Chapter three: The Persecution of Copts and Racial Discrimination Committed by the Umayyad Caliphs

  In fact, the Umayyads opposed Islam and fought against it for years to protect their trade and financial interests; they 'converted' to Islam later on in order to protect those interests. They were leaders of the Qorayish trade caravans in the annual winter and summer journeys. Those caravans allowed the Umayyads to form close ties with all Arabian tribes, especially the Christian Arabian tribes on the route to the Levant. Those tribes helped the Umayyads to conquer the Levant, within the caliphate of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab. Those tribes helped the Umayyads to consolidate their rule within the Umayyad caliphate. This was why the Umayyads did not persecute Arabian Christians but treated them as equals. During the Umayyad Era, the governor of Iraq, Khaled Al-Qasry, had built a church for his Christian mother. The famous Arab Christian poet Al-Akhtal used to enter the Umayyad courts and palaces as a dear friend of the Umayyad dynasty, while flauntingly wearing a cross around his neck. Upon his death, the Umayyad caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz was buried in the Samaan monastery in Damascus, upon his request while dying of poison. Apart from the Umayyad caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, all Umayyad caliphs practiced racial discrimination fanatically as the norm against all non-Arabs in the conquered nations. Hence, the Umayyads in general persecuted Iraqis and Persians and this had driven them to revolt many times against the Umayyads and to support any revolting Shiites/Alawites. Likewise, the Umayyads persecuted Egyptians/Copts just because they were non-Arabs, and they treated them as second- or third-class citizens. In fact, the Umayyads considered Egypt as their pasture filled with milk and honey and all types of riches and wealth that must be confiscated annually. Hence, heavy taxation and tributes drove Egyptians/Copts to revolt many times. Typically, the Egyptians are the most patient of all nations to bear with injustices of rulers; yet, the Umayyads tyranny exceeded all limits of Copts/Egyptians. Al-Makrizi mentions that Copts helped Amr Ibn Al-As against the hated Byzantines until victory was achieved; Amr Ibn Al-As made caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab write a treaty of peace addressed to the Coptic pope or patriarch, Benjamin, in 20 A.H., and the patriarch came to meet Amr Ibn Al-As and eventually filled his patriarchal chair that remained empty for 13 years, as the patriarch was fleeing persecution of the Byzantines. The Copts/Egyptians bore patiently with the increasing greed of Amr Ibn Al-As as they felt bout to return the favor done to Benjamin, as the latter exerted greater influence on hearts of Copts. But circumstances aggravated when the Umayyad caliphs, sons/heirs of the caliph Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam, persecuted Egyptians in a way that would try the patience of saints. Persecution was suffered at the time even by Coptic patriarchs, clergymen, and monks. During the times of the Umayyad governor of Egypt Abdul-Aziz Ibn Marwan (who was the father of Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz who became a caliph later on), all possessions and lands of the Coptic patriarch were confiscated twice, and this governor ordered his men to count the number of monks to force them to pay tributes; this was unprecedented at the time that monks would pay any tributes. One Umayyad governor of Egypt, Abdulla Ibn Abdu-Malik, son of the caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan, was so severe in dealing with Copts, and his footsteps were followed by his successor Qurra Ibn Sharik, and Al-Makrizi asserts that Coptic suffering, ordeals, and grievances reached unprecedented levels. When Copts revolted in Eastern Delta in 107 A.H. because of the greed and tyranny of the governor Abdullah Ibn Al-Habhab, the Umayyads committed a heinous massacre against the Copts. During the regain of the Umayyad caliph Yazeed Ibn Abdul-Malik, the governor of Egypt Osama Ibn Zeid Al-Tanukhi went to many extremes in persecuting Copts, as confiscated all their money, lands, and possessions and forced monks to wear iron bracelets around their wrists, under the pain of cutting off their hands or heads or torturing them to death in case anyone would not comply to this imposed practice. This governor confiscated all lands and money of all monasteries and convents, broke many crosses on top of churches, convents, and monasteries, and demolished many churches. During the regain of the Umayyad caliph Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik, the governor of Egypt Hanzala Ibn Safwan collected heavy tributes and taxes and ordered the counting of all Copts; he forced them to wear small tattoos shaped like lions on their hands, under the pain of cutting off their hands in case anyone would not comply to this imposed practice. In 177 A.H., Muhammadan Arabs living in Egypt were angry and protested vehemently against Copts who built St. John church, and they demanded that the governor, named Al-Waleed Ibn Rifa'a, would demolish it because it was built without getting a prior written permission. Coptic grievances escalated to the extent that Copts revolted all over many cities and villages in Upper Egypt in 121 A.H. until 132 A.H. as revolts and rebellion reached Delta cities like Rashid and Samanud, and the Umayyads violently quelled and severely crushed these revolts during these years. In 132 A.H., the last Umayyad caliph, Marwan Ibn Muhammad, was defeated by the Abbasids, and he had to flee from Damascus and take hiding in Egypt; he was taken aback by the ongoing revolts of Copts against injustices committed by the Umayyads. Despite his being weakened by military defense and battles against the danger of Abbasids who coveted the throne of caliphate and raised arms and troops against him, the fleeing last Umayyad caliph mustered all his strength and troops to quell Coptic revolts violently and managed to crush them. He kept hiding and moving throughout Egyptian cities to avoid confronting the troops of Abbasids who sought to kill him off to put an end to the Umayyad dynasty, until he was found, assassinated, and buried in Abou Seir village, Al-Fayoum, Egypt. Before his death there, Marwan Ibn Muhammad was taking hostage the Coptic patriarch and a group of monks and laymen Coptic leaders of the revolts, and the Abbasid troops set them free. Egypt was ruled later by the governors appointed by the Abbasid caliphs, but sadly, the Abbasid Era was also another stage of the persecution of Copts.                                                          

Fourthly: The Persecution of Copts after the Umayyad Era:

  The Umayyad Era ended in 132 A.H., and Abbasid caliphate reigned supreme in Egypt even during semi-independent rule of dynasties like the Tulunids, the Ikhshidids, the Fatimids, and the Ayyubids, as the Mameluke Era began after the Abbasid caliphate ended. Persecution and discrimination events in Egypt against Copts went on during the Abbasid Era and even during both the Mameluke Era and the Ottoman Era, for 12 centuries. The incidents and events of the persecution of Copts fill volumes, but we outline the main features of that persecution of Copts within brief points as follows.

Firstly: the period between 132 to 253 A.H. within the Abbasid Era:

  This period begins with the first Abbasid caliph till the caliphate of Al-Motawakil. Copts revolted many times against injustices and tyranny of governors who ruled Egypt after being appointed by the Abbasid caliphs. In most cases, acts of persecution were committed by agents of the formal ruling authority that always aimed at getting as much money from tributes and taxations as possible by force and using violence, leaving no choice for Copts but to revolt many times, and each revolt would quelled and crushed violently after massacring some Copts. Let us give some brief examples below.  

1- In 150 A.H., Copts revolted in the city of Sakha, with the Nile Delta, and they chased away the tax-collectors; the Abbasids sent their troops there led by Yazeed Ibn Hatem. Copts attacked the Abbasid troops by night and killed some of the soldiers, and later achieved initially victory over some troops, but the Abbasids supplied more troops successively to aid their troops sent earlier to Egypt, thus defeated and vanquished the revolting Copts, and took revenge by burning down some churches. Soon enough, Copts of Sakha had to pay a tribute of fifty thousand dinars to the Abbasid governor of Egypt, Suleiman Ibn Ali, so that they implore him not to burn down more churches, and after he took the  money, he went on burning some more to spite the Copts there. This governor was succeeded by another, namely, Moussa Ibn Eissa, who was advised by enlightened Egyptian theologians, scholars, and imams at the time (e.g., Al-Leith Ibn Saad) who told him that re-building churches was an integral part of reconstructing great cities, and Moussa Ibn Eissa was thus convinced and gave permission to Copts to rebuild all demolished churches, but injustices committed against Copts and unjust heavy tributes and taxations remained pretty much the same as ever.        

2- In 156 A.H., Copts revolted again in the village of Bilheet, and the governor Moussa Ibn Eissa had to send them troops that defeated them, and his men killed all men of the village and enslaved all women and children. The Abbasid caliph Al-Maamoun came to visit Egypt; he reproached governors and their men for their injustices and cruelty that caused Coptic revolts, and he issued decrees to apply some reform measures.  

3- The Coptic revolt that broke out in 216 A.H. was the last military revolt of Copts in Egypt, as they resorted from that date onward to clandestine operations of resistance. Al-Makrizi, who never hides his bias and fanaticism against Copts, writes that after Coptic revolt of 216 A.H. was quelled violently, all Copts in Egypt were humiliated and no one of them dared to disobey rulers, and the 'Muslims'/ Muhammadans of all cities and villages defeated the angry Copts, and the latter had to resort to secret intrigues, plots, and schemes to seek revenge.

Secondly: during the reign of Al-Maamoun:

   The reign of the Abbasid caliph Al-Maamoun had witnessed a new phenomenon: the rise and emergence of extremist, fanatic Ibn Hanbal doctrine/school of thought and its imams, while the rationalism of Al-Mu'tazala thinkers receded and dwindled, as they were defeated by extremists. Imams and narrators/fabricators of hadiths of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine managed to win the Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil to their side, and they exerted much influence over him. This influence led the Abbasid caliphate to begin to persecute its foes who held different religious and political views and doctrines. Hence, Sufi sheikhs were interrogated within inquisition-like trials, while Shiites were chased and persecuted, and the Abbasid caliph ordered the Shiite 'holy' Al-Hussein mausoleum in Karbala city, Iraq, to be demolished. Caliphate decrees were issued to persecute Jews and Christians (including Copts in Egypt), while Ibn Hanbal doctrine imams and narrators of hadiths issued fatwas (religious edicts or views) and fabricated narratives/hadiths to provide quasi-religious legislative framework to support such practices of discrimination and persecution. Among the hadiths they forged a one that still persists till today within the religious culture of the Muhammadans in their man-made Sunnite religion: (those who saw vice must change it by force using their hands…). This false hadith has been refuted by us in an article of ours, published in the Cairo-based, independent Al-Ahrar newspaper, in Egypt. This false hadith remains as the practical constitution of all extremists and fanatics now. As far as Copts of Egypt are concerned, this false hadith led persecution to be committed not only by those in the sphere of rule and politics, but also by the ordinary Sunnite  Egyptians in the streets among the masses, who were influenced by more fabricated narratives/hadiths and fatwas to be filled with animosity toward Copts (and all Christians), Jews, Shiites, and Sufis. This persecution spread from Egypt and Iraq into all other countries ruled by the Abbasids at the time. Hence, the persecution of Copts by formal authorities metamorphosed at the time into full-fledged religious persecution against Egyptian Copts by the Sunnite Egyptians. With the passage of time, the influence of such narratives, hadiths, and fatwas became greater and as part and parcel of the Sunnite faith tenets, thus deepening discrimination and division among Egyptians and moving away the Egyptian Muhammadans from the real religion of Truth, the Quran, revealed to Muhammad. Sadly, any Egyptian Sunnites of today who may desire to become more 'religious', they peruse books of those Sunnite Ibn Hanbal imams/authors, as those books are made available now under the title of Sunna and fiqh. These books of myths contain the hadiths and narratives to which we refer here, and the gullible readers would assume that such hadiths are ascribed to Muhammad, overlooking the fact that they were written down and ascribed falsely to him two centuries after his death, within many series of narrators that prove nothing of the authenticity at all and are laughter-inducing if taken as proofs. It is a tragedy that the 'Muslims' of today– to whom we refer as the Muhammadans – believe that such falsehoods and lies ascribed to Muhammad as part of faith tenets, thus thinking that hating non-Muslims is part of religion, even if those ''others'' are peaceful and non-violent oppressed minorities. Evidence: nowadays, we read in newspapers and watch in media of our modern times many incidents of persecuting Copts in Egypt as the Salafist/Wahabi Ibn Hanbal trend gains more ground in Egypt and is ascending nonstop. Wahabism is a revival of the extremist, fanatic Ibn Hanbal doctrine, launched by the KSA. The main features of Wahabism are obscurantism, close-mindedness, extremism, bigotry, and fanaticism as well as persecution of non-Wahabis who are declared as infidels/apostates/heretics, and such declaration would result in massacring and looting. Hence, Wahabism/Salafism that wreaks havoc in Egypt is intentionally breathing new life into the Middle-Ages backwardness and obscurantism that dominated within the reign of the Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil, as extremist theologians, fanatics, imams, and bigots who controlled him and consequently the caliphate called themselves as ''the Sunnites'' or ''People of the Sunna'', and this appellation used for the first time marks the emergence of the full-fledged Sunnite religion. Those imams/scholars continued to control other caliphs who succeeded Al-Motawakil, and that became the norm in policies of the Abbasid caliphate for a long time. The Wahabi extremism revived all such traditions in our modern age all over the countries of the Arab world and all the other countries of the Muhammadans using the Saudi influence and money. It is not surprising that famous imams/fabricators of hadiths who lived at the time during the Abbasid Era, such as Ibn Hanbal, Al-Bokhary, Moslem, etc. have become infallible gods/deities in the 20^th century within the countries of the Muhammadans; those reformers, like ourselves, who would dare to criticize/refute them, as authors who may err, would be deemed as infidels accused of apostasy and heresy as deniers of Sunna and Islam! Let us go back to the topic of persecution of Copts during the reign of Al-Motawakil. In 235 A.H., Al-Motawakil issued a decree aiming at humiliating all dhimmis (including Copts) throughout the Abbasid Empire, by forcing them to adhere to certain dress codes, to demolish churches newly built without prior permission, to collect tithes, tributes, and taxes from their houses instead of waiting for each of them to deliver it to tax-collectors, to impose on them to stick portraits, depicting the devil, on their doors and gates, to stop 'Muslims' educating and employing them, to prevent them  from riding horses, to stop their processions carrying crosses in public in their festivals and feasts, and to demolish their cemeteries. Thus, governors of Egypt applied such a decree on Copts, and this became the norm for a long time. Thus, such a decree entailed that people, or the masses, must help apply all such decisions on Copts, and this launched the tradition of encouraging people to persecute Copts in Egypt. Hence, the masses learnt from corrupt imams that by showing and applying such discrimination, animosity, and persecution, one proves being faithful to 'Islam' (or indeed, the Sunnite religion). This gross deception and misunderstanding passed from one generation to the other, even 'religious' governors of Egypt like Ahmed Ibn Tulun (who later on ruled Egypt independently but within the Abbasid caliphate, establishing the dynasty of the Tulunids) who was known for his religiosity and his eagerness to commit bloodshed for the sake of the throne. Indeed, Copts never posed any danger or threat to his sovereignty and power; on the contrary, Ahmed Ibn Tulun employed Copts as scribes in his divan  and in other governmental posts. Yet, on several occasions, persecuted Copts as individuals and created obstacles for Coptic churches and institutions. Ahmed Ibn Tulun had no political motives for such persecution; this shows that he was driven by being a 'religious' person who adhered steadfastly and faithfully to Sunnite Salafism, the dominant religion at the time, as was known about him as per what many historians mention. Al-Makrizi writes that Ahmed Ibn Tulun had obliged the Coptic patriarch/pope, named Mikhail, to pay 20 thousand dinars as a fine, and this pope had to sell the endowments of the Coptic Church. Ahmed Ibn Tulun imposed new heavy taxes on Copts, and during his reign, the Church of Resurrection in Alexandria was burned down, a crime committed in 300 A.H. When the Tulunid dynasty ended, the Abbasids appointed a governor named Ibn Al-Jaraah, who treated Copts severely and imposed tributes on monks, who in their turn presented their complaint to the Abbasid caliph Al-Moqtadir, who issued decree to annul tributes imposed on monks, and told the governor that what the Coptic masses paid annually was enough. Later on, Muhammad Ibn Taghj Al-Ikhshid established the Ikhshidid dynasty in Egypt. He once sent his troops to the coastal medieval city of Tinnis (in Sinai, east of today's city of Port Said) to confiscate all treasures and possessions of its Melchite/Melkite church. When the Shiite Fatimid dynasty founded their caliphate in Egypt, they opposed their enemies in Baghdad, the Sunnite Abbasid caliphate. At first, the Fatimids were tolerance toward Egyptian Jews and Coptic Christians, especially the Fatimid rulers/caliphs Al-Moezz li-Dinillah and his successor/son Al-Aziz Billah. Copts began to suffer during the Fatimid Era when the caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah (son and successor of Al-Aziz Billah) was enthroned. Indeed, this caliph made lots of troubles, problems, and dilemmas for all his subjects in Egypt, especially Copts, because of his strange, contradictory decrees as well as his tendency to commit bloodshed more often than not. He commanded in 393 A.H. the arrest and incarceration of the Coptic pope/patriarch Zacharias for three months. Tolerance toward Copts previously by Al-Moezz and Al-Aziz had enabled many Coptic Egyptians to work as scribes in the divan and in governmental posts and as chief officials, thus making many of them gaining authority and lots of money. Consequently, the masses, the mob, and their envious competitors filed many complaints against them, after decades of filling minds of Sunnites with religious fanaticism. Those malignant and bitter complaints incurred the wrath of the caliph Al-Hakim against the Copts – and he, like type of rulers, never exercised self-restraint when he got furious – and hence, he ordered two major Coptic officials in the divan, namely, Eissa Ibn Nestorius and Fahd Ibn Ibrahim, to be put to death. Al-Hakim revived the application of the decree of humiliation formerly issued by Al-Motawakil as regarding dress codes, preventing public processions in feasts and festival, preventing Copts from riding horses, and confiscating endowments of churches. He burned crosses that were on top of churches of Egypt and prevented Copts from buying male and female slaves, and he demolished many churches outside the capital, Cairo, especially in Alexandria. Another crime was that he allowed the masses in Egypt to rob everything inside every church, thus increasing fanaticism and animosity among Egyptians in general. He went to the extreme in humiliation of Copts; he forced them to wear around their necks heavy wooden crosses that weighed five pounds whenever they go in public, and he prohibited Egyptian 'Muslims' from allowing Copts to ride donkeys or in any means of transport in return for money. Madness of Al-Hakim grew more as he ordered all churches in Egypt be demolished and allowed the masses to loot all treasures and pieces of arts inside them, while confiscating demolished churches' lands or building mosques instead of them. Islamic prayers were performed in famous churches that remained intact, like the Shenouda Church and the Hanging Church. The madness soon reached the looting masses, as they filed countless fake complaints to the divan of the Fatimid caliphs to claim they had dues that should be paid by churches endowments or by certain Copts, and the Fatimid officials satisfied them; thus, markets were filled with goods from looted items from Copts and from churches, such as icons, tapestries, richly embroidered clothes, silverware, gold ware, etc. This type of persecution reached outside Cairo, the capital, to other governorates and regions, and Al-Hakim issued written decrees to his emirs and governors inside Egypt to allow 'Muslims' to demolish all convents, monasteries, and churches all over Egypt and the Levant in 403 A.H. and this went on until 405 A.H. as per what is written by Al-Makrizi. Sadly, more than 30 thousand buildings and houses of worship owned by Christians and Jews were demolished in both Egypt and the Levant, with their possessions and items stolen and looted and their endowments confiscated. Madness of Al-Hakim grew more and more as he issued a decree to banish Egyptian Jewish and Coptic communities out of Egypt into the lands of the Byzantines, but he revoked his decree when many wealthy ones and rich landowners among Jews and Copts gathered before his palace while crying, weeping, and screaming for a while until he relented. Yet, many of them converted (or feigned to convert) to 'Islam'. This religious and sectarian persecution incident was the worst one within the Egyptian history during the Middle Ages. Later on some scattered and minor events and incidents of persecuting Copts occurred within the Ayyubid Era, but within the Mameluke Era, whose social features persisted into the Ottoman Era that followed it, had witnessed special features in dealing with Copts.                   

Thirdly: Copts during the Mameluke Era:

  The Mameluke sultans employed Copts in many of its posts related to the treasury, the divan, and other governmental positions, but at the same time, they allowed much authority to Sufi sheikhs and clergymen within the divan and the religious posts like getting appointed as court judges, preachers in mosques, teachers in schools, and police officials within religious police or Hisbah. Within this Mameluke Era, Sufism dominated the intellectual, social, cultural, political, and religious aspects of Egyptian life; Sufism in general is a man-made earthly religions which is peaceful, pacific, and tolerant, and it usually urges patience with injustices and being wronged and acceptance of Fate. Thus, it was expected that Copts would enjoy tolerance and treated as equals like the rest of Egyptian nationals; yet, the exact opposite occurred. The main reason for this is a factor that heavily influenced and dominated Egyptian life and had its side effects; namely, interpolating fatwas and narratives/hadiths that incite 'religious' sectarian hatred toward dhimmis in all Sunnite books taught to people within rituals of religiosity practiced by the masses in the Middle Ages, the era of religious fanaticism and crusades as well as adherence to religiosity or overt, ostentatious signs of appearance of 'piety' without understanding the essence of religion and the meaning of how to be peaceful, gentle, and pious religious person. At that time, the worldview of the Muhammadans was to divide the people into two camps at war with each other: the countries of 'believers' or 'Muslims' and the countries of 'infidels' or 'disbelievers', and of course, each 'camp' would accuse the other of heresy, infidelity, and apostasy, while each would ascribe to itself 'orthodox' and 'true' faith. Let us not forget that the crusades negatively influenced the relations between the Muhammadans and Copts on the popular level of the masses as well on the level of the Sunnite-Sufi scholars, theologians, and imams. Thus, the Mameluke Era began after the minds of most Egyptian Muhammadans (both clergy and laymen) had been already imbued with fanatic ideas and animosity toward dhimmis as per corrupt notions spread by extremist Salafists of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine since the days of the Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil. Sadly, sentiments of deep-seated hatred toward dhimmis by the Muhammadans became at the time a basic faith tenet ''known necessarily in religion'', as goes a famous phrase/expression in most fiqh books. Indeed, the Ibn Hanbal doctrine imams and scholars persecuted Sufis during the reign of Al-Motawakil in the third century A.H., when Sufism emerged as a burgeoning religion. Later on, in the seventh century A.H, Sufis became powerful and had much authority and dominance; as they sought revenge, they persecuted the Ibn Hanbal doctrine imams and scholars (including Ibn Taymiyya) throughout the eighth century A.H. Thus, the political and religious struggle between Sufis and the Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine imams and scholars during the Mameluke Era, as well as the victory of 'tolerant' Sufis over fiqh bigots and extremist scholars of the trend of Ibn Taymiyya, never resulted in tolerance toward Copts in Egypt; on the contrary, both Sufis and Ibn Hanbal doctrine imams persecuted Copts within all decades. The reason: Sufis agreed with the Ibn Hanbal doctrine imams on one thing; namely, to consider Sunnite books of hadiths and fiqh written in the Second Abbasid Era as 'authentic' deep-rooted religious traditions to which everyone must adhere. Thus, despite their differences and ongoing disputes, both Sufis and Sunnites agreed on hating and persecuting Copts as part of creeds and tenets of all 'believers'. Hence, practicing and adhering to fanatic notions and persecution were strengthened by other factors; the Sufi religion that began as theoretically tolerant ideology before the Mameluke Era (as advocated previously by Sufis like Al-Halaj, Ibn Araby, Ibn Al-Fared, and sometimes by Al-Ghazaly) had metamorphosed into a wicked practice that sought relentlessly to control the Egyptian life and all Egyptians by attracting as many henchmen, disciples, supporters, and followers as possible, as this meant more ill-gotten money Sufis earned within Sufi feasts/festivals and Sufi mausoleums of 'saints' as gullible people pay for getting benedictions/blessings. Hence, Sufis at the time had no room to theorize and/or to refute extremist Salafist notions of the Ibn Hanbal doctrine imams, and Sufi dominance and influence caused all non-Sufi religious scholars to stop intellectual innovation and theorizing in fiqh and any apologetic, critical, or interpretation (i.e., exegesis) writings. This means that intellectual life came to a halt for a long time, leaving ample room for consolidating Salafist, obscurantist thought and notions, wrongly assuming that they were infallible, irrefutable, inviolable, and non-discussable. Moreover, this state of affairs led to deification and sanctification of imams/authors of hadiths and fiqh books, and their books, volumes, and tomes became hallowed as 'immaculate' and 'complete' sources of 'holy' knowledge. On the other hand, Sufi sheikhs in their seeking full control and dominance over disciples and followers competed with one another, even within internal struggle inside a given Sufi order, and all competing Sufi orders vied for attracting more followers. Another level of competition was between Sufi sheikhs and well-known Sunnite religious scholars who had their own disciples and followers. The circle of competition widened as Sufi sheikhs struggled against Coptic monks and other Coptic religious figures who held their own religious festivals/feasts (also called moulids in Arabic) celebrating their saints, as this posed a threat as Coptic moulids competed with Sufi ones. Such competition led to more fanaticism and hence more persecution against Copts within regrettable incidents. Part of such competition for more political authority and power as well as control and dominance over the Egyptian population, Coptic high officials in governmental posts and in the divan were much envied for their wealth and authority, and Sufi sheikhs would readily incite the masses and religious scholars against them, resulting in sectarian violence by some fanatics. Sultans would readily in their turn appease the ire of Sufi sheikhs by allowing, condoning, and overlooking acts of discrimination, persecution, and aggressions committed against Copts. In many cases, some Copts would feign conversion to 'Islam' so as to avoid being persecuted and harassed and to support their positions and maintain their governmental post within the Mameluke caliphate whose divan, rule, and management were based on ongoing injustices, suppression, and oppression. Those Copts who converted to 'Islam' or feigned a conversion would use their new authorities to take revenge from those who humiliated and persecuted them before. Thus, the vicious circle of fanaticism and persecution during the Mameluke Era whirled nonstop and turned life into veritable hell. We are in Egypt in bad need to study history to draw invaluable lessons from it. We give below some historical incidents, chronologically ordered, as examples of the above analysis.                                               

1- The tragedy of Boulous, the imprisoned monk, in 666 A.H.: The story of Boulous with the Mameluke sultan Al-Dhahir Beibars is similar to the one of the Copt named Boutros who had a hidden treasure and was murdered by Amr Ibn Al-As, mentioned earlier in this research. The monk named Boulous was a Coptic scribe who entered later on into a monastery to become a monk. He had found a Pharaonic treasure and he hid it, and little by little, he spent its money in charity by giving it to the poor, among the Muhammadans and Copts alike. News of this strange monk who broke the vow of poverty spread; everyone wondered about the source of his money. Consequently, Beibars arrested and incarcerated him, demanding to know from him the hiding place of that treasure, but Boulous adamantly refused, and he said he must help the poor and the needy by selling this treasure piece after piece, and he begged the sultan to release him, as he would get the money eventually from the poor ones who pay imposed taxes and tributes at any rate and hose money and possessions would be confiscated by him eventually. Beibars was so infuriated by these words that he confiscated much more money and possessions from Copts in particular, as he imposed heavy taxations and tributes on them, and he released Boulous before doing this. Beibars noticed how Boulous would donate money, in good faith, to all those needy and poor ones (Copts and Muhammadans) in many cities and villages who could not pay taxes and tributes to tax collectors. Beibars was infuriated more as careful watch over Boulous could not make him reach the hiding place of the treasure. Boulous even gave money to the homeless and the hungry who did not have taxes to pay, even to some of those swindlers who feigned being impoverished to urge him to give them any money. More often than not, some swindlers would play an act on Boulous; two men would dress as tax collectors who are dragging a tied man while beating him severely. The tied man would cry for reverent father Boulous to help him, and Boulous would pay the assumed tax in lieu of the man! Beibars received at least six hundred thousand dinars from Boulous by imposing heavy taxes on Copts in particular and the rest of Egyptians in cities and villages within the vicinity of the location of Boulous, who would pay to release the imprisoned indebted people and those whose possessions were confiscated. Indeed, Boulous never kept anything for himself and never ate from the money of the treasure; he ate and spent on himself from charity and tithes (zakat) paid by rich Copts to the monastery, to be distributed to the poor and the penniless and to be spent on monks. In 663 A.H., a mysterious arson occurred in many districts of Cairo, the capital of the Mameluke sultanate, and Beibars seized the opportunity to accuse Jews and Copts of coming this arson, in order to confiscate their money, and to confiscate the treasure of Boulous as well. Indeed, Beibars played an act on rich Jews and Copts; he gathered thousands of them beside his citadel and tied them, and ordered his men to gather firewood as if he would burn them alive at the stake. They were frightened, and they cried and begged Beibars for mercy. Beibars released them after imposing a fine of five hundred thousand dinars. As expected and desired by Beibars, Boulous paid the large sum of this fine at once instead of them. Boulous grew famous all over Egyptian governorates, and processions of poor Copts followed him wherever he went and they touched his clothes to get blessed and have benediction of this person made 'holy' by them, and many asked for money from him, of course. Boulous went to Alexandria and the processions of admirers, worshippers, and beggars grew more and more there (among both Copts and the Muhammadans), making Sunnite scholars and Sufi sheikhs livid and wild with envy. They sent complaints and  fatwas to Beibars, the sultan, to urge him to murder Boulous as he corrupted the faith of their followers and who might coax them to convert to Christianity. Beibars seized the chance of such fatwas to find 'legitimate' way from corrupt Sunnite sharia to get rid of Boulous the monk; he arrested and incarcerated him and when he adamantly refused to reveal the hiding place of the treasure, Beibars ordered him to be tortured severely to force him to reveal the secret. Boulous died of torture in 666 A.H., and no one knew the hiding place of the treasure after his death.                  

2- The Sufi sheikh Khedr Al-Adawi in 672 A.H.: Beibars the sultan used to believe in this sheikh as a 'holy' man or living saint, despite the fact that Al-Adawi was known for his immorality as a homosexual rake as well as for his deep-seated hatred, fanaticism, and prejudice against Copts in Egypt and the Levant, where he demolished many churches as he was given free hand and leeway by Beibars. One of the churches demolished by Al-Adawi was a big one of the Byzantine orthodox Christians in Alexandria, rumored to house the severed head of John the Baptist. Al-Adawi built in its place a mosque with a fiqh schools attached to it, called Al-Khedraa School after his named, and Al-Adawi spent lots of money on that project from the Treasury of the Mameluke sultanate.

3- The ordeal of the Copts in 682 A.H.: Because of the crusades, Copts were persecuted and oppressed during the reign of both of the Mameluke sultans Al-Dhahir Beibars and Al-Mansour Qalawun, but this persecution ended when the sultan Khalil Ibn Qalawun was enthroned and he used his military might and force to end the existence of crusaders inside the Levant once and for all. This sultan allowed Copts in Egypt to have a measure of authority and he appointed many of them as scribes in divans and as high officials in governmental posts. Some of these Copts harbored ardent desire to take revenge, and they humiliated some of the Egyptian Muhammadans, and this grew more until the incident that came to be known in history as the ordeal of the Copts in 682 A.H. took place. This ordeal began as the Coptic scribe named Ain Al-Ghazal had accused a 'Muslim' man of being late to pay his dues to the Mameluke prince who employed Ain Al-Ghazal, and people in the street saw the man kissing the feet of Ain Al-Ghazal, who was riding his horse,  begging not to be arrested, as Ain Al-Ghazal insists on putting him to custody inside the prince's palace. People in the street gathered in great numbers and tried to take the man away from the scribe who adamantly refused to let go of him. people resorted to violence as they threw Ain Al-Ghazal from his horseback and released the man by force. Furious, Ain Al-Ghazal went to the prince and brought from his palace some soldiers who arrested those who caused riots. The masses grew angry and demonstrated within a march in huge numbers that reached the gates of the palace of the sultan, while shouting (Allahu Akbar!) i.e., God is the Greatest. The sultan feared that the masses might turn their ire into full-fledged rebellion or revolt; once he knew what happened, he issued a decree to arrest and incarcerate Ain Al-Ghazal and to make Coptic scribes choose between conversion to keep their posts or resigning at once. When scribes ignored such ultimatum, the sultan threatened to have their heads cut off. Copts vanished from all streets of the capital. The masses looted and robbed possessions and houses of Copts; some Coptic women were enslaved. Tension grew in the streets of the capital, and all parties were eager for more violence; the Mamelukes had to satisfy and appease the fanatic masses to stifle a possible brewing rebellion that might undermine their authority. The sultan commanded a big trench to be dug in order to bur the Coptic scribes alive, and all princes attended the event with the sultan. The frightened scribes announced their willingness to convert; a Mameluke prince called Beidra interceded on their behalf and begged the sultan for mercy. Eventually, the sultan ordered the Coptic scribes to sign papers that assert their conversion. Al-Makrizi comments on that incident by asserting that the previously humiliated Copts converted to 'Islam' and began to humiliate Muslims within their influence, and they committed many injustices by abusing their authority within their posts. Thus, each Copt who uttered the testimony of Islam saved his own life and had the chance to wreak his revenge, under the protection and approval of the Mameluke rule. This is the direct result in a society where religious bigotry and fanaticism dominated to spread animosity, hatred, and division among people of one nation.                              

4- The incident of the Moroccan vizier in 700 A.H.: This vizier passed by Cairo on his way to Mecca to perform pilgrimage, and he was received as guest of honor by the Mameluke authority and he was generously invited to spend some time in Cairo. Seeing people begging and imploring a man of authority on horseback who ordered his servants to shoo people away, the vizier asked about the man, and people told him that he was a Coptic scribe. The vizier felt livid with anger; he returned to the sultan's palace and preached him and his princes against incurring God's wrath if they left Coptic scribes humiliate poor 'Muslims'. The Moroccan vizier managed to incite the Mameluke princes and the sultan was convinced to reactivate decrees issued long ago by the Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil regarding humiliation of Copts as regarding dress codes and never allowing them to ride horses. The vizier felt happy and pushed for more; he advised the sultan to demolish all churches in Cairo, but the supreme judge in Cairo at the time, named Ibn Daqeeq Al-Aid, opposed angrily such incitement, asserting to the sultan the fatwa that he could not demolish existing churches; only the ones newly built without prior written permission. Yet, Copts had to close down temporarily some churches for fear their being demolished. The vizier went away to resume his journey, but after inciting the masses in the streets of Cairo; the masses filed many complaints against Coptic people and Coptic scribes, and typically, the Mameluke authority had to appease the angry masses by persecuting Egyptian  Jews and Copts and preventing them from working as scribes or in any other governmental posts in divans. The fanatic masses seized the opportunity to spite and to control Coptic rich men; they systematically gave them severe beatings in all streets of Cairo until all rich Copts never showed up in public. Some of these rich Copts feigned conversion to 'Islam' as they haughtily refused wearing as per discriminatory dress codes that were signs of humiliation. Such persecution went on for a long time until the king of Barcelona had to interfere by sending a rich gift to the Mameluke sultan in 703 A.H. and requested in return that closed-down churches in Cairo be opened and to re-appoint Coptic scribes. The sultan granted the king of Barcelona his wishes and the persecution thus ended.                         

5- The Sufi sheikh named Al-Bakry in 714 A.H.: Al-Bakry was a prominent Sufi sheikh during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Muhammad Ibn Qalawun and a fierce foe of the extremist Sunnite Ibn Hanbal doctrine scholar Ibn Taymiyya. At one time, Al-Bakry heard a rumor that some Copts borrowed some lamps from the mosque dedicated to the name of Amr Ibn Al-As to use in a church, and he gathered his followers and disciples to attack this church and physically assault Copts inside it, and then, he led his followers and disciples to the mosque to insult and severely rebuke people working inside it. The sultan ordered the interrogation of Al-Bakry inside the palace court; Al-Bakry thought that he had some measure of authority over the sultan, who adhered to Sufism as well, and he preached the sultan using severe reprimand so that he would show his followers and disciples that even rulers submit to his will, but to his surprise, the sultan ordered his tongue cut off for insulting the sultan in public. Al-Bakry was frightened and implored the aid of the present princes and apologized many times to the sultan. The princes interceded on his behalf and coaxed the sultan to revoke his order, and eventually, the sultan ordered the banishment of Al-Bakry out of Egypt.

6- The failed attempt of committing arson within all Egyptian churches simultaneously in 721 A.H.: In our book titled "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Truth and Myth", taken from our PhD thesis, we have verified this strange and unprecedented attempt of a crime in Egyptian history, and we have proven that Al-Sayed Al-Badawi (a Sufi-Shiite saint worshipped at his mausoleum in the past until now in the Nile Delta city of Tanta, Egypt) was the criminal behind such attempt of arson. We have asserted and proved how Al-Badawi headed a secret Shiite movement that made Sufism its façade or cover for its ulterior motive: to restore Egyptians to the Shiite religion and to topple the Mameluke regime/sultanate to make room for a Shiite/Fatimid ruler in Egypt who might establish a Shiite empire with Cairo as its capital. When such secret Shiite movement failed to achieved its aims, its last attempt to make Egyptians revolt against Mameluke rulers was to embarrass the Mameluke sultan by setting fire to all churches in all Egyptian cities (from Alexandria in the north to Aswan in the south) simultaneously by Shiite secret agents led by Al-Badawi. The plot included that when people get out of Cairo's largest mosque after the congregational Friday noon prayers, on 9^th of the lunar Arabic month Rabei Awwal, 721 A.H., an unknown madman would scream and shout at people to call them to burn down all churches of 'infidels' all over Egypt. The plot included that when people would get out of the mosque to find that the churches were on fire, they would believe the madman was a saint. As Sufism dominated the culture and all aspects of Egyptian life at the Mameluke Era, people believed at the Sufi notion that madmen/beggars roaming the streets were in contact with God with clear insights as if their empty heads were Tabula Rasa and God directly inspired such people to speak the truth or foretell future events. Shiites of the plot assumed that people would be enthusiastic enough when they hear the prediction of the madman come true and they would demolish all burned churches all over Egypt. Of course, none of the people on that awful Friday did that; what happened actually was that only 60 churches were partially burnt or sabotaged in Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, and Alexandria in the same hour and in the same manner (except for cathedrals and big churches like the Hanging Church in Cairo), and people in each city heard a madman shouting at people and bringing news of that crime; the sultan M. Ibn Qalawun heard all about it, and convened a group of Sunnite scholars, judges, and Sufi sheikhs to discuss the matter. All of them managed to convince him that this was a miraculous act of God (!), as no one can do this at the same time all over Egyptian cities. Some Copts were convinced that anonymous saboteurs tried to commit the crime of arson by setting fire to all churches, and they were bent on taking revenge. Days later, Cairene people were surprised to see many mosques and fiqh schools (madrassas) in different districts set on fire one after the other, as they would extinguish one mosque on fire to see another one set on fire in the same area; instead of accepting the notion that this was the hand of God punishing them, people saw many wicks soaked in oil thrown at some mosques, and soon enough, fingers of accusation were pointed at Copts. Some people caught four monks red-handed in the middle of trying to set fire to another Cairene mosque, and when the four monks were arrested by the people and handed over to the Mameluke authority, the four were put to death by being burned alive in public. As for the masses, they were given leeway to harm Copts in every possible manner. Demonstrations of angry 'Muslims' (Muhammadans) and Copts filled streets of Cairo, and both parties physically attacked one another; massacres were about to be committed if it had not been for the Mameluke authority that controlled and contained the situation. Mameluke princes ordered the arrest of some rioters and masses who committed looting and sabotage, and sentenced them to death by being quartered, halved, disemboweled, and dismembered. Those exempted from such horrible death penalty were some wealthy merchants who paid heavy fines after some others had interceded on their behalf to the Mameluke authority to spare and release them. Yet, some other Copts were caught red-handed as they tried to set some mosques on fire, and they confessed under torture of their intended crime. This led the masses to demonstrate at the citadel of the sultan to demand from him to support 'religion' of Allah, and the sultan felt obliged to allow them to kill Copts caught while trying to sabotage mosques. The sultan issued a decree to put to death any Copts who would wear white turbans, ride horses, or wear clothes of 'Muslims'. He dismissed all Copts from their governmental posts and all Coptic scribes from the divans. He issued a decree, under pain of death for Copts who disobeyed that decree, that Copts were to ride donkeys while facing the donkeys' rear as a way to be publicly disgrace, and never to enter public baths unless while wearing a bell around their necks. This was the worst type of persecution suffered by Copts during the Mameluke Era; it had its repercussions inside and outside Egypt. Internally, hatred, animosity, bitterness, and rancor were deepened by sectarian strife within the following years. Externally, the Christian Orthodox king of Abyssinia was furious because of the persecution of Egyptian Copts, as he deemed himself responsible for their protection; he sent a severe written protest to the Mameluke sultan, along with an ultimatum to persecute 'Muslims' inside his kingdom and within neighboring kingdoms. Indeed, king of Abyssinia threatened to divert the Nile River so that its water would not reach Egypt anymore. The Mameluke sultan took such threats lightly and ridiculed them. As a result, king of Abyssinia waged wars against 'Muslims' in the neighboring kingdoms near Abyssinia, and his son and heir hindered all trade caravans and river ships passing by the kingdom and did the same for those pertaining to African 'Muslims' in the neighboring kingdoms.   

     In 721 A.H., during the reign the Mameluke sultan M. Ibn Qalawun, one of the Coptic victims of persecution, named Alonsho, managed to wreak revenge against Egyptian 'Muslims' (or rather Muhammadans). Alonsho feigned conversion to 'Islam', and the sultan re-named him as Abdul-Wahab Sharaf Eddine. Alonsho feigned an appearance of piety, poverty, and asceticism before the sultan to win his trust. Alonsho had greater influence with the passage of time until he controlled fully the Mameluke sultanate for seven years and seven months, until the sultan had him tortured and killed in 740 A.H. Alonsho harbored an ardent desire for revenge and wreaked it against 'Muslim' Egyptians for the sake of Copts within the frame of the Mameluke authority, after he made sure he won the trust, appreciation, and satisfaction of the sultan; Alonsho killed, banished, castrated, dismembered, quartered, and tortured so many non-Coptic Egyptians (those in high posts, tradesmen, merchants, and many among the masses) and confiscated their property and possessions. He never ceased to commit such injustices on a daily basis; he used to hold a nightly meeting with his cronies and henchmen to think of new ways to humiliate and confiscate and impose more taxes, especially how to plot intrigues to trap wealthy ones and those in high posts so as to render them penniless and to make them lose their jobs. Alonsho planned and managed to confiscate many endowments of mosques, and despite the differences and disputes among his foes, they had to unite against him by trying to turn the sultan against him, but to no avail; the sultan's trust stood as an insurmountable barrier against their harming them in any possible manner. Of course, persecution against Copts vanished without any trace during the time when Alonsho fully controlled the Mameluke sultanate. His severe persecution of 'Muslims' led them to unite simultaneously in all mosques to invoke God's wrath against him within long supplications and prayers; when Alonsho heard of this, he appealed to the sultan and coaxed him to prevent preachers from delivering their sermons in mosques. Later on, Alonsho defied major Sufi sheikhs who wielded strong influence within the religious level on most people, as he banished the most prominent Sufi sheikh named Al-Cordi who had to move to the Levant. Alonsho incarcerated another Sufi sheikh in Alexandria named Bahaa Eddine Arslan after leveling false accusations at him. Eventually, the sultan received clear-cut proofs and lines of evidence against Alonsho who turned out to be a treacherous thief who stole lots and lots of money and precious possessions; the sultan incarcerated him along with his in-laws, henchmen, and cronies, and he ordered that Alonsho must be tortured to death. In the day he died, people celebrated in the streets of Cairo all day long, and some Sufis in their invented myths claimed that miracles and good visions/dreams occurred on that day, among them that the Nile water level increased; many processions of celebrations moved from one street to another carrying banners and copies of the Quran.

   After the death of Alonsho, some scattered incidents of persecution against Copts occurred: in 838 A.H., a sheikh named Selim demolished a church in Giza that was renovated without prior written permission from the sultan; in 841 A.H., a sheikh named Nasser Eddine Al-Tantawi demolished a monastery in Tanta in which a big annual festival (or moulid/feast) was held, thus decreasing the number of the attendees of the moulid of the Sufi saint Al-Sayed Al-Badawi, a fact that troubled and annoyed the envious Sufi sheikh Al-Tantawi; in 852 A.H., a sheikh named Al-No'mani specialized in demolishing churches that were renovated without prior written permission from the sultan. It was a bad habit at the time that when epidemics and famines would strike anywhere in Egypt or when the Nile water levels decreased, the masses would consider it a sign indicating God's wrath as 'believers' were lenient with dhimmis and allowed their performing their rituals in public; thus, the masses would persecute more Copts and sectarian strife would increase during famines and epidemics as if to appease god that way; as if God would be pleased by the Muhammadans' committing such grave injustices against the innocent ones!

   Finally, despite the frequent occurrences of such persecution against Copts, a methodological look in history by us asserts that such times were exceptions within the long Egyptian history of tolerance after the Arab conquest in the Middle Ages. Tolerance was the norm and persecution was the exception that instigated and incited essentially by rulers (who were always non-Egyptians) or by non-Egyptian religious scholars/imams who resided in Egypt for some time or for the rest of their lifetimes. We do believe that even when the masses were incited to persecute Copts, such cases were shaped and colored by certain conditions and circumstances made by others and not by these masses. This applies now in Egypt; Wahabism dominating Egyptian society now has come originally from the KSA, and it has nothing to do with the tolerant nature of religious Egyptians in general. Tolerance is the essential nature of riverside societies, unlike desert and mountainous environments. Apart from the cases and incidents of persecution tackled above, there are many positive features of tolerance on the part of some scholars and some rulers, and tolerance is essentially inherent within the popular level in Egypt; Egyptians are dominantly moderate people who adhere to peace, and their deep faith in such values as art and parcel of being religious people used to be admitted by certain travelers and historians like Ibn Khaldoun and Ibn Dhahira and many others, but this topic entails another lengthy book or research.