, using, for such ends, misleading mottoes, and illegitimate means, both psychological and material, to obstruct the progress of the people on their road to development, prosperity, and democracy. The government has confronted those factions, at times through the usual measures, and at others with advice, and many others still, with guidance and instruction.

Recently, more specifically, grave incidents occurred that were massively dangerous, threatening national unity, social peace, and the peacefulness of the internal front. Those ill-intentioned factions have gone too far in their actions, giving no weight to either morals or laws, and were far removed form the correct path. They walked a path of violence, terrorism, and blood-shedding, threatening peaceful people. Some individuals have also used those incidents and deliberately magnified them. This necessitated taking some quick and immediate measures to thwart this danger that threatens national unity, and the peace of that nation. [Such measures] stem from our constitutional responsibility, as in article 73 of the constitution; and also through the jurisdiction given to me, according to article 74 of the constitution, which states that the president of the republic, when faced


193

193

with a danger that threatens the peace of national unity and the security of the individual, obstructing the state's insitutitons from carrying on their constitutional role, could take quick measures to confront that danger, direct a statement to the people, and conduct a consensus regarding the measures he has taken, within 60 days. We have decided the following:

First: prohibiting the use of religion to accomplish political or party objectives. Prohibiting the use or manipulation of places of worship for that purpose, and prohibiting the harming of national unity, social peace, or the peace of the nation. This is the second decision, and the names of the people are printed in the decision. The decision is ready with the newspapers now, and shall be distributed to you.

Third: Appropriating the finances of some institutions, organizations, groups and societies that have conducted any activities or work that has threatened national unity, social peace, or the nation's safety. Signed by the President of the Republic, No. 475 for 81 in this regard, and which shall also be distributed to you and to the newspapers.

Fourth: Dissolving some registered organizations, according to law No. 32 for 64, regarding organizations and private institutions, that have conducted activities that threatened national unity, social peace, and national safety. Republican decision No. 492 for 81 has been issued, and is also ready and shall be distributed to you.

Fifth: Canceling the licenses given for the issuance of some newspapers and publications, and seizing their finances and headquarters. This decision has been issued as No. 492 for 81, and is also ready for distribution.

Sixth: Transferring some faculty members from universities and higher institutions, who have exhibited new evidence of exercising activities that were harmful in forming public opinion, or educating youths, threatening national unity, social peace, or the nation's safety. Transferring them to employments which the Minister of Education and Scientific Research will decide upon, in coordination with the competent ministers. This is in my decision No. 490 for 1981.

Seventh: Transferring some journalists and others who work in national press institutions, and some of those working in the Radio and Television Union, and the High Council for Culture, about whom we have incriminating evidence that they have conducted activities that had a harmful effect on shaping public opinion, and threatened national unity, social peace, and the nation's safety. Transferring them to the State Information Institution, or some other governmental institutions which the Prime Minister will determine. This is in my decision No. 489 for 81.

Eighth: Repealing Republican decree No. 2782 for 71, with the appointment of Bishop Shenuda, Patriarch of Alexandria and the Holy See of St. Mark, and the formation of a Committee to carry on papal duties, which consists of five bishops. Those are:

First: Bishop Maximus, Bishop of Qalyoubeya. He is a Coptic scholar who had been nominated for the papal seat. Second: Bishop Samuel, Bishop of Public Services and the Migratory Churches. He was previously nominated as patriarch and had won the majority of the votes. Third: Bishop Gregory, Bishop of Scientific Research and Higher Coptic Studies, and director of the High Institute of Coptic Studies. Fourth: Bishop Athanasius, Bishop of Beni Sueif and Bahnassa, who currently works as deputy of the High institution for Coptic Endowments, and is an ex-secretary of the Clercial Council. Fifth: Bishop Yuanes (John), Bishop of Gharbeya, and the current secretary of the Clerical Council. And that, so that the Church would not remain without representation before the state. I have taken those measures after consulting with the loyal people of this State and the

Church. Those bishops should immediately begin healing public Coptic feelings inside [Egypt], and abroad, to break the wall of fanaticism, hatred, and malice, and replace it with the spirit of love and forgiveness. This Committee should present the government with all the necessary recommendations to restore the Church to its traditional and genuine role, as an active component of a single body, in the name of the State, spreading the spirit of love and humility, patience and wisdom, towards all denominations and people, in which it was a pioneer before all the churches of the world.

"May You, oh God, forgive us if we forget or commit a mistake. May You, oh God, not burden us with the burden of a sin, as You have done to people before us. May You, oh God, not make us carry what we could not carry. Absolve us, forgive us, and have mercy upon us. You are our lord, so make us victorious over the heathens."


194

194


195

195

Appendix XI1

Statement of the Layman’s Council On September 23rd, 1981

The General Coptic Orthodox Layman's Council convened, in the presence of the Bishopric

Committee which was formed by Presidential Decree, in the joint meeting between the People's Assembly and the Shura Council, on September 5th, 1981. After seeing the results of the public referendum, which took place on the 10th, agreeing to al the measures that were included in the President's statement.

The Council would like to announce that the incidents at Zawya al-Hamra ascertained that there were hidden hands planning and conspiring to harm our dear country, which was always an example of stability, and was truly described as an island of peace and security. The General Layman's Council thanks the Lord that He has given Egypt that great, insightful headman and leader, capable of feeling dangers before they occur, thereby taking the necessary measures before they do. The Council fully understands that the President has taken those measures regarding the protection of national unity after much thought and patience, and after perilous phenomenon had begun to surface, by which the President saw, with his conventional wisdom, that had they been left without decisiveness, would have inevitably resulted in grave consequences. It was then that the leader of the Egyptian family has issued his historical and courageous decisions, that aim first and foremost at the protection of national unity. It is because he knows that this unity was always, and shall always be, God willing, the protective shield for this nation, from any danger, and the solid rock over which the malice of the malicious people, and the greed of the greedy shall be broken.

The General Coptic Orthodox Layman's Council has therefore unanimously issued the following decisions:

1- The total support of all the decisions regarding national unity which the President has announced in his historical speech, in the joint meeting between the People's Assembly and the Shura council, on the 5th of this current September. The Council considers those decisions an important transformation point in the history of Egypt, and joins the opinion, which says that it is a new revolution, because it means the dawn of a new age, and hope in a dignified life. It is a revolution that has restored to Egypt its national glory, and has strongly unified its children, and restored trust and confidence to all their hearts.

2- Praising the meaning of the referendum and its marvelous results, and the wondrous nationalism shown by the Egyptian people on that historical day, where full solidarity between the Muslims and the Christians, the clergymen and the laymen, has been shown.

3- Ascertaining full confidence in the Bishopric Committee, because of the long history of its members, known for their services to the nation and the Church. The Layman's council also assures that it will cooperate with this Committee in all loyalty, to enable it carry on its duties and competencies, in all success, God willing.

4- Supporting all the decisions issued by the Coptic Orthodox Clerical Council, in its session of the current September 22nd.

5- Full approval of all the recommendations of the People's Assembly and the Shura Council, in their reports about the President's statement, in the joint Committee of both councils, on the 5th of September, and beginning to execute those recommendations which fall within the jurisdiction of the General Coptic Orthodox Layman's Council.

6- Presenting our deepest thankfulness and gratitude, to the President for abolishing the expression 'the two factions, Muslims and Christians,' which was the prevalent expression until the fifth of this month. Supporting his decision that from that date, there is only one faction and one nation in Egypt, because this decision, issued by the leader of the Egyptian family, stresses national unity, which is one in mutual confidence between the citizens, and one in the cooperative work for the enhancement and happiness of the people.



196

196

Based on all the above, the General Coptic Orthodox Layman's council strongly supports the President's announcement to the Egyptian peole through the television and radio broadcast, on the 4th of this current September.

All people are finite, we are all finite, but Egypt I everlasting. Egypt of peace and security. Egypt of love, tolerance and faith. Egypt of unification and unity. Egypt of the Muslims and Copts. Egypt of the one people and one faction. Long live Egypt with all its children, and for all its children.


197

197

Appendix XII1 The Ethics Court

The Pope’s Condemnation

Law suit number 23 for 11J, Ethics January 3rd session, 1982

After hearing the defendant's lawyer's oral statement and after reviewing the papers and

discussing them legally. Since the late President of the Republic had issued decree number 491 for the year 1981 on

September 2nd, 1981, after consulting article 74 of the Constitution, with regards repealing the Presidential decree number 2787 for 1971 regarding the employment of Bishop Shenuda, Bishop of Alexandria and the St. Mark See, and his decision to form a committee of five bishops to carry on the papal duties (the official gazette, issue no.36, September 1981. On September 5th 1981, the President of the Republic gave a speech to the Egyptian people in which he mentioned that

"For some not so short a time now, some destructive factions, over the period of different stages, have tried to incite sectarian strife among the people of this nation, and have drudged very hard to destroy its national unity, using, for such ends, misleading mottoes, and illegitimate means, both psychological and material, to obstruct the progress of the people on their road to development, prosperity, and democracy. The government has confronted those factions, at times through the usual measures, and at others with advice, and many others still, with guidance and instruction.

Recently, more specifically, grave incidents occurred that were massively dangerous, threatening national unity, social peace, and the peacefulness of the internal front. Those ill-intentioned factions have gone too far in their actions, giving no weight to either morals or laws, and were far removed form the correct path. They walked a path of violence, terrorism, and blood-shedding, threatening peaceful people. Some individuals have also used those incidents and deliberately magnified them. This necessitated taking some quick and immediate measures to thwart this danger that threatens national unity, and the peace of that nation. [Such measures] necessitated taking quick and immediate actions to confront that danger which is threatening national unity, for the peace of this nation, stemming from the constitutional responsibility, as in article 73 of the constitution."

The statement also pointed to "the jurisdiction given to the President, according to article 74 of the constitution, which states that the president of the republic, when faced with a danger that threatens the peace of national unity and the security of the individual, obstructing the state's insitutitons from carrying on their constitutional role, could take quick measures to confront that danger, direct a statement to the people, and conduct a consensus regarding the measures he has taken, within 60 days." The President has therefore decided prhoibiting the use of religion to accomplish political or party goals, and prohibited the use of places of worship for that purpose, or affecting national unity or social peace and the security of this nation, for there shall be no politics in religion and no religion in politics. The President has also taken other decisions, among them decree number 491 for 1981, previously mentioned. He then issued Presidential decree number 497 for 1981, inviting the voters to a public referendum for the measures and principles of protecting national unity and social peace stated in the afore-mentioned statement, and that was on Thursday September 10th, 1981 (Official Gazette, issue No. 36 rpt. On September 5th, 1981), and a referendum was conducted on that date and approved the contents of that statement and themeasures taken (Egyptian Wakaa'e- issue 210 rpt., On September 11th, 1981).

And since Bishop Shenuda, through his representative Mr. Hanna Narouz, the lawyer, has presented a plea against the presidential decree number 491 for 1981, previously mentioned, before this court, according to paragraph 5 of article 34 of the law of protecting Values from Shame, issued by law number 95 for the year 1980, and amended with law number 95 for the year 1980, amended by law number 154 for the year 1981. In this plea he has requested the cancellation of that presidential decree,



198

198

considering it as though it had never happened, and said, explaining his plea, that the decree in question here has been issued with the cancellation of presidential decree number 2783 for the year 1971, regarding his appointment as Pope of Alexandria and the St. Mark See, and the formation of a committee to carry on the papal duties, even though the cancelled decree had been made only to support the measures taken according to religious rituals that have been performed and that have been in consistence with the by-laws regarding the election of a pope. The decree has therefore been issued in contradiction with the traditions and customs of this country, ever since the beginning of Christianity in Egypt, and since the entrance of Islam to it. This cancelled decision, being an administrative decision, has been fortified through the passage of the legal period according to the law, following its issuance, which is 60 days, and therefore after the passage of that period it could not be cancelled. Finally, the late president did not reveal the motives behind issuing this decision which is pled against, except that which he mentioned in his speeches and statements, which had been dictated to him through some opportunistic Christians and others, and that the plaintiff has no connection to the incidents of sectarian strife, but rather, has worked continuously and diligently for national unity and for the best interest of Egypt.

And since in the defense statement the deputy to the public prosecutor (who is a consultant with the administration of governmental lawsuits), stipulated for the rejection of the plea and the temporary refusal of it. He presented a statement with documents that include two documents presented by the State Security, which include the reasons for issuing the decision which is pled against. One could understand from those documents that the plaintiff, ever since he was appointed to the papal seat in the year 1971 has deliberately done the following:

First: Subjecting national unity and social peace to danger: He has committed specific incidents that aim at resurrecting the sectarian tone, which calls for

Egypt being a Coptic country which had been colonized by the Muslims. During the month of August 1973, he met in the Syrian Monastery with the editorial members of the Kiraza magazine which he chairs, and asked them to make the primary aim of the newspaper the resurrection of the sectarian identity, and the Coptic language, and discussing the problems of the Copts on its pages, in frankness and courage. During the month of January 1975, he opened classes for teaching the Coptic language at the Bishop Roweiss premises in Abasseya. He also issued orders to all churches to open similar classes, with the aim of resurrecting the same old note that Egypt is Coptic, and that the Muslims are intruders. During the month of September 1975, he gave orders to the churches to refrain from celebrating their feast on 12/9/75, and gave a speech in his weekly sermon that included that the church was grieving, and did not explain a reason for this. Based on that, the Sunday School leaders said that the reason behind this was that the Copts were passing through a sad period as a result of their persecution by the Muslims, in addition to the fact that the president of the Republic has repeatedly refused meeting with Pope Shenuda. On 11/1/77, he met with the priests of the Monofeya governorate, and asked them to raise the awareness of their people to increase their birth rates, and urged the youths to marry, because Egypt was basically a Coptic state that had been colonized by the Muslims, which meant that the official religion of the state had become Islam, and that the constitution should have mentioned both Islam and Christianity. He also asked them to give special attention to proselytizing, and moving outside the church, participating in political conferences, and visiting governmental and public places to enforce the Christian presence. He also gave a speech at the St. Mark Cathedral in Abasseya entitled the "Bernaba's Bible and how it contradicts the Quran." He referred to some Quranic verses and the opinions of some Muslims scholars to prove that it contradicted the Holy Quran, which encouraged other Christian writers to follow his footsteps. He also gave another lecture in the same Cathedral, entitled "The Trinity and the Unification" in which he also referred to some deliberately deviated and out of context Quranic verses to respond to the criticism which is directed to the Christian religion.

Second: Urging for the hatred of the existing regime: That was on 1/8/77, when he organized a meeting at the Holy See, which he chaired, and he

made a decision to present a memo to the President of the Republic, which included the rejection of Christian denominations of the application of the Islamic Shari'a and the apostasy law, and the necessity to resolve the problems of the sects. He also suggested that the members of the See organize a walk that would include members of the denomination and go to the headquarters of the president of the republic and embassies and the press, to express their rejection of Muslim and authorities


199

199

persecution of the Christians. However this has been delayed, awaiting the results of the meeting between the representatives of the Holy See at that time with the President. He also used the incident of the murder of Father Gobrial Abdel Metagalli, priest of the Tewfikeya Church in Menya, on 3/9/78, based on the provocation of Bishop Antonius Thabet, deputy to the Alexandria Patriarchate, and organized conferences and demaned Coptic demands, and raised suspicion as to the objectivity of the police and prosecution. This was done to fuel and incite the feelings of people of his denomination. This also coincided with the Camp David accords, with the aim of pressuring the authorities to acquiesce to Coptic demands. During October 1979, he dispatched Bishop Tadros, Bishop of Port Said, to Cyprus, with a number of bishops, with the aim of fuelling the Christian public opinion abroad against the local authorities and the regime in Egypt, and called for the Coptic organizations and institutions abroad to intervene and lobby with the authorities to prevent the application of the Islamic Shari'a. He also used the incident of the attack against three Christian students on the university campus in Alexandria on 18/3/1980, and dispatched Bishop Antonius Thabet, deputy to the Alexandria Patriarchate, to organize conferences with the Christian students with the aim of fuelling their feelings and inciting them against the authorities. He also invited the Holy See to convene and issue a decision to refrain from celebrating the Resurrection Day, and refuse to accept the participation of the authorities in the celebrations. All this coincided with the President's last visit to the United States, where he provoked the Copts abroad, and especially the Coptic institutions, to take a hostile stance during the president's visit, with the aim of pressuring the authorities to acquiesce to the Coptic demands.

Third: Giving a political hue to the Papal position, and using religion to achieve political

aims. This was on s24/2/75, when he headed the General Coptic Orthodox Layman's Council, and

issued a decision that the legal committee of the Council should meet and study the local municipalities law, in order to demand the representation of the Copts in local councils. He also asked them to study the personal status law and demand the application of the Christian law, and prohibit the use of the Islamic Shari'a law in cases of the differences in denominations. He also decided to send letters to the state authorities to demand Coptic representation at the Socialist Union. On 19/7/75, he organized a meeting with the clergymen of the churches of Alexandria, at the Patriarchate, and asked them to conduct a statistical count of the Christians in Alexandria, to complete the private register of the Patriarchate. He also ordered Bishop Bimen, the then general bishop, to pass by all the bishophrics in the republic and meet with the members of the Sunday School there, and ask them to quickly complete the procedures of the statistical count of the Christians. On 5/1/77, a meeting was organized for the clergymen of Cairo, at the Patriarchal headquarters at Abasseya, in which he gave a speech calling them to quickly complete the unified personal status law for all Christian denominations, to present it to the executive branch, to demand its application before the completion of the Muslim's personal status laws. He criticized the Christian lawmakers for not using the prevalent democratic environment and presenting their suggestions with regards the Christian personal status laws. During august 1977, on the occasion of what was published sin the newspapers regarding the application of the apostasy law, he organized several meetings with the clergymen of Cairo, and Christian lawyers, and members of the councils, to discuss the effect of that law on the Christians, and the necessity to express to the authorities in an official and public manner, that this law was rejected.

On 1/9/1977s, he organized a meeting with the members of the church councils in Cairo, and a number of the bishops, at the headquarters of the Cathedral in Abasseya, and took a decision in which they announced an uninterrupted fasting period as of 5/9/1977, to express the rejection of his people of the apostsasy law. On 20/2/1979 he headed a meeting at the Holy See to discuss the personal status law directed at the Christian denominations, and pointed to the fact that he had secured the approval of the Coptic Catholics and the Coptic Evangelicals for the law, and that this was an achievement of a victory for him and the other denominations, proving to the authorities that there were no differences between the different Christian denominations. He demanded the formation of a committee to respond to the activities of the Islamic Publications Committee and its criticism of some Christian beliefs. On 28/10/1979 he urged Bishop Antonius Thabet, deputy to the Alexandria Patriarchate, to call for a public meeting at the St. Mark Church in Alexandria on 1/11/1979 to discuss the issue of the amendment of article 2 of the Constitution, in order to pressure the authorities and make them feel the rejection of the Christian people of that amendment. On 14/11/1979 he organized a meeting at the Bishop Bishoi Monastery in Wadi'I'Natrun, with a number of bishops and Christian clergymen to prepare a memo which included their objection to the application of the Islamic Shari'a,


200

200

and directing admonition to the deputy of the Alexandria Patriarchate for postponing the conference which was to be organized on 1/11/1979 with the Christian leaders, to a time following the discussions of the People's Assembly regarding this issue. He assigned the deputy of the Patriarchate to send an invitation for a conference with members of the branching Laymen's Councils to announce the Coptic opinion before the issue goes for discussion at the People's Assembly. On 7/11/1979 he organized a meeting at the Catheral in Abasseya, which was attended by some bishops and a number of the members of the Layman's Council, as well as a hundred members of the branching councils, to present the suggestions that should be made to the second article of the constitution, to protect the Copts. The attendees signed the memo at the end of the meeting, agreeing to the suggested addition to article 2 of the constitution, which is the phrase "but not to contradict the Coptic beliefs." On 8/11/1979 he organized a meeting at the Papal headquarters in Abasseya with the leaders of the Christian denominations and representatives of the foreign Catholic churches, to discuss the amendment to article 2 of the constitution. He also gave orders to the bishopric in Sohag to assign the intellectuals of his denomination, in particular the lawyers, to write memos that object to the amendment of article 2 of the constitution.

At the end of December 1979, he met with some Bishops at the Bishop Bishoi monastery in Wadi'I'Natrun, and a discussion between them ensued, regarding the amendment of article 2 of the constitution. He commented that he was awaiting the results of his meetings with the authorities regarding the guarantees he asked to be added to the amendment of article 2 of the constitution to protect the Copts, and that should they be rejected, he said: "I shall make it blood to the knees from Alexandria to Aswan."

Fourth: Inciting: In addition to the afore-mentioned, on 10/7/1972 he organized a meeting with the clergymen

of Alexandria and asked them to move and make the government feel their presence in order to achieve their demands, either through their continuous contacts with the representatives of the other Christian denominations in Alexandria, and informing them of the persecutions, in order to secure their compassion and support. On 17/7/1972 he organized a general conference for the clergymen of the Alexandria churches, to study the problems of the denomination with him. He assigned some priests to make an announcement about this conference, and its refusal to accept the Ministry of the Interior's request to postpone it for security reasons, claiming that the leaders of some Christian mosques in Alexandria were attacking bishop Bishoi Kamel, priest of the St. George church in Alexandria and were threatening to kill him. On 11/11/1972 he organized a clergymen's meeting in Cairo, following a fire that broke in the organization of Friends of the Holy bible in al-Khanka. He gave orders to proceed to the organization's premises and pray there, and asked them to cover the ground with their bodies until they are martyred, if they were stopped. He then left Cairo to the monastery following this incident, so as to seem distant from them, and then called for the Holy See to convene and announce an uninterrupted period of fasting and grieving of the Church to protest this.

On 13/11/1972 he gave a sermon at St. Mark's Cathedral in Abasseya, on the occasion of his first ascension of the papal seat, in which he condemned the Khanka incidents, and claimed Coptic persecution during the month of March 1973. On the occasion of the public opinion's attention to drug trafficking cases, in which the accused are Rafla Ghobrial and Sadik Ghabbour and others, he organized a meeting with some of the leaders of the Sunday School and urged them to spread a rumor among the Christians in the churches that those were sectarian cases that aimed at harming the reputation of the Christians. He also isolated himself in the Bishop Bishoi Monastery in Wadi'I'Natrun, on the occasion of his ascension of the papal seat, and did not celebrate his ascension as was organized on 14/11/1979.

Since the law for the Protection of Ethics from Shame number 95 for the year 1980 had dedicated an entire chapter to the procedures before the Ethics Court, in which article 36 states that "whoever is transferred to the Ethics Court should have a lawyer to present him who is acceptable before the Appeals Court", and article 37 of the same law which states that if the person does not himself attend after having been called before this court, the court could issue a verdict in absentia which could not be disputed. This court's opinion therefore, based on those two articles, has decided that the defendant's lawyers could not defend the defendant in his absence, and if he does not attend the court will issue a verdict. If the defendant does not show up to the session designated to discuss his plea, the court will issue a verdict in absentia, and despite that, Mr. Hanna Nairoz the lawyer came to represent the plaintiff and presented five files with documents which the court has reviewed, and which included photocopies of a number of letters exchanged between the plaintiff and the different prime


201

201

ministers in the different years, and between him and the public prosecutor and the minister of justice, and some photocopies of the statements which the Holy See has issued under his chairmanship, as well as some letters exchanged between representatives of some authorities regarding the attacks against the properties of the patriarchate. As soon as the deputy to the public prosecutor announced the incidents against the defendant, and recounted them to all those present, [the lawyer] immediately announced that he changed his mind about presenting the plea.

And since what the public prosecutor has discussed in his memo regarding the rejection of the plea, mentioning that the plea is only regarding the issues that the were decided upon by presidential decree, it is answered that article 34 of law 95 for the year 1980, with the issuance of the law to protect ethics from shame, amended by presidential decree with law number 154 for 1981, had made the chapter on pleas and procedures according to article 74 of the constitution within the competence of the ethics court alone. The president of the republic issued the decree under question here, according to article 74 of the constitution, as is clear form the decision, and therefore the decision is genuine because it has been according to the natural law, and then the proper competence was given to the Ethics Court and is therefore within its competence. The fact that the people's referendum approved the decision does not change it also since the role of the people in a referendum is only a political role, which means approving its issuance, but does not exclude the court from exercising its right to look into the plea and supervise those decisions.

And since what the plaintiff has discussed in his plea that the decision that had been cancelled by the decree under question has been issued correctly in form, and has been fortified by the passage of 60 days - despite the fact that the procedures were correct inform, and 60 days had passed, the plaintiff has overlooked the fact that legal jurisprudence is only made to govern ordinary circumstances, and since this did not discuss the measures that should be taken in case of immediate danger, then the authorities should be enabled to take the necessary measures that would work with a sublime target, which is the best interest of the state, and which is the necessity of securing the state and protecting it from the menace of the menacing people, an the protection of the state and securing its peace, and this does not contradict the legitimacy of the principles according to article 74 of the constitution, which indeed emphasizes this principle which gives the president of the state, in exceptional cases and when necessary, provides the authorities with the right to take the necessary measures to confront any danger that threatens national unity and the peace of this nation. This is based on exceptional circumstances, or necessary ones, that necessitate the application of the legal jurisprudence which has been made for ordinary circumstances. No doubt the afore-mentioned president's speech, was evidently exceptional circumstances in which this country has gone through, and which necessitated the exercise of his constitutional right as per article 74 of the constitution, which means that this plea is not based on a true fact in reality or in the law, which necessitates its rejection.

And since the defendant did not appear before the court as required by the law, in order to discuss the evidence that was presented in the memos of the deputy to the public prosecutor and which had been read out in the session, but preferred to present his representative who attended instead of him, contrary to the law, which makes the court reject the plea and makes it believe that it is all true and real.

And since the court, with its popular formation and its political essence expresses the conscience of the entire nation, has seen without a shadow of a doubt the truth of all the previously mentioned incidents, showing precisely that the plaintiff had not seen that Egypt's land, throughout the cneturies has witnessed a brotherhood that protected Egypt and secured the basic values of the Egyptian society, among which is national unity and social peace, and, even if their religion is different, none had ever stepped over the national border, and were a model for other contemporary people, praising the peace which always spread over this land, and on whose rocks the attempts at strife has been dashed. That is how the movement for unity, peace, security and safety among the people of this whole nation has been, whatever their religion, without discrimination, with its glory being members of its community throughout the ages and times. This continued to be the case until the Copts of Egypt decided to bring him [the pope] hoping that he would push the procession forward, but he disappointed them and departed from the correct path dictated to him by the state's laws, and used religion as a curtain behind which to hide his political aims, which the Copts of Egypt are innocent of. He also added to this greed an alternative, which, according to his expression, was a sea of blood in which the entire nation sank from coast to coast. He made his utmost effort to push forward the wheel of strife with utmost speed, and without guidance, throughout the state, not caring about the state that protected him and the nation that one day had nominated him. He has therefore taken off the robe which the Copts had given him in love and brotherhood.


202

202

For all those reasons, the decree against which this plea has been presented is correct, based on the evidence provided, which means that the verdict is rejecting the plea.


203

203

Appendix XIII 1

Roman Egypt: List of Popes and Emperors

Pope Ruled Emperor (birth/death) Ruled Comments Main Events 1 St. Mark 58-62 and

68 Claudius 10 B.C.-54 A.D.) Nero

41 54-68

Pagans killed St. Mark

2 Anianus 62-83 Galba (c. 3B.C.-69A.D.) Otho (32-69) Vitellius (15-69) Vespasian (9-79) Titus (39-81) Domitan 51-96)

68-69 69 69 67-79 79-81 81-96

Cornithos Gnostics

3 Abilius 84-95 4 Cerdon 96-106 Nerva (c.30-98)

Trajan (53-117) 96-98 98-117

Pope martyred during Trajan persecution

5 Primus 109-118 Hadrian (76-138)

117-138

Hated Jews and persecuted them and the Chirstians

6 Justus 121-129 continued persecution 7 Eumenius 131-144

Antonius Pius (86-161)

138-161

continued persecution Stopped persecution

8 Marcianus 144-152 9 Celadian 154-166 10 Agrippinus 167-178 Marcus Aurelius (121-180) 161-180 11 Julian 178-188

Commodus (161-192) 180-192

Pantaenus appointed head of Didascalia (180).

12 Demetrius I 191-230

Pertinax (126-193) Didius Julianus (c.133-193) Septimus Severus (146-211) Caracalla (c.188-217) Macrinus (? - 218) Heliogabalus (204-222) Alexander Severus (c.208-235)

193 193 193-211 196-217 217-218 218-222 222-235

Persecution again and closed down School Persecution

13 Heracles 232-246 Maximinus Gordianus I (159-238) Philippus (204-249)

235-238 238-244 244-249

Persecution and Pope escaped Persecution

14 Dionysius 247-264 Decius (200-251) Gallus (? - 253) Aemilianus Vallerianus (?- 260) Gallienus (c. 218-268)

249-251 251-253 253 253-260 260-268

Wished to restore paganism. First systematic empire-wide persecution. Less persecution but when Diphteria attacked he was told it was because of the Christians and he repersecuted them. Resumed persecution in 257 and flogged Pope Stopped persecution and allowed Christians to pray and build churches publicly.

Monastisicm Nepos Sablios Simsati

1 Compiled by M.Tadros


204

204

(War with Zenobia) 15 Maximus 265-282

Claudius II (? - 270) Aurelianus (c. 215-275) Tacitus (? - 276) Probus (232-282)

268-270 270-276 275-276 276-282

Pope was diplomatic with Rome and therefore there were no persecutions. Regained Zenobia

16? Bebnouda six months

The pope had castrated himself for which he was dethroned after having been officially a pope for less than six months. The Orthodox church excludes him completely from its lists, and he is not counted as the 16th pope.

16 Theonas 282-300

Carus (?-283) Numerianus (?- 284) Diocletian (245-313)

282-283 282-284 284-305

The Great Persecution began in 303

17 Peter I 300-311 Maximinus Daia (?-313) Constantius I (?- 306) Galerius

305 293-306 305-311

Persecution and Pope was killed. He was called the Last of the Martyrs. Edict of Toleration

Arius the Heretic

18 Achillas 312 Constantine I (280-337) 306-337 Beginning of Byzantine Empire in 330. Edict of Milan to stop persecution. Beginning of autocratic state.

The Nicene Creed and the Nicene Council in 325

19 Alexander I 313-326 20 Athanasius I 328-373

Constantius II (317-361) Julian (the Apostate) (332-363) Jovian (c.331-364) Valens (328-378)

337-361 361-363 363-364 364-378

Persecution of Christians & brief return to paganism. Return to Christianity without pagan persecution. Pro-Arian emperor, persecuted opponents.

21 Peter II 373-380

22 Timothy I 380-385 Theodisius I (347-395) 379-395 Decree announcing Christianity official religion of the Empire in 394. Was initially tolerant of pagans and then in 391-392 prohibited them and closed down their temples.

Constantinople Council in 381

23 Theophilus 385-412 Arcadius (377-408) Theodisius II (401-450)

395-408 408-450

Christians persecute the pagans. John Chrysostom banished in 404

Eutachy

24 Cyril I 412-444 Jews thrown out of the cities for sectarian strife incidents.

Nestor (431) Ephesians Council in 449

25 Dioscorus 444-457 Pulcheria (Marcian) (?-457)

450-457

Murdering the papal substitute Proterius whom the emperor had appointed.

Chalecdon 451

26 Timothy II 457-477 Leo I (?-474) Leo II (c.468-474) Zeno (426-491)

457-474 474 474-491

First Emperor crowned by Patriarch of Constantinople which later became traditional.


205

205

Unified Eastern Churches in 482: Zeno’s Henoticon, hence split from Rome in 484 (decree of Unity).

27 Peter III 477-490 28 Athanasius II 490-497 Anastasius (430-518) 491-518 Brought peace to Egypt bec. he

was a monophysite but angered patriarch of Constantinople

29 John I 497-507 30 John II 507-517 31 Dioscorus II 517-520

Justin I (450-527) 518-527

Persecuted Monophysites.

Julianus Jacobus Bardaeous

32 Timothy III 520-536 Justinian I (482-565) 527-565 33 Theodisius I 536-568

Refused to attend council and a

massacre ensued and the pope escaped three years.

34 Peter IV 568-570 Justin II (?-578) 565-578 35 Damian 570-603

Tiberius II (?-582) Mauricius (539-602) Phocas (?-610)

578-582 582-602 602-610

Coptic revolution and massacres. Reduced pressures on monophysites. Bloodiest emperor

36 Anastasius 603-614

Heraclius (575-641) 610-641

Combined See of Alex with Antioch. Apollinarius patriarch of Antioch. Anastasius took flight in Wadi Natrun - Coptic heirarchy expelled from Alexandria.

37 Andronicus 614-620 Chosroes, Persian king occupied Egypt in 619

Beginning of Arab Rule

Pope Regin Ruler/Caliph Dates Governors of Egypt Comments and main events

38 Benjamin I 620- 659♠ Omar Ibn al Khattab Othman Ibn Affan Ali Ibn Abi Taleb

634-644 644-655 655-661

Amr Ibn al Ass Abdullah Ibn Saad Qais Ibn Saad/ Mohamed bin Abi Bakr

Al Fostat as capital/ Al Mokawkas was Roman governor of Egypt Synaxarium mentions pope’s death in 673.

39 Agathon 659-677 Al Hassan ibn Ali Mu’awiyah Ibn Abi Sufian

661 661-681

Amr Ibn al Ass Otba ibn al Abi Sofian Abdullah Bin Qais Aqba bin Amer Bin Abs Mosallama Al Ansari

Beginning of Ummayad Caliphate

40 John III 677-686 Abes Bin Said

♠ There are different dates for the death of Benjamin: Synaxarium mentions his death in 673, Yohanna mentions 659, and Meinarus mentions 662. However, it is the Yohanna dates that we find nearer to accuracy throughout.


206

206

Mu’awiyah ibn Yazid Marwan bin al Hakam Abdel Malik bin Marwan

681-684 684 684 684-705

Mosallama Al Ansari Said bin Yazid al-Azdi Abdel Rahman bin Otba Abdel Aziz bin Marwan Abdullah bin Abdel Malik

41 Isaac 686-689 42 Simon I 689-700 43 Alexander II 703-726 Al Walid bin Marwan

Soliman bin Abdel Malik Omar bin Abdel Aziz Yazid bin Abdel Malik Hisham bin Abel Malik

705-714 714-717 717-720 720-724 724-743

Kora bin Shoreik/ Abdel Malik bin Rifaa Osama bin Yazid Ayoub bin Sharhabeel Bishr bin Safwan al Kalbi/ Hanzala bin Safwan/ Mohammed bin Abdel Malik Al Hor bin Yussef/ Hifs bin al Walid

44 Cosmos I 726-727 Abdel Malik bin Rifaa/ Al Walid bin Rifaa/ Abdel Rahman bin Khalid/ Hanzala bin Safwan/ Hifs Ibn al Walid

Implemented taxes on animals

45 Theodosius 727-739 46 Khail I 739-767

Al Walid bin Yazid Yazid bin al Walid Ibrahim ibn al Walid Marwan bin Mohammed Abi al-Abbas bin Moh. Al Mansour bin Mohammed

743-744 744-745 745 744-750 750-754 754-775

Eissa bin abi Ata Hifs bin al Walid Hassan bin Attaheya/ Hifs bin al Walid/ Al Hawthara bin Sahl/ Al Mogheera bin Obaid Alla/Abdel Malik Bin Moussa/ Saleh bin Ali Aba Awn Abdel Malik Mousa bin Kaab/ Mohammed bin Al Ashaath/ Bin Qohtoba/ Yazid bin Hatem/ Abdullah bin Hodeig/ Mohammed bin Abdel Rah/ Moussa bin Ali

Beginning

of Abasside

Dynasty

47 Mena I 767-776 Mohammed al-Mahdi 775-786 Mohammed bin Suleyman 48 John IV 776-799

Moussa al Hadi Haroun al Rasheed

785-786 786-809

Moussa bin Ali Eissa bin Lokman Wadeha Mowla Abi Gaafar Mansour bin Yazied Yehia bin Dawood Salem bin Sawada Ibrahim bin Saleh bin Ali Mousa bin Mosaab Osama bin Omar al-Fadel bin Saleh Ali bin Soliman Moussa bin Eissa Mosallam bin Yehia Mohammed bin Zohair/ Dawood bin Yazid/ Moussa bin Eissa/ Ibrahim bin Saleh/ Abdallah bin Zoheir/ Ishac bin Soliman/ Harthama bin Ayoun/

- 807: Al-Rasheed signs a pact with Charlmagne, granting Christians the right of a safe


207

207

Abdel Malik bin Saleh/ Obaid Allah bin Mahdi/ Moussa bin Eissa/ Obaid Allah bin Mahdi/ Ismail bin Saleh/ Ismail bin Eissa/ Al Layeth bin Al Fadl/ Ahmed bin Ismail al Saleh/ Abdullah bin Al Abassi

passage to Jerusalem.

49 Mark II 799-819

Mohammed al Amin Abdullah al Maamoon

809-813 813-833

Al Hussain bin Gamil/ Malek bin Dalham/ Al Hassan bin Gamil Hatem bin Harthama/ Gaber bin al Ashaath/ Ebad bin Mohammed Al Moteleb bin Abdullah/ Al Abbas bin Moussa/ Al Motteleb bin Abdullah

50 Jacob 819-836 Mohammed al-Motassem

833-842

Qeidar/ Al Mozaffar bin Qeidar/ Moussa bin Al Abbas/ Malik al Hendi/ Abi Gaafar Ashnas

51 Simon II 837-837 52 Joseph 837-849

al-Wathek bin al Motassem al-Motawakel

842-847 847-861

53 Khail II 849-851 54 Cosmas II 851-859 Beginning of

Iconoclastic move. In Europe

55 Shenute I 859-880 al-Montasser al-Mostaeeein al-Mutaz al-Muhtadi al-Mutamad Ahmed bin Tulun

861-862 862-866 866-869 869-870 869-870 870-884

Beginning of the Tulunids, 870-905

56 Khail III 880-907 Khamarweya bin Ahmed Khamarweya’s army rule Haroun bin Khamarweya Shiban bin Ahmed Al-Moktafi bin al-Motaded Al-Moktader bin al-Motaded

884-895 895-896 896-904 904-904 905-908 908-932

Beginning of Second Abasside Dynasty 905-934

57 Gabriel I 909-920 58 Cosmas III 920-930

Al-Kaher bin al-Motaded Al-Radi bin al-Moktader Mohammed Iskhshid

932-934 934-934 934-946

Beginning of the Ikhshidis, 935-968

59 Macarius I 937-952 Anogoor bin Ikhshid

946-961

60 Theophanius 952-956 61 Mena II 956-974

Abi al-Hassan Ali bin Ikhshid Kafoor al-Ikhshidi

961-966 966-968


208

208

Abil Fawares bin Ali Al Mu’izz bin al-Mansour

968-973 973-975

Jawhar Sicilli, 969 - Beginning of the Fatimite Dynasty, 969-1171 - Building Cairo - Initiation of Hisba System

62 Abram 975-978 Al-Aziz Bellah bin al-Mu’izz 975-996 63 Philothaus 979-1003

Al-Hakim Beamr Ellah 996-1021

-Destruction of Holy Sepulchre, 1009

64 Zachary 1004-1032 Al-Zahir bin al-Hakim

1021-1036

65 Shenute II 1032-1047 Al-Mustansir

1036-1094

66 Christodolus 1047-1078 Badr al-Jamali, 1073 - Great Famine in Egypt

- 1095: Great Schism between Eastern Orthodox Churches and Western Catholicism.

67 Cyril II 1078-1092 68 Michael I 1092-1102

Al-Mostaali bin al-Mostansir Al-Amer bin Al Mostaali

1094-1101 1101-1130

- 1095: Pope Urban’s Speech - First Crusade, 1097 - Establishment of the 4 Latin principalities: Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli, and Kingdom of Jerusalem.

69 Macarius II 1102-1128 70 Gabriel II 1131-1145 Al-Hafiz bin Mohammed 1130-

1149 1144: Edessa

regained, initiating Second Crusade led by King Louis VII of France and Roman Emperor Conrad II.

71 Michael II 1145-1146 72 John V 1147-1166

Al-Zafer bin al-Hafez Al-Fayez bin al-Zafer Al-Adod bin Yussef

1149-1154 1154-1160 1160-1171

Saladdin becomes vizier in 1161

73 Mark III 1166-1189

Saladdin

1171-1193

Baha Eddin al-Sasadi, (Karakoush)

- 1168: King Amalric of Jerusalem tries to conquer Egypt. - Conflict between

Shawer and Dirgham, governors of different Egyptian provinces. Al-Adod calls on Shirkuh and Saladdin for assistance.

- 1169: Shirkuh dies and Saladdin takes over, regaining Egypt for the Abassides.


209

209

- Beginning of Ayyubi Dynasty, (1171-1260)

- 1187: Saladdin regains Jerusalem and kills Renaud de Chatillon in the battle of Hattin.

74 John VI 1189-1216 Al-Aziz bin Yussef Al-Mansour bin al-Aziz Al-Malik al-Adel

1193-1198 1198-1200 1200-1218

- 1192: Third Crusade arrives, led by Richard the Lion-Hearted, Philip II of France, and Frederich Barbarossa of Italy. Battle with Saladdin and treaty signed with Richard for the latter’s retreat.

- 1204: Fourth Crusade diverts to Constantinople.

- 1217: Fifth Crusade, led by John of Brienne, King of Jerusalem, and initiated by Pope Innocent III and Frederick II. Battle of Rashid, and defeat of Crusades.

No pope 1217-1234

Al-Malik al-Kamel 1219-1238

- 1228: Sixth Crusade

headed by Frederick II. Treaty signed bet. Al-Kamel and Frederick.

- 1219: Arrival of Francis Assissi, and beginning of Catholicism in Egypt.

75 Cyril III 1235-1243 Al-Adel bin al-Kamel

1238-1240

No pope 1243-1250 Al-Saleh bin al-Kamil Al-Malik al-Moazzam Shagarat al-Dor

1240-1249 1249-1250 1250

- 1249: Seventh

Crusade led by Louis IX of France.

- 1250: Louis taken prisoner and treaty signed.

76 Athanasius III

1250-1261 Ezz Eddin Aybak Nur Eddin Ali bin Aybak Al-Mozaffar Seif Eddin Qotoz Al-Zahir Baybars

1250-1257 1257-1259 1260-1277 1260-1277

Beginning of First Mamluke Dynasty (1250-1382) - 1260: Battle with

Houlagou - Restoration of

Abasside Caliph al-Mostansir and abolishment of Shiism from Egypt.

77 Gabriel III 1268-1271 78 John VII 1271-1293

Berket Khan Baybars Salamesh bin Baybars Al-Mansour Qalawoon Al-Mansour Qalawoon Al-Nassir bin Qalawoon

1277-1279 1279 1279-1290 1290-1293 1293-1296

79 Theodisius II

1294-1300 Al Malik Al Adel Al-Mansour Lagine

1294-1296 1296-1299


210

210

Al-Nassir bin Qalawoon 1299-1308

80 John VIII 1300-1320 Baybars al-Gashenkeer Al-Nassir bin Qalawoon

1308-1341 1308-1309

81 John IX 1320-1327 82 Benjamin

II 1327-1339

83 Peter V 1340-1348 Sons of al-Nassir: Seif Eddin/ Shihab Eddin/ Emad Eddin/ Shihab Eddin again/ Zein Eddin (al-Malik al Mozaffar)/ Nasser Eddin

1341-1362

84 Mark IV 1348-1363 Mohammed bin Hagi

1360-1362

1352: Pope signs edict issued by al-Saleh with constraints over Copts.

85 John X 1363-1369 86 Gabriel

IV 1370-1378 Shaaban bin Hassan 1376-1381

87 Menaus I 1378-1408 Hagi bin Shaaban Al-Zahir Barkook Abdel Aziz bin Barkook Farag bin Barkook

1381-1382 1382-1398 1398-1405 1405-1412

Beginning of Second Mamluke Dynasty (1382-1517)

88 Gabriel V 1409-1427 Al-Mustaeen Bellah Al-Mahmoudi Ahmed bin al-Mahmoudi (& Seif Eddin Tatar & Mohammed Tatar) Yussef bin Bers Bay

1412 1412 1421-1422 1422-1435

1422: Discovery of Cape of Good Hope.

89 John XI 1427-1452 Al Zahir Gakamf 1438-1453

90 Menaus II 1452-1465 Othman bin Gakamf Al Ashraf Eenal Ahmed bin Eenal Al-Zahir Hosh Kadam

1453 1460-1461 1460-1461 1461-1467

Abasside Caliphs: Mohammed al-Motawakkel

1453: the Ottomans take Constantinople.

91 Gabriel VI

1466-1474 Al-Zahir Bilbai (& al-Zahir Tamr Bagha) Al-Ashraf Qayet Bay

1467 1467-1495

92 Michael III

1477-1478

93 John XII 1480-1483 94 John XIII 1484-1524

Toman Bay Qonsowa al-Ghouri Al-Malik al-Ashraf Toman Sultan Selim I Sulyman the LawGiver

1501 1501-1516 1516-1517 1517-1520 1520-1566

Abdel Aziz Yacoub Abu Saber al-Yacoub (last of the Abasside Caliphs) Egypt governed by Pashas: Ahmed Pasha/ Ibrahim/ Qassim/ Suleyman/Daoud/Mohammed/ Iskander/ Ali/ Mahmoud

Beginning of Ottoman Rule (1517-)

95 Gabriel VII

1525-1568 Selim bin Suleyman

1566-1574

96 John XIV 1571-1586 Murad bin Selim

1574-1594

97 Gabriel 1587-1603


211

211

XIII Mohammed bin Murad 1594-1603 98 Mark V 1603-1613 Ahmed bin Mohammed 1603-1617 99 John XV 1613-1623

Mostafa bin Mohammed (then Othman then Mostafa again)

1617-1623

100 Menaus III

1623-1646 Murad bin Ahmed 1623-1640

101 Mark VI 1646-1656 Ibrahim bin Ahmed Mohammed bin Ibrahim

1640-1648 1648-1687

102 Menaus IV

1660-1675

103 John XVI 1676-1718 Suleyman bin Ibrahim (then Ahmed then Mostafa) Ahmed bin Mohammed

1687-1703 1703-1730

1684: Catholic Franciscan missionaries arrive in Egypt.

104 Peter VI 1718-1726 105 John XVII 1727-1745

Mahmoud bin Mostafa 1730-1754

106 Mark XII 1745-1769 Othman bin Mostafa Mostafa bin Ahmed Ali Bek al-Kabir

1754-1757 1757-1760 1760-1774

107 John XVIII

1769-1796 Abdel Hamid I Selim III

1774-1789 1789-1807

Khorshid Pasha (1804-1805)

- 1798-1801: Arrival

and Departure of French Expedition.

- 1799: Treaty with Sublime Porte.

108 Mark XIII 1796-1809 Mohammed Ali (1769-1849)

1805-1849 1840: Establishment of the Khedivate system.

- Proclamation of Independence from the Ottomans.

109 Peter VII 1810-1852 Ibrahim Pasha Khedive Abbas I

1848 1848-1854

110 Cyril IV 1854-1861 Khedive Said 1854-1863 - Copts exempt from paying

Gizya. - 1856: Hamayouni Decree,

stipulating for the enlistment of Copts in the army.

- 1856: Protestantism comes to Egypt through Hogue.

111 Demitrius II

1862-1870 Khedive Ismail

1863-1879

- Inauguration of Suez Canal - 1878: Establishment of first

ever Egyptian cabinet. - 1874: Formation of

Layman’s Council 112 Cyril V 1874-1927

Khedive Tewfik Abbas Helmi II Sultan Hussein Kamel King Fouad I

1879-1892 1892-1914 1914-1917 1917-1935

Consecutive

British Consul-Generals:

- Lord Cromer (1883-1907) - Sir Eldon Gorst (1907-1911) - Sir Herbert Kitchner (1911-1914)

- 1881: Orabi Revolution - 1882: British Occupation of

Egypt. - 1892: Pope banished to

monastery & returned 1yr later.

- 1904: International sanctioning of British occupation.

- 1906: Denshewai Incident.


212

212

- Sir Reginauld Wingate (1917-1919) - Lord Allenby (1919-1922)

- 1908: Formation of first Christian party.

- 1910: Assassination of PM Boutros Ghali.

- 1911: Coptic conference, followed by Islamic conference.

- 1914: WWI, and the announcement of Egypt as a British protectorate.

- 1918: National Jihad Day. - 1919: Exile of Zaghlul and

colleagues to Malta, and eruption of Revolution.

- 1919: Milner Committee arrives.

- 1921: Adly/Curzon negotiations.

- Formation of 1924 Constitution 113 John XIX 1928-1943

King Farouk I 1936-1952

Govt. of Sidki Pasha 1931

- 1928: Founding of Muslim Brotherhood

- 1933: Establishment of Powerful Egypt Party.

- 1936: Al-Izabi Pasha’s Ministerial Decree, regarding the building of churches.

- 1936: Anglo/Egyptian Treaty

- 1937: WWII begins - 1937: Mentro Convention - 1942: British tanks

surround palace and force king to replace his PM with a Wafd PM.

114 Macarius III

1944-1945

115 Joseph II 1946-1956 King Ahmed Fouad II Mohammed Naguib Gamal Abdel Nasser

1952 1953-1954 1954-1971

- 1948: Establishment of State of Israel.

- Founding of an Egyptian Republic

- 1954: Pope Kidnapped by Christian group.

116 Cyril VI 1959-1971 - Constitution of 1956: stipulating the appointment of 10 Copts to parliament.

- 1956: Nationalization of Suez Canal.

- Tripartite Aggression (France, Britain and Israel attack Egypt).

- 1957: Mandatory religion subject in schools.

- 1961: Nationalization laws. - 1967 war and defeat

against Israel 117 Shenute

III 1971-? Anwar al-Sadat

1971-1981

- 1971: changing temporary constitution.

- 1972: Khanka sectarian incidents.

- 1973: victorious war over Israel.

- 1977: the Poor’s Intifadah. - 1979: changing constitution

again. - 1981: al-Zawya al-Hamra


213

213

Hosni Mubarak

1981-?

sectarian incidents, and the banishment of the Pope soon after.

- 1981: Assassination of Sadat