The Persecution of Copts after the Arab Conquest

Written by Ahmed Subhy Mansour

Translated by Ahmed Fathy

Table of contents

ABOUT THIS BOOK:

FOREWORD:

INTRODUCTION:  

 Chapter one:  The Stance of Islam Regarding  Persecution of Non-Muslims:

 Chapter two: The Beginning of Persecution of Copts within the Era of Pre-Umayyad Caliphs                                       

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

Chapter four:  The Persecution of Copts after the Umayyad Era:

Chapter five:  Copts during the Mameluke Era:

CONCLUSION: 

FOREWORD:

The story of writing this research:

1- During the period 1977:1980 A.D., we were within an ongoing struggle against sheikhs and clergymen of Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. They demandingly and adamantly wanted us to radically change our PhD thesis because it reveals facts they never desired to show to the whole world. We have insisted on showing and underlining these facts, of course, to discuss what is being silenced and hushed for centuries, in order to launch comprehensive religious reform. Among the points that incurred the wrath of Azharite sheikhs was a chapter in our thesis tackling the religious fanaticism against Egyptian Copts within the Mameluke Era, a type of bigotry and extremism influenced and propagated by the high-rank Sufi sheikhs. After long struggle and quarrels, Azharite sheikhs and ourselves reached an agreement during the summer of 1980; two thirds of our PhD thesis was omitted. The omitted parts were two large parts about the negative influence of Sufism on religion and morals. The parts spared from omission were about the negative influence of Sufism on the social, political, scientific aspects, among other aspects. As per this agreement, the chapter on the religious fanaticism was omitted because it was positioned within the omitted part on the negative influence of Sufism on religious life in the Mameluke Era in Egypt; yet, by means of tricking and resorting to ruse, we have kept this chapter by rearranging the chapter on the negative influence of Sufism on political life during the Mameluke Era in Egypt so as to include the chapter on the religious fanaticism at that era and how the Egyptian Copts were persecuted as a direct result on the political relations between Sufi sheikhs and Mameluke sultans. Thus, we managed to fool and trick the ignorant sheikhs who never read, and when they read, of course on very rare occasions, they never understand.            

2- Within the very first book authored by us and published in 1982, titled "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Truth and Myth", we have included some non-omitted parts of our PhD thesis, especially about the conspiracy of Al-Ahmadiyya Sufi order sheikhs to burn down all Egyptian churches simultaneously on one day. We were the very first researcher to unveil this historical atrocity and to research it thoroughly at the History Department, Al-Azhar University. Our research results yielded another astounding result; we were the first researcher to find out the plotter and conspirer who planned such atrocity, who was never unknown to the Mameluke authorities at the time. This criminal was the head of a secret Shiite organization which was bent on reaching power in Egypt and toppling the Mameluke caliphate to restore the Fatimid rule. This criminal was Al-Sayed Al-Badawi himself, the famous-until-now Sufi saint/deity worshipped at his mausoleum/tomb within a mosque carrying his name in the Delta city of Tanta, Egypt. When many plans to topple Mameluke sultanate failed, the followers of Al-Sayed Al-Badawi of Al-Ahmadiyya Sufi order tried one last plan to take revenge by trying to set fire to all Egyptian churches in all cities at the same time to make the Egyptian State collapse internally from within by turmoil and upheaval. However, this devilish plot was unsuccessful.               

3- In 1984, we have decided to teach to our students at Al-Azhar University several books that we have authored; chief among them was our book titled "The Characteristics of Egypt after the Arab  Conquest". Within this book, a chapter is on the persecution of Egyptian Copts after the Arab conquest of Egypt and how Islam is innocent of such crime. This book was one of a kind; the very first and last book to be taught at Al-Azhar University presenting hushed facts rarely tackled before, showing how persecution is a rime contradicting real Islam (i.e., the Quran alone).    

4- At the time when we have written this book, we have not met yet any Coptic Egyptian before; we used to meet only Azharite and rural friends and acquaintances. Thus, we have remained away for years from Copts while defending their citizenship rights, even after we tendered our resignation to leave our post as an Assistant Professor at Al-Azhar University, until we met and befriended the late great thinker Dr. Farag Fouda (who was assassinated later on by Wahabi terrorists in the early 1990s in Cairo, Egypt) who introduced us to many Copts; many of them are still dear friends until now, and some were fanatics we wished we never met with, but we felt that their fanaticism was because of persecution and discrimination they suffered in Egypt, and we pitied them from the bottom of our hearts.  

5- When the devilish bigots of terrorist Wahabi extremism committed many crimes of murdering Copts in Upper Egypt and elsewhere all over Egypt in the early 1990s within terrorist crimes, we have joined a group of noble Egyptians who formed what came to be known as The Popular Front to Combat Terrorism. We were this group's intellectual consultant on matters of religion. This front had exerted some measure of influence at the time, and the Egyptian State enlisted its help to face extremism of fanatic bigots in rural areas, Cairo slums and poorer districts, and villages in Upper Egypt. Hence, members of this front, including ourselves, used to visit hotbeds of Wahabi terrorist extremism in such areas in Egypt to visit victims in hospitals and houses and to denounce the criminals in open meetings and conferences with villagers and city dwellers. In contrast, at the time, civil servants and journalists of the government remained behind in their air-conditioned offices in fear, refusing to join us. Even some of such journalists began to write articles to flatter Wahabis (i.e., terrorist MB members + Salafists): the supposedly coming rulers of Egypt! Such hypocrites wanted to keep their high-rank posts! Shame on them! When the tyrant Mubarak felt he could later on manage matters alone without help of the front, he rejected our voluntary work and stopped us from going on with it; when the front demanded to be allowed to go on to nip fanaticism and extremism in the bud, after many terrorist attacks occurred, the tyrant Mubarak bared his fangs to terrorize us and the front was dissolved, as its members feared to be incarcerated, and many of them got a taste before of incarceration. As for ourselves, we continued our peaceful intellectual enlightenment project within the Egyptian Society of Enlightenment and later on within the Cairo-based Ibn Khaldoun Center, within its weekly forum, as well as within monthly and weekly articles in many Egyptian newspapers.               

6- Later on, an idea has occurred to us about forming an inter-Egyptian Islamic conference to discuss openly the issue of the persecution of Copts within Islamic/Quranic point of view within the premises of Ibn Khaldoun Center or the premises of the Egyptian Human Rights Organization. We have written a research covering that topic and proposed the idea to a famous Coptic journalist who was a friend of mine; yet, he stole our idea and ascribed it to himself! This 'friend' held a conference and gathered so many rich and affluent Coptic citizens to deliver their speeches, and invited us as the only Muslim attendee; he did not invite any other Muslim enlightened thinkers at all! The only research paper read aloud within such 'conference' was ours, but they never discussed it; rather, each speaker talked about other things, and they ignored our research paper totally and it never got published at the time, though it was the basis of such conference never heard of by the press. The only 'winner' within such masquerade was the Coptic journalist who gathered a lot of donation money from all attendees and this much-hoped-for 'call-for-reform conference' was sadly turned into a mere gathering for chitchat and idle talk.           

7- Once at home, we analyzed all night long what just happened at such masquerade; our only hope was to raise awareness of the vital need for reform from within real and only source of Islam (i.e., the Quran), because the problem lies within the terrorist Wahabi/Salafist thought that raise falsely the banner of 'Islam' to commit heinous crimes, as we have proved in our research paper. This paper provides a basis to discuss many topics on that subject by Muslim thinkers who sometime ignore and overlook many facts; indeed, they are to stress such facts, this would have allowed Egypt to crush and defeat religious terrorism and to stop the persecution of Copts by fanatic bigots. We kept asking ourselves that night: why people ignore and discard our endeavors for peaceful reform?! At the time, we have been almost the only thinker defending Copts without turning such intellectual, peaceful jihad into a means to get money; we have defended Copts before we knew many of them and earned the animosity of Azharite friends who antagonized us because of it; and sadly, no Coptic citizen helped us at the time. 

8- Eventually, the truth has dawned upon us; unwittingly, our research paper and our articles on the subject of persecution of Copts have been based on our defending our religion (i.e., Quranism) first and foremost. This has made all parties concerned ignore and overlook us on purpose; we have attacked Wahabi and Coptic extremists and bigots to defend both real Islam and Coptic victims, and most people do not like it. First of all, Coptic fanatics hated us because we would talk using the Quran and criticizing Muslims traditions while proving their contradiction with the Quran, whereas those Coptic fanatics desire to make Islam accused of terror; they hated us for drawing a line or a barrier between Islam and aggressive behavior of Wahabis and between enlightened Muslims and extremists. Thus, those Coptic fanatics are no different from the Wahabi terrorist extremists in their animosity and deep-seated hatred of Quranism and our person. Second of all, Wahabi fanatics wished to silence us forever and the KSA authorities urged Mubarak to persecute and incarcerate our person. Hence, we have understood that those who make history in real life are the non-extremists and non-fanatics. In our modern age, there is no room any longer for fanaticism, bigotry, and extremism. We understand the existence of Coptic fanaticism and animosity toward what they think of as 'Islam', and let us stress here that there are many noble Copts who know that Islam has nothing to do with persecution and oppression of Copts, and they are so many that we cannot mention all their names here, and their memory remain inside our heart as we live now in the West, away from Egypt. We apologize for readers for this long foreword to this research paper that we have written more than two decades ago, but it is still highly readable and very true and contemporary.      

Signature:

Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour

May 2005, Springfield, VA, USA

INTRODUCTION:

"You will remember what I am telling you, so I commit my case to God. God is Observant of the servants."" (40:44).

 This is a research paper on the persecution of Copts in Egypt after the Arab conquest, and it comprises the following parts:

Firstly: The Stance of Islam Regarding  Persecution of Non-Muslims

Secondly: The Beginning of Persecution of Copts within the Era of Pre-Umayyad Caliphs

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

Fourthly: The Persecution of Copts after the Umayyad Era

   Of course, it is clear that our focus here is on persecution suffered by Copts after Egypt was conquered by Arabs and the religious and historical roots of such persecution and discrimination against Copts in Egypt. This research paper focuses on this topic to clear the name of Islam of such heinous crimes. We warn here some of those who deem themselves as 'Muslims' or ascribe themselves to Islam against reviving Middle-Ages fanaticism which is against tolerance of Islam and its Quranic sharia. Most of the content of this research paper is the summary of previous books authored by us years ago, such as the two books titled: "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Truth and Myth"; "The Characteristics of Egypt after the Arab Conquest". Some of the content of this book was not published before; they are some omitted parts of our PhD thesis submitted to Al-Azhar University, as well as summaries of some previous research papers such as: "Daily Life of Our Egyptian Ancestors 500 Years Ago", "Rights of Minorities in Islam", and "Roots and Application of Islamic Shura". Moreover, summaries of some articles published before in many Cairo-based newspapers (e.g., ''Al-Qahira'', ''Al-Ahaly'', "Al-Ahrar", and "Al-Akhbar") are included as well as summaries of some research papers published within the Egyptian Human Rights Organization. We sincerely hope that this current research paper will be followed by other extensive and exhaustive researches and studies by other thinkers to courageously support the wronged parties and minorities and to expose lies and falsehoods forcibly attributed to Islam in order to clear its name from crimes perpetrated by those who ostentatiously claim to be ''Muslims'. May God Almighty come to the aid of all of us. 

Signature:

Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour

October 1994, Cairo, Egypt.

Chapter one: The Stance of Islam Regarding Persecution of Non-Muslims:

   It is not familiar to talk about a certain case of persecution without providing lines of evidence to prove it first and then comes the discussion of the real stance of Islam regarding persecution. However, the writer of this paper belongs to Islam (i.e., Quranism) and is keen on clearing the name of this great religion of any accusations. The author of this research paper is an expert in history and traditions of 'Muslims' (or rather, the Muhammadans, as we call them); this entails that this paper must begin with showing the real stance of Islam regarding persecution in order to clear its name of the heinous crimes committed by some of the Muhammadans who think of themselves as 'Muslims'. Later on, the writer must state actual facts of such events and situations of persecution and those responsible for such crimes. The writers sees that the historical context goes along with his viewpoint; Islam emerged with its reformation, liberating call first, and then, the early 'Muslims' had manipulated Islam to unify Arabs of Arabia to establish an empire by conquests that took great care to follow all items imposed by rule, politics, dominance, and pragmatism and NEVER trying to apply Quranic teachings at all. Sadly, religious scholars and clergymen of all eras used to forge, fabricate, and author hadiths, narratives, and fatwas to justify and legitimize such crimes, aggressions, and transgressions that blatantly violate and contradict the Quran. Such fabrications, falsehoods, lies, and false narratives annulled all Quranic teachings, tenets, and rules by making them useless and nullified, under the pretext that they have been replaced by fatwas, hadiths, and narratives authored by a great number of clergymen, imams, and scholars with the passage of time in many eras. We are witnessing nowadays in Egypt (i.e., in the 1990s) the reviving of persecution which was a main feature of the Middle Ages. Typically, those who sponsor, supervise, and incite persecution are religious fanatics that raise banners of Islam; but Islam is innocent of such crime. This is why we feel bound to start this paper with elucidating the stance of Islam against persecution. We will NOT repeat the rhetoric of often-quoted phrases about tolerance as a main value in Islam, as such phrases are repeated ad infinitum ad nauseam by media figures of the 'civil' trends of the Wahabi extremism after each acts of violence, discrimination, and terrorism perpetrated against Egyptian Copts. Such Wahabi media figures would fill souls of Egyptians with fury and blind fanaticism, but once acts of violence and bloodshed have been committed, they would wash their hands from blood of the victims and would talk and rant about tolerance as a value in Islam and would denounce criminals. Let us tackle the Quranic facts below. Indeed, tolerance in Islam is clearly derived and deduced from certain Quranic verses, but such Wahabi media figures never talk about controversial and contradictory false hadiths and narratives ascribed forcibly to Prophet Muhammad decades after his death, which are the bases of all religious terrorism, extremism, and fanaticism. They never clear the names of Muhammad and Islam of such atrocities and such false narratives. They never denounce the misinterpretations of the Quranic text manipulated by Wahabi terrorists and authored by Middle-Ages scholars within eras of darkness and fanaticism. In elucidating the stance of Islam against persecution, we will adopt a new methodology; we will answer certain questions with ascertained Quranic tenets and facts as well as inherited and passed down historical facts. These historical facts include the one that the Egyptian people – especially its Copts – are peaceful violence-hating nation who bear patiently with injustices of rulers and rarely revolt against these rulers. How does the Quran describe such peaceful people? They are described in the Quran as a Muslim believing people. Islam and belief in terms of behavior mean peaceful demeanor with all people as well as safety and security. Note well that the Arabic verb (to believe) in terms of its usage in the Arabic tongue and in the Quranic text has two meanings: ''to believe in'' and ''to believe with". This entails further explanation.

1- The Quranic verb ''to believe in'' means ''to have faith in'', as we read in the following verse: "The messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, as did the believers. They all have believed in God, and His angels, and His scriptures, and His messengers: "We make no distinction between any of His messengers."…" (2:285).  This refers to the inner faith/belief inside one's heart and mind and in terms of how devout believers deal with Almighty God, and all people differ in that respect even those who follow the same creed and or doctrine; the Quran asserts the postponement of judging others in terms of faith differences until the Day of Resurrection; see 2:113, 3:55, 10:93, 16:124, 5:48, 39:3, and 39:46.

2- The Quranic verb ''to believe with" means to trust and feel safe and secure toward something or someone. This meaning is repeated in the Quranic text especially within the Quranic stories; for example, within the story of Noah, the arrogant disbelievers had told him the following: "… "Shall we believe with you, when it is the lowliest who followed you?"" (26:111). This meaning is repeated within the story of Abraham: "Then Lot believed with him, and said, "I am emigrating to my Lord…" (29:26); Joseph: "…But you will not believe with us, even though we are being truthful." (12:17); and Moses: "But if you do not believe with me, keep away from me."" (44:21); "They said, "Are we to believe with two mortals like us, and their people are our slaves?"" (23:47). This meaning is repeated about Muhammad in Yathreb, among other many verses: "And believe with none except those who follow your religion." Say, "Guidance is God's guidance.…"" (3:73); "Do you hope that they will believe with you, when some of them used to hear the Word of God, and then deliberately distort it, even after understanding it?" (2:75). Of course, this level of meaning refers to belief in terms of peaceful behavior: to feel secure and safe as per overt demeanor of people; a believer here is any peaceful, non-violent person, regardless of inner faiths/beliefs (or even lack of them), as this is God's concern alone during the Day of Judgment. 

3- Both Quranic verbs ''to believe in'' and ''to believe with'' occur in one verse about Muhammad: "…he believes in God and believes with the believers…" (9:61). This means that Muhammad believed in the One True God and he used to trust peaceful believers. To apply these Quranic facts on the Egyptian nation, we assert here that generally, the Egyptian people are believers in terms of peaceful demeanor and leaning toward peace, security, and safety, and they often bear patiently with unjust rulers because of this inclination. As for faiths and reeds, they for God (not mortals) to judge on the Last Day. What should concern us here is peaceful demeanor and assuring security and safety overtly in all aspects; God never gave any mortal the right to speak on His behalf to judge people's faiths (or lack of them) in this world, by means of inquisition or to establish a day of judgment on earth before the Last Day ordained by God to occur inevitably. Hence, inquisition-like interrogations of others about faiths/beliefs is totally unacceptable; those criminals who do it are committing the sin of deifying themselves within flagrant contradiction and violation of the Quranic teachings. When we apply Quranic verses talking about overt meaning of belief in terms of peaceful demeanor, we see that they apply to Egyptian Copts within their long history; their generations, past and present, have suffered persecution and discrimination patiently, when both were inflicted by the Romans (especially Caracalla and Diocletian) and within later eras by the Umayyads, the Abbasids, and the Mamelukes. We never describe such eras as 'Islamic', because Islam has nothing to do with injustices committed by Arabs and rulers. Sadly, persecution and discrimination are still inflicted on Copts and they bear patiently with it until now, and they have inherited elements of passivity, apprehension, and fear as well as being over-cautious and seeking security and safety at any costs. This means that they are peaceful more than Egyptian Muhammadans (Sunnites and others) and thus, Copts are believers in terms of peaceful demeanor and seeking safety and security. The aggressors who commit acts of violence, discrimination, and persecution of Copts are disbelievers in terms of both faith and lack of peace. Aggressions and crimes of that sort are flagrant violation of the Quran, as we will explain below. Belief in terms of demeanor means peaceful behavior toward all people indiscriminately.      

What is the share of Egyptian Copts in the meaning of Islam as peaceful behavior?

   Islam thus has two levels of meaning; the covert, inner level is submission to God alone in terms of faith, act of worship, piety, righteousness, devoutness, etc. and this is the message of Allah to all people in all languages conveyed by all messengers and prophets of God, until the last message, the Quran, that was revealed in Arabic. Literally, Islam in terms of faith means to submit one's soul, heart, and mind to God. God has told Muhammad to say the following: "Say, "My Lord has guided me to a straight path, an upright religion; the religion of Abraham the Monotheist, who was not a polytheist". Say, "'My prayers and my worship, and my life and my death, are devoted to God, the Lord of the worlds, no associates has He, thus I am commanded, and I am the first of those who submit.'" (6:161-163). This is inner Islam within one's heart and mind in terms of faith/belief, to be judged only by God during the Last Day, and God will never accept any religion but to submit to Him and His will and to obey Him alone: "Religion for God is Islam (i.e., literally submission to Him)…" (3:19); "Whoever seeks other than Islam (submission to God) as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." (3:85). Thus, Islam is submission to God, in all divine messages, tongues, eras, and locations. Sadly, in Egypt, religion is merely a section in IDs and formal papers, and NOT a peaceful behavior that prevents one from committing injustices. God does NOT care about divisions, epithets, and descriptions that one assign to oneself, such as: (non)believers, Jews, Christians, Mandaeans, Sabians,…etc. the last epithet is mentioned in the Quranic text to indicate those who deserted and left the prevalent, common religions of the majority of their people. The Quran asserts in two verses that ''believers'' means those who deal peacefully with their fellow human beings and believe in God alone without any other deities, and that those are really the allies of God, weather they believe in the Quran or not: "Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Christians, and the Sabians - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and act righteously-will have their reward with their Lord; they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." (2:62); "Those who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians-whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and does what is right-they have nothing to fear, nor shall they grieve." (5:69). This means that those who believe in God alone and the Last Day while doing good deeds are considered by God as Muslims or submitters to Him, regardless of their sects. Hence, as the Last Day is the Judgment Day, humans are not to judge one another in terms of religion or faith (this is self-deification, which is abhorrent and loathsome to God); this will be done exclusively by God in the Hereafter. To submit to God alone within one's heart is a unified universal tongue among people in all eras and places within all languages.  The other meaning of Islam is peaceful, non-violent demeanor with all our fellow human beings, as per this verse: "O you who believe! Enter into peace wholeheartedly…" (2:208). This is clearly a divine command to all real believers to adhere to peace all their lives. "Peace!'' is the way of greeting within Islam and the term "Peace" is one of the Sacred Epithets of God. These are clear indications that Islam is the religion of peace. This is asserted as well by the fact that the Arabic term ''belief'' also means security and safety; hence, no persons are to be considered real believers unless they apply security, safety, and peace in dealing with everyone and they would never commit aggression or acts of violence. Those real believers deserve security in the Hereafter as well, and when they combine this with real faith in God alone within their hearts and minds, they deserve peace in the Hereafter, as we deduce from this verse: "Those who believe, and do not obscure their faith with wrongdoing-those will have security, and they are guided." (6:82). This verse indicates clearly that real believers are those who believe in god alone in terms of faith and never committed injustices against any person, and they will be rewarded in the Last Day by security and peace. This is their deserve as per their deeds in this transient life. This is way God describes Paradise dwellers as such: "…and they will reside in the Chambers, in peace and security." (34:37).  God says the following about those who adopted peaceful behavior in this life and never committed injustices against anyone while dedicating their faith to God alone, submitting to Him: "For them is the Home of Peace with their Lord…" (6:127). This peace they will enjoy in Paradise, because they adopted peace with everyone during their lifetimes on earth. This is why angels will say the following to them at the gates of Paradise: "Enter it in peace and security." (15:46). Therefore, Islam (peace) and belief (security) in this life will be rewarded in the same way in the Hereafter; Paradise dwellers will be those who were peaceful believers during their lifetimes on earth. What does this have to do with our country: Egypt?

  Egypt is the only place, second only to Mecca, that the Quran mentions as linked to security and safety. Within the story of Joseph, he received his parents and brothers in Egypt while saying: "… "Enter Egypt, God willing, safe and secure."" (12:99). Egypt is not merely a geographical location or a piece of land; it is mainly people living inside it in peace, safety, and security. This historical fact about Egyptian people colors the seven millennia of Egyptian civilization; namely, during the last 70 centuries in Egypt, its blessed soil hosted many guests of non-Egyptians and they enjoyed safety, security, and peace inside Egypt. Among them was Joseph and his family; God says the following about Joseph when once entered Egypt: "…We thus established Joseph in the land…" (12:21). Hence, the Egyptian people is the most nation rightly deserving to be described as a peace-loving and peace-seeking nation; this applies mostly to Egyptian Copts who always incline toward peace and lean toward security and safety. This indicates clearly that they are Muslims/believers in terms of peaceful demeanor, regardless of faiths and tenets, judged only by God in the Hereafter, without deputizing any mortal to judge them on earth on His behalf or to ridicule others' faiths and beliefs. It is an essential part of the art of dialogue within Islam to accept the fact that judgment is only God's on the Last Day. As for the many Quranic verses tackling tenets, beliefs, and faiths of others, this pertains to God's right to say anything related to Himself and His religion and to refute what mortals assert about Him. We are to bear in mind that the Quran asserts to Muhammad himself – after showing the Quranic view of Jesus Christ as a mortal prophet – that if anyone would come to him to debate the same issue, both parties should supplicate God to curse deniers of truth; hence, God has not commanded Muhammad to accuse anyone of being a disbeliever; see 3:33-61. Thus, Muhammad had no right to accuse others of being ''infidels'', ''disbelievers'', etc. and so does all people after Muhammad's death; we are only to discuss and make dialogue in the best possible manner, using wisdom and politeness, as per repeated Quranic commands; see 16:125, 17:53, 41:34, and 34:24. Muhammad has been commanded by God in the Quran to forgive those who differed with him and wait patiently their judgment, and his, on the Day of Resurrection; see 15:85, 43:88, and 45:14. If such Quranic commands apply to all polytheists who commit aggressions against peaceful believers in all eras and locations, they apply as well to peaceful People of the Book (i.e., the Quranic term referring to Jews and Christians) to discuss and debate with them gently and in the best manner possible, as most of them lean toward peace and security, and Muslims are to tell them they believe in the Torah and the Gospel as divine books and that all of the three parties believe in One God: "And do not argue with the People of the Book except in the best manner possible, except those who do wrong among them. And say, "We believe in what was revealed to us, and in what was revealed to you; and our God and your God is One; and to Him we are submissive."" (29:46). This means that Muhammad himself used to say so to those Jews and Christians who came to debate with him about Islam. In modern times in Egypt, fanatics who appear on T.V. and other media, or the televangelists of the Wahabi Sunnite religion, love mostly to declare Coptic Christians as 'infidels', 'polytheists', and 'disbelievers', and they declare all non-Wahabis as such and as apostates, resulting in inciting the mob to commit acts of violence and aggression, especially murder and theft, against those 'infidels'. Those fanatics are theoreticians of religious terrorism who misuse and misinterpret the Quranic verses to massacre Copts in Egypt; they ascend pulpits in mosques to incite hatred and animosity against Copts by quoting and deliberately misinterpreting the following verse: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies; some of them are allies of one another. Whoever of you allies himself with them is one of them…" (5:51). The fanatics deliberately overlook the real meaning of alliance in this Quranic context; it means to ally oneself to fighting enemies; at the time some Jews and Christians fought Muhammad and early believers who sought refuge in Yathreb to flee persecution inflicted by the Meccans of Qorayish. The fanatics forget on purpose the fact that all legislations of self-defense fighting in the Quran do NOT aim at any sort of aggression or harm against the innocent, peaceful people; they are only to deter aggressors and to explain how to deal with them. Hence, 5:51 has nothing whatsoever to do with Copts in Egypt and has nothing to do with peaceful Jews and Christians who do not commit acts of violence or aggression against the Quran-believing persons; rather, 5:51 applies when outside foreign enemies attack Muslims, and they are commanded in the Quran not to ally themselves to such aggressive enemies who are bent on invading and occupying one's homeland. To further understand the notion of alliance and Quranic legislations concerning self-defense fighting, let us be reminded of the history of early believers in Mecca who were persecuted and harmed in every possible manner by the Qorayish polytheistic tribesmen merely because they deserted the religion of the vast majority and adopted a new religion. This persecution reached the level of driving the early believers out of Mecca, their homeland, and to leave their property and folks. Those folks were either persecutors or weak ones who were silenced and could not defend early believers. Hence, after immigration od early believers to Yathreb, the Meccan polytheists took over their property and land and trade etc., especially within the two annual trade caravans of Qorayish in winter and in summer; see the Quranic Chapter 106. The aggressive polytheists attacked and raided many times people of Yathreb to cause more harm to early believers and the Yathreb dwellers who converted to the new religion as well. Those early peaceful believers bore patiently with it for months and never fought back because God did not give them permission (within Quranic revelation) to engage into self-defense fighting. Months later, this permission was given in a certain Quranic verse: early believers had the permission to fight in self-defense endeavors to deter polytheistic aggressors. This is understood within this verse containing the divine permission: "Permission is given to those who are fought against, and God is Able to give them victory." (22:39). This implies that early believers faced unjust aggressions of Meccan fighters of the Qorayish tribe, and god has permitted the wronged party to engage into self-defense fighting. The very next verse shows one aspect of the persecution suffered by the early believers in Mecca before polytheists fought them later on within Yathreb: "Those who were unjustly evicted from their homes, merely for saying, "Our Lord is God."…" (22:40). Within other Quranic verses, self-defense fighting legislations link commands with rules and purposes. Hence, the verse about not to ally oneself to aggressive enemies was revealed within the context of such military fighting. Naturally, it is forbidden in all eras and locations in cases of war that one would act treacherously against one's homeland by allying oneself to the aggressive enemy: this is considered high treason. Thus, God has forbidden believers in Yathreb to ally themselves with aggressive Meccans of Qorayish as well as aggressive Jews and Christians who lived near Yathreb at the time who attacked early believers in Yathreb at the time as it was treason to conspire and plot with the enemy against one's brethren. Further details of such wars against Yathreb are found in the Quranic Chapter 60; in the eighth verse of it, God commands that believers are to act fairly and kindly with non-Muslims who are peaceful and never expelled early Muslims from their homes; God here never describes them as polytheists because they were non-violent and non-aggressors: "As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable." (60:8). The very next verse prohibits allying oneself to those who committed aggressions and fought against early believers: "But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends-these are the wrongdoers." (60:9). We assert here that those who manipulate the name of Islam for transient possessions and gains badly need to understand fully the Quranic sharia legislations whose priority is to prevent bloodshed, especially to spare the lives of peaceful, non-violent persons; those persons include Egyptian Copts, of course, as they are believers in terms of peaceful demeanor and they never commit violence or aggression. Those peaceful ones cannot commit the crime of murder; but like most people anywhere anytime, one might be accused of manslaughter. Thus, this Quranic verse apply to them like the rest of peaceful people worldwide: "Never should a believer kill another believer, unless by error…" (4:92). Hence, true believers are never to kill intentionally or to commit murder at all; rather, believers have the right of self-defense and would kill aggressors/attackers who might want to kill them, as such attackers are criminals and non-believers because of their aggressions. This applies to self-defense fighting; every human being has the right to defend one's homeland. Aggressions and transgression is when one attacks and/or murders the innocent, peaceful, and harmless persons; such aggressors are never Muslims/believers however vehement they might assert their belief. Of course, manslaughter is punishable by paying diyya money, as per 4:92. As for intentional killings or murders of the innocent, peaceful, and harmless persons (i.e., believers in terms of peaceful behavior), it is punished with Hell in the Hereafter and the capital punishment as the penalty in this life: "Whoever kills a believer deliberately, the penalty for him is Hell, where he will remain forever. And God will be angry with him, and will curse him, and will prepare for him a terrible punishment." (4:93); "…a life for a life, an eye for an eye…" (5:45). We notice the strength of curses and warning in 4:93 is never repeated in any other Quranic verse; this indicates the enormity of the heinous crime of murdering innocent, peaceful persons. The very next verse shows the meaning of the term ''believer'' whose life is cared for by God in the Quran: "O you who believe! When you journey in the way of God, investigate, and do not say to him who offers you peace, "You are not a believer,"…" (4:94). This verse talks about military fighting between believers (i.e., the wrong party; Muslims: peaceful submitters) and their enemies the polytheists (i.e., aggressors who attacked the peaceful ones to persecute them religiously and fight the new religion). Hence, we understand that real believers should NEVER fight unless in the case of self-defense against aggressors who began their transgression and violence first. This is why the verse 4:94 warns against killing peaceful, innocent persons even during self-defensive war fighting; hence, it is of vital importance to verify enemies and non-enemies during battle. Non-enemies include the ones who utter the word of peace, and those are believers as they adhere to peace and stick to non-violence. Thus, we are to verify and ascertain believers NOT based on beliefs and faiths in their hearts (or lack of it) but on peaceful demeanor and overt lack of violence, regardless of their faiths, tenets, doctrines, creeds, etc. Moreover, even if someone is on the side of the aggressive enemy during battle, but he/she utters the word of peace, he/she is a believer that ought to be saved and protected, and if someone killed this person, the killer deserves God's curse and eternal suffering in Hell within the Hereafter. Let us remember that the above Quranic verses were revealed within an Arab Bedouin society which was bellicose and belligerent; desert-Arabs and Bedouins who used to siege the Yathreb city-state ruled by Muhammad at the time are described in the Quranic text as the most disbelieving and hypocritical people. Yet, God commands saving their blood and souls if they merely and overtly utter the word of peace, as they would be then deemed believers in terms of adhering to peaceful behavior and non-violence and their seeking security and safety. The same goes for self-surrendering soldiers or fighters who are on the side of the enemy; they are to be spared and delivered home in safety after listening to the Quranic verses: "And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know." (9:6). Such are the Quranic rules or legislations about saving blood and souls of the enemy's fighters in battlefield and all civilians during battle even if they are suspected to be collaborators in previous aggression, such as the case with desert-Arabs or Bedouins who are described in the Quran as the most disbelieving and hypocritical people, as they connived and conspired against early believers in Yathreb many times. If this be the case when engaging in self-defense fighting, what about Copts? Egyptian Copts are believers in terms of peaceful demeanor and within the last 20 centuries, their generations have witnessed nothing but patience, suffering, harm, and persecution. We are in the modern age and Copts should no longer suffer such atrocities; how come that their assaulters, attackers, and persecutors would dare to claim they are 'Muslims' who adhere to the Quran?! Any act, deed, or words showing and/or inciting persecution, discrimination, or aggression against Copts is against the Quran, as we have shown above. Islam is innocent of those who misuse its name and manipulate and misinterpret Quranic verses to commit heinous crimes under the banner of Islam. We hope that all parties concerned must read, ponder, reflect, and contemplate deeply these verses: 4:92-94, to discern and realize how the Quran cares about the souls of peaceful persons even if they are fighters among desert-Arabs who were hypocritical, treacherous, disbelieving, violent, and belligerent raiders seeking loot. The Quran tells believers never to kill any of them during fighting in battle once they utter the word of peace overtly, let alone Copts who lived in their homeland, Egypt, for tens of centuries in peace, security, safety, and while hosting many guests generously and granting them safety (like Joseph and Jacob) throughout past eras. Those who kill Copts in Egypt deserve punishments in 4:93 as Egyptian Copts are believers, within the Quranic concepts, in terms of peaceful demeanor and adhering to non-violence and non-aggression and who stick to security and safety. The heinous crime of murdering Copts is made worse still when these Hell-deserving and God's curse-deserving criminals claim they perpetrated their crime as a form of 'jihad' for God's sake. Another accomplices with such criminals within such atrocities are those who incite, plan, and legitimize hate crimes, aggressions, and murders against Copts, and so are those clergymen and scholars who are reluctant to purge the Islamic call from the so-called hadiths, narratives, and fatwas which are poisoned fabrications making Islam (i.e., Quranism), the religion of peace with people and submission to God, accused of terrorism and extremism.

Chapter two: The Beginning of Persecution of Copts within the Era of Pre-Umayyad Caliphs:

  Desert-Arabs and Bedouins, who are described in the Quran as the most disbelieving and hypocritical people, had declared their rejection of the new religion once Muhammad died. Some of them even attacked Yathreb once more, and the first Arabian civil war, called the renegade war, broke out during the reign of the first caliph, Abou Bakr. Once renegades were quelled by Abou Bakr, he saw to it that Arabs must be unified within one goal that will contain, channel, and direct their belligerent nature and love of looting outside Arabia; hence, the era of Arab conquests began. The once-before renegades constituted the main number of soldiers within the conquering army prepared by Abou Bakr that crushed and invaded the Persian and Byzantine empires, whose territories became provinces within the Arab Empire which was still growing and extending its borders. When Egypt was conquered by the caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and his military leader Amr Ibn Al-As, Copts suffered a great deal. Coptic suffering went on during the Umayyad caliphate whose caliphs were known for their fanaticism and bias for the Arab race and their bias against non-Arabs among conquered nations of Iraq, Persia (today's Iran), and Egypt. Sadly, many historians today in Egypt shy from tackling how Egyptian Copts suffered persecution within the era of pre-Umayyad caliphs, as these caliphs are sanctified, deified, revered, and worshipped by Sunnites. In fact, persecution of Copts began as early as when Amr Ibn Al-As ruled Egypt as its governor, and this period is tackled by many non-biased Coptic historians who witnessed the Arab conquest of Egypt and asserted how Amr Ibn Al-As, as a military leader and conqueror, loved and acted fairly at first with the Egyptian population, which was mostly Coptic at the time. We focus in this paper on two main features of persecuting Copts at the time: imposing tributes and the coined term ''dhimmitude''.                 

Imposing tributes:

   The only Quranic verse that mentions tribute is the following: "Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of truth-from among those who received the Scripture-until they pay the tribute, willingly or unwillingly." (9:29). The Quranic legislations have three spheres: (1) legislative commands which are governed by (2) legislative rules that aim at achieving (3) legislative purposes. For instance, the Quranic legislative commands ''fight'' (as in 2:190 and 9:29) and ''mobilize'' (as in 9:38 and 9:41) are governed by legislative rules that make them applicable only within the frame of self-defense regarding aggressors, in retribution without transgressions: "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors." (2:190); "…Whoever commits aggression against you, retaliate against him in the same measure as he has committed against you. And be conscious of God, and know that God is with the righteous." (2:194). Hence, within Islam, the only goal of fighting in the cause of God is to stop compulsion in religious matters or religious persecution, i.e., fitna in the Quranic terminology. Thus, the legislative purpose of fighting in the cause of God is to stop fitna or persecution so that people remain free to embrace whatever faiths they choose, as God has created the humankind as free agents, while judging them on the Day of resurrection based on their own free choice done at their own free will. This is the meaning of the Quranic command to fight those aggressive disbelieving Arabs in the 7^th century A.D. Arabia who persecuted those who had converted to another religion apart from theirs: "And fight them until there is no fitna (i.e., persecution), and religion becomes a matter related to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the oppressors." (2:193); "Fight them until there is no more persecution (i.e., fitna), and religion becomes a matter exclusively judged by God. But if they desist-God is Seeing of what they do." (8:39). Thus, we are to understand Quranic sharia legislations only within Quranic legislative commands, rules, and purposes; thus, we will get to know that those whom were fought as per this verse: "Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, nor abide by the religion of truth-from among those who received the Scripture-until they pay the tribute, willingly or unwillingly." (9:29), were ONLY the aggressive ones among ''People of the Book'' (i.e., Jews and Christians) in Arabia at the time and NOT all Jews and Christians themselves in Arabia or elsewhere who were peaceful and never committed any sort of aggression against the Yathreb city-state led by Muhammad and the early Muslims. This is because there is no room within real Islam (i.e., Quranism) to commit any sort of aggression at all against anyone; military self-defense and retribution are allowed in cases when peaceful Muslims are attacked first by aggressors. Therefore, 9:29 tackles the case when an aggressive community/country that lacks faith in terms of behavior and belief that commits military aggression against a peaceful (therefore, "believing" in terms of adherence to peace) community/country, and this wronged party has the right to defend itself militarily, and when victory is achieved over aggressive enemies who are deterred and driven out, this enemy must be obliged to pay a tribute  – NOT forced to convert to 'Islam' – as usually done past and present in all human societies as means of punishment and compensation within peace treaties between parties involved; e.g., Germany paid compensations after WWII and Iraq did the same after its invasion of Kuwait. Thus, when we see how the verse 9:29 was applied in the 7^th century Arabia, it referred at the time to Byzantines; as we read in history that they began aggression against the Yathreb city-state led by Muhammad and incited Arabian Christian tribes against early believers in Yathreb, resulting in battles of Mo'ta and Tabuk. History tells us also that the Byzantines paid tributes after they committed military aggression against Arabs when Arabs defeated them. Likewise, Mu'aweiya the Arab governor of the Levant, who later became the first Umayyad caliph, personally and unilaterally paid an annual tribute of one hundred thousand dinars to the Byzantines to ward off their military aggression against the Levant during the years in which he fought the caliph Ali (who was later on deified after his death as the supreme Shiite god/deity). The Byzantines used to pay tributes to the First Abbasid Era caliphs, whereas the Second Abbasid Era caliphs used to pay tributes to the Byzantines; hence, the two parties (Arabs and non-Arabs) exchanged roles as per their military strengths, the sort of aggression, and by who it was committed. The Byzantines should have paid tribute to Arab military leader Amr Ibn Al-As after he defeated them and drove them out of Egypt, but contrary to what was expected, the Egyptians paid this tribute, after they made a pact with this military leader against the Byzantines. Al-Makrizi the historian in his book titled ''Khetat Al-Makrizi'' tells us briefly about how Egyptian Copts at the time helped the Arab conquerors against the hated Byzantines who ruled Egypt at the time (who persecuted Copts for religious reasons). Once Amr Ibn Al-As entered Sinai with his troops, the pope/patriarch of Copts in Alexandria, capital of Egypt at the time, issued orders to all Copts in Egypt to help Arabs in every possible manner and he predicted the collapse of the Byzantine rule; of course, Copts obeyed such orders. When Amr Ibn Al-As reached the walls of the Sinai city of Al-Farama, Copts helped him with information and victuals, and they helped him as well to conquer Alexandria after a long siege, providing Arabs with victuals and information for more than two months. Copts managed to win the Coptic leader of the guardians, who manned the gates of the wall around Alexandria, to their side and convinced him to open all gates to Arab troops to enter the city and vanquish the Byzantines. It was expected that Amr Ibn Al-As would feel gratitude and return the favor to Copts for their aid to his limited troops that enabled him to conquer Egypt. Yet, Cyrus the byzantine ruler of Egypt at the time (or Al-Muqawqis in Arabic), managed to convince Amr Ibn Al-As that the Copts were the ones to pay tribute instead of the defeated Byzantines. It was typical that Copts paid tributes to the Byzantines as per Middle Ages laws, and the Arab conquerors learnt this unjust law and applied it on Copts who helped them conquer Egypt! After a seven-month siege of the Babylon fortress, located at the Nile River bank, Arab conquerors managed to break into its gates, and Cyrus had to negotiate surrender with Amr Ibn Al-As, proposing to him that Copts would pay the required tribute to Arabs; every man would pay two dinars. Cyrus managed to convince Amr Ibn Al-As that the Byzantines would never pay anything after they lost Egypt, whereas Arabs insisted on it would fight for it, especially that Copts would not convert to 'Islam'. Amr Ibn Al-As agreed, and thus Cyrus managed to spare the Byzantines more losses and war in Egypt. Copts felt forced to pay this tribute to Amr Ibn Al-As whom they helped to conquer their country. Six million Egyptians paid this tribute at the time, and Amr Ibn Al-As imposed another demand; Copts were to receive Arabs as guests in their villages for three consecutive days. The greed of Amr Ibn Al-As increased as he coveted more money and asked Copts/Egyptians to pay more. Al-Makrizi writes that the governor of  the city of Ekhna asked Amr Ibn Al-As about the amount of money that should be paid by the residents, and the governor of Egypt, Amr Ibn Al-As, pointed at the corner of a church there and told him that even of money reached the roof of this church, this would have not been enough, as the whole of Egypt was like a treasury to the caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab in his capital, Yathreb. The governor of Ekhna managed to escape from Egypt and Amr Ibn Al-As to seek the aid of the Byzantines, and he returned with Byzantine troops that retrieved Alexandria to the Byzantines. Amr Ibn Al-As re-conquered Alexandria with great difficulty and drove the Byzantines out of it. Amr Ibn Al-As was the torchbearer for the Umayyads, whom he helped to establish their dynasty in return of keeping his post as a governor of Egypt, as he inspired them to become greedy in collecting heavy tributes and taxes from Copts and other conquered nations. Even Copts who converted to Islam were never exempted from paying heavy tributes and taxes during the Umayyad rule, except during the short months of the reign of the Umayyad caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz, who never took heavy tributes and taxes from those who converted to Islam, and when the governor of Egypt at the time, Hayyan Ibn Shureih, warned this caliph about the fact that such a decree will lessen the amount of money collected annually and sent to Damascus (capital of the Umayyad Empire), Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz sent him a letter to rebuke him severely, asserting that God has sent Muhammad as a guide to people and not as a tax-collector. Within later eras, the tribute was a plague imposed by all governors of Egypt on non-Muslim Egyptians during the Umayyad, Abbasid, and Mameluke eras, the Mameluke Era or sultanate ended in 921 A.H./157 by the Ottoman conquest of Egypt, and the Ottomans imposed tributes on all Egyptians, 'Muhammadans' and Coptic Christians alike. Indeed, the Egyptian Treasury routinely paid a certain sum annually to Turkey as tribute (though the Ottoman caliphate ended in 1924) until the late president Gamal Abdel-Nasser put an end to this humiliation and theft. Al-Makrizi writes the following about the Arab conquest of Egypt: Amr Ibn Al-As declared to Egyptians that those who hid any treasures away from him would be killed. An Upper Egyptian Copt, named Boutros had a Pharaonic treasure, and someone blew the whistle about him to Amr Ibn Al-As, who imprisoned and interrogated him to confess under duress about the hiding place of the treasure, but Boutros insisted adamantly on denying that he possessed such a treasure; eventually, Amr Ibn Al-As managed to figure out the location of the hidden chest of that treasure, and he killed Boutros and hung his severed head by a string on top of the gate of a mosque, thus terrorizing the rest of Copts, and whoever had a Pharaonic treasure handed it willingly and readily to Amr Ibn Al-As to avoid being put to death. Al-Makrizi writes also that Amr Ibn Al-As imprisoned a Copt who was accused of being an ally/spy serving the Byzantines, and this Copt was released after paying more than 50 quintals of gold! Such confiscations made the ill-gotten wealth of Amr Ibn Al-As reach 140 quintals of gold, and he collected them in his room while dying, as he was asking his two sons about who would get that large sum of money. The two sons adamantly refused to receive this ill-gotten wealth, and it was confiscated by the first Umayyad caliph, Mu'aweiya, who said he did not care about injustices committed to procure such ill-gotten money! Despite all of the above, Amr Ibn Al-As remains to be the best ruler of Egypt and a more lenient one in dealing with Egyptians in comparison to Arab governors who succeeded him. It is a historical fact that he did not commit bloodshed so often as his successors and that he adopted a good policy in tax-collecting and getting tributes by never overburdening Egyptians; he extracted from them annually the total sum of 12 million dinars, and later governors, especially his direct successor appointed by Mu'aweiya, namely Abdullah Ibn Abou Sarh, extracted 14 million dinars from Egyptians annually. The Umayyads were so greedy and hoarded countless sums of money from everyone, and they quelled and crushed the successive Coptic revolts very severely by committing brutal heinous acts. Within the decades of the Umayyad rule in Egypt, Copts were persecuted severely to prevent any possible revolts. Further details on that topic are provided in this research paper.                  

The coined term ''dhimmitude'':

   The term Quranic "dhimma" has nothing to do with the term ''dhimmitude'' coined by Umayyads to refer to non-Arabs within the Arab Empire; it occurs twice in two verses in the Quranic Chapter Nine, within a context talking about the bellicose and belligerent Bedouin nature of polytheistic Arabian tribes who fought Muhammad and early believers and how they never respect any treaty if they gain victory: "How? Whenever they overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty (i.e., dhimma) with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral." (9:8); "Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty (i.e., dhimma). These are the transgressors." (9:10). The terms ''dhimmitude''  and ''dhimmis'' coined by Umayyads to refer to all conquered nations that were thought to be 'owned' by Arab rulers as second-class citizens in our modern-age terms. This applied even to those non-Arabs when they converted to Islam; for instance, the Iraqi people and the Persians (who mostly converted) suffered as much as Copts under the Umayyad rule in general, as Arabs despised non-Arabs and thought that Arabs are superior to other races. Within the passage of time, within later generations, Persians and Iraqis enjoyed all their rights during the Abbasid rule as they had participated in the endeavors to found the Abbasid caliphate, and were no longer treated as dhimmis as they spoke Arabic fluently and practiced Islam and Arabs were not preferred to Muslim non-Arabs or treated as superiors. Yet, dhimmitude as a term remained used all over the Arab Empire to refer to those non-Muslims of non-Arab origins, while Christian Arabs were never treated as dhimmis at all, but as equals, because of their Arab origins. Dhimmis were non-Arab Christians in Egypt, Iraq, and the Levant, and they suffered a lot within the racial persecution under the Umayyad rule and then the religious persecution for in later centuries because of the status of dhimmitude. This inferior look toward Christians of non-Arab origin that violates the Quranic higher value of equality of all people (see 49:13) has been codified in Sunnite fiqh/jurisprudence books regarding rules of how to deal with non-Muslims, while fabricating countless hadiths/narratives falsely ascribed to Muhammad to allow the ongoing persecution of the People of the Book (Jews + Christians) within the Arab Empire while deeming 'Muslim' Arabs as superior to them. Those criminal fiqh scholars and imams ignored on purpose the Quranic discourse addressed to the People of the Book and the Quranic commands to believers to treat them kindly debate with them in a dignified manner (see 16:125). Another ignored fact by those unjust imams is that God has told Muhammad to ask the People of the Book if he had any doubts: "If you are in doubt about what We revealed to you, ask those who read the Scripture before you. The truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt." (10:94). Moreover, God describes Christians as the nearest in affection toward Quran-believers: "… And you will find that the nearest in affection towards the believers are those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks, and they are not arrogant." (5:82). God commands kind treatment in fairness toward non-Muslims as long as they are not aggressors who fight peaceful Muslims or would ally themselves to enemies of commit aggression against Muslims: "As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable. But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends and allies - these are the wrongdoers." (60:8-9). Another ignored fact by those unjust imams of the Sunnite Muhammadans is that God commands fair treatment of the People of the Book as equals on the same levels as Muslims especially in relation to intermarriage and food as long as they coexist peacefully with Muslims: "Today all good things are made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste believing women, and chaste women from the people who were given the Scripture before you, provided you give them their dowries, and take them in marriage, not in adultery, nor as mistresses. But whoever rejects faith, his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." (5:5). Thus, this established security and peace within intermarriages, shared social life is based on equality in duties and rights as well as religious freedom as long as people are nonviolent and peaceful. Such great values were lost because of the Umayyad term ''dhimmitude'' that has created discrimination and persecution. Imposing tributes within the era of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs was the fact leading to the coinage of this Umayyad term and its consequences. If the caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab would have refused to impose tributes, the Copts would have been on equal footing with Arabs; sadly, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and his successor Othman Ibn Affan imposed these tributes on all conquered nations, indicating that they are second-class citizens to be robbed and persecuted by later generations of Arabs. The Umayyads followed in the same route but persecuted Copts in Egypt and the nation of Iraq (who were precursors to Shiites) more severely than ever.                         

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.                             

CONCLUSION:

(A) There are Quranic facts in which true Muslims must believe: God's true religion has been reveled in many eras and languages as one calling for the Truth, rights, goodness, charity, peace, righteousness, and justice; therefore, it is impossible to make God's religion responsible for injustices, persecutions, and acts of hatred and fanaticism committed by mortals in the name of religion. God says the following in the Quran: "We sent Our messengers with the clear proofs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance, that humanity may uphold justice…" (57:25), and this means that the aim of celestial divine messages is to make people uphold justice. It is NEVER part of justice to make one group, class, or sect within a given society dominating, persecuting, oppressing, and controlling the others; this is a crime and a grave injustice that has nothing to do with God and His religion at all. It is unfair to ascribe such crime to His religion; God says the following about Himself: "…God desires no injustice for humankind." (3:108); "…God wants no injustice for the servants." (40:31). Let us be reminded of the fact that God condemns injustice and tells us that the unjust ones are the dwellers of Hell after the Last Day: "Faces will be humbled before the Living, the Eternal. Whoever carries injustice will despair." (20:111). Hence, how come that some of those who claim to be 'Muslims' accept to commit injustices against those who have different faiths?! The real Quran-believing people must know that God's will ordained that people would differ in faith: "Had your Lord willed, He could have made humanity one community, but they continue to differ. Except those on whom your Lord has mercy-for that reason He created them…" (11:118-119). Thus, the Quran urges us to adhere to elevated, refined, polite dialogue with those who have different faiths as God postpones judgment of faiths to the Day of Resurrection. The Quran asserts the vital importance of tolerance, peace, and equality so that all people on earth coexist peacefully despite differences on which God's creation of them is based. God says about his last message conveyed by Muhammad: "We did not send you except as mercy to humankind." (21:107). This means that Muhammad was not sent to command massacring and persecuting others; how come that some accept hadiths and narratives ascribed to Muhammad, who never said or uttered them, that urge massacring and persecuting people?!

(B) There is a historical fact/lesson that can be drawn and deduced from between the lines of the above brief historical overview; the bill of persecution increases until the perpetrators pay it after victims would pay. For instance, the Umayyad caliphate adopted a policy based on fanaticism: the Umayyads were biased against non-Arabs and favored only Arabs, and they were biased against certain Arabian tribes and factions and favored some others. Some Umayyad caliphs were biased against their brothers and removed them from their statuses as crown-princes to appoint their sons instead. Such explosive and volatile state of affairs was the fatal weapon causing the detriment and collapse of the Umayyad caliphate that spanned only 8 decades despite its initial political strength and military might that enabled it to stretch its borders between gates of China Wall and the Pyrenees mountains south of France. Thus, fanaticism destroyed the Umayyad caliphate as it gnawed from within itself. This is an invaluable lesson to be learnt; when fanaticism and extremism spread in a given society, everything and everyone are destroyed including those who initiated such fanaticism and extremism. Likewise, religious fanaticism backfires always at its initiators; it turns into persecution, bias, and prejudice among members of the same sect/doctrine and the circle would grow smaller and people would declare one another as 'infidels', 'apostates', or 'heretics' in mutual distrust and accusations until violence, massacres, and terrorism spread among a given society whose members are deemed as 'disbelievers'. Such ghastly state of affairs does occur now within the countries of the Muhammadans. Apart from historical examples of what we refer to here, in modern times, we have witnessed a revival of Salafism/Wahabism now all over the Arab world that spreads terrorism and bloodshed. What aggravates matters is the following fact often ignored by most people: the vast majority of distortions in religion within tenets and notions believed by the Muhammadans in their ancient 'holy' books of traditions have been introduced by non-Arabs who hated both Arabs (who conquered their lands) and Islam (the culture that undermined theirs), and they sought to take revenge at any cost by feigning conversion to 'Islam' to undermine it in the books authored by them. Within such books, countless narratives/hadiths and fatwas contradict and undermine the Quran/Islam and cast doubts on Muhammad; yet, such books are sanctified and believed by the Muhammadans, past and present, and this means that the revenge sought by those non-Arab authors is complete and still going on for centuries until now! Because of racial discrimination and religious persecution, feigning a conversion to 'Islam' was the political route to wreak revenge against Arabs and Muhammadans. If there were any justice, equality, and religious freedom within the Arab rule/caliphates, those people would not have resorted to secret resistance methods. We assert here that racial discrimination is short-lived, as the one adopted by Umayyads against non-Arabs did not last for long as the Abbasids never adopted it. In contrast, religious persecution lasts for centuries; the one introduced and initiated by the Ibn Hanbal doctrine scholars and imams as well as the narrators/fabricators of hadiths and narratives has become integral part of the Sunnite religion. Intellectual stagnation that lasted for centuries helped in maintaining such books and tenets and notions without being discussed and refuted, paving the way to their being accepted as 'holy' creed and part and parcel of being religious. In our modern times, the religious 'Islamic' revival that began in the Arab world in the 1970s has nothing to do with Islam (i.e., the Quran alone); rather, it is the re-introduction of the backward, regressive, obscurantist Salafism/Wahabism that dates back to the Middle Ages, the era of fanaticism, extremism, obscurantism, immorality, violence, intellectual stagnations, and backwardness. Hence, the so-called 'revival of religion' is in fact poses a veritable danger against people and it distorts and defames the name of Islam; terrorism and sectarian violence base themselves on Wahabi grounds, thus turning citizens/generations into time-bombs that will explode sooner or later. All extremist movements and calls begin by declaring others, in a given society, who have different faiths/doctrines/religions as 'infidels' and 'disbelievers', and they end up declaring the whole society as such, thus seeking to impose change and to reach power via terrorism, violence, and massacres. This later on will lead to more divisions and killings within the one group of those criminals against one another. Hence, fanatical and extremist movements begin at first as simple ones, and they snowball into a huge, massive destructive force gaining fake legitimacy from religion by raising the banners of jihad. To face such veritable danger, we are to prove the falsehood and the deception of such fake legitimacy that contradicts and flagrantly violates the Quranic sharia. Indeed, the Muhammadans are in bad need of religious reform, and if governments would not do it, enlightened free thinkers must undertake it in Egypt, and all over the Arab world, as religious reform will save Egypt and the Middle East countries, and indeed the whole planet, from extremism and terrorism. The needed religious reform is nothing but Quranism: to return to God's Word as the sole criterion to refute traditions/falsehoods accumulated for 14 centuries; this way, we will clear the name of Islam from the acts and notions of past and present Muhammadans. ""Shall I seek a judge other than God, when He is the One who revealed to you the Book, explained in detail?" Those to whom We gave the Book know that it is the truth revealed from your Lord…" (6:114). As always, God says nothing but the Truth.