The Character of Egypt after the Arab Conquest

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

FOREWORD

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I: The Political Strategy of Egypt after the Arab Conquest

Firstly: The Political Strategy of Egypt before the Arab Conquest

Secondly: The Arab Conquest of Egypt

Thirdly: Egypt during the Umayyad Era

Fourthly: Egypt during the Abbasid Era

Fifthly: Egypt during the Fatimid Era

Sixthly: Egypt during the Ayyubid Era

Seventhly: Egypt during the Mameluke Era

CHAPTER II: The Arab Conquest and Egyptian Religious Life

Firstly: Islam and Egypt Before the Arab Conquest

Secondly: Islam and Egypt After the Arab Conquest

Thirdly: Converging Trends in the Religions of the Muhammadans and Coptic Christian in Egypt

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES LIST

FOREWORD:

The Character of Egypt after the Arab Conquest

Authored by: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour

Translated by: Ahmed Fathy

FOREWORD:

     We have authored this book in 1984 to teach it for our students at the History Department, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, before we have tendered our resignation, as an assistant professor, after much trouble and inquisition-like persecution suffered by us there. Death threats continue to appear in our email inbox nowadays, as Wahabis seem not to stand our writings that undermine their religion (i.e., Wahabism) that contradicts Islam, and we have temporarily stopped writing new books to finish some older books and to re-publish them online (both on our Quranism website: ahl-alquran.com and on our page as a writer within the Marxist and Leftist Modern Discussion website: ahewar.org). These old books were first published and printed in Cairo, Egypt. This book, as a historical research, attempts to answer a very important question: to what extent has the Arab conquest of Egypt influenced Egypt in terms of the strategic, political, and religious aspects?

INTRODUCTION:

(N.B.: This is the introduction we have written to the first, and last, paper edition of this book.)

1- The Arab conquest of Egypt was never a mere raid for looting, typical of Arabian tribes before and after Islam in Arabia, as Arabs intended to use deceitfully the banner of 'Islam' to unify the warring tribes into one endeavor masterminded by the Umayyads who controlled events from behind a curtain: to form a firmly established Arab Empire led and headed only by the Qorayish tribe, with Arabs settling in the conquered countries they ruled to enjoy its treasures. By the way, Arabs before the advent of Islam (i.e., the revelation of the Quran to Muhammad) used to raid south of Iraq and the Levant, for the sake of looting and never to settle there. This is unlike the Arab conquests that aimed to found a firmly established Arab Empire that would rule and settle in the conquered countries, leaving its imprint there in terms of culture, language, faith, history, etc. regionally and within the ancient world at the time. In addition, the Arab conquerors raised the banner of 'Islam' and manipulated the name of the new faith to unite all Arabian people into one dream: to conquer and rule most of the ancient world known at the time. Despite the fact that Islam is innocent of the crime of conquering other nations, raising the name of religion in the banners of such military actions was the main factor that allowed Arabs (especially of Qorayish) to get so ambitious as to desire to rule over all the countries they had conquered, and among such countries was, of course, Egypt.      

2- The Arab conquest of Egypt had its political aspect of change; Egypt turned from being part of the Byzantine Empire into part of the emerging Arab Empire that defeated the Byzantines before in the Levant and conquered the whole Levantine region, causing the Byzantines to flee into Egypt, but Arabs chased them out of Egypt as well later on. After the Arab conquest, Egypt continued to play its typical major political and strategic role during the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates, and this role increased in magnitude and importance during the Fatimid dynasty rule of Egypt and the dynasties that followed it inside Egypt. The religious and cultural aspect of the influence of Arab conquest on Egypt was primarily turning most Egyptians, gradually through the centuries, from being Coptic Christians into being Muhammadans (i.e., Shiites, Sufis, and Sunnites as well as Shiite Sufis and Sunnite Sufis that thought themselves to be 'Muslims'). Egypt has been deemed to be raising the banner of being an 'Islamic' country from the Middle Ages until the present moment.        

3- Egypt was conquered by Arabs in 640 A.D., and before this Arab conquest, it had a very long, glorious, and eventful history of about 50 centuries. Indeed, it is a very well-known incontestable fact worldwide now that human history began in Egypt, the one great nation where the dawn of civilization emerged. Ancient Egyptians were the first humans to know and practice settling by river banks, agriculture and cultivation of lands, forming a State, the idea of religion, establishing civilizations, the art of writing, political systems, many forms of art, architecture, forming and training armies, etc. Indeed, it is very well-known now that prehistory Ancient Egyptians had established elevated, refined, grand, and highly sophisticated civilizations, within many cities and governorates along the fertile River Nile Valley, but the whole land of Egypt (i.e. the Lower Egypt and the Upper Egypt that were two separate kingdoms) was unified by Menes (or Narmer), the pharaoh of the early dynastic period who found the very first Pharaonic dynasty, with Memphis as its capital, in circa 3200 B.C. and before the Arab conquest by about 3840 years. Before the Arab conquest of Egypt, 30 Pharaonic dynasties, that included tens of pharaohs, ruled Egypt within three stages divided by historians (the Old Era, the Middle Era, and the New Era), and this Pharaonic rule ended upon the Persian conquest of Egypt in 525 B.C., and later on, the Greeks conquered Egypt in 332 B.C. The Romans conquered Egypt in 30 B.C., and later on the Byzantine Empire (of the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople) reigned over Egypt until it was conquered by Arabs in 642 A.D. We know then that the Arab conquest was not the very first conquest of Egypt: the Hyksos were the very first conquerors of Egypt and reigned over it for about 100 years, until a Pharaonic dynasty liberated Egypt from them, chasing them away to the deserts beyond Sinai, and restored Egypt to the Egyptians, and then Egypt was conquered in later eras by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and ruled by the Byzantines until the Arab conquest. To what extent had the Arab conquest of Egypt influenced its political strategy? This is the pivotal question that we tackle in CHAPTER I of this book. Egypt before the Arab conquest had witnessed and submitted to so many civilized and barbarian conquerors from the East and the West; yet, before such conquests took place, Egypt had firmly established its peerless civilization, dominant culture, and most ancient form of religion throughout the stages of its millennia-old history, and the main factor that helped such firm foundation is the relative isolation of Egyptians in the River Nile Valley within stability, security, safety, and plentiful crops, while deserts surrounded them from the East and the West, thus making the strong attachment to one's land that made the Ancient Egyptian civilization flourish, crystalizing in the process the unique character and unparalleled traits and features of Egypt and Egyptians, apart from other emerging civilizations elsewhere that were influenced by the presence and weight of Egypt. Such long heritage of the matchless Egyptian civilization made Egyptians influence – and not to be influenced by – the conquerors, who were in fact amazed and inspired by Egypt. Thus, Egypt had Egyptianized any new trends brought into it by civilized and barbarian conquerors. For instance, the barbaric Hyksos used to worship the Egyptian gods and imitated the pharaohs and Egyptian lifestyle. Alexander the Great, the cultured man and ruler who studied philosophy, decided to go himself to the temple of Amon in Siwa oasis to be proclaimed as a son of Amon, thus submitting to the Egyptian traditions, and the Ptolemaic rulers followed his footsteps and adopted Pharaonic/Egyptian customs and religious values more than the Greek ones. The Arab conquest introduced gradually a new religion that contradicts the real character of the Egyptian civilization and ancient religion of the Egyptians. To what extent had the Arab conquest of Egypt, that brought a new religion, influenced the character of Egypt? To what extent had the element of Egyptianization influenced the qualities of religiosity and the religious aspect in Egyptians' lifestyle and features? These are the questions that we tackle in CHAPTER II of this book.

4- Of course, the Arab conquest of Egypt and of other countries was never an ordinary event in world history, in terms of the military, political, and religious aspects; Arabs put an end to the Persian and Byzantines empires and the Arab Empire borders reached between the Pyrenees Mountains in south of France and the China Great Wall in a very short time unparalleled in history. As for the religious aspect, the conquered nations in three continents got the chance to know about the Quranic and monotheism, and the Quran became for them the criterion to judge what was right and wrong, just and unjust, as far as rulers were concerned even if they had hidden their crimes. Thus, the unprecedented Arab conquest of Egypt that had influenced the character of Egypt in many aspects (until now) and made Egypt have its influence and imprint on the faith notions of the Arab Muhammadans (and on Christianity/Christians and Judaism/Jews before) is a topic that whets the appetite of a historical researcher to examine this mutual influence, because the Egyptian heritage and civilization of more than 3840 years before the Arab conquest were based on religious notions that contradict Islam, and when know that Egyptians used to Egyptianize any new religion, trend, notion, and culture that came from outside Egyptian soil. We know as well that the 14-century Arab Era (until now) in Egypt is less than one-third of the millennia-long Egyptian civilization and existence. To what extent the Arab conquest had been a major event that has influenced the character of Egypt, bearing the factor of Egyptianization in our mind? This is the central question that we attempt to answer in this book. This topic, of course, is difficult and filled with thorny, controversial issues, and we do not claim that our book is to be described as perfect or infallible; yet, this will not impede us from trying to reach and verify the truth as much as possible, even if some readers might think that we have made few mistakes in this book. Allah says in the Quran: "..."Our Lord, do not condemn us if we forget or make a mistake. Our Lord, do not burden us as You have burdened those before us. Our Lord, do not burden us with more than we have strength to bear; and pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy on us. You are our Lord and Master, so help us against the disbelieving people." (2:286).

Signature:

Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour

1984, Cairo, Egypt

CHAPTER I: The Political Strategy of Egypt after the Arab Conquest

Firstly: The Political Strategy of Egypt before the Arab Conquest:

Features of the political strategy of Egypt during the Pharaonic Era:

   Human beings settled and formed a full-fledged State in the River Nile Valley in Egypt 50 centuries ago when Pharaonic dynasties ruled Ancient Egypt. In fact, Egyptians knew political stability, a flourishing economy, and architectural genius earlier than any other nations in the world, as the pyramids were erected during the reign of the fourth Pharaonic dynasty (2720 – 2560 B.C.), and at this early era, Egyptians knew for the first time that each State has a cycle that begins with weakness, power, and then weakness and eventual collapse/downfall, as the one through which the ancient Egyptian State had gone (3200 – 2250 B.C.). Thus, Menes/Narmer united Upper and Lower Egypt, and this State reached a stage of power, strength, and flourish during the reign of the fourth dynasty, and the degeneration and collapse took place by the end of the reign of the sixth dynasty in circa 2250 B.C. The next cycle began in the Middle Pharaonic Era when the governorates were united once more after the phase of weakness, and flourish and power were regained in the reign of the twelfth dynasty (2000 – 1790 B.C.), and the cycle in inevitably ended in degeneration and collapse by the end of the thirteenth dynasty (c. 1700 B.C.). Therefore, humanity learned for the first time in history, only in Egypt, that nations/states are like humans: they become weak, then strong, then weak again before the inevitable end. When such State in the political sense was established in Egypt, the rest of humanity elsewhere used to hunt and raise cattle, without knowing settling somewhere yet to form States. During the degeneration period in the Ancient Pharaonic Era, the unified Egypt was defragmented into separate governorates and cities and unrest remained inside Egypt between the reign of the sixth dynasty until the twelfth dynasty (2250 – 2000 B.C.), and later on, Egyptians managed to unite the whole of Egypt once more. We notice that the downfall and unrest that went on for a long time never resulted in any conquest by any foreign nations; the reason was that at the time, there was never any power country at the borders of Egypt that posed any threat or danger to it. with the passage of time, the Middle Pharaonic Era witnessed the collapse and degeneration of the State, while the power and strength of the Hyksos in the East grew, and they decided to conquer Egypt through the Levant and Sinai. The Hyksos rule began in circa 1700 B.C., and their control over Egyptians marks the very first page of conquests/colonization in world history. Another very first page in resistance against conquerors is marked in world history by Egyptians in Thebes, in Upper Egypt, and after long military struggle, Ahmose I managed to drive the Hyksos out of Egypt thus liberating the whole land, chasing the Hyksos even in Sinai until they went into deserts of Arabia and south of Palestine. Hence, Ahmose I whose rule marks the beginning of the New Pharaonic Era and its New State built a very powerful Egypt that entered by him into the era of conquering neighboring nations and adoption of certain political strategies. In the Old and Middle Pharaonic Eras, there was no external dangers that threatened Egyptian borders at all of foreign nations coveting the wealth of Egypt, but before the era of Ahmose I, Egypt had neighbors who had taken advantage of its weakness phase, as soon after the downfall of the Middle Pharaonic Era, the Hyksos took over the Levant and moved through Sinai to conquer Egypt. Thus, the main political strategy of Egypt began to be formulated as such: protection of Egypt is summarized in Egyptians controlling the Levant, because anyone ruling the Levant can never feel safe unless he would rule and control over Egypt. Of course, Ahmose I was the very first Pharaoh to apply this strategy; as he chased the Hyksos until some of them went south into Arabian deserts and some were chased further through the Levant until the eastern borders of Iraq. Indeed, Ahmose controlled and ruled over the Levant and larger part of Iraq in order to protect and safeguard borders of Egypt in Sinai. Hence, Ahmose I was the very first ruler to understand that controlling the Levant was of vital importance to protect Egypt and to maintain its security and that a powerful and strong ruler of Egypt must control the Levant at any cost, because if the Levant would have a strong ruler, this would pose a veritable threat at the Egyptian borders in Sinai. Ahmose applied this essential political strategy by turning the Egyptian nations, for the very first time, into conquerors that ruled over the Levant and moved battles of defending Egypt into the Levantine region for centuries, as successors of Ahmose I followed his footsteps, and the most prominent among them were Thutmose III of the 18^th dynasty and Ramses II of the 19^th dynasty. History has immortalized their battles in the Levant, such as the battle of Megiddo and the battle of Kadesh. The apogee of power, flourishing, and strength of the New State established by Ahmose I was reached during the reign of Thutmose III and Ramses II, and the cycle inevitably moved toward a phase of degeneration, weakness, and eventual collapse, and Libyan rulers controlled Egypt in the 22^nd dynasty (1950 – 740 B.C.), and Egypt was ready to be conquered later on by the Assyrians. The Assyrians in Iraq expanded their lands by driving away the Elamites, and within 1000 years, their expansions moved in every direction, especially westward by driving out the Hittites, and they conquered the Levant that was ruled by Egypt at the time. Once conquering Palestine, the Assyrians coveted Egypt very much, and soon enough, the Assyrian king Esarhaddon conquered Egypt in 760 B.C. The greatest Assyrian king was Ashurbanipal who ruled in 669 B.C., and he used all his military power to crush and quell revolts of the Egyptians to the extent that his enemies Elamites seized the chance of his being busy in Egypt to attack his kingdom in Babylon and they raided and looted it, and eventually carried lots of spoils [1]. Eventually, the Egyptians got rid of the Assyrian conquerors, but factors of weakness lingered, and within the 26^th dynasty (663 – 525 B.C.), Egypt was conquered again by people coming also from the East through the Levant; in the middle of the sixth century B.C., a new Persian state emerged, of the Persian Medes, that crushed the Babylonian State and inherited its lands in Mesopotamia, and expanded its lands by conquering Phoenicia and Palestine, and soon enough, the Persian Medes coveted Egypt, and their leader Cambyses II conquered Egypt in 525 B.C. [2]. Typically, Egyptians hated the foreign occupiers and resisted the Persians within a fierce struggle that ended in 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great conquered Egypt. At the time, Egypt was internally weak and externally, it has long lost control over the Levant, thus making room for Assyrians and Persians to conquer the Levant and then Egypt. This has confirmed the fact that the Levant was the Asian gate of Egypt from which dangers and threats would come, and controlling such Eastern gate is a must to protect the security of Egypt and ward off conquerors. When the Persian empire began to be weak and suffer degeneration during the reign of Darius III, and meanwhile, Alexander the Great ascended to power and unified the Greeks, who were the typical old enemies of Persians at the time. Alexander the Great took revenge against the Persian enemies and defeated them in the battle of Issus in Asia Minor in 333 B.C. It was expected that Alexander the Great would chase the Persians until their capital Susa, but this did not happen; he moved with his troops southward and conquered the Levant that was occupied by the Persians in order to have a strategic position to protect Greece and Asia Minor and to cut links between Persian troops and Persian fleet in the Mediterranean. Naturally, Alexander the Great coveted Egypt, and he entered it without any resistance, as Egyptians welcomed him warmly because they saw him as a savior that came to deliver them from the fierce Persians whom the Egyptians hated so much. besides, the Greeks had strong ties with the Egyptians before; as the Greeks helped the Egyptians before in their revolts against the Persians [3]. When Alexander the Great took over Egypt and the Levant from his Persian enemies, he moved with his troops from Egypt to Mesopotamia to conquer it and he conquered Persia itself and put an end to the Persian Empire, and his expansions went into the east until his death in 323 B.C. [4] after he established a vast, huge empire. The leaders under Alexander the Great distributed this empire among themselves. The leader called Ptolemy took over Egypt and established the Ptolemaic State in it.                                

Features of the political strategy of Egypt during the Ptolemaic Era:

   Leaders who inherited the lands in Macedonia, Greece, Asia Minor, Iraq, the Levant, and Egypt, within the empire established by Alexander the Great, used to quarrel among themselves all the time. We focus here on the struggle between the Seleucids in Mesopotamia and the Levant and the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt. The main source of conflict was the fact that Egypt and the Levant were, and are, one strategic unit that could not be separated and cannot have two strong rulers. Thus, a strong ruler in the Levant cannot be secure unless he controls Egypt; a strong ruler in Egypt cannot be secure unless he controls the Levant. Hence, the strongest one of them must control Egypt and the Levant together. Ptolemy I understood the political strategy entailed by the geographical location of Egypt, and he realized that he must protect his kingdom by annexing south of the Levant to his dominance and he ruled over some islands in the Aegean Sea to ward off his rivals in Greece and Macedonia. The successors of Alexander the Great adopted similar measures and policies to protect their kingdoms against rivals and engaged into incessant military struggle to control Syria or its south to protect Egypt or to try and conquer Egypt to protect the Levant. We trace such a struggle in the following points.

1- During the reign of Ptolemy I (323 – 283 B.C.): he never stopped attempting to conquer Syria, and he had seized the chance within struggles among other Greek leaders after the death of Antipatros in 319 B.C., and amidst alliances and battles, Ptolemy I marched with his troops into Syria and conquered south of the Levant. Yet, soon enough, he had to cede the region when pressurized by his rivals such as Antigonus who ruled Asia Minor. Antigos expanded his lands and defeated the Greek leader Seleucus who ruled the Levant and drove him to flee to Egypt seeking protection of Ptolemy I. Antigonus thus dominated over the lands owned in the past by Persian empire and Alexander the Great, except for Egypt. Ptolemy I controlled Egypt fully but felt threatened as Antigonus controlled the Levant and may covet Egypt and seek to conquer it. Ptolemy I gathered an alliance of Greek leaders and they sent an ultimatum to Antigonus to cede lands he conquered, so that Babylon would be returned to Seleucus and south of Syria to Ptolemy I in Egypt. Such alliance headed by Ptolemy I contained leaders who acknowledged the right of Ptolemy I to dominate over south of Syria to secure his Egyptian kingdom. When Antigonus rejected their ultimatum, those allied leaders fought against him under leadership of Ptolemy I, who managed to retrieve south of Syria from Antigonus in the battle of Gaza in 312 B.C., and other victories of Ptolemy I took place and he conquered the whole of Palestine and then Phoenicia later on, but he was defeated in the north of Syria in 311 B.C., and he had to retreat and cede Palestine. Eventually, Ptolemy I made an agreement and ceded south of Syria to Antigonus. Conflicts erupted once again naturally, and Antigonus in 306 B.C. decided to conquer Egypt, and hem arched with his troops from Syria and Palestine toward Sinai, while his son Demetrius led a huge fleet toward Alexandria the capital at the time. Both Antigonus and Demetrius were defeated by Ptolemy I. In 302 B.C., a new alliance was formed, led by Ptolemy I and Seleucus, to face the ambitions of Antigonus. While the allies fought Antigonus in Asia Minor, Ptolemy I seized for the third time south of Syria, but he retreated and had to leave because he heard rumors that Antigonus defeated the allied leaders in Asia Minor, but in fact, Antigonus was defeated by the allied leaders in the decisive battle of Ipsus in 301 A.D., and Antigonus was killed and his son Demetrius fled and took hiding. because Ptolemy I never participated in such military struggle, lands of Antigonus were distributed among allied leaders and Seleucus regained Babylon and annexed Syria to his kingdom, while leaving only Egypt to Ptolemy I. Ptolemy I was furious and conquered Syria for the fourth while reminding others of his rights there, but Seleucus never wanted to leave Syria and declared that Ptolemy I lost all rights in it because he never participated in the wars to get rid of Antigonus and because he left Syria upon hearing rumors, and he demanded that Ptolemy I and his troops must leave Syria. This did not happen as Ptolemy I died in 283 B.C.           

2- During the reign of Ptolemy II (285 – 246 B.C.): he engaged in many military wars against the Seleucids in south of the Levant; in 267 B.C., his troops advanced and seized Damascus, but the Seleucid king Antigonus I retrieved Damascus and forced troops of Ptolemy II to retreat into Palestine. When Antigonus I died, Antigonus II succeeded him and continued to fight Ptolemy II in Syria, and Ptolemy II was defeated in land and maritime battles because Antigonus II allied himself to rulers of Macedonia, Ephesus, Rhodes, and Malta, and wars ended when Antigonus II got married to the daughter of Ptolemy II as a second wife, while his first wife was a Syrian woman.    

3- During the reign of Ptolemy III (246 – 221 B.C.): because of familial conflict between wives of Antigonus II, he was murdered by his Syrian first wife, and the struggle between her and the second wife began during the reign of Ptolemy III, as he tried to aid and protect his sister, the second wife of Antigonus II, and her son's right to be enthroned after the murder of Antigonus II. Before Ptolemy III could move toward the Levant, his sister and her son were murdered by the Syrian first wife of Antigonus II, and war thus erupted again between Ptolemy III of Egypt and Seleucids in Syria. Ptolemy III marched with his troops into the Levant in 246 B.C. and reached the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and was about to reach the capital of Seleucids, Seleucia, but he had to go back to Egypt quickly to face an internal crisis, Seleucus who was enthroned in Syria seized the chance to retrieve the north of Syria but south of Syria remained under Egyptian dominance along with Phoenicia and Palestine. Ptolemy III had to remain powerful only in the south of the Levant; he seized the chance of a civil war that erupted among the dynasty members of the Seleucids by inciting the two warring parties against each other, thus encouraging the divisions between them to retain his dominance over south of Syria, until Ptolemy III died.            

4- During the reign of Ptolemy IV (221 – 205 B.C.): this ruler, Ptolemy IV, was weak, slothful, and hesitant, and thus, he was controlled by one of his favorite followers, a chief minister named Sosibius. At the same time, Antigonus III ruled as the king of the Seleucids, who was enthroned and quickly managed to unite the Seleucid State whose regions were engaged in a civil war, and he was determined to conquer south of Syria as he knew that Ptolemy IV of Egypt was weak. Yet, the Ptolemaic military leader in Phoenicia was strong and warded off troops of Antigonus III. Sosibius managed to prepare troops to wage war against Antigonus III in Syria, and he incited rivals within the Seleucid dynasty against Antigonus III as well as per the policy adopted previously by Ptolemy III using spies, bribes, intrigues, plots, and schemes. Sosibius gained more time by deceiving Antigonus III by sending him messengers to negotiate making an agreement, while luring him that this agreement would be to his advantage, and the negotiations was a ploy to procrastinate and gain more time for Sosibius to get prepared, especially that Antigonus III was busy facing and quelling internal revolts, and he never knew that Sosibius was inciting revolting people behind his back. Meanwhile and secretly, Sosibius had Macedonian military leaders to prepare and train (for two years) troops that consisted of strong well-built Egyptians peasants. At the same time, Antigonus III crushed and quelled all revolts, united his State again, settled all disputes with rivals in his dynasty, and got bored with incessant negotiations of messengers of Sosibius; he marched with his troops till he reached Gaza, and he was surprised to find an Egyptian army waiting for him at Rafah in 217 B.C. led by Ptolemy IV himself. At first, knights on horseback of the army of Ptolemy IV were defeated, but the infantry of Egyptians achieved victory, in a first battle that Egyptians fought after hiatus for centuries. The Egyptians turned defeat of knights into victory, and Ptolemy IV maintained control over the south of the Levant              

5- During the degeneration period and eventual and collapse Ptolemaic dynasty: Antigonus III seized the chance of the weakness of the Ptolemaic dynasty and conquered the south of the Levant that was typically dominated by Egypt. The Ptolemaic dynasty was so weak and their being non-officially under the protection of Rome that controlled them increased, as Rome interfered in their rule of Egypt and even in the internal rivalry within the Ptolemaic dynasty members in the period 180 – 51 B.C. Meanwhile, the Seleucids posed a veritable threat to Egypt when they controlled the whole region of the Levant; Antigonus IV marched with his troops into Egypt and conquered it in 170 B.C., and he was crowned as per Pharaonic and Egyptian traditions in Memphis and was proclaimed as an 'Egyptian Pharaoh'. Internal conflict and rivalry within the Ptolemaic dynasty members in Alexandria increased till Ptolemy VI fled the capital, but he was held captive by Antigonus IV in Memphis. Alexandria was made ready to face the military army led by Antigonus IV poised to invade it; yet, this did not occur, as some Greek ambassadors managed to convince him to leave Egypt. Later on, he returned and conquered the whole of Egypt, except Alexandria, in 168 B.C., and when he sieged Alexandria, roman troops inside it threatened him and forced him out of Egypt for good [5]. Rome interfered more in the affairs of the Ptolemaic dynasty and in the rule of Egypt for a while until Rome conquered Egypt after the death of Queen Cleopatra VII in 30 B.C.    

Features of the political strategy of Egypt during the Roman Era:

  Egypt was the last country to be invade by the Romans in the east of the Mediterranean Sea, after the battle of Actium in Alexandria as Octavius-Augustus, the roman emperor entered Egypt in 30 B.C., and Queen Cleopatra VII and Marcus Antonius committed suicide after being defeated by Rome. The Levant was conquered earlier by the Romans, and Egypt after the Roman conquest had no longer any independent history or politics ever since, as Romans fully controlled every aspect in Egyptian life. Yet, Egyptians revolted against the Roman rule in 29 B.C. once Octavius-Augustus left Alexandria. The revolt spread all over Lower and Upper Egypt, from Alexandria till Thebes, but the Roman governor in Egypt, Aelius Gallus, managed to use much violence to quell such revolts. During the Roman rule over Egypt, Rome was ruled by a series of emperors after Octavius-Augustus such as: Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Vespasian. Later on, Rome suffered in the 3^rd century A.D. a political and military conflict over the throne, and the Roman armies had to interfere to appoint, depose, or murder emperors. On their part, Egyptians used to support any revolting men against the Roman rule because they hated the Romans so much and harbored hopes to participate in the destruction of the Roman Empire one day. The military and political chaos in Rome reached its zenith in the period 252 – 268 A.D., as struggle increased among seekers of the throne and the central power and authority of Rome waned more and got weakened. Some countries declared its independence from the Roman Empire, and Egypt did just that in 260 A.D., but Rome managed to retrieve its control over Egypt after committing lots of massacres.              

Zenobia Queen of Palmyra Conquered Egypt:

 For the first three centuries of the Roman Empire, the East witnessed the rise of the province of Palmyra in the desert between Syria and Babylon, which depended on its trade routes between east and the west. Though Palmyra was subordinate to Rome, it had its internal independence to a certain measure. Its ruler,Odaenathus, had formed and financed a powerful army under his leadership and he helped the Roman emperor Gallienus, and the emperor appointed him as a general ruler of eastern provinces of Rome. When Odaenathus died, his wife, Queen Zenobia of the Syria-based Palmyra, succeeded him and she had the ambition to form an empire by seizing the chance of a weakened Rome. In fact, Zenobia sent a huge army in 269 to conquer Egypt and her troops drove The Roman governor away, and Rome had to acknowledge the fait accompli and that the son of Zenobia,Vabalathus (or Wahb Al-Lat, in Arabic), as the one sharing with Rome the rule of Egypt. A year later, Vabalathus refused such a joint rule and he proclaimed himself as an emperor, and Rome had to fight and destroy Palmyra by sending Roman troops to Egypt and to Palmyra through Asia Minor. Thus, Rome retrieved Egypt in 27 A.D. [6].     

Egypt during the Byzantine Era:

  Diocletian (284 – 305 A.D.) was the Byzantine emperor that attempted to perform some reforms to save the empire from deterioration by imposing new rules that had been applied until the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian in the 6^th century A.D., but the empire collapsed eventually because of the barbarian raids. Before that, the capital had been moved to Constantinople, built before by the emperor Constantine the Great. The Byzantine Empire maintained control over Egypt and the Levant while leaving its lands in Europe to fall into the hands of the barbarian tribes [7] like the Germanic tribes, the Huns, the Franks, the Goths, and the Vandals. Meanwhile, the Persians grew stronger as powerful rulers emerged within the Sassanid dynasty, and they engaged into military struggle against the Byzantines. Successors of Justinian were weak emperors and chaos reigned supreme inside the Byzantine Empire, especially with Christian divisions and theological quarrels. Hence the Byzantine emperor Phocas was defeated by Khosrow II of the Sassanid dynasty of Persia, and the Persian military leader Shahrbaraz managed to conquer Egypt and entered Alexandria in 616 A.D., and at the same time, another huge Persian army reached the area near Constantinople. Indeed, the Persians took over most of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Emperor Heraclius, who succeeded Phocas, actually fled the capital and ran for his life. Away from such events, Prophet Muhammad and his followers in Mecca felt sad because the Byzantines, who were Christians, were defeated by Persian heathens or Mages, and God has told them in the Quran the prediction that the Byzantines will achieve victory eventually years later: "The Byzantines have been defeated. In a nearby territory. But following their defeat, they will be victorious. In a Few years..." (30:2-3). In fact, within few years, Heraclius marched with his troops and crossed the Dardanelles and defeated the Persians in Armenia in 622 A.D. and he defeated them again inside Persia (current Iran), and within ten years, Heraclius managed to retrieve the Levant and Egypt [8]. The Byzantines did not keep Egypt for long, as Arabs raised armies in Arabia and conquered the Levant, Iraq, Persia, and drove away the Byzantines back to Asia Minor, and Arabs conquered Egypt later on and North Africa and Spain. The Arab conquests had changed world history forever. Egypt under Arab rule, after cycles of flourish, power, deterioration, and collapse of dynasties, has not changed elements of its strategic policy, as we will see in the next sections of this CHAPTER I.

References:

[1] "Ancient History of Iran", Hassan Pirnia, pages 44:47

[2] Ditto, pages 87:88.

[3] "Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest", Al-Abady, pages 18:19.

[4] Pirnia, page 138.

[5] Al-Abady, pages 32, 41, 55:60, 65:67, 72:75, 78:79, and 86:87.

[6] Ditto, pages 164, 191, and 197:199.

[7] "A Short History of the World", H. G. Wells, pages 182:192 and Al-Abady, page 290.

[8] H. G. Wells, 192:196, Al-Abady 309:310, and Pirnia page 272.

Secondly: The Arab Conquest of Egypt:

Arabs conquered Egypt after conquering the Levant:

  The Arab conquests that aimed to establish an Arab Empire began with conquering the Levant and Iraq, as there are no natural geographical or geological barriers between them and Arabia; indeed, the tribe of Qorayish in Mecca before the advent of Islam used to have its trade caravans in the Levant and in Yemen every summer and winter; thus, it was expected that Arabs would conquer the Levant first. As for Egypt, Arabia is separated from Egypt by the Red Sea and mountains east and west of the Red Sea, and Arabs never coveted Egypt except when they controlled the whole region of the Levant first, after the decisive battle of Yarmouk, to make sure their backs were covered before they would enter Sinai with their troops. When the Arab military leader Amr Ibn Al-As conquered Jerusalem in 15 A.H./636 A.D., he saw scattered troops of the Byzantines, with their leader or tribune, retreat into Egypt, and he realized that Egypt must be conquered as soon as possible to secure the Levant. In fact, Ibn Al-As had visited Egypt before, before the advent of Islam, and he knew about its conditions and how it was the land of the plenty. He urged Arabs and the caliph, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, to conquer Egypt as soon as possible to ward off the Byzantine danger that threatened Arabs in the Levant. The caliph was reluctant at first regarding conquering Egypt because of Red Sea mountains, and he felt the need to think the matter over and not to be hasty; he met Ibn Al-As in the Levant to receive from him the keys of Jerusalem, and Ibn Al-As managed to convince him of the vital strategic importance to conquer Egypt as soon as possible. Of course, Egypt remained later on the bulwark to protect the Levant during the whole period of the Umayyad dynasty rule, whose capital was Damascus.         

Events of the Arab conquest of Egypt:

 Amr Ibn Al-As marched with his troops in the same route in Sinai that was followed by previous invaders of Egypt in previous stages of history, as he moved through the Sinai Mediterranean Coast from Palestine, with more than 4000 soldiers, and he conquered the city of Arish without battle in 18 A.H./ 632 A.D., and he moved toward the city of Al-Farama (now east of Port-Said, near Suez Canal) which was a fortified location for the Byzantines and he sieged it for a whole month until it surrendered in 19 A.H./ 640 A.D. When Ibn Al-As left Sinai after securing routes inside it to keep in touch with Arabs in Arabia and the Levant, he moved toward Eastern Nile Delta and sieged the city of Belbeis, where the Byzantine tribune/leader was surrounded by his strong garrison. Fighting went on for a month until Belbeis surrendered in March 640 A.D. Ibn Al-As moved with his troops southward, and fought the Byzantines severely and relentlessly for a while in a village called Um Dunayn, (now the Cairene Azbakiyya District), with no victory to either party initially; he had to ask for more reinforcements from the caliph, but before he received any, Ibn Al-As managed to drive the Byzantines out of the village and they fled to theBabylon Fortress, which was a very fortified castle. Ibn Al-As realized he could not attack theBabylon Fortress with his limited troops and at the same time, he would not stay without military action until the reinforcements would come to him; he marched with his troops toward Upper Egypt to surprise the Byzantines there and to get more victuals. In fact, Ibn Al-As achieved victory over the Byzantines in the battle of Fayoum, and before conquering Fayoum, he received news of the reinforcements that reached Egypt from the caliph. Ibn Al-As returned northward to Ain Shams, while looting any cattle and victuals in his way that he could lay his hands on, and he met 12 thousands Arabs fighters sent by Omar and led by four Arab military leaders with prowess and acumen: Al-Zubayr Ibn Al-Awwam, Al-Miqdad Ibn Al-Aswad, Eibada Ibn Al-Samet, and Kharja Ibn Huzafa. Hence, the higher military leader Ibn Al-As led 16 thousand men and got ready to engage into a decisive battle against the Byzantines. Indeed, Ibn Al-As sent some troops in many ambushes in several locations: Ain Shams, near the Red Mountain, and near Um Dunayn village, and he waited eagerly for the arrival of Theodore, the military Byzantine leader who led 20 thousand soldiers. Ibn Al-As and his troops vanquished the Byzantines who were surprised by the many ambushes, and those who were not killed (about 5000 men) sought refuge in the Babylon Fortress. This huge castle was the biggest and greatest fortress of the Byzantines in Egypt, and it was erected by the Roman emperor Trajan in 100 A.D. on the ruins of another older fortress. Water surrounded the Babylon Fortress from three sides, and Arabs sieged it for seven months. Meanwhile, negotiations went on between Ibn Al-As and Cyrus (or Al-Muqawqis in Arabic, who was the Byzantine governor of Egypt), and the governor felt that the Arabs were bent on conquering Egypt at any cost. Ibn Al-As insisted that the Byzantines would choose either to embrace 'Islam, pay tribute, or to be fought to death. Cyrus leaned toward paying a tribute, but he had to consult the emperor in Constantinople first, but Heraclius accused Cyrus of being weak and banished him out of Egypt. When Heraclius died, the Arabs felt relieved as Byzantines lost their morale, especially that the Nile flood ended around the Babylon Fortress; Arab troops filled part of the trench around it with earth, and Al-Zubayr managed to reach on top of one of the walls of the fortress and shouted (Allahu Akbar!), i.e., God is the Greatest, several times loudly and the Byzantine soldiers were frightened while this act boosted the morale of Arab soldiers who followed Al-Zubayr and attacked the fortress. When the Arab soldiers managed to break open one of the gates of the Babylon Fortress, the battle was won, and Ibn Al-As received the fortress from the Byzantine leader inside it and moved away with his Byzantine soldiers who were inside it, carrying victuals that would last only for few days. With the Babylon Fortress falling into hands of Arabs, there was only one city left for Ibn Al-As: Alexandria the capital of the Byzantines with its high walls, the second largest city in the Byzantine Empire after Constantinople in terms of fortifications. The Byzantine fleet in the Mediterranean protected Alexandria from the north, while Lake Mariout was located at the west and south-west, and the great high walls with strong towers stood before Ibn Al-As in the east and south-east of the city, and he had not tools or weapons to break into the walls. The siege of Alexandria continued for four months, and Ibn Al-As could not wait without doing anything; he left huge troops to maintain the siege and he marched with some other troops into the north of the Nile Delta to defeat the Byzantines situated in any locations there. Caliph Omar wrote to Ibn Al-As to waste no more time and to capture Alexandria before long. Ibn Al-As got ready to attack the city, and circumstances and conditions of the Byzantine Empire helped him much; as the successor of Heraclius died in 641 A.D. and the Byzantine military leaders were divided and quarreled with each other as Emperor Constans II was enthroned. This emperor had to face the internal problems in his capital, and he commanded Cyrus to negotiate with the Arabs to surrender Alexandria and to reach an agreement. Indeed, this agreement between Ibn Al-As and Cyrus was signed in October 641 and it included a 11-month truce during which all Byzantines would leave Egypt for good, while never trying to recapture it again. Another condition in this agreement was that some Byzantines would be held by Arabs as captives to guarantee the execution of the agreement that included paying a tribute of two dinars per head, the same as Coptic Egyptians paid, in case of traveling through Egypt by land, while agreeing never to harm houses of worship of Egyptian Copts and Jews. When the truce had ended and all the Byzantines left Egypt, the Arabs entered Alexandria in September 642 A.D. Egypt became an Arab governorate, part of the emerging Arab Empire, and Egyptians entered into the status of ''dhimmitude'' under the protection of Arab rulers.  

Attempts of the Byzantines to recapture Egypt:

  Constans was bent on recapturing Egypt and the Levant from the Arabs, and he saw that he must retrieve Egypt before the Levant. Indeed, he planned to recapture Alexandria as a start to re-conquer Egypt. There was only 1000 Arab soldiers inside Alexandria at the time, and the emperor sent the Byzantine fleet to Alexandria, where Byzantine fighters managed to kill the Arab soldiers, and Alexandria was dominated by Byzantines again. Arabs at that point had no fleet at all and could not engage into maritime battles. Soon enough, Byzantine troops marched into other Egyptian cities to recapture them, and the Arab governor of Egypt at the time was Abdullah Ibn Abou Sarh, during the caliphate of Othman Ibn Affan, and he could not deter the byzantine troops. The caliph Othman had to send Amr Ibn Al-As again to Egypt because of his experience in fighting the Byzantines and his previous knowledge of Egypt. Ibn Al-As managed to defeat the Byzantines at the Nile Delta city of Menouf, and he chased them until they had to retreat into Alexandria, closing the gates of the walls before Arab troops. Hence, the siege of Alexandria began, and Ibn Al-As vowed to demolish its walls this time after his victory, and he fulfilled his vow. After he recaptured Alexandria and drove the Byzantines out of it, he ordered the walls and towers to be leveled to the ground. Ibn Abou Sarh, the Arab governor of Egypt, realized the importance of establishing an Arab fleet so as to make the Byzantines lose control over the Mediterranean and never to pose a threat to Egyptian and Levantine coasts. Ibn Abou Sarh cooperated with Mu'aweiya, governor of the Levant at the time, to build an Arab fleet by hands of Egyptian and Levantine builders who recently converted to 'Islam'. Constans II wanted to abort the project of a strong Arab fleet so that he would be able to recapture Egypt and the Levant within a maritime battle, and his 500-ship Byzantine fleet, led by Constans himself, engaged into war against the 200-ship Arab fleet, led by Ibn Abou Sarh, in Dhat Al-Sawari battle (literally, battle of the masts) in 34 A.H. – 654 A.D. The Arab fleet achieved victory in its first battle, and the Byzantine fleet had to retreat and the emperor was wounded; he fled to Sicily but was assassinated there by his followers because they deemed him as a weak emperor who let them down and caused their defeat by the Arabs. Hence, the Mediterranean Sea was fully controlled by the Arab fleet, and the Byzantines lost all hopes of retrieving Egypt and the Levant, especially that the Arab Empire later on conquered North Africa and Spain.

  Finally, We see here how the Arab conquest of the Levant was what paved the way for Arabs to capture Egypt. This fact was made clear to previous conquerors who invaded Egypt before the Arab conquest: the Hyksos, the Assyrians, and the Persians. Egypt remained a strategic depth for Arabs to protect the Levant and a standpoint to conquer North Africa. This was of vital importance to the Umayyads in their capital, Damascus, because their rivals centered in Iraq, Persia, and Hejaz. In fact, Egypt remained of vital importance in political strategies of Arabs during the Arab rule, and especially during the Umayyad Era, and this was shown in particular since the Arab civil war between Mu'aweiya, the very first Umayyad caliph, and Ali, the caliph preceding him.               

References:

References about the Arab conquest of Egypt:

"Conquering Egypt" by Ibn Abdul-Hakam, pages 56:73.

"History of Al-Tabari" by Al-Tabari the historian, pages 4/104-111, published by Dar Al-Maaref, Cairo, Egypt.

"Al-Khetat by Al-Makrizi" by Al-Makrizi the historian, pages 1/315:353 and 54:551, published by Dar Al-Shaab, Cairo, Egypt.

"Husn Al-Muhadara" by Al-Siyouti, pages 1/106:124.

Thirdly: Egypt during the Umayyad Era:

Arabian civil war between Ali and Mu'aweiya:

  Arabs opened their horizons to the culture, customs, and habits of outer world away from Arabia after the Arab conquests, when they inherited the lands previously owned by the Persians and the Byzantines. At the time, Arabs for the first time dominated over vast areas of fertile soil filled with crops and possessions. After the assassination of caliph Omar who ruled Arabs strictly and firmly, Othman succeeded him but he was politically weak and but greedy, and he allowed other Arabs to enjoy affluence and hoarding worldly riches and possessions in the conquered countries. Thus, Arabs were engrossed and immersed in their greed and amassing as much treasures and money as they could. Such circumstances allowed ample room for fierce competition and rivalry; divisions began to surface soon enough, while tribalism, avarice, and animosity spawned more insurmountable disputes that eventually led to the conflict resulting in the assassination of the caliph Othman. The appetites of Arabs were whetted for more wealth-amassing and gaining more fruits of conquests; within such climate, Ali was a weak ruler/caliph who was not fit for such era, because he tried to imitate Omar in firmness but he could not realize that people hated the ways of Omar and could not have stood it being repeated by anyone. People could no longer forget about hoarding treasures and being competitors with many unsettled disputes. Their keenness to focus on worldly, transient possessions made materialistic Arabs feel that the weak and fickle Ali unfit to rule and that he undeservedly became a caliph; this era needed a strong, shrewd, practical caliph with enough power and awe to dominate over people and settle their disputes in the Arab Empire. The era of Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan, after the era of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs, was that of a wayward king, who formed the Umayyad dynasty, who never adhered to any religious or ethical values, unless in a way to serve his purposes and never the ones contradicting them. Years earlier, Abou Sufyan, the father of Mu'aweiya and leader of the Umayyads in Mecca, had been an arch-enemy of Islam in Mecca, and he spearheaded Meccan conspiracies of the Qorayish tribe against Muhammad and early believers who immigrated to Yathreb. Of course, Abou Sufyan cared all the time about his political and financial interests all the time, and when Mecca was conquered by Muhammad, Abou Sufyan and the Umayyads feigned to convert to the new religion to protect their interests within the new era imposed upon them. The Umayyads encouraged and participated in the Arab conquests during the reigns of the three caliphs Abou Bakr, Omar, and Othman, proving their political and military prowess. Mu'aweiya Ibn Abou Sufyan was rewarded by Omar by being appointed as the governor of the Levant, under the banner of 'Islam' and in the name of Yathreb, the capital of the emerging Arab Empire. Governor of Egypt, Amr Ibn Al-As, was very loyal to Mu'aweiya in the Levant and such alliance between both men went on even after the former was removed from his post as a governor of Egypt by Othman. Indeed, Ibn Al-As was among the ones who conspired and planned the assassination of Othman who removed all governors loyal to the Umayyads. When the weak and fickle Ali (who was later on deified by the Shiites after his assassination) became a caliph and succeeded Othman, he was busy quelling revolts against him (incited chiefly by Mu'aweiya). Meanwhile, Mu'aweiya, the governor of the Levant at the time, planned to declare war against Ali and to proclaim himself as king/caliph, and his first step of military revolt against Ali was to conquer Egypt. This means that Mu'aweiya understood the vital strategy that his security in the Levant was directly linked with his controlling Egypt, and this view was supported by Amr Ibn Al-As, his chief ally and friend who was eager to be re-appointed as governor of Egypt if Mu'aweiya would become a caliph. Indeed, Ibn Al-As swore fealty to Mu'aweiya as the new caliph and offered to be of use to him because he was the one with unparalleled experience in Egypt and Egyptians, and he was the one who conquered it after he conquered the south of the Levant during the reign of Omar. Ibn Al-As realized the vital strategy that linked the Levant and Egypt because of their geographical proximity. Hence, Ibn Al-As and Mu'aweiya conspired, plotted, and cooperated together to cause the assassination of Ibn Abou Huzayfah, who hated Othman and resented his policies and caused Ibn Abou Sarh to be removed from his post as a governor of Egypt once Ali became a caliph. Abou Huzayfah became the governor of Egypt appointed by Ali. Ibn Al-As and Mu'aweiya never wasted their time; they seized the chance of Ali being busy with crushing revolts against him (especially the battle of the Camel in Iraq) to try and conquer Egypt using Umayyad troops, but they failed, and Ibn Al-As played a treacherous trick to get rid of Abou Huzayfah; the former sent troops of 1000 soldiers to chase the latter until he reached Arish, in Sinai, and fortified himself behind its walls, and Ibn Al-As and Mu'aweiya brought catapults to siege the city, until the governor of Egypt left Arish in fear with 30 of his men, but men of Ibn Al-As and Mu'aweiya killed them all off and got rid of Abou Huzayfah eventually. When Ali knew that his governor of Egypt was killed, he sent instead Qais Ibn Eibada, who was a very shrewd man, and he entered Egypt to find armed Arab settlers who were supporters of the assassinated Othman fleeing from his face by hiding in an Egyptian village called Kharbata. When Qais sent them a letter of peace to them, the supported him provided that he would help them to take revenge against assassins of Othman. Egyptians in general felt that Qais was a good governor and they never took heed of Ibn Al-As who called them to support Mu'aweiya as a new caliph. Mu'aweiya felt that he was losing Egypt and felt worried because Ali won the battle of the Camel in Iraq, where he had increased number of supporters as well after he crushed all revolts. Mu'aweiya felt that his ruling the Levant was threatened by Qais in Egypt and Ali in Iraq, who made Kufa as his new capital instead of Yathreb. But Mu'aweiya was a man of ruse and cunning, and he tried to coax Qais, and to threaten him at other times, to join forces with him against Ali, but Qais remained loyal to Ali and never ate the bait that consisted of rewards and promises of Mu'aweiya to him. Mu'aweiya failed to win Qais to his side, and he tried hard to make Ali suspect Qais of being a treacherous foe to him; Mu'aweiya declared to the people of the Levant that Qais was his chief ally (which was a lie, of course), and told them never to vilify or insult Qais as correspondence of cordial amity were exchanged between him and Mu'aweiya. Mu'aweiya knew that spies of Ali inside the Levant would spread such a rumor in Iraq to make it reach Ali. When Ali grew suspicious of Qais, especially that Mu'aweiya read aloud to his retinue in his palace and to people of the Levant a fake letter from Qais, to arouse suspicions of Ali more and more, Ali sent a letter to test Qais, commanding him to kill off all people of Kharbata village who supported Othman and called for avenging his murder. Of course, Qais, who did not know what Mu'aweiya did, refused to obey Ali and assured him that the people of Kharbata never pose any threat to him or to Egypt. The trick of Mu'aweiya paid off; Ali removed Qais from his post as a governor of Egypt, thus Mu'aweiya felt safe in Damascus and continued his plots to undermine Ali as a caliph and to urge people to forsake Ali and swear fealty to Mu'aweiya as a new caliph. Qais later on met Ali personally and understood (when it was too late) what happened. Ali appointed Al-Ashtar as a governor of Egypt, and this man was a fierce military leader and was the one who led Ali's armies in the battle of Siffein, when Mu'aweiya was defeated and nearly lost his life as Al-Ashtar drew nearer to his tent at the time. This means that Ali intended to threaten the revolting Mu'aweiya by making his small Levantine kingdom sandwiched between the powerful Iraq in the east (because filled with supporters of Ali) ruled by Ali and the powerful Egypt  in the west ruled by Al-Ashtar as a governor loyal to Ali. Of course, Mu'aweiya felt worried by such a threat, and he was bent on preventing Al-Ashtar from ever reaching Egypt; he had one of his agents poison Al-Ashtar on his way to Egypt and thus Al-Ashtar died before he assumed his role as the new governor of Egypt. Ali had to send another governor to Egypt, who was Muhammad Ibn Abou Bakr (who was the son of the very first caliph Abou Bakr) that supported Ali all the time until his death. An impetuous youth, M. Ibn Abou Bakr was never as wise and shrewd as Qais; he never made peace with people of Kharbata like Qais who contained them and ward off their aggression. Sadly, unwisely, and without apparent reason, M. Ibn Abou Bakr attacked people of Kharbata and looted and destroyed the village and after battle, he and those Othman supported made agreement to allow them to leave Egypt peacefully for good and to join Mu'aweiya in the Levant. Such foolishness of M. Ibn Abou Bakr resulted in making Mu'aweiya stronger in his civil war against Ali, as people of Kharbata fought with him against Ali, because they sought revenge. Mu'aweiya felt that it was high time to seize Egypt from a weak, unwise, and impetuous governor like M. Ibn Abou Bakr, by sending him the shrewd, sly, and cunning Amr Ibn Al-As, chief ally of Mu'aweiya and the one who conquered Egypt before and knew all about it. It is noteworthy that the cunning, scheming Ibn Al-As was the one who saved Mu'aweiya from a crushing defeat in the battle of Siffein and the one to throw seeds of disruption and division among followers of Ali so that Al-Khawarij (i.e., dissenters who had forsaken Ali) turned against Ali and accused him of letting them down by accepting arbitration (using the Quran) proposed by Ibn Al-As. Ibn Al-As managed to conquer Egypt to rule it under Mu'aweiya and he killed M. Ibn Abou Bakr in 38 A.H. [1]. Mu'aweiya expected that Egypt's treasures, money, and plentiful crops cannot be his alone (as Ibn Al-As would get a lion's share), but Mu'aweiya would also gain loads of annual tribute and taxes money from Egyptians. Mu'aweiya rested assured that he protected himself and his capital, Damascus as long as his chief loyal ally, Ibn Al-As, ruled Egypt in his name. Mu'aweiya told Ibn Al-As frankly that he would allow him to have the greater share of Egyptian taxes and tributes money provided that he would remain loyal to him and help him against any future enemies that might threaten the Levant. Mu'aweiya knew that his security and protection in Damascus (and indeed, the very existence of the Umayyad dynasty in the Levant) entailed that Egypt must be under his control as a strategic depth, and this was more important than any money. This way, no enemy would come to the Levant from the west unless he would face the powerful, cunning, and mighty Ibn Al-As first. This allowed Mu'aweiya to have enough time and secure position in the Levant to face his enemies in Iraq (especially Shiites after the assassination of Ali). From this time onwards, it was a basic strategy in history of Arab rule in Egypt and the Levant that there can never be two powerful rulers in both regions: it is either the ruler of Egypt be subordinate to the one of the Levant or the ruler of the Levant be subordinate to the one of Egypt; or one powerful ruler would rule both Egypt and the Levant together. This strategy was not new; it was materialized during the Pharaonic and Ptolemaic eras, in the struggle against the Hyksos and Seleucids, respectively. Indeed, it is funny that when Mu'aweiya settled in Damascus and established firmly the Umayyad dynasty, he feared all the time that his faithful ally Ibn Al-As might toy with the idea of making Egypt his independent kingdom away from other countries under the Umayyad Empire. Such fears grew inside Mu'aweiya because he noticed that the Egyptians loved and respected Ibn Al-As, who stayed in his capital that he built, named Al-Fustat (now a district of today's Cairo), because of his lowering the taxes/tributes and making many reforms in the field of agriculture and cultivation of lands. Likewise, people of the Levant loved and respected Mu'aweiya. On his part, Ibn Al-As never declared himself a king over Egypt at all; rather, he preferred to be appointed as the successor of Mu'aweiya to be declared as a caliph after his death. Despite being so cunning and shrewd, Ibn Al-As in a visit to Damascus expressed his wonder that many companions of Prophet Muhammad died and Mu'aweiya was still alive, and Mu'aweiya assured him in a jesting mood that he would never die unless he would bury him first. Ibn Al-As persisted and tried to pave the way for himself to become a caliph one day, because after long discussions for months by exchanged letters and many visits to Damascus, Ibn Al-As managed to make Mu'aweiya appoint his son, Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn Al-As, as governor of Kufa (in Iraq); this way, the Levant was sandwiched by Egypt ruled by Ibn Al-As and Iraq ruled by his son. A man named Al-Mughira Ibn Shouba (who coveted to be a governor) warned Mu'aweiya against such a strategic error, and Mu'aweiya removed Abdullah from his post as a governor of Kufa and appointed Al-Mughira instead. Ibn Al-As was kept busy by Mu'aweiya by helping, with reinforcements, victuals, etc., in conquering North Africa and quelling any revolts there. Of course, Ibn Al-As never became a caliph; he died before Mu'aweiya, while still the governor of Egypt under the Umayyad rule, never taking anything from Egypt except money hoarded in huge quantities that he did not spent and could not use to escape throes of death. Upon dying while ill, Ibn Al-As weakly ordered his sons to count his wealth (which was ill-gotten, of course), and his sons told him that they were 140 huge jars of golden dinars. Ibn Al-As asked them weakly about who would take such money, as both his sons refused to receive such ill-gotten money taken by force, loot, and ruse and as a result of scheming, plotting, injustices, massacring, among other crimes. Mu'aweiya heard about the two sons refusing to inherit Ibn Al-As, and he came to Egypt and confiscated all the money, declaring he never cared if the money was ill-gotten or not [2]. Of course, the historical account here shows that Amr Ibn Al-As might have felt remorse for committing so many crimes for the sake of power, money, and authority that availed him nothing when he lied in bed dying, and he never became a caliph as he wished, while seeing his sons refusing to inherit such ill-gotten wealth. Mu'aweiya never rewarded the two sons of Ibn Al-As; indeed, he reneged on his promise to make Abdullah Ibn Amr Ibn Al-Ass succeed his father as a governor of Egypt, and he appointed instead his brother Otba Ibn Abou Sufyan, so that Mu'aweiya would make sure he fully controlled both the Levant and Egypt for the rest of his life.   

War between the Umayyads and Abdullah Ibn Zubayr:

  Mu'aweiya made people swear fealty to his son Yazeed as his successor to the throne of the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus, thus rejecting consultation typical of Arabs as per Quranic commands. Hence, most of the Muhammadans/Arabs resented the new notion (at the time) of someone inheriting the caliphate throne from his father. The short period during which Yazeed ruled witnessed many catastrophes and calamities: 1) the murder of Al-Hussein, son of Ali, who revolted against Yazeed, 2) the battle of Al-Hurrah that caused the death of thousands of people, 3) looting Yathreb and massacring its people, and 4) conquering Mecca and catapulting huge stones at the Kaaba. Ibn Al-Zubayr took advantage of the murder of Al-Hussein (son of Ali and grandson of Prophet Muhammad) that shocked the entire Arab world and declared himself as a caliph. When Yazeed died and his son Mu'aweiya Ibn Yazeed adamantly refused to go on being enthroned as a caliph after few weeks (because he chose peaceful life, feared the Lord in piety, and felt that a caliph must commit sins and crimes to remain enthroned), the call of Ibn Al-Zubayr increased amidst struggle within the Umayyad household members about who would be appointed as a caliph. Many people swore fealty to Ibn Al-Zubayr as a coming caliph. Other problems occurred as well and needed to be faced by the Umayyads; the Egyptians resented the fact that their governor appointed by the late caliph Yazeed, a man named Saeed Al-Azdy, was so cruel and harsh, and this resulted in many Egyptians supporting Ibn Al-Zubayr and swearing fealty to him to spite the governor. When Ibn Al-Zubayr knew that Egyptians supported him, he sent a governor to rule Egypt under his name, a man named Abdul-Rahman Al-Fuhry, and many Arab soldiers in Egypt and many Egyptians accepted him as a 'legitimate' governor. The call of Ibn Al-Zubayr grew more dangerous and posed a threat to the Umayyads as most Iraqis swore fealty to him, driving him to send a governor to rule Iraq under his name, his own brother Musaab Ibn Al-Zubayr. In addition, the Qais tribe, led by Al-Dahhak, in the Levant that used to staunchly support the Umayyads wholeheartedly rejected them and swore fealty to Ibn Al-Zubayr, and so did other tribes in Palestine, Homs, and the tribe of Kalb in Yemen. As for the Umayyad household, so many leaders coveted the throne and struggled against one another for it: Amr Ibn Saeed Ibn Al-As, Khaled Ibn Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya, and Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam. The latter was about to feel despair and decided to swear fealty to Ibn Al-Zubayr in Hejaz, but the Umayyad governor in Iraq, Obaydillah Ibn Ziyad who fled Iraq before the troops of Ibn Al-Zubayr and settled for a while in Damascus, managed to convince Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam to never despair as he would win the throne eventually. Within Al-Gabia meeting, it was agreed that Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam would rule first, succeeded by Khaled Ibn Yazeed, and then Amr Ibn Saeed Ibn Al-As. This agreement was approved by all Umayyads and their supporters. Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam ruled and regained control over the Levant and defeated followers of Ibn Al-Zubayr there, as he killed Al-Dahhak in the battle of Marj Rahat, and the tribe of Qais (after many of its men lost their lives in battlefield) renewed its fealty to the Umayyads. Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam marched with his troops toward Egypt, and he sent other troops to Egypt led by his son Abdul-Aziz Ibn Marwan from another direction. Both Umayyad armies defeated Ibn Juhdam who dug a trench and tried to ward off the Umayyads. Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam entered Egypt as a victorious caliph, and Egyptians swore fealty to him in 65 A.H., and he killed 80 Arab men who settled in Egypt because they refused to swear fealty to him. Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam appointed his son Abdul-Aziz Ibn Marwan as the governor of Egypt, and he received annually heavy taxes and tributes from Egyptians, collected by the governor who ruled Egypt with iron fists. Later on, Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam ordered his other sons to crush and quell followers and supporters of Ibn Al-Zubayr in Iraq and in Hejaz. Yet, Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam died after he appointed his son Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan as his successor, and Abdul-Aziz Ibn Marwan as successor to his elder brother Abdul-Malik. This means that Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam rejected agreement of Al-Gabia meeting, after he made sure Egypt and the Levant were under his control, so that supporters of Khaled Ibn Yazeed and Amr Ibn Saeed Ibn Al-As would accept the fait accompli. Hence, Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan became a strong caliph in Damascus while his back was protected as his brother and successor, Abdul-Aziz, ruled Egypt as its governor. Feeling secure, Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan marched with his troops to Iraq and defeated and killed Musaab Ibn Al-Zubayr in battle, who was in his turn very tired after fighting against the Shiites and Al-Khawarij in Iraq. The caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan made his grand vizier, Al-Hajaj Ibn Youssef, to led troops to Ibn Al-Zubayr in Mecca, and he sieged the city for a while until he seized the chance to attack Mecca and kill Ibn Al-Zubayr, after terrorizing residents of Mecca and catapulting huge rocks at the Kaaba, which had to be rebuilt [3]. Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan united all the conquered countries under Umayyad rule again, beginning by unifying leadership of both Egypt and the Levant, typical of the essential strategy of the region. Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan managed to have Ibn Al-Zubayr killed and thus all revolts were quelled, but he never liked the fact that his successor (appointed as such by their father the caliph Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam) and brother Abdul-Aziz would still be still controlling Egypt after the danger was over. As we have mentioned earlier in this book, strategically, it was deemed very wrong to have two powerful rulers in both the Levant and Egypt who might compete with each other for more power. Of course, such competition and rivalry made relations between both brothers grew worse, despite the fact that one was the caliph in Damascus and one was a governor of Egypt in Al-Fustat subordinate to him. what prevented Abdul-Malik from taking any measures against his brother Abdul-Aziz in Egypt was the fact that he was busy quelling successive revolts in Iraq by Shiites, Al-Khawarij, and some non-Arab groups as well. For sure, Abdul-Malik was eager to remove his brother from being crown-prince or successor as soon as possible and to appoint his son Al-Waleed as his successor, but Abdul-Aziz refused and insisted on reserving his right as the successor of his brother the caliph. Abdul-Malik had to focus on troubles and unrest in Iraq and left his brother in Egypt but appointed another governor to North Africa (ruled by Abdul-Aziz along with Egypt) named Zuhayr Ibn Qais. This new governor was commanded by the caliph to retrieve Morocco that declared its independence from the Umayyads. During battle, Zuhayr Ibn Qais was defeated and killed, and Abdul-Malik had to send another leader, named Hassaan Ibn Al-Nu'man, who managed to regain all lost territories in North Africa and to make the Umayyads dominate there once more. Abdul-Malik remained suspicious toward Abdul-Aziz and they rarely met, until Abdul-Aziz died in Egypt in 86 A.H. after ruling it as governor for 20 years. This was such a relief to Abdul-Malik, as he appointed his son Al-Waleed as his successor or crown-prince, followed by his younger brother Suleiman. Abdul-Malik sent a new governor to Egypt, his younger son Abdullah Ibn Abdul-Malik [4], thus making sure Egypt was under his dominance along with the Levant, and consequently the whole caliphate or Arab Empire from Spain to borders of China, in hands of all his male progeny appointed as governors to almost all countries under the Umayyad rule.                                            

Egypt and the collapse of the Umayyad caliphate:

 The Umayyad caliphate collapsed in its prime (before it was one century old) for many reasons that are summarized in one main factor; the Umayyad policy that made them reach the caliphate throne and to maintain it for a while: tribalism and the Umayyads' bias for Arabs as a race and their bias and prejudice against non-Arab races in the Arab Empire. When the Umayyads were powerful and mighty, this policy served their purposes very well. This same factor of strength was the one that brought about the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty later on; when the Umayyads were weak their Arab tribalism backfired and they collapsed by such fatal blows. Indeed, the Umayyads were Arabs by nature and in terms of all typical behavior and mindset of Arabs before Islam (i.e., belligerence, raiding, looting, violence, etc.), as they never accompanied Muhammad in Yathreb to learn true Islam, but remained as arch-enemies of Islam who fought it and persecuted early believers (to preserve their financial interests and driven by tribalism), and they feigned to convert shortly before Muhammad's death after the conquest of Mecca. Once Muhammad died, the Umayyads (led by Abou Sufyan and his son Mu'aweiya) directed Arabs to conquer neighboring nations to form an Arab Empire. Indeed, the Umayyads were in the frontlines in all battles of such aggressive wars to earn all spoils, control their spies/agents, and take over authority gradually. Of course, the Quran (real and only source of Islam) rejects tribalism and racism as well as any sort of tribal or familial bias. The racist Umayyads adopted tribalism as a policy on many levels; they were biased for Arabs and against all non-Arab races within the Arab Empire, and this led non-Arab races to join all revolts (by Shiites, Al-Khawarij, and others) against the Umayyads. In addition, the Umayyads were biased for some tribes: for the Yemenis against the tribe of Qais in the battle of Marj Rahat, and at one time (during the reign of Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya) for the tribe of Qais against their enemies, and then for Yemenis against the tribe of Qais (during the reign of Yazeed Ibn Al-Waleed), whereas the last Umayyad caliph, Marwan Ibn Muhammad, was biased for the tribe of Qais against the Yemenis, and the armed struggle in the last years of the Umayyad dynasty led to its downfall and the last Umayyad caliph was assassinated in Egypt [5]. As for the familial bias adopted by the Umayyads, though they liked the their relatives and kin, the Hashemites, as they shared a grandfather named Abd-Manaf, they stood against the Hashemite prophet of Islam inside Mecca, and fought against the Hashemites in the battle of Badr, when they Umayyads were defeated by the Hashemites, while the battle of Uhud was a revenge as the Umayyads defeated the Hashemites. When Abou Bakr became a caliph, Abou Sufyan tried to incite Ali Ibn Abou Talib against Abou Bakr, as the latter came from a lower household of Qorayish, but Ali rejected Abou Sufyan and scolded him. the plotting, conspiring, scheming Umayyads waited for another suitable chance when Othman became a caliph and moved all events behind the curtain so that he was assassinated. They made sure the weak, fickle, inexperienced Ali be appointed as caliph after Othman so that they would pave the way to their Umayyad dynasty over the corpses of Arabs killed in battle, especially the dead bodies of the Hashemites among the relatives of Prophet Muhammad and the progeny of Ali in particular. Likewise, the Umayyads were biased for or against their family members within the disputes of their dynasty; a caliph would remove his successor/brother from being a crown-prince to appoint his son instead, and the prominent example of that was Al-Gabia meeting whose agreement was violated and infringed. Of course, when a dynasty would be divided against one another, each party would seek support from certain different tribes, and such divisions brought about the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty later on. Hence, the last Umayyad caliph, Marwan Ibn Muhammad, fought against his foes the Yemeni Kalb tribe in the Levant (they settled there decades ago) while fighting the Alawites and Al-Khawarij in Iraq, Hejaz, and Yemen. Meanwhile the Abbasids gathered their forces and gained ground and momentums in Persia and their supporters (led by the military leader Abou Moslem Al-Khorasany) carried black banners and flags, while spreading the motto of "seeking to please the Prophet Muhammad's family" and managed to convince most people to join their movement in Persia and Iraq. In Kufa, the very first Abbasid caliph, Abou Al-Abbas Al-Saffah (this title in Arabic literally means 'the assassin'), received people who swore fealty to him in 132 A.H. – 749 A.D., and he sent his troops to murder the last Umayyad caliph, who fled the Levant and went to Egypt, because of its strategic location after he felt threatened in the Damascus. The troops of Marwan Ibn Muhammad were defeated in the Levant and he knew that Egypt must be under his control if he was ever to retrieve the Levant, especially that his Abbasid enemies controlled Persia, Iran, and Hejaz. He appointed his in-law and son of his paternal uncle, Al-Waleed Ibn Mu'aweiya, as his vice-regent to rule in his name in Damascus. He wished that his in-law would be able to defeat the Abbasids while he would prepare troops in Egypt (as a very important strategic depth) for a decisive battle; this did not take place. The Abbasids never gave Marwan a chance, as their troops chased him in many Egyptian provinces and he was forced to hide and be on the go all the time. Abou Al-Abbas appointed Saleh Ibn Ali as the governor of Egypt and the Levant, and he managed to locate and assassinate Marwan, the last Umayyad caliph, in Giza. Thus, Egypt entered into new phase under the Abbasid Era. Before we move to the next section of this book, let us mention below the features of the strategic location that link the Levant and Egypt that influenced the policies of the Umayyads and made them realize the importance of Egypt throughout the Umayyad Era.                 

1- Conquering Egypt was a very important step to cover and guard the backs of Arab military troops that conquered North Africa later on, and Egypt played a major role in protecting the Umayyads in the Levant (Damascus) especially when they fought many times their foes in Iraq. 

2- This was why Mu'aweiya was keen on maintaining his control over Egypt throughout his military struggle against Ali Ibn Abou Talib, by the help of Amr Ibn Al-As. 

3- We have seen that during the period of struggle between the caliph Marwan Ibn Al-Hakam and Ibn Al-Zubayr that the Umayyad caliph readily re-conquered Egypt after chasing followers and supporters of Ibn Al-Zubayr from the Levant, and he chased them out of Egypt as well to ensure that Egypt would serve him as a strategic depth, and this resulted in his son, the caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marwan, being able to face and crush his foes and rivals in Hejaz and Iraq.   

4- When he was defeated, the last Umayyad caliph fled to Egypt and left Damascus because he knew quite well that the Levant can never be a secure region without controlling Egypt, but the Abbasids were faster and realized what he was about to do in Egypt, and they sent him in Egypt a strong leader who managed to hunt and murder him before he would gain ground in Egypt.

5- Because the Levant is one strategic unit along with Egypt and because Egypt is weightier in that equation, any ambitious governor of Egypt would threaten to the Umayyad caliph in Damascus though he was subordinate to the Umayyad throne and despite the fact that no governor of Egypt dared to declare his independence from the Umayyad caliph due to the geographical proximity of the Levantine region where the Umayyads were situated. The vital importance of Egypt to protect the Levant was more than the importance of the Levant to protect Egypt, and the governor of Egypt was treated as  very important figure throughout the Umayyad Era who had much power and authority, but was suspected most times, as we have seen in the tension between Amr Ibn Al-As as governor of Egypt and Mu'aweiya the very first Umayyad caliph and between Abdul-Aziz, the governor of Egypt, and his brother the caliph Abdul-Malik.

6- Iraq used to be a hotbed of opposition movements and rebellions against the Umayyads for decades, since the Ali/Mu'aweiya military struggle until the battles between the Abbasids and the Umayyads. During such struggles, the Umayyads were keen on keeping Egypt under their control as their real or de facto strategic depth while they quelled and crushed rebels in Iraq. Even when the last Umayyad caliph was defeated, he fled to Egypt hoping (in vain) to retrieve the Levant and Iraq one day if he gained ground in Egypt and gathered followers and supporters there. The vital strategic importance of Egypt had changed when the Abbasids built Baghdad as their new capital in Iraq, as the Levant was no longer a very important region in terms of politics after the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty. This means that the Levantine region returned to its usual position as subordinate to Egypt and ruled by any governor who ruled Egypt to protect Egypt's eastern borders. This resulted later on in the fact that Egypt rivaled Baghdad at certain points in time while the Levant was the scene or stage for such rivalry and struggle of power during the Abbasid Era [6].

References:

[1] Al-Tabari, pages 4/546:558, Al-Makrizi, pages 1/562:565, and Al-Siyouti, pages 1/581:585.

[2] History of Ibn Atheer, pages 3/210 and 8/138 and Al-Makrizi, page 1/564.

[3] Al-Tabari, pages 5/530:544 and 609, 6/151:162, 174:175, and 187:193 and Al-Makrizi, page 1/566.  

[4] Al-Tabari, pages 6/412:417, Al-Makrizi, page 1/567, and Al-Siyouti page 1/586. 

[5] "The Influence of Tribalism on the Umayyad Caliphate" by A. S. Mansour, unpublished MA thesis, History Department, Al-Azhar University, pages 50:52.  

[6] Al-Tabari, pages 7/432:443, and Al-Makrizi, page 1/571.

Fourthly: Egypt during the Abbasid Era:

Egypt during the Abbasid period of power:

   The Abbasid caliphate was established mostly by the hands of the Persians, and it had to make its capital in Iraq, the city of Baghdad, and to focus eastward, and the Abbasids in their early days had lost Andalusia that was ruled by Umayyad rulers throughout the Abbasid Era. Despite all incessant struggles and revolts, the Umayyads managed to retain vast lands from west borders of China to the Pyrenees mountains between Spain and France. The Abbasids usually lost control over some lands and countries. When the very first Abbasid caliph, Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour massacred the Umayyad household members, the few surviving ones managed to establish a separate kingdom in Spain/Andalusia, led by Abdul-Rahman Al-Dakhil. The powerful Al-Mansour, whose title was 'the assassin' (Al-Saffah, in Arabic), decided to accept the fait accompli and leave Spain to this last Umayyad prince as long as he would not try to dominate North Africa. The Abbasid caliphate flourished and was strong only during the reigns of caliphs Al-Mansour, Al-Mahdi, Al-Hady, and Harun Al-Rasheed. Within their era, the Abbasid caliph was typically very mighty, powerful, and blood-thirsty and owned and oversaw everything, and their viziers and grand viziers were mere puppets obsequiously serving them and gratifying every whim, and in cases of failing to deliver or in cases of their being suspected of anything, viziers were put to death at once. Yet, because Baghdad was away from peripheries of the west of the Abbasid Empire, some governors ruled independently in North Africa. For instance, Al-Rasheed accepted the fact that the dynasty of the Aghlabids in Tunisia ruled independently in return for giving Baghdad 40 thousand dinars annually. In Morocco, Harun Al-Rasheed could not defeat the independent state of the dynasty of the Idrisids that refused to have anything to do with the Abbasids. As for Egypt, some settlers of Arabian origin declared their revolt against the Abbasids in Al-Houf, east of the Nile Delta, but the Abbasids managed to quell such revolt violently. Of course, such revolts in Egypt were encouraged by the fact that North Africa were filled with separatist movements at the time, to the extent that one governor of North Africa requested from Harun Al-Rasheed to be removed from his post as he could not manage to control North Africa (i.e., from Libya to Morocco as one region that had one governor at the time). Harun Al-Rasheed accepted his resignation and appointed him in Egypt to quell brutally Arabians in Al-Houf, and he managed to do that. Hence, Egypt could never declare its independence from the Abbasid caliphate during the First Abbasid Era whose caliphs were strong and powerful and in full control from Baghdad, thus dominating over their Empire. In fact, the powerful Abbasid caliphs managed to quell all revolts in Egypt led by Copts or Arabian settlers. The Arabian revolts in Egypt were centered in the eastern Nile Delta, where some Yemeni tribes and the tribe of Qais settled , and they usually revolted when encouraged by Abbasid caliphs being busy with quelling and crushing separatists and other revolts elsewhere. Most revolts in side Egypt against the Abbasids were driven by heavy taxes imposed on people, and Copts revolted for the same reason in the village of Sakha in 150 A.H. and the village of Heeb in 156 A.H. During the reign of Al-Maamoun, the son of Harun Al-Rasheed, most Egyptians (Copts + people of Arab citizens) united to revolt against the Abbasid governor Eissa Ibn Mansour who imposed heavier taxes and tributes, and Al-Maamoun had to come to Egypt himself to quell the revolt brutally and to gain control over Egypt by making some reforms, and after spending 40 days in Egypt, he returned to Baghdad. Another prominent Abbasid governor of Egypt was Abdulla Ibn Taher, who crushed the revolt of Abdullah Ibn Al-Sirry who tried to be an independent, autonomous ruler of Egypt like the Aghlabids in Tunisia. Abdullah Ibn Taher managed the internal affairs of Egypt firmly and Al-Maamoun rewarded him at one time, when he removed him from his post to be appointed elsewhere, by giving him the annual money paid by Egyptians: three million dinars [1]. Thus, any separatist movements in Egypt failed in the First Abbasid Era when caliphs were strong and powerful, but during the Second Abbasid Era, weak caliphs reigned for a long time, and Egypt knew stages of self-rule within the framework of the Abbasid caliphate whose caliphs in Baghdad received annual sums of tributes and taxes from Egypt in return for not to allow Baghdad to interfere in Egyptians affairs ruled by several dynasties in the Egyptian capital Al-Fustat (before the Fatimids built Cairo). This began by the Tulunid and the Ikhshidid dynasties.                                

Egypt during the reign of the Tulunids (254-292 A.H./868-905 A.D.):

   When Abbasid caliphs were strong and powerful, they never allowed anyone to equal them in power and authority; the caliph Al-Mansour used to have several viziers murdered if they arouse the least suspicion. Harun Al-Rasheed commanded the murder of his viziers that belonged to one family, Al-Barmaky family, when they grew more powerful than he was and controlled the caliphate. The strong caliphs during the First Abbasid Era took advantage of the conflicts and struggles between Arabs and non-Arabs to strike a balance that would preserve all power to Baghdad and the caliph. Yet, the conflict exacerbated between Arabs and Persians in Baghdad and showed itself in the civil war between the caliph Al-Amin and his brother and successor Al-Maamoun (both caliphs were sons of Harun Al-Rasheed) because the latter's mother was a Persian slave, while the mother of the former was an Arab Hashemite woman, the queen and wife of Al-Rasheed, of the Abbasid household. Thus, when Al-Rasheed made his younger son, Al-Amin, his successor because of his Arab/Abbasid descent, and Al-Maamoun (the first-born) was made by him as successor and crown-prince of Al-Amin because his mother was a Persian slave, Arabs grew powerful in Baghdad and Persians in the palace lost their stature, and they encouraged the first-born Al-Maamoun to depose his younger brother, especially that Al-Amin was a homosexual and a promiscuous corrupt ruler who intended to remove his elder brother from being the crown-prince in order to make his only son his successor. This treachery was typical of the Umayyad dynasty; when a caliph would remove his brother from being crown-prince for the sake of his progeny, and Abbasids followed that habit despite its dangerous influence over any ruling dynasty. The Persians, who were worried about losing their grip over Baghdad and their control over the whole caliphate and were eager to get rid of Arab rivals, urged Al-Maamoun to declare war against his brother, the caliph Al-Amin. Of course, Al-Amin was defeated and assassinated, and during the caliphate of Al-Maamoun, the Persians controlled fully all affairs in the caliphate for decades even after Al-Maamoun. When the caliph Al-Motassim was enthroned, he felt annoyed by the incessant struggle and disputes between the already powerful Persians and the Arabs who wanted to regain power inside the Abbasid palace court. Thus, Al-Motassim introduced a new race, the Turkish leaders, who were slaves bought by him and trained in military and martial arts to serve the Abbasid caliphs and create a balance to stop the Persians from growing too powerful. In later decades, the Turkish military leaders assassinated the weak Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil and his successor Al-Montasser. The Turkish leaders grew too powerful and controlled caliphs, the Persians grew weaker, and the Arabs were no longer in control of Baghdad or the palace court. The Turkish leaders divided the countries of the Arab Empire to control and rule them in the name of the Abbasid caliphate, but the Turkish general named Bakbak remained in Baghdad to control the caliphs while sending someone to rule Egypt (that was his share) in his name; thus, Bakbak sent his trusty friend Ahmed Ibn Tulun to rule Egypt, but Ibn Tulun decided to rule Egypt independently as its king with his own dynasty, away from Bakbak, within the framework of the Abbasid caliphate.

Ibn Tulun reinforced his power and authority in Egypt:

  The Abbasid caliphate used to distribute authority among many persons in Egypt so that any appointed governor would not think of ruling independently and separate himself from the Abbasid Empire. Hence, when Ibn Tulun was sent as the new governor in Egypt in 254 A.H., he found there was a powerful tax-collector appointed by Abbasids, called Ibn Al-Mudabber, and Shouqir the powerful head of correspondences who sent all news of Egypt (by spying on everything and everyone, especially the governor, in the Egyptian capital) to Baghdad by royal decree of the caliph Al-Moataz and to Alexandria, which was under the control of the governor of Libya. At the time, Ibn Tulun found that many (Shiite) Alawites revolted in Upper Egypt and sought to establish a separate kingdom away from the Abbasids. Ibn Tulun acquired more power and authority in Egypt as we show in the following points.        

1- Ibn Tulun had to face Ibn Al-Mudabber and Shouqir first; both met with him in his pompous procession, surrounded by his henchmen, as he reached Al-Fustat. Ibn Al-Mudabber sent Ibn Tulun a gift of 10 thousand dinars to test his character and get to know him, but Ibn Tulun returned the gift with a letter explaining that he never accepts gifts and bribes. Ibn Al-Mudabber feared and suspected Ibn Tulun, and he conspired with Shouqir to urge the caliph to remove Ibn Tulun from his post, especially that Ibn Tulun asked instead of money to be given more henchmen and military slaves to be added to his procession to make Egyptians feel his awe as a true governor should look like. This made Ibn Al-Mudabber hate Ibn Tulun more and he had to send him what he demanded. When the Egyptians saw that Ibn Al-Mudabber lost his awe and seemed to fear Ibn Tulun, they despised Ibn Al-Mudabber and admired Ibn Tulun. Ibn Al-Mudabber and Shouqir wrote letters to the caliph urging him to remove Ibn Tulun that became too powerful and made Egyptians like him very much in a short while. Yet, their letters never reached the caliph in Baghdad because Ibn Tulun had his men in the palace court who were bribed to perform the mission of making sure such letters would never reach the weak caliph, while re-sending the letters to Ibn Tulun in Al-Fustat, making him aware of the plot to get rid of him.     

2-  Alexandria at the time was ruled by governor of Libya, and when Ibn Tulun got news that Bakbak, the Turkish leader who appointed him in Egypt, was murdered by his other Turkish rivals in Baghdad, circumstances were in favor of Ibn Tulun: because the one who assumed formally the rule of Egypt was the a Turkish leader who was the father-in-law of Ibn Tulun, who maintained Ibn Tulun as a governor of Egypt in his name, and he commanded Ibn Tulun to retrieve Alexandria from the governor of Libya, and he readily did that.    

3- When Ibn Al-Mudabber sent the annual money from Al-Fustat to Baghdad, the revolting Ibn Eissa Al-Shaybany emerged in Palestine and intercepted the caravan of the annual money to steal it. Because the weak caliph, Al-Mohtadi, in Baghdad was busy facing other troubles and unrest in Iraq, Ibn Eissa Al-Shaybany declared Palestine as his kingdom and rejected the Abbasid rule, and he coveted Egypt. Al-Mohtadi was assassinated and was succeeded by Al-Mutamid. Ibn Eissa Al-Shaybany never swore fealty to the new caliph unless after he was acknowledged as ruler of the whole Levant and Armenia. The father-in-law of Ibn Tulun fought and defeated Ibn Eissa Al-Shaybany and ruled the Levant instead. Hence, Ibn Tulun felt that the Levant was secure and no threat would come from it to Egypt. Ibn Tulun got rid of Ibn Al-Mudabber the tax-collector by promising the Abbasid caliph to give him a larger annual sum, and the greedy caliph removed Ibn Al-Mudabber from his post at once. Ibn Tulun got rid of Shouqir by telling the new caliph think of him as an untruthful and suspicious spy who coveted more power in Egypt by sending false news to Baghdad to serve his own interests, and Shouqir was removed from his post as well. Hence, all power and authority rested in the hands of Ibn Tulun alone.  

4- The last step before Ibn Tulun declare Egypt as his kingdom, and its throne to be bequeathed to his progeny within the Tulunid dynasty, was to quell brutally the revolting Shiites indie Egypt, as he fought and defeated Ibn Al-Sufi the leader of Alawites and killed him in Upper Egypt and quelled another group of rebels led by another leader of the Alawites named Ibn Tababa, who was defeated eventually in the battle that took place in the north coast area between Alexandria and Libya, and when Ibn Tababa fled to Upper Egypt, Ibn Tulun caught up with him and had him killed.   

Ibn Tulun conquered the Levant:

1- Ibn Tulun found that Egyptians supported him wholeheartedly in declaring their country as his Tulunid kingdom, and he kept busy by securing his kingdom as a powerful ruler by making sure he controlled the Levant fully, as he understood the vital strategic importance to secure the eastern borders of Egypt. Ibn Tulun felt lucky, because the Abbasids were busy fighting and quelling the Zanj rebels (255 – 270 A.H.) and such fighting wearied and sapped energy and money of the Abbasids. Hence, the weak caliph Al-Mutamid never thought about retrieving Egypt, and the same attitude was adopted by the de facto ruler who fully controlled the caliph and Baghdad, his brother Al-Muwaffaq who became a caliph later on and who were busy fighting the Zanj rebels. Another reason that made the weak caliph Al-Mutamid support Ibn Tulun was that the latter expressed in a letter his support for the former and promised to grant him a huge sum annually from taxes. Al-Mutamid removed the governor of the Levant and appointed Ibn Tulun instead as governor/ruler of both Egypt and the Levant. Yet, Al-Muwaffaq was infuriated by such royal decrees issued in his absence, and sent one of his leaders, named Ibn Bagha, to be the new governor of the Levant, but Ibn Bagha died suddenly in 264 A.H. before he reached Egypt to inform Ibn Tulun about the new arrangement, and the father-in-law of Ibn Tulun (who governed the Levant) died in the same year. Ibn Tulun built a new capital for himself near Al-Fustat, named Al-Qata'i, and built a fortress in an island inside the Nile near the new capital, and he bought and trained huge number of soldiers and cavaliers to be among his troops and henchmen, and he planned to conquer the Levant as circumstances were highly in his favor.       

2- Ibn Tulun marched with his troops to the Levant and conquered most of its cities easily without fighting, and he appointed his father-in-law's son as his deputy to the Levant in his name. As Ibn Tulun received fealty from all Levantine cities and their rulers, the ruler of Antioch refused to submit to Ibn Tulun and fought against his troops but was defeated and killed. The people of Tarsus (a city at the borders with the Byzantines) were reluctant to submit to the rule of Ibn Tulun and threatened at first to fight him, but he cunningly  managed to win their loyalty by agreeing with them to spread news of their military victory over his troops that took over the Levant, so that the Byzantines would not dare to attack Tarsus and to fear its people because of such rumor. This made Tarsus submitted to Ibn Tulun eventually.         

3- Al-Muwaffaq resented Ibn Tulun's conquering the Levant, and tried to bribe Lou'lou', one of the troop-leaders under Ibn Tulun in the Levant, to join his forces and betray Ibn Tulun. The sly Al-Muwaffaq imprisoned Lou'lou' and confiscated all his possessions and money, and eventually set him free, and he returned back to Egypt, penniless, after the death of Ibn Tulun. Ibn Tulun managed to make the weak oppressed caliph Al-Mutamid feel supported by Egypt and the Levant under the Tulunid rule, and Al-Mutamid told him that he desired to flee Baghdad, as was fed up with the dominant Al-Muwaffaq, and to rule the rest of the empire from the Levant in return for supporting him as the legitimate king of Egypt and the Levant, and Ibn Tulun agreed and readily sent him a welcoming note. Al-Mutamid left his palace in Baghdad under the pretext that he was going in a hunting journey for days (seizing the chance of his brother being busy fighting the Zanj rebels), but before he could reach Ibn Tulun in the Levant, he was intercepted by Al-Muwaffaq who discovered the whole plot, and he arrested Al-Mutamid and brought him back to Baghdad. Al-Muwaffaq hated Ibn Tulun very much, and he sent him a letter informing him of being removed his post as a governor of Egypt and that the new governor was a leader named Ibn Kindah. Because Ibn Tulun refused to cede power in the Levant and in Egypt, Al-Muwaffaq and Ibn Tulun fought against each other in several battles in Hejaz, especially in Mecca.

4- Cunningly, Ibn Tulun spread rumors that Al-Muwaffaq rebelled against the legitimate caliph, Al-Mutamid, and he made preachers in all mosques in Egypt to invoke God's wrath on Al-Muwaffaq as a cursed man (i.e., this was similar to excommunication or anathema, religiously and politically, and meant at the time lack of legitimacy), thus calling all Arabs in the Empire to fight against Al-Muwaffaq. Al-Muwaffaq made his preachers in all mosques of Iraq to invoke God's wrath on Ibn Tulun and forced Al-Mutamid to write a decree to that effect. Meanwhile, Ibn Tulun died suddenly in 270 A.H., while reigning supreme in Egypt and the Levant, and his son and successor Khumarawayh was enthroned.       

Khumarawayh controlled the Levant:

1- Khumarawayh sent his troops and his fleet to the Levant to assert his power and to make people there swear fealty to him, and the troops were led by his leader, a man named Al-Wasiti, whom Al-Muwaffaq and Ibn Kindah bribed and convinced to join forces with them. Hence, Khumarawayh was defeated and Al-Wasiti entered Damascus and ruled in the name of Al-Muwaffaq. 

2- Khumarawayh never gave up; he sent his larger troops to fight the troops of Al-Muwaffaq in Palestine who were lesser in number, but Khumarawayh was defeated once more and could not enter Damascus because the Levantine troops made many ambushes against him and because Khumarawayh did not knew at the time the geography of the Levant region well enough. 

3- In a third time, troops of Khumarawayh achieved victory and entered Damascus in 273 A.H., and Ibn Kindah who ruled there had to flee to Baghdad.

4- Later on Khumarawayh made an agreement and a peace treaty with the Abbasids, who had to admit that he and his son would rule Egypt and the Levant only for 30 years. Khumarawayh ordered his preachers in both Egypt and the Levant to supplicate God for the sake of Al-Muwaffaq, who was the caliph by now, and this means that he acknowledged being subordinate to the Abbasid caliphate, despite ruling Egypt and the Levant independently.  

5- Al-Muwaffaq died in 287, and his son Ahmad succeeded him and took the title Al-Mo'tadid, and he wrote to Khumarawayh informing him that he agreed to let him rule the region between the Euphrates River to Libya for 30 years in return for annual sum of 200 thousand dinars from taxes money. Al-Mo'tadid got married to Qatr Al-Nada, the pretty princess and daughter of Khumarawayh, whose trousseau made the Egyptian Treasury almost empty. Khumarawayh was assassinated by his servants in 282 A.H. in Damascus, after he ruled for 12 years.   

The collapse of the Tulunid dynasty:

  The weak sons of Khumarawayh caused the downfall of the Tulunid dynasty in Egypt and the Levant, as his eldest son ruled and  murdered his paternal uncle, and his soldiers forced him to cede the throne in 283 A.H. to his brother, Harun Ibn Khumarawayh, who also killed another paternal uncle that coveted the throne. When Al-Mo'tadid died, his successor was keen on retrieving both the Levant and Egypt, and he defeated Harun Ibn Khumarawayh in the Levant in 290 A.H., and the Abbasid caliph sent his fleet to Alexandria to retrieve Egypt, and he conquered cities in the Egyptian north: Alexandria, Damietta, Tinnis, etc. and Harun Ibn Khumarawayh was defeated in Egypt and one of his paternal uncles assassinated him and ruled instead in 292 A.H. The Leaders of the Tulunid troops murdered this usurping uncle and joined forces with the Abbasids and allowed them to enter the Egyptian capital, and the Abbasids massacred the rest of the Tulunid dynast members and made appointed an Abbasid governor in Egypt.  

The Ikhshidid dynasty (323 – 358 A.H./ 935 – 969 A.D.):

Egypt before the Ikhshidid dynasty:

  Civil unrest and revolts occurred many times in Egypt after the downfall of the Tulunids. The most prominent Abbasid-appointed governors of Egypt was a man named Al-Noushary, who died in 297 A.H., who quelled the revolt of leader named Ibn Al-Khaleej who desired to rule Egypt independently imitating Ibn Tulun, but after Ibn Al-Khaleej ruled for seven months, he was defeated by Al-Noushary and an Abbasid military leader named Fatik. After the death of Al-Noushary, Egypt became the scene of incessant struggles and conflicts among Turkish leaders and the Abbasid caliphs could never control Egypt fully because they were weak before the power and authority of Turkish generals controlling Baghdad and the palace-court and consequently the other parts of the Abbasid Empire. What aggravated matters for the Abbasid caliphs was the emergence of the revolting Qarmatians south of Iraq, who threatened Iraq, the Levant, and Hejaz with their crimes of massacring and raiding, and their reliance on Turkish leaders increased to fight the Qarmatians. The ordeal of the Abbasid caliphs increased as the Fatimids emerged in Morocco and established their independent state from morocco to Libya and they coveted to rule Egypt. Indeed, the Fatimid dynasty sent their military campaigns many times through the Egyptian oases and by the Mediterranean Sea, but the Abbasid caliphs feared to send a powerful, strong military leader to control Egypt and keep the Fatimids off so that this leader would not rule Egypt independently like Ibn Tulun. After long reconsideration, after perceiving the Shiite danger of the Fatimids that ruled North Africa already and coveted Egypt very much (and this strategically threatened the Levant and Iraq for sure), the Abbasid caliphs had to send a shrewd trusted leader to rule Egypt and ward off the Fatimid military attacks. This powerful leader and governor was named Muhammad Ibn Tughj Al-Ikhshid, who had later on established the short-lived Ikhshidid dynasty and state when he became the autonomous ruler of Egypt loyal to the Abbasids.              

Al-Ikhshid:   

   Ibn Tughj was not away from events taking place in Egypt; his father Tughj Ibn Juff was one of the leaders under Khumarawayh and was appointed as the governor of the Levant under the Tulunid rule. Indeed, M. Ibn Tughj was born in 268 A.H. and he worked for the Egyptian government after the downfall of the Tulunid dynasty and state. When the Fatimid troops marched into Egypt in 321 A.H., Ibn Tughj was known by everyone for his courage and military prowess and ability as he defeated the Fatimid troops. This led the Abbasid caliph Al-Qahir to appoint Ibn Tughj as the governor of Egypt in 321 A.H., but he was removed shortly afterwards from such a post. As Egypt was still threatened to be conquered by the Shiite Fatimids who never stopped their military campaigns, and because of civil unrest and revolts in Egypt and the Levant as Turkish leaders quarreled over dominating over them, the caliph in Baghdad had to -reappoint Ibn Tughj once more as the governor of Egypt and the Levant in 323 A.H., and he managed to control and dominate over all powerful Turkish leaders, as he declared his ruling Egypt independently and autonomously as a king in 323 A.H. within the framework of the Abbasid caliphate in return for a large annual sum paid to Baghdad, and this led the Abbasid caliph to acknowledge Ibn Tughj in 324 A.H. as the king of both Egypt and the Levant and the founder of the Ikhshidid dynasty.

Al-Ikhshid controlled and reigned over Egypt and the Levant:

1- Ibn Tughj entered Egypt within his troops that defeated Ahmad Ibn Kayghalagh who was a Turkish leader who tried to rule Egypt away from the Abbasids. Ibn Tughj chased away all followers of Ibn Kayghalagh in Egypt, and the Abbasid troops in Egypt vowed to be under his command. The Abbasid caliph Al-Radi gave Ibn Tughj the honorific title "Al-Ikhshid", which means "the great one", and ordered all preachers in mosques to pray for Al-Ikhshid (which means political acceptance and legitimacy) in 327 A.H., especially after Ibn Tughj defeated the Fatimids yet again; as the chased followers of Ibn Kayghalagh joined forces of the Fatimids and tried to invade Egypt but they were defeated by Al-Ikhshid. 

2- The Abbasid caliph Al-Radi was weaker than his predecessors, and many governors elsewhere stopped paying their annual dues to Baghdad. The Buyids established their autonomous state in Persia and threatened Iraq, and Al-Radi had to seek the help of the governor of Wasit (a region in the middle of Iraq), a man named Muhammad  Ibn Raiq, who was appointed as a prince and as a supreme leader of the Abbasid troops and armies who was to collect all taxes from all countries under Abbasid rule. Of course, Ibn Raiq controlled Baghdad fully as well and never let any vizier share his power and authority in the Abbasid palace court. Many governors elsewhere saw how weak Al-Radi was and ruled their countries independently, like Al-Biridi in the Khuzestan province, the Buyids in Persia, Bani Hamadan in Mosul, and before all of them Al-Ikhshid in Egypt and the Levant. Ibn Raiq was defeated by Al-Biridi who replaced him in Baghdad, and Al-Biridi in his turn was defeated and replaced by the Turkish military leader named Bajkam. Al-Radi commanded Bajkam to send troops to deter Bani Hamadan in Mosul because they did not pay their annual dues to Baghdad, but once Bajkam went out of Baghdad with his troops, Ibn Raiq emerged and invaded Baghdad. After long negotiations among Al-Radi, Bajkam, and Ibn Raiq, they agreed that Ibn Raiq was to leave Baghdad and be the governor of the Levant under the Ikhshidid dynasty, under commands of Al-Radi. Al-Ikhshid never accepted such commands, and the struggle between him and Ibn Raiq was inevitable, because the Levant must be under Egyptian control to secure the Ikhshidid dynasty.         

3- Ibn Raiq marched with his troops toward the Levant, invading Homs, Damascus, Ramla, south of the Levant, and Palestine and he drove people appointed by Al-Ikhshid there. Ibn Raiq felt that his rule would never be secure in the Levant unless he would conquer Egypt; he marched toward Arish in Sinai, but troops of Al-Ikhshid met him there. At the beginning of the battle in 328 A.H., the troops of Al-Ikhshid seemed to be defeated, but his troops took advantage of troops of Ibn Raiq busy looting spoils and they re-attacked them and thus defeating Ibn Raiq. Ibn Raiq fled with only 70 men toward Damascus. Al-Ikhshid sent a huge army toward Damascus, but this time Ibn Raiq defeated Al-Ikhshid. After negotiations, both men reached an agreement: Egypt and the south of the Levant until Ramla would be ruled by Al-Ikhshid, while the rest of the Levant would be ruled by Ibn Raiq, and Al-Ikhshid would pay an annual tribute to Ibn Raiq for keeping Ramla. Hence, Al-Ikhshid managed to preserve and secure east borders of Egypt so that he would have the chance and the time to direct his troops toward the Fatimid danger in the west borders of Egypt, as he could not fight at two fronts simultaneously.  

4- Bani Hamadan assassinated Ibn Raiq in 330 A.H., and Al-Ikhshid seized the chance by sending his troops that invaded Damascus and chased away troops of Bani Hamadan and he conquered Aleppo as well. The Abbasid caliph Al-Muti' Lillah had to accept the fait accompli and acknowledged the conquests of Al-Ikhshid and his right to rule the Levant. Al-Ikhshid died in 334 A.H. after he appointed his eldest son, Unujur, as his successor. Unujur the ruler was an adolescent under the tutelageof hi tutor, the powerful black eunuch Abou Al-Misk Kafur.    

5- Kafur confiscated power and authority in Egypt and the Levant, and ignored sons of Al-Ikhshid, and he gave himself their title: Kafur Al-Ikhshidid, and he ruled 23 years until his death (334 – 357 A.H.), as the last ruler of the Ikhshidid dynasty. Kafur managed to defeat Seif Al-Dawla, ruler of the Bani Hamadan, and to retrieve Damascus from him, as he took it when Al-Ikhshid died [2]. Kafur made an agreement with Seif Al-Dawla; Kafur would pay him an annual sum in return for retaining Damascus under Egyptian control, in order to secure eastern borders of Egypt in the south of the Levant. Kafur managed wisely to ward off the danger of the Fatimid troops in Libya by negotiating with them to wait until they rule Egypt after him (because he was a eunuch with no progeny and he did not care who would rule Egypt after him) and meanwhile, they were allowed to spread their Shiite preachers and proselytizers all over Egypt to convert people peacefully and gradually infiltrate Egyptian society, thus conquering Egypt later on without bloodshed or fighting. Kafur welcomed and supported Shiite proselytizers sent by the Fatimids to Egypt, helped them in their missionary efforts, and gave them generous gifts as well [3]. Kafur managed to defeat the king of Nubia (which was at the time a Christian kingdom independent from Egypt), who raided Upper Egypt in 345 A.H., thus securing the southern borders of Egypt. Kafur was wise and avoided bloodshed as much as possible, and he knew that the Fatimid conquest of Egypt was inevitable after his death anyway. Kafur died in 357 while Egyptian borders were secure in the south, east, and west. The grandson of Al-Ikhshid ruled while he was 11 years old, and famine struck Egypt at the same time, and months later, the Fatimid conquered Egypt without finding any resistance at all in 358 A.H. Hence, Egypt entered a new era in its history that had left its mark and imprint until now. Before we tackle the Fatimid era in Egypt in the next section of this CHAPTER, let us briefly mention the following points about the strategic features of Egypt under the rule of the Abbasids and their governors.         

1- Egypt regained its strategic importance gradually after being marginalized for a while when Baghdad became the capital of the Abbasid caliphate, and any governor of Egypt had to control the Levant to defend Egypt, especially when he would autonomously rule Egypt and had to face the Abbasids. Ibn Tulun and his son Khumarawayh had to dominate the Levant to protect their kingdom in Egypt against many rivals, and the Ikhshidids did the same as they controlled south of the Levant either by military invasion and fighting or by agreements and paying tributes when the Fatimids threatened the western borders of Egypt. Hence, when Egypt was ruled autonomously the Levant retuned to is being controlled by Egypt for strategic reasons, and when the Tulunids and Ikhshidids were gone, the collapse occurred to both states in the Levant and Egypt at the same time as one strategic unit.      

2- The presence of any powerful and ambitious rulers in the Levant always posed a direct threat to Egypt, because such rulers would soon think of conquering Egypt to protect their kingdoms in the Levant, as we have read above about Levantine rulers fighting the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids many times in their attempts to conquer Egypt. Hence, the strategic and geographic unity of Egypt and the Levant increased the fierce competition and rivalry among Turkish leaders ruling both Egypt and the Levantine region, as each prince would try to control Egypt and the Levant together because both regions could not stand but one powerful ruler for both regions or one powerful in Egypt and one weak and/or subordinate ruler in the Levant loyal to the one in Egypt. Hence, when the powerful Al-Ikhshid emerged in Egypt, he defeated all his foes and rivals in Egypt and in the Levant, dominating both regions, and he had to fight Ibn Raiq and Bani Hamadan who coveted Egypt, and the power and dominance of Egypt over south of the Levant was  maintained by Kafur but when he died, the Ikhshidid dynasty ended in Egypt and in the Levant simultaneously. It was the turn of the Fatimids to rule both regions.      

3- It is noteworthy that the Fatimids influenced the Egyptian political  strategy long before they conquered Egypt, because their presence in Libya (by the western Egyptian borders) had its impact on the policies of the Ikhshidids, as Muhammad Ibn Tughj managed to fight them and ward their danger off for a while, and the Abbasid caliph gave him as a result the honorific title of Al-Ikhshid, and he also tolerated the fact that Al-Ikhshid ruled autonomously so that the Abbasids would not lose more lands to the Shiite Fatimids. Al-Ikhshid and Kafur had to settle for compromise within agreements regarding the Levant in order to keep south of the Levant  by neutralizing rivals in the east in order to deal with the Fatimids without having to fight at two fronts at the same time. When Kafur died, Egypt fell easily to the Fatimids whose preachers and proselytizers spent 20  years mingling with Egyptians; the armies of Jawhar Al-Seqilli (the Fatimid leader who was originally a Christian from Sicily but converted to the Shiite religion) entered Egypt without resistance at all, and this made Egypt for the first time part of a shite caliphate facing, as an equal entity, the Sunnite caliphate in Baghdad. To what extent Egypt had succeeded, with its new capital Cairo, in facing Baghdad of the Abbasids? We tackle this topic in the very next section.

References:

[1] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/578:589.

[2] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 8/123, 136, 140, 148, and 179 and 7/73, 95, 104, 125, 128, 157, 158, 164, 169, 171, 189, and 211, Al-Makrizi, pages 1/590:613 and 2/234, and Al-Siyouti, pages 1/594:598 and 2/234.

[3] Al-Makrizi, page 2/234.

Fifthly: Egypt during the Fatimid Era:

 During the reign of the Ikhshidids after the downfall of the Tulunid state, the Shiite Ismaili call began to emerge in Morocco and it established the Fatimid state in North Africa between Morocco and Libya, and the Fatimids tried many times unsuccessfully to annex Egypt by military conquests. The Fatimids coveted Egypt because they wanted it to be the base of their religious call into the Levant and Iraq.

The rise of the Fatimid dynasty in North Africa: the Fatimids coveted Egypt as well:

  The Fatimid state established itself after the Ismaili Shiite call spread all over North African territories by the Shiite leader Abou Abdullah Al-Hussein, and during the pilgrimage season in Mecca, he met the leaders of an Arabian tribe called Kitama, and after winning them over, they made him accompanied them in their homeland in Tunisia, where the Aghlabids ruled. These tribesmen and Abou Abdullah Al-Hussein managed to spread and proselyte the Shiite religion there and to defeat and depose the ruler of the Aghlabids dynasty, and Abou Abdullah Al-Hussein became the ruler of Tunisia. Abou Abdullah Al-Hussein called for Al-Mehdi, a self-proclaimed descendant of Ali and Fatima who lived in the Levant, to come and live in Tunisia to help establish a Shiite state there with Al-Mehdi as its 'legitimate' ruler. When the Abbasids knew of the matter, they tried to intercept Al-Mehdi who managed to escape into Egypt and remained hidden for a while, and Al-Noushary, the Abbasid governor of Egypt, searched for him all over Egypt but could never find him, as Al-Mehdi managed to reachSijilmasa (a Moroccan city of the Aghlabids) where he was arrested and imprisoned by its governor, but Abou Abdullah Al-Hussein conquered Sijilmasa and freed Al-Mehdi and the former swore fealty to the latter as a caliph in 297 A.H. [1]. Al-Mehdi ruled North Africa from morocco to Tunisia as a Shiite caliph and a king who declared that the Sunnite Abbasids were not legitimate rulers anymore; he called his state the Fatimid State, and he desired very much to conquer Libya and Egypt as a step to crush the Abbasid caliphate and inherit its lands by spreading and propagating the Shiite religion. In 301 A.H., Al-Mehdi sent his military troops led by his eldest son (Abou Al-Qassim, titled Al-Qaim Biamrallah) who managed to conquer Libya, and the two Egyptian regions of Alexandria and Fayoum (temporarily), while fighting Abbasid troops and leaders in Egypt in 302 A.H. The Shiite troops were reinforced by other troops led by a tribal leader of Kitama and this was the cause of victory. When the Shiite troops managed to invade parts of Upper Egypt, the Abbasids won the battles later on and the Shiite Fatimids had to retreat and cede Egyptian regions they had conquered earlier. The Fatimids tried to conquer Egypt in another military campaign in 315 A.H., and Al-Mehdi died in 322 A.H. and was succeeded by his son Al-Qaim Biamrallah. When this new Fatimid caliph settled in his kingdom, he sent a huge army to conquer Egypt during the rule of Al-Ikhshid, who managed to deter the Fatimid troops that had to retreat back to Libya. Al-Qaim Biamrallah was busy later in fighting the revolting Abou Yazeed who rebelled against him. thus, the Fatimid military campaigns went on against Egypt until Kafur Al-Ikhshidid allowed Ismaili Shiite preachers inside Egypt for about 20 years until his death. Thus, Jawhar Al-Seqilli was the leader who conquered Egypt with his troops without any resistance, during the reign of the Fatimid caliph Al-Moezz Ibn Al-Mansour Ibn Al-Qaim Ibn Al-Mehdi in 358 A.H. When Al-Seqilli controlled Egypt fully, he sent for Al-Moezz to come and settle in Egypt to create the Fatimid capital in it, and when Al-Moezz came, he brought with him coffins of his dead ancestors to be re-buried in Egypt [2], and this shows that Egypt was the original aim of Fatimids as to be the center of their North African  Empire and a source of wealth, power, and weight that would enable them to spread their Shiite call in order to rule supreme over all territories beyond the Levant one day. This was why they established their new capital, Cairo (in Arabic, Al-Qahira, named after the planet Mars in Arab astronomy: Al-Najm Al-Qahir, literally "the victorious star"), and they established Al-Azhar mosque and center as a grand religious institution to spread the Shiite religion more in Egypt and elsewhere all over the ancient world.                    

Fatimid caliphs in Cairo:

  The previous Fatimid caliphs in North Africa were Al-Mehdi who ruled in 297 A.H., succeeded by Al-Qaim who ruled in 322 A.H., who in his turn succeeded by Al-Mansour in 334, while the fourth caliph was Al-Moezz who ruled in 341 A.H. and was the first Fatimid caliph to enter Egypt, and he died in it in 365 A.H. Indeed, despite the fact that Al-Fustat, the old capital, was made ready to receive Al-Moezz, he entered the new capital, Cairo, only after Al-Seqilli had finished building it along with Al-Azhar mosque and a great high wall surrounding the new city. During the reign of Al-Moezz, Ismaili Shiite preachers and proselytizers spread and propagated their call all over Hejaz and the Levant. When Al-Moezz died, his son and successor Nizar ruled in 365 A.H. and his reign extended from the east of Hejaz and Yemen to parts of Iraq and the Levant, and he ruled for 21 years. Nizar was succeeded by his son Al-Hakim Biamrallah in 386 A.H. while he was an adolescent under the tutelage of his tutor Berjwan, but when the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim came of age, he murdered Berjwan in 390 A.H. Indeed, Al-Hakim was known for his fits of madness, strange, contradictory, and weird commands, and his self-deification, and he was murdered in 411 A.H. Al-Hakim was succeeded by his son Al-Dhahir, and during his reign, famines struck in Egypt and the Levant, and the Levant witnessed any revolts and civil unrest, but he indulged in promiscuousness and drunkenness, while appointing and removing so many viziers who were corrupt, and he died after he ruled for 15 years, during which the Ismaili Shiite call reached Iraq and converted many people. Al-Dhahir was succeeded by his child Al-Mustansir, who ruled for 60 years, and severe famines struck Egypt during his reign to the extent that this caliph remained poor and penniless for years and many parts of the Fatimid State separated and enjoyed self-rule: Sicily, Syria, and parts of North Africa. Al-Mustansir brought to Egypt Badr Eddine Al-Jamaly, ruler of Acre in the Levant, and he performed many reforms, quelled many revolts, and regained control over some lost lands. When Al-Mustansir died, he was succeeded by his son Al-Musta'li in 487 A.H. while being supported by the too powerful grand vizier Al-Afdal. Nizar Ibn Al-Mustansir resented not being a caliph as this was his right as the first-born, but Al-Afdal fought him with his troops, and after Nizar was defeated, he fled to Alexandria, but hunted down and assassinated by Al-Afdal. This resulted into the division of the Ismaili Shiite call into two parts: followers and supporters of Nizar (i.e., Nizariyya group) and those of Al-Musta'li (i.e., Al-Musta'liyya group). The former group immigrated to Persia, and from it sprang the Shiite leader self-deified criminal named Al-Hassan Al-Sabah, head of the group of assassins called ''Al-Hashasheen'' (literally, the hash-smokers; this is the Arabic word from which the English nouns ''assassin'' and ''assassination'' are derived along with their synonyms in European languages, a linguistic influence during the crusades in the Levant), and such terrorist group spread their terror in Persia, Iraq, and the Levant and were contacted by many leaders who bribed them to assassinate their rivals and foes. Assassins of this group were massacred later on by Hulago Khan, leader of the armies of the Mongols. The vizier Al-Afdal remained in full control of the Fatimid caliphate during the reign of the caliph Al-Amer, son of Al-Musta'li, who assumed the throne in 495 A.H., and his reign witnessed crusaders establishing their kingdoms in the Levant. Al-Amer was succeeded by weak caliphs controlled by even greedy viziers who never had any political strategy or military prowess. Eventually, two adversaries that ruled parts of the Levant struggled against each other to conquer Egypt: the ruler of the crusaders who reigned in the kingdom of Jerusalem and the ruler of the Zengid State Assad-Eddine Shirkoh, who managed to conquer Egypt and settle in Cairo, but he died soon afterwards. Shirkoh was succeeded by his nephew Saladin (i.e., Salah Eddine Al-Ayyubi in Arabic), who put an end to the Fatimid caliphate and established the Ayyubid dynasty and the state of the Ayyubids in Egypt and the Levant in 567 A.H. Of course, the Levant was influenced by times of strength and weakness of the Fatimids, but shortly before the downfall of the Fatimid caliphate, the two rivals ruling parts of the Levant coveted Egypt. Let us in the following lines shed some light on the Levant at the Fatimid Era in its stages of strength and weakness.                        

The Fatimids and the Levant:

  After Jawhar Al-Seqilli settled in Egypt and built the city of Cairo and Al-Azhar mosque, he sent his he military troops into the Levant to conquer it, led by Jaffer of the Kitami tribe, who managed to defeat Al-Hassan Ibn Abdullah Ibn Tughj and conquer Levantine cities without much resistance (as many people converted to Shiite Ismaili sect) except in Damascus as its people, led by Ibn Yaali the Hashemite, fought the Fatimids but were defeated by them [3]. Yet, after the Fatimids during their stage of strength gained full control over the Levantine region, civil unrest and revolts went on by people who desired to establish their separate rule in the Levant. Let us name a few examples below.   

1- The Qarmatians:  they were extremist Shiites who committed heinous crimes, raids for loot, and massacres throughout their history. They established their state at first in Al-Ahsa region in Arabia, and they spread their terror in the lands among Iraq, Hejaz, and the Levant. At first, the Qarmatians in Al-Ahsa, as Shiites, had close relations with the Ismaili Fatimids Shiites of North Africa, and both parties synchronized their military action in south of Iraq and in morocco, respectively, to create their states [4]. Yet, the Qarmatians were furious when the Fatimids conquered the Levant after they defeated Ibn Tughj there, as used to raid the Levant frequently. Ibn Tughj used to pay them an annual tribute of 300 thousand dinars to ward off their dangerous raids. The Qarmatians had to face the Fatimid threat by allying themselves with the military leader who controlled Baghdad and the Abbasid caliphate at the time, a man named Bakhtiar. Their joined forces and troops marched toward Damascus that was ruled by the Fatimid ruler Jaffer Ibn Falah, who belittled such foes and never imagined that they aimed to fight him because they were his fellow Shiite coreligionists. They managed to invade Damascus and hold him as captive, and they invaded Ramla and coveted, typically as expected from anyone conquering the Levant, to march toward Egypt to attempt to take it from the Fatimids. Indeed, many Arabs and many former followers of the Ikhshidids joined the forces of the Abbasids and the Qarmatians, and they were defeated with extreme difficulty by the Fatimids in Ain Shams in 360 A.H. Indeed, Al-Moezz realized before such events the vital strategic importance of moving the capital of the Fatimid caliphate to Egypt, and the new capital built specially for him, Cairo, must be defended by conquering the Levant. Before the battle at Ain Shams, Al-Moezz sent letters to the Qarmatians reminding them that coreligionists should never fight one another. Yet, the Qarmatians ignored his pleas and attacked Ain Shams with huge troops, and Al-Moezz had to resort to a cunning plan to defeat them. He sent a bribe (100 thousand dinars) to Hassaan Ibn Al-Jaraah, leader of the tribe of Tayy, to retreat with his forces once the Qarmatians attack Ain Shams, and such treachery made Al-Moezz achieve victory. Later on, the Fatimids retrieved Damascus, but dwellers of Damascus hated the Fatimids and revolted against them many times, and to appease them, Al-Moezz had to remove his appointed Fatimid governor in Damascus, but revolts never ceased. Later on, Damascus fell into the hands of a Turkish leader named Aftakeen, and the Fatimids attempted to win him to their side but he adamantly refused as aimed to rule autonomously. Al-Aziz, the Fatimid caliph in Cairo, had to send troops led by Jawhar Al-Seqilli to retrieve Damascus and the Levant. The Fatimid troops managed to re-conquer Palestine and drive away the Qarmatians, who had to join forces with Aftakeen and later on defeated Jawhar Al-Seqilli and crushed his troops near Ashkelon. Thus, the Fatimid caliph Al-Aziz had to lead another army himself and marched to the Levant, and he managed to defeat Aftakeen and the Qarmatians in a landslide victory [5].                        

2- Ibn Al-Jaraah, prince of the Tayy tribe: this tribe used to scatter within the Levantine region, and they sided with the Qarmatians in their attacks on Egypt within the early days of the Fatimid rule there. But after the Qarmatians were driven out of the Levant, Ibn Al-Jaraah conquered Ramla and pretended to rule as subordinate to the Fatimid caliph Al-Moezz. Yet, he later on declared defiance and rebellion against the Fatimids in 371 A.H. and aimed to rule autonomously. The Fatimid military campaign managed to defeat him, but he resorted to exile himself for a while in the Byzantine lands. Later on, he returned after seeking pardon from the Fatimid caliph Al-Aziz, who granted him this pardon. When the eccentric Al-Hakim ascended to the Fatimid throne in Cairo, Ibn Al-Jaraah conquered Ramla again in 388 A.H. and retrieved the Levant, and Berjwan, the tutor and grand vizier of Al-Hakim, sent troops to re-conquer the Levant. Again Ibn Al-Jaraah fled and then returned while asking for pardon from Berjwan who granted it. In 400 A.H., Ibn Al-Jaraah declared revolt against the Fatimids and swore fealty to the prince of Mecca as imam/caliph, and brought him to Ramla to rule the Levant after giving him the title "Al-Rashid Billah" (i.e., the guided one by God). Al-Hakim in Cairo could not face Ibn Al-Jaraah militarily, and he bribed the tribe of Tayy and its leader Ibn Al-Jaraah to forsake ''Al-Rashid'', who returned to Mecca after he offered his apologies to Al-Hakim who accepted his apologies and let his go, provided that Friday sermons in Mecca should include offering prayers to God to protect and save Al-Hakim as the only legitimate ruler. Later on, Al-Hakim sent his spies to the Levant to poison Ibn Al-Jaraah who died as a result, and he sent troops to assert his power and authority all over the Levantine region and to control the tribe of Tayy and force them to be loyal to the Fatimid caliphate of Al-Hakim. Once Al-Hakim died, the tribesmen of Tayy revolted under the leadership of Hassan Ibn Al-Jaraah who controlled Palestine and other parts of the Levant, while leaving other parts to be controlled by the tribe of Kalb. The Tayy tribesmen contacted the Byzantines to try to reach an agreement to join forces to conquer Egypt. When he felt threatened, Al-Dhahir, the Fatimid caliph, and his grand vizier who controlled him sent huge troops that managed to defeat troops of the tribes of Tayy and Kalb and to re-conquered Palestine, Aleppo, and Damascus. Yet, the leader of such victorious troops had disputes later with the powerful grand vizier in Cairo, and this resulted in the success of Hassan Ibn Al-Jaraah to recapture Palestine and the Kalb tribe re-conquered Aleppo. When weak Fatimid caliphs in Cairo were dominated more by their retinue and viziers conditions worsened and so many governors were appointed and then removed all over the Fatimid regions, and this encouraged dwellers of Damascus to revolt many times, until the Seljuks managed to annex the Levant to the Abbasid caliphate.   

3- Bani Hamadan: the Hamadanid dynasty originally belonged to the tribe of Taghlab, and the Abbasid allowed them to rule the north of the Levant to face the Byzantines and keep them off. Yet, the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus II Phocas conquered Aleppo and Seif Al-Dawla, the Hamadanid ruler, ran away from Byzantine troops and requested a truce. After his death, his son Saad Al-Dawla paid annual tribute to the Byzantines to preserve his state while nominally remaining loyal and subordinate to the Abbasids, and he led a life of promiscuity and dissipation. One of his military leader, Qarquya, managed to conquer Aleppo, and Saad Al-Dawla agreed to become part of the Fatimid State if the Fatimid caliph promised to help him to restore Aleppo. The one who helped Saad Al-Dawla to restore Aleppo was his leader Bakjur, and Saad Al-Dawla reneged his promises with the Fatimids. Later on Saad Al-Dawla and Bakjur disputed with each other, and Bakjur swore allegiance to the Fatimids and the Fatimid caliph appointed him as the governor of Damascus. Bakjur tried to rule Damascus autonomously without submitting to the Fatimids,  but the Fatimids troops defeated him and restored Damascus, and he fled to the city of Al-Raqa in Syria. He sent a letter to the Fatimid caliph Al-Aziz to ask his pardon and promised to help restore Aleppo to the Fatimids but he needed troops to be sent from Egypt to him. Al-Aziz agreed, but after he sent his troops to Al-Raqa, Bakjur was murdered [6], and this military campaign failed earlier because of the animosity between the vizier of Al-Aziz and the leader Bakjur.  

4- The Byzantines: during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus II Phocas, the Byzantines seized the chance of the weakness of the Abbasids in Baghdad and the disputes between the Ikhshidids and the Hamadanids to conquer the Levant in 351A.H., with all coastal cities falling into their hands, and Seif Al-Dawla the Hamadanid ran away from the Byzantine troops that invaded Aleppo, and in 353 A.H., they sieged and captured Tarsus and Mopsuestia after killing 15 thousand Arabs. In 355 A.H., they conquered more Levantine lands. In 358 A.H., the Fatimids conquered Egypt and their leader Jawhar Al-Seqilli conquered Damascus. In the same year, the Byzantines reached Tripoli and Antioch, and they killed thousands of Arabs there and forced many people to convert to Christianity; yet, the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus II Phocas was assassinated by his wife Theophano and his general (and her lover)Tzimiskes. This made the Fatimids restore many Levantine cities and regions, but Tzimiskes re-conquered the Levant in 363 A.H. with the aid of Saad Al-Dawla. when Tzimiskes conquered Damascus, its ruler Aftakeen ran away and could not fight the Byzantine armies. Al-Aziz, the Fatimid caliph in Egypt, insisted on retrieving the Levant to secure Egypt, the location of the Fatimid caliphate capital, and to keep off the Byzantines who might have thought to conquer Egypt after invading the Levant. Al-Aziz sent Jawhar Al-Seqilli with troops to the Levant, but Aftakeen and the Qarmatians defeated the Fatimid troops in Ashkelon, and Al-Aziz had to lead troops himself and marched to the Levant and defeated his enemies there in 368 A.H. [7], and he regained his authority and power in the south of the Levant till Damascus. Al-Aziz decided to punish and crush the Bani Hamadan dynasty for their alliance with the Byzantines in Aleppo, and his military leader of his troops sieged Aleppo, driving the Hamadanids to seek help of the Byzantines as per agreements with them. The Byzantine emperor Basil II (who succeeded Tzimiskes) seized the chance to attempt to re-conquer the Levant using 100 thousand soldiers and a huge fleet of warships, but he managed only to invade Aleppo and Homs, and he had to return to his capital to face internal troubles. Al-Aziz commanded a fleet to be established to face the Byzantines, but Byzantine spies in Egypt burned the entire fleet. Al-Aziz commanded the establishment of another fleet and he prepared huge troops and marched toward the Levant, but he died on his way. Al-Hakim, who was an adolescent, succeeded him and he was controlled by his tutor and guardian/custodian Berjwan who controlled Cairo and the Fatimid caliphate. Berjwan continued the military efforts in the Levant and his leaders, fleet, and troops achieved many victories there and defeated the Byzantines in many battles in land and in the Mediterranean Sea. Eventually, the Fatimids (or rather Berjwan) and the Byzantines made an agreement and held a ten-year truce. When Al-Hakim came of age, he assumed full power and authority and his first decree was to put Berjwan to death. Al-Hakim was eccentric, contradictory, and weird in all his decisions and decrees, because he was said to be slightly mad. One of his commands included demolishing the Church of the Resurrection in Palestine (because he hated Christians though his mother was a Christian), where all Byzantines liked to perform pilgrimage, and this was deemed an infringement of the truce and agreement with Basil II, who adhered to the truce nonetheless. When Al-Hakim was murdered, Basil II thought about taking revenge, but Sitt Al-Mulk, the elder sister of Al-Hakim and the guardian/custodian of the child-caliph Al-Dhahir, son of Al-Hakim, readily sought to appease the anger of Basil II and she undertook restoration processes of all churches within the Fatimid caliphate, and this lead Basil II to respect the truce and not to violate it as he planned. The Fatimid grand vizier and the caliph Al-Dhahir, when he came of age, made another truce with the Byzantines and allowed those (in Egypt and the Levant) who were forced earlier by Al-Hakim to convert to Ismaili Shiite religion to revert back to their original faith (i.e., to Christianity), provided that all mosques in cities invaded by the Byzantines should praise Al-Dhahir as the legitimate caliph in Friday sermons. Yet, Aleppo (conquered by the Byzantines earlier) was the reason for endless disputes between the Byzantines and Al-Dhahir who wanted to retrieve it peacefully. The Byzantines never ceded Aleppo, especially that the Hamadanids were their chief allies; the Byzantines indeed controlled fully the Hamadanid dynasty at the time. Yet, Ibn Lou'lou the ruler of Aleppo under Bani Hamadan attempted to rule it autonomously and allied himself to the Fatimids, during the reign of Al-Hakim, and he fought Ibn Merdas, the leader of the tribe of Kalb in the Levant, as he tied many times to conquer Aleppo. It is noteworthy that Al-Hakim himself encouraged Ibn Madras to try and conquer Aleppo, thus he would make sure that Ibn Lou'lou would be too busy to think about conquering more Levantine cities and then Egypt. Ibn Lou'lou was defeated and he fled Aleppo and sought the help of the Byzantines in Antioch. Ibn Merdas became the ruler of Aleppo and he rejected his alliance to the Fatimids, driving them to send troops to re-conquer Aleppo. At the same time, the Byzantines sent their troops in 420 A.H. to retrieve Aleppo; yet, rebellion among ranks of the Byzantine armies forced the Byzantine emperor to retreat, and thus, the Fatimids managed to retrieve Aleppo and defeat Ibn Merdas. The grand vizier of Al-Dhahir renewed the truce with the Byzantines in 427 A.H. for more ten years, and when another ruler of Aleppo tried to separate himself from the Fatimids by enlisting the help of the Byzantines to rule Aleppo autonomously during the caliphate of Al-Mustansir, the Byzantine emperor refused to help him and advised him to remain loyal to the Fatimids. In 432 A.H., the Byzantines made an agreement with the tribe of Kalb in the Levant to violate the truce and prepared a huge army to re-conquer Aleppo, but they were defeated by the Fatimid governor of the Levant, and the Byzantines stopped trying to fight the Fatimids ever since, as per what Ibn Al-Atheer the historian asserts in his writings [8].                

The Fatimids between power and degeneration:

  The unique feature of the Fatimid caliphate was that its periods of strength and weakness were linked directly to their Ismaili Shiite religion, which was the basis of their State/caliphate. The Ismaili Shiite religion used to deify the imam/caliph (more details on that topic are in CHAPTER II of this book), and politically, this meant that Fatimid caliphs used to demand from their subjects things more than any other rulers. Ordinary rulers used to expect and command obedience and loyalty, whereas Fatimid caliphs, as per their Ismaili Shiite sect beliefs, used to demand that their people admit to the fact that imams/caliphs were infallible, divinely inspired, and hence cannot be wrong in their decrees. To make people believe this myth, the Fatimids perfected their propaganda machines (especially in Al-Azhar) using thousands of overt and covert preachers, theologians, and scholars who propagate such a notion among the other Shiite tenets all over the Fatimid Empire, and such a network of preachers were in regular contact with one another by thousands of spies. Hence, a specialist in Shiite history and creeds asserts that the main source of success of the Fatimids was that they perfected and mastered the art of propaganda, and even some American orientalists have asked this specialist about such secrets of Fatimid propaganda, which means that it surpassed all American propagandists and their ways despite modern technology of the modern age [9]. Al-Makrizi in his book titled "Al-Khetat" writes about hierarchy of Shiite (overt and covert) preachers, proselytizers, scholars, spies, etc. all over the 'Islamic' world [10]. After the Fatimids conquered Egypt in 358 A.H., Shiite Fatimid proselytizers spread all over the Levant, Iraq, and Persia, and they were keen on appealing to people to convince and coax them to convert using unprecedented and advanced methods of propaganda at the time, and this was simultaneous with Fatimid military troops annexing lands of the Levant until the Fatimids influence reached the borders of Iraq. Indeed, the Shiite Fatimid preachers infiltrated the Abbasid caliphate and achieved successes more than any military feats; many leaders and rulers converted to the Ismaili Shiite sect (thus forsaking their former Sunnite religion) in different areas and nationalities and swore fealty to the Fatimids even in Baghdad [11]. It is noteworthy that as the Fatimid Ismaili Shiite call reached Baghdad and secretly infiltrated people there, Fatimids in Cairo were weak and faced troubles within the long duration of the famine in the reign of Al-Mustansir. This means that the Fatimid Ismaili Shiite call was more successful that the Fatimid regime or rule in Cairo and elsewhere. What helped also in the success of the Fatimid Ismaili Shiite call in attracting more people, among oppressed people who suffered injustices of Abbasid Sunnite rulers and governors, was the myth that the Fatimid imam/caliph was the infallible descendant of Ali and Fatima (and consequently Prophet Muhammad) and this would make him a just ruler all over the earth on day (!). of course such a myth was derived from the myth of the 'second coming' of Christ, adapted and adopted by Shiites (and Sunnites later on) as the "awaited Mehdi" who would rule the world justly with might and right. People everywhere in the Middle Ages believed such a myth inculcated by Shiite propagandists and sheikhs because they suffered severe and grave injustices by the Umayyads and the Abbasids. This myth infiltrates Sunnite tenets because of Shiite sheikhs who pretended to be Sunnites to deceive others. another reason for the widespread of the Fatimid Shiite call was that some adventurous and ambitious power-seekers who wanted to rule any city or to establish their own states found in this call the best arm/weapon to face the Abbasid caliphate by propagating among the masses the idea of their achieving justice for all. This applies to the Turkish leader Al-Basasiri who wanted to seek revenge from the Abbasids, who rejected him because of his political ambitions, by joining the Fatimids [12]. Personal worldly interests led some princes of the tribes of Kalb, Tayy, and Bani Hamadan to declare loyalty to the Abbasids or the Fatimids as per what the occasion dictated, and some allied themselves to the Byzantines when threatened by the Fatimids. What caused more success to the Fatimid Shiite call in Egypt and the Levant was also the fact that the Buyyids who ruled parts of Iraq and Persia were Shiites as well who shared Fatimid rituals, feasts, and habits like cursing the early Umayyad caliphs, and the three caliphs before Ali Ibn Abou Talib, in Friday sermons in all mosques [13]. Ibn Al-Atheer, the historian, asserts in his writings that the Abbasid caliphs grew weaker as the powerful Buyyids fully controlled them along with Baghdad and most of Iraq, and Shiites of Iraq assumed that any Sunnite rulers, viziers, etc. were always on the wrong as they usurped caliphate from descendants of Ali and Fatima who deserved to rule forever, and hence, religious sentiments of the masses were against the Sunnite Abbasids and disobeyed them and were in favor of the Fatimids in Egypt and the Levant and of the Buyyids in Persia and Iraq and obeyed them as they were deemed to be Alawites (i.e., supporters of the descendants of Ali and Fatima), and even the ruler of the Buyyids consulted his viziers about annulling the Abbasid caliphate formally for good, but they advised him against this idea in order to protect his control and dominance over Baghdad [14]. The cordial relation between the Fatimids and the Buyyids made them consult one another as they share one faith, and the full control of the Buyyids  over Baghdad and the Abbasids made them allow the Fatimid preachers to infiltrate the Levant and to conquer it fully, and this allowed the Fatimids to go on having much power and influence in Iraq and the Levant even after the downfall of the Buyyid dynasty, whose regions were inherited by the Sunnite Seljuks. The Shiite religion played also a major role in bringing about the downfall of the Fatimid dynasty; in the Levant, the Fatimid influence and dominance began to crumble when men of the Abbasid caliphate dared in 402 A.H. to question and undermine, in writings and sermons, the lineage of the Fatimids who were never descendant of Fatima daughter of Prophet Muhammad, thus paving the way to make Abbasid caliph Al-Qadir commission the Seljuks to fight the ruler of Al-Mosul who declared his siding with the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim in Cairo as his subordinate [15]. The Fatimid caliphate entered the stage of weakness after being powerful and strong, like any other states/empires before and after it within the natural historical stages. Of course, the Shiite call was directly linked to the weakness and the inevitable downfall of the Fatimids dynasty; the Ismaili Shiite call waned first before the Fatimid caliphate itself. Since the self-deified Fatimid imam/caliph expected from his subjects  more than any ordinary demands from any other rulers, the subjects or people expected more justice and good rule and governance leading to better lifestyle, as they saw their Fatimid imams/caliphs as one inspired by God Who granted them wisdom because they were the supposed descendants of Prophet Muhammad through his eldest daughter Fatima (!), apart from other Shiite 'supernatural' qualities ascribed exaggeratedly on Shiite rulers in general like knowing the future and the unseen and controlling nature and the worldly realm (!). Events of the Fatimid history proved the exact opposite; Fatimid caliphs were no different at all from the Abbasid caliphs who were controlled by powerful viziers or in adopting contradictory, strange, and weird policies that indicated megalomania or sheer madness. The impotent Fatimids were revealed to be weaker than ever before the crusaders and the Sunnite Seljuks who emerged in the Levant and brought about the downfall of the Fatimid caliphate in Egypt and in the Levant, among other factors that wiped out the Fatimid dynasty. There are many factors that refuted the claim that Fatimid Shiite caliphs and imams were infallible, a myth spread by Shiite preachers, proselytizers, clergymen and sheikhs all over the Fatimid Empire, and such factors that debunked such a myth include the following. Al-Hakim performed so many contradictory acts like demolishing churches and then rebuilding them, building madrassas and then closing them down to be demolished, closing down markets by day and opening them by night, banishing dogs from Cairo and major Egyptian cities, and preventing people from eating Molokhiyya (i.e., the leaves of Corchorus olitorius), and he would ride his donkey to watch over people in Cairo to perform "Hisbah" i.e., to punish those who disobey his decrees. Al-Hakim used to punish violators of his weird decrees by ordering his black virile slave, named Massood, to rape them in broad daylight before the sight of people gathered in any street to serve as an example for others who should never have dared to disobey the self-deified Al-Hakim [16]. The worst sin of Al-Hakim when he proclaimed self-deification and commanded his subjects, on pain of death, to prostrate before him whenever he went and to address him using epithets of God in the Quran, while praising his unprecedented beauty, and forced everyone in the Fatimid Empire to do so whenever his name is mentioned even in Hejaz and Mecca, because he thought of himself as God incarnated in flesh (!), while appointing spies or a form of covert police to oversee that his commands in that respect were executed by all subjects [17]. So many Ismaili Shiite preachers and sheikhs spread the idea of Al-Hakim as God, and so many people in Egypt physically attacked such preachers and beat them severely, and many of them fled from Egypt to the Levant to spread the deification of Al-Hakim there, especially among the Kalb tribe, from which the Druze sect sprang in Syria, Lebanon and north of Palestine [18]. Of course, Al-Hakim's notion of self-deification shocked so many Egyptians and terrified them, despite the fact that it is a basic notion of the Ismaili Shiite sect that imams were deified and sanctified, and we tackle this in detail in CHAPTER II of this book. Even the Fatimid caliph Al-Moezz declared his godhead [19] in Cairo and made poets praise his divine, godly attributes as an immortal deity incarnated in the flesh (!) [20]. Shiite sheikhs in Egypt at the time spread the notion among the Egyptians that Al-Moezz knew the unseen, the unknown, and the future, as he received divine inspiration from the metaphysical realm, but the Egyptians derided and ridiculed him in their poetic verses and jokes, and even his successor, Al-Aziz, claimed he could predict the future and know the unseen like any Shiite imams/rulers, and Egyptians ridiculed and mocked him in a most clever manner: as he ascended steps of the pulpit to deliver the Friday sermon in Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, he found an unsigned parchment that contained a poetic verse to ridicule him, saying that people have stood his injustices but could not stand blasphemies and folly, and that if he knew the unseen really, he should know the writer of the parchment [21]. The typical Egyptian ridicule and mockery reached a higher level with the foolish and self-deified Al-Aziz, as the Egyptians surprised him with more parchments of slander and verbal abuse, and finally with a statue of a woman fully clothed in full veil put in his palace court handing him a parchment of complaint, and when he took it, he read verbal abuse and mockery that made him order the beheading of the ''woman'' only to discover that it was a wooden statue. His fury was so much that he commanded his Sudanese slaves to burn houses of Egypt, loot all possessions of Egyptians, and enslave their women; but the Egyptians fought bravely against the Sudanese slaves to defend themselves for three consecutive days [22]. Yet, the powerful Fatimid caliphs with strong character like Al-Moezz, Al-Aziz, and Al-Hakim had viziers that obeyed them blindly [23], unlike weak Fatimid caliphs in later decades. Al-Hakim as an adolescent was dominated by Berjwan and his followers, but when he came of age, he had them beheaded and he ruled as a tyrant, unlike his son the caliph Al-Dhahir, who was the very first weak Fatimid caliph, as he spent his time in promiscuity, enjoying melodious songs of female singers, and excessive drinking of wine, and he encouraged people in Cairo to imitate his profligacy. Al-Dhahir was controlled and dominated by his gran vizier, viziers, and other leaders who ruled instead of him and managed all affairs of the caliphate while agreeing on never allowing anyone to meet Al-Dhahir except through themselves, leaving him to his life of luxury and idle dissipation [24]. Al-Dhahir was succeeded by his seven-year-old son Al-Mustansir who ruled for 60 years while being dominated and controlled by a number powerful grand viziers who were de facto rulers for decades, while some rivals were competing to be appointed as viziers even for few days after which they were either killed or removed, and some became the grand viziers 6 or 3 times within separate periods, until a more powerful grand vizier named Bar Al-Jamaly remained in his position for consecutive 21 years, and his son Al-Afdal inherited the post during the lifetime of Al-Mustansir and then this two successors, thus, Al-Afdal became the grand vizier for consecutive 28 years (487 – 515 A.H.), as the real de facto ruler of the Fatimid caliphate. When Al-Afdal died, weak viziers and weak Fatimid caliphs reigned from the caliphate of Al-Hafiz to the last one, Al-Aadid, who were succeeded by the first ruler of the Ayyubid dynasty, Saladin. Thus, the image of weak caliphs who were mere puppets in the hands of powerful viziers and leaders soon debunked the myth of infallible Shiite Ismaili deified and sanctified imam/caliph portrayed by Shiite clergymen and preachers for decades to the masses; this resulted in so many subjects despising the Fatimids and leaving their religion as well as deriding and ridiculing them in poetic verse, in jokes, and in funny tales. Even Sunnite grand viziers in Egypt used to mock weak Fatimid caliphs and declared their Sunnite creed in public; for instance, the Sunnite grand vizier named Ibn Al-Silar established a madrassa in Alexandria in 546 A.H. to teach and propagate the Sunnite Al-Shafei doctrine that opposed the Shiite doctrine of the State and its policies, and he mocked Shiite notions in public before Egyptians in Cairo. Even some Shiites grand viziers ridiculed Fatimid weak caliphs, like Abbas Ibn Badis who assassinated Al-Dhafir and appointed another caliph whom he dominated and controlled, a Fatimid child named Al-Fayez, and he used to mock the Fatimid dynasty while drinking wine with his friends, saying that he managed to kill Al-Dhafir and to make his household stand in queue like cattle to choose eventually a child to be appointed as caliph to lend legitimacy to his ruling the caliphate behind curtains, asserting to his friends that the Fatimid caliphate was about to be lost forever in the West and the East. When the last Fatimid caliph, Al-Aadid, was enthroned, by the Fatimid vizier Talae' Ibn Ruzaic, he was astonished to see Cairene people shouting his name in cheers to express joy and loyalty to the new ruler, as he told his friends that he made all Fatimid household members stand in a queue like cattle to choose caliph from among them, but people did not see such a scene. Thus, by allowing powerful viziers to appoint and remove caliphs, the Shiite Ismaili notion of leaving a written will by a caliph to choose his successor (i.e., either his brother or son) was ignored, and this made people realize that Shiite Ismaili creed as a fake one. For instance, the grand vizier Al-Afdal disregarded and rejected Nizar, the first-born son of Al-Mustansir and the legitimate successor as per his written will, and appointed instead in the Fatimid throne the caliph Al-Musta'li, the younger son of Al-Mustansir who can easily be controlled and because he was the husband of the sister of Al-Afdal. Nizar fled from Cairo but Al-Afdal managed to hunt him down and assassinated him. as a result, a Shiite groups of people felt furious for what had occurred to Nizar the rightful one who should have been enthroned as a caliph, and they named themselves the Nizariyya group, and they fled to the Levant and settled in Alamut Citadel, where they formulated their own private Shiite cult and doctrine and they were led there by the self-deified Al-Hassan Ibn Al-Sabah and formed later on the assassins group. This assassins group offered their services for large sums to those who wish to assassinate or threaten their political foes, and this group was bent on having revenge against the Fatimids in Egypt within bloody intrigues and conspiracies. At one time, they managed to assassinate the Fatimid caliph Al-Amer in 524 A.H. a Fatimid grand vizier used to have spies near Alamut to wait for any assassins who leave on any assassination mission in order to follow them and capture them if they dared to enter Egypt, and they were usually arrested in Belbeis (a city in eastern of Nile Delta) and they were carried to the Fatimid palace court to be beheaded [25]. Other powerful grand viziers after the death of Al-Afdal followed his footsteps in removing the caliph whose succession was due as per a written will of a deceased Fatimid caliph and appointing someone else instead, especially after the assassination of the caliph Al-Amer. This made Egyptians disbelieve in the Shiite notion of infallible and invincible caliphs, and they lost all belief in the Shiite religion when famines, economical catastrophes, and natural disasters struck Egyptians many times successively. The first and worst of such calamities was a seven-year famine during the reign of Al-Mustansir and his weak, unwise viziers. It is noteworthy that Al-Moezz before him carried huge loads of victuals to save the Egyptians from a severe famine before the Fatimid troops came to conquer Egypt after the death of Kafur Al-Ikhshidid. Another worst famine struck Egypt during the reign of Al-Dhahir in 414 A.H., and people felt troubled so much by soaring prices, epidemics, and mass deaths, and the Cairene people implored and beseeched Al-Dhahir, as an infallible imam, in a demonstration before his palace to do his best to save them from the famine, while reminding him of the wisdom of his ancestors the caliphs. Al-Dhahir was a weak helpless caliph and could not do anything to relieve the suffering of people, though people thought of him as a savior or a the awaited Mehdi, as per previous Fatimid propaganda about Fatimid caliphs believed by the gullible masses. They waited in vain for Al-Dhahir to save him as did his ancestor Al-Moezz, but they realized that the Shiite call was nothing but lies and illusions. The hungry and angry masses had nothing to do but to loot and raid villages and cities, even soldiers and slaves looted the wealthy ones in Cairo and elsewhere, while committing crimes [26]. Another severe famine struck Egypt followed by soaring prices and an epidemic in 446 A.H. and such calamities went on for some years, and what exacerbated the matter was military bloody struggles between Turkish and Sudanese leaders within Cairo and Upper Egypt, amidst weakness of viziers and of Al-Mustansir, while the number of highwaymen and the rate of mass deaths increased; corpses were so many and buried late, which made epidemics spread. Wealthy people left Egypt and immigrated to the Levant and Iraq. Al-Mustansir went bankrupt and his palace was empty of furniture, and his relatives, friends, and viziers deserted him, and when the Turkish leaders defeated and killed off Sudanese leaders and controlled Cairo, went to the caliph to find him hungry and in a despicable, miserable state of impecuniousness sitting on a simple floor mat and they wept for him. because of soaring prices and inflation, the Fatimids were so weak and could not rule Egypt, and Cairo became a city of ruins. When the famine years were about to end, Al-Mustansir appointed a shrewd grand vizier, Badr Al-Jamaly, who applied some economic reforms and put an end to corruption, controlled prices of goods, and the budget of the State improved. Al-Afdal, son of Badr Al-Jamaly, inherited his post and continued his reforms, till the annual tributes and taxes in his days reached the large sum of 5 million dinars [27]. The Fatimid caliphate was about to regain its power and strength by the hands of the grand viziers Badr Al-Jamaly and his son Al-Afdal, but what made such endeavors to regain former glory and power fail was removal of Nizar, by Al-Afdal, from being enthroned as the legitimate successor, and this divided the Fatimid Shiite call into two groups as we have mentioned before. The fatal blow to the Fatimids that brought about the collapse of their caliphate was that the emergence of two competitive powers in the Levant that sought to inherit lands of the Fatimids during the time of the grand vizier Al-Afdal: the crusaders and the Seljuks, and each of them aimed to expand their territories by conquering Egypt as well.             

The collapse of the Fatimid rule in Egypt and the Levant:

In the Levant:

  When Badr Al-Jamaly assumed the post of grand vizier in 466 A.H., he was busy to stop all violence and unrest caused by hungry revolting people and he re-imposed order and was the most powerful man in the Fatimid caliphate. The Seljuks in the Levant seized the chance to conquer more Levantine cities; they captured Akron in 467 A.H. from its Fatimid governor, but its people returned willingly to the Fatimid rule without interference from Cairo. The Seljuks managed to capture and keep Damascus in 486 A.H., and this made them covet conquering Egypt; their troops managed to conquer the Nile Delta (or Lower Egypt), seizing the chance that Badr Al-Jamaly was busy regaining control in Upper Egypt. Badr Al-Jamaly and his troops returned soon to Cairo and achieved a landslide victory over the Seljuks in the Nile Delta and chased the Seljuks out of Egypt in 469 A.H. WhenBadr Al-Jamalyregained full control of Egypt and became the most powerful man in the Fatimid caliphate, he naturally desired to re-conquer the Levant; he attempted twice to conquer Damascus in 470 and 472 A.H., but the one who managed to conquer Damascus and Baalbek and dominated the Levant was the Seljuk ruler Taj Al-Dawla Tutush I. Badr Al-Jamaly tried to win him to the side of the Fatimid caliphate to rule in its name by offering him a bride from the Fatimid household, but Tutush I refused. Badr Al-Jamaly sent his troops again to re-conquer Damascus in 478 A.H. but he failed to do so, but his troops managed to conquer coast cities like Acre, Tyre, and Sidon. The Seljuks grew more powerful and strong and were bent to conquer all Fatimid lands in the Levant and in Egypt; they sent their troops from Damascus, Aleppo, and Edessa to conquer Homs and some other fortresses, but they lost the battle near Tripoli. Later on Tutush I and his brother fought one another within a Seljuk civil war that ended in the assassination of Tutush I, and his sons ruled separate cities, like Damascus and Aleppo, within Seljuk lands, and yet, those brothers also fought one another. Such civil war was a chance that Badr Al-Jamaly could never seize; the Fatimids were divided into the Nizariyya group and the Al-Musta'liyya group and they fought each other as we have mentioned earlier. Another power took the advantage of the Seljuk civil war: the crusaders defeated Kilij Arslan I in Asia Minor and their troops marched toward the Levant to capture Jerusalem. The crusaders sieged Antioch and its ruler could not enlist help of the Seljuks rulers sons of Tutush I because of rivalry. As for Egypt, Al-Afdal planned to make use of the presence of the crusaders as they were a barrier between him and the Seljuks who coveted to annex Egypt to their State. Al-Afdal sent his envoys to the crusaders to negotiate with the crusaders who were at the time sieging Antioch and could not invade any city yet, proposing to them that they and he would divine the Levant between them; the Levantine North (i.e., today's Syria and Lebanon) for them and the Levantine South (i.e. today's Palestine) for Egypt under the control of Al-Afdal. In order to force the crusaders to accept his deal, Al-Afdal managed beforehand to conquer Jerusalem in 491 A.H. Yet, the crusaders refused the proposed deal of Al-Afdal because their main aim was to establish (in this first crusade) a kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital, as it was a holy city for them. The crusaders held great hopes to conquer the whole Levantine region after Seljuks refused to help the ruler of Antioch and turning down Al-Afdal. Soon enough, the crusaders invaded Antioch and captured most coastal Levantine cities on their way. After the crusaders sieged Jerusalem for a while, they conquered it and massacred all its residents; more than 70 thousand Muhammadan Arabs inside it, especially in the Umayyad mosque, named Al-Aqsa, made 'holy' to the Sunnite Muhammadans. The crusaders became the arch-enemies of the Fatimids; Al-Afdal led the troops to fight them in the first battle of Ramla in 492 A.H., but the Fatimids were defeated by the crusaders. Al-Afdal made a narrow escape from the swords of the crusaders, who were led by Baldwin I, who soon enough sieged Ashkelon which was ruled by the Fatimids. Yet, Ashkelon was saved only because of the disputes and rivalry between Baldwin I and the chief military leader of the first crusade Raymond of Saint-Gilles [28]. The conditions of the Fatimids in Egypt deteriorated after the death of Al-Afdal and they were weaker than ever; all their military campaigns in 517 A.H. to fight crusaders failed. In 545 A.H., chaos and civil unrest resulted from the struggle for the post of grand vizier between two powerful leaders: Shaawer and Dirgham, and this struggle involved the crusaders and the Zengid dynasty as both coveted to conquer Egypt, and Noor-Eddine Zengid managed to conquer Egypt and put an end to the Fatimid dynasty.                                      

In Egypt:

  Another generation of he Seljuk rulers emerged whose main aim was to fight the crusaders in the Levant without stirring troubles with their fellow Muhammadans anywhere. Chief among them the ruler Emad-Eddine Zengid and his son and successorNoor-Eddine Zengid, and both were military leaders par excellence with great military prowess and shrewdness. Emad-Eddine Zengid controlled his Seljuk in-laws and conquered the Levantine region from Aleppo to Homs and attempted twice to capture Damascus, all the while making crusaders suffer heavy losses, especially when he incessantly attacked Damascus, Edessa, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Indeed, Emad-Eddine Zengid managed to make the crusaders' Edessa kingdom collapse eventually [29], and this was the direct reason of the second crusade coming from Europe. When Emad-Eddine Zengid died, his son Noor-Eddine Zengid inherited the rule of all lands conquered by his father, whose borders were long beside the lands invaded by crusaders. Of course, Noor-Eddine Zengid continued the military efforts against the crusaders; he managed to assassinate Raymond ruler of Antioch and Jocelyn former ruler of Edessa, and he attacked Damascus many times until he managed to capture it [30], dwellers of Damascus at the time allied themselves to the crusaders as their city was situated at a very important strategic point in relation to the crusader's kingdom. Conquering Damascus, Noor-Eddine Zengid created a power balance with his enemies the crusaders regarding the causal cities in the Levantine South. Both rivals now focused on Egypt to regain more power and achieve decisive victory. Crusaders in the south of the Levant decided to conquer Egypt for its vital strategic importance before the Seljuks and the Zengids, and they began their march toward the coastal city of Ashkelon and conquered it, driving away its Fatimid governor. The Zengids, who were formerly Seljuks, used to control Aleppo in the Levantine North and Al-Mosul in Iraq, and after Noor-Eddine Zengid conquered Damascus, he was nearer to Egypt than were the crusaders. Of course, both parties (i.e., the Zengids and the crusaders) knew that the one conquering Egypt would secure one's presence in the Levant. Since Noor-Eddine Zengid managed to unite Syria under his rule, the only response by crusaders was to attempt to conquer Egypt before Noor-Eddine Zengid would think of it, and Amalric I (or Amaury I, in French) king of Jerusalem made his troops march toward the Egyptian city Al-Farama and sieged it, but Dirgham, the grand vizier and de facto ruler of Egypt, forced the crusaders to retreat by destroying some dams of the River Nile, and crusaders retreated for fear of being drowned. When Dirgham and Shaawer later on disputed over who would assume the post of grand vizier, Shaawer proposed to Noor-Eddine Zengid to help him with his military troops to be appointed as ruler of Egypt in return for allowing Noor-Eddine Zengid  to control Egyptian borders and its near Fatimid small cities in the Palestinian coast. Noor-Eddine Zengid agreed and sent his troops to Egypt led by Assad-Eddine Shirkoh and his nephew Saladin, who assigned Shaawer as the grand vizier of Egypt. In fact, Shaawer reneged on his promises and agreement with Noor-Eddine Zengid and Shirkoh, as he enlisted the help of Amalric I to come to Egypt to get rid of the Zengid armies, and the battles between troops of Shirkoh and crusaders' troops ended in the agreement that both armies should leave Egypt at once. But later in 1167 A.D., a huge army led by Shirkoh marched toward Egypt to take revenge from Shaawer, and Amalric I sent his troops to help Shaawer their ally, and the latter promised Shirkoh to pay a huge tribute to make amends, and this made the Zengid army and the crusaders' army leave Egypt, only after Amalric I forced Shaawer to pay a heavy annual tribute. When Amalric I  desired more money from Egypt, he violated all agreements with Shaawer and sent troops to conquer Egypt, and he attacked the Egyptian city Belbeis and massacred all its residents. The weak Fatimid caliph was frightened and enlisted the help of Noor-Eddine Zengid, who sent huge troops led by Shirkoh and Saladin. Amalric I was defeated and had to retreat. Saladin killed Shaawer for his treachery, and Shirkoh was appointed as the grand vizier of the Fatimid caliph. When Shirkoh died, Saladin succeeded him in the post of grand vizier [31]. This marked the beginning of a new era; the Fatimid caliphate came to an end and a new state emerged: the Ayyubid State. The Ayyubids' history in Egypt is directly linked to the history of the crusaders in the Levant in times of peace and times of war, and the Levantine region inevitably influenced the Ayyubid ruler whether he was a strong or a weak one.                

References:

[1] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 8/12-19, and Al-Makrizi, pages 2/21-23.

[2] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 8/32, 34, 42, 66, 107, 179, and 196, and Al-Makrizi, pages 2/24:26. 

[3] Ibn Al-Atheer, page 233.

[4] "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Fact and Myth", by A. S. Mansour, pages 24:26.

[5] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 8/242:262.

[6] "Ministries and Ministers during the Fatimid Era" by Al-Manaoui, pages 194:200.

[7] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 8/212, 217, 218, 220, 226, 235, 237, 239, 243, 274, and 260.

[8] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 9/36, 37, 48:51, and 205.

[9] A. S. Mansour, ditto, pages 28:30 and "The Ismaili Shiite Sect" by Dr. M. Kamel Hussein, pages 131:132.

[10] M. Kamel Hussein, ditto, pages 132:139, and Al-Makrizi 2/106 and 197.

[11] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 9/267:272, and Al-Makrizi, page 2/33.

[12] Al-Manaoui, ditto, page 209.

[13] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 8/214:216.

[14] Ibn Al-Atheer, page 8/177, and ''Al-Nojom Al-Zahera'' by Abou Al-Mahasin, pages 4/124:125.

[15] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 9/92:98.

[16] Al-Siyouti, page 1/602.

[17] Al-Siyouti, pages 1/601:603.

[18] M. Kamel Hussein, pages 42:43.

[19] Ibn Al-Atheer, page 8/263.

[20] Al-Siyouti, pages 1/599:600, and M. Kamel Hussein, page 159.

[21] M. Kamel Hussein, page 151.

[22] Al-Siyouti, pages 1/602:603.

[23] Al-Siyouti, pages 1/602:603.

[24] Al-Makrizi, pages 2/29:30.

[25] Al-Manaoui, pages 138:141.

[26] Al-Makrizi, pages 2/30:31.

[27] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/629:634, and Al-Manaoui, pages 146:150.

[28] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 10/41:45, 72, 83, 92, 111, 118, 127, 135, 152, 165, 202, 203, and 206.

[29] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 10/280:284 and 11/5, 9, 23, 25, 33, 44, and 49.

[30] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/55, 65, 69, 73, 88, 90, 93, 98, 152, 127, 133, 145:146, 150, and 153, and Al-Makrizi 2/36:39.

[31] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/129, 133, 145, 146, 150, and 153, and Al-Makrizi, pages 2/36:39.

Sixthly: Egypt during the Ayyubid Era  (546 – 648 A.H.):

Saladin gained authority and power in Egypt:

   When Saladin was appointed as the grand vizier of Egypt during the reign of the last Fatimid caliph, this marked a new era in the history of both Egypt and the Levant. Saladin's ambitions, his experience in the circumstances of Egypt and the Levant, and his resolve to confront the danger/threat of the crusaders led him to be bent on uniting both Egypt and the Levant under his rule. Saladin followed the following steps to achieve such a goal. Firstly, he asserted his new status as the only ruler of Egypt in Cairo, part from the dying Fatimid caliphate. Secondly, he made sure his attitude was clear toward Noor-Eddine Zengid who ruled the larger part of the Levant and could not allow Saladin to rise above him. Thirdly, he must fight the crusaders in many areas, as they would not allow him to realize his ambitions in the Levant or in Egypt; their presence in the Levant posed a veritable threat to him in Cairo, for sure. The opposite was true of course: his presence in Egypt as its ruler posed a veritable danger for crusaders in the Levant. Hence, Saladin knew for sure that his power and authority in Egypt must be secured by his dominating the Levant by facing both Noor-Eddine Zengid and the crusaders, as both would try to get rid of him because of his military prowess and political ambitions. Ironically, when the Fatimid caliph Al-Aadid appointed Saladin as the grand vizier to succeed his paternal uncle, Assad-Eddine Shirkoh, he hoped to regain some power by controlling Saladin who was a very young man at the time (apparently with little political experience), and even some military leaders within the Zengid army frowned upon the decision to appoint Saladin in such a post. The Fatimid caliph thought that the expected struggle between Saladin and those leaders would benefit him. Al-Aadid never knew that Saladin was very shrewd and intelligent, apart from his military prowess, and that he was the one advising Shirkoh to assassinate Shaawer the traitor to be relieved from his intrigues and treachery and to assume his post instead as a grand vizier. Indeed, some historians assert that Saladin planned and executed the assassination of Shaawer himself, whereas Shirkoh had not ambition to rule as he was content to be a loyal military leader under Noor-Eddine Zengid. Hence, we can conclude that the young Saladin was of sharp intelligence and was over-ambitious; he knew what he wanted and planned it carefully from the very beginning. Al-Aadid was relieved when he knew that Shirkoh died because he posed a threat to the Fatimid rule, and he never knew that the one destined to end the Fatimid caliphate was the calm nephew of Shirkoh (i.e., Saladin) who seldom talked in public or in the palace-court but coveted to rule Egypt. Of course, the Fatimid palace-court was a hotbed of intrigues, schemes, conspiracies, and plots; so many viziers and grand viziers had controlled weak caliphs for decades and had to protect their interests and their posts, and we have mentioned that even Shaawer enlisted the help of crusaders against his rival. Many conspiracies and intrigues used to be spawned by Sudanese military guards in the Fatimid palace-court; even a Sudanese eunuch, who held the high position of a secretary of the caliphate in the Fatimid palace, once sensed how dangerous Saladin was as a grand vizier, and he sent a letter secretly to Amalric I promising to help him to conquer Egypt if he  promised that he would murder or get rid of Saladin by banishing him out of Egypt. As a grand vizier, Saladin planted his agents and spies everywhere in Cairo and in the Fatimid palace, and when his agents arrested the message-bearer before he got out of Cairo, as he had hidden the secret message of the black eunuch inside his shoes, the conspiracy was exposed and Saladin commanded the execution of the black eunuch and seized the chance to fire many employees in the palace from their posts, as they supported the Fatimid caliph, and to appoint instead some agents loyal to him alone. Of course, Al-Aadid never remained silent upon such changes and measures done without consulting him, and the Sudanese guards hated what occurred to their eunuch leader who was put to death. As this group of Sudanese was plotting how to assassinate Saladin, he knew about their secret meetings, thanks to his spies, and he got rid of them by making his henchmen burn their houses (with their children and women inside) so that when all the Sudanese guards hurried to extinguish the fire, Saladin's military leaders and their soldiers massacred all of them, not sparing a single one. When Al-Aadid knew about such events, he asserted his loyalty to Saladin and the Zengids, thus acknowledging the power and authority of Saladin in Egypt. Days later, Saladin burned barracks of Armenian soldiers and guards (loyal to Al-Aadid) while they were inside them, and all of them died as a result [1]. Thus, Saladin killed off any possible rivals and all source of Fatimid military and political power to get rid of all schemes, conspiracies, and intrigues inside the Fatimid palace-court. What remained for him was to get rid of Al-Aadid, who was 37 years old and not likely to die soon. Yet, soon enough after he lost all his Armenian and Sudanese palace guards, he was taken ill by a mysterious ailment and remained several weeks in bed, during which Saladin removed his name from Friday sermons and put instead the name of the Abbasid caliph. Al-Aadid died and the Fatimid caliphate ended peacefully [2]. We may conclude that Saladin had actually assassinated the last Fatimid caliph by poison.     

Saladin conquered the Levant:

(A) Saladin and Noor-Eddine Zengid:

  Noor-Eddine Zengid used to trust Assad-Eddine Shirkoh, but he doubted Saladin and feared his ambitions when Saladin declared himself as ruler of Egypt, but Saladin sent his envoys (including his own father) to Noor-Eddine Zengid in the Levant to assure him of ruling Egypt under his name and under the Zengid dynasty and that he would protect him and guard his back during his military endeavors to remove all crusaders from the Levant. The father of Saladin was a restraining element for ambitions of his son Saladin, and he made sure he left Noor-Eddine Zengid after convincing him of that and after removing any misunderstanding. Wisely, Saladin's father advised his son to avoid meeting Noor-Eddine Zengid in person (in the Levant) all the time after he ascended the throne of Egypt; he feared that the military leaders under Saladin would be commanded by their original master, Noor-Eddine Zengid, to arrest Saladin if he ever dared to come to the Levant. Thus, Saladin never answered the invitations of Noor-Eddine Zengid to visit him in the Levant, and he always made excuses for not showing up there, and letters of apology were carried to Noor-Eddine Zengid by Saladin's father. Saladin got news all the time of military endeavors of Noor-Eddine Zengid against crusaders in the Levant, and he feared that Noor-Eddine Zengid would control and dominate over all the Levant one day and pose a threat to Egypt ruled by Saladin, especially that Noor-Eddine Zengid was taken very ill from time to time. At one point, Saladin went into the Levant to siege and fight crusaders in Al-Shoubak Castle (the Europeans called it Montreal Castle) in the city of Shoubak (in today's Jordan), and when the crusaders were about to surrender, Noor-Eddine Zengid appeared suddenly on the route leading to the Karak Castle in the town of Al-Karak, and Saladin hastily fled the entire palace to avoid meeting Noor-Eddine Zengid, while sending a letter that he had to end the siege because some enemies threatened Egypt during his absence. This was not true; Noor-Eddine Zengid considered leaving the siege as high treason n that entailed severe punishment to be exacted on Saladin, especially that this re-occurred when Saladin was sieging Al-Karak Castel and left the palace immediately when he knew that Noor-Eddine Zengid was approaching (from Damascus) with the purpose of meeting him. this second time, Saladin sent a letter of apology while asserting that his father was taken ill in Cairo and had to be visited by his son, Saladin, before his death. Noor-Eddine Zengid was furious and vowed in public to conquer Egypt and to punish Saladin severely. Yet, Noor-Eddine Zengid died of his last bout of illness, and hence, Saladin sighed with relief as he prepared to assume the rule of Zengid territories in the Levant beside ruling Egypt [3].

Saladin confiscate lands ruled by sons of Noor-Eddine Zengid:

 Within the same year that witnessed the death of Noor-Eddine Zengid, Saladin prepared huge armies to conquer Aleppo ruled by the Zengids while leaving some troops to siege Homs. The Zengids, sons of Noor-Eddine, enlisted the help of crusaders against Saladin to ward him off, and then, they bribed the assassins (i.e., the Hashasheen Shiite group of murderers) to get rid of Saladin inside his camp; the assassins attempted to do it but failed. As for the crusaders, they attacked the army of Saladin that sieged Homs and managed to force Saladin to retreat from Homs and Aleppo; yet, when the crusaders moved away, thinking that Saladin would return to Egypt, he marched with his troops again to siege Homs until it surrendered. Soon enough, Saladin managed to conquer all Levantine cities and regions ruled by the Zengids, except for Aleppo, and he conquered Al-Mosul, in Iraq, ruled by Seif-Eddine Zengid, son of Noor-Eddine, after he defeated his troops. Saladin managed to conquer Aleppo later on when Seif-Eddine Zengid died and his brother Ismail Zengid, ruler of Aleppo, died as well. Saladin managed to defeat their weak successor who tried to rule Aleppo, Ezz-Eddine Zengid who had disputes with his remaining brother Emad-Eddine Zengid who ruled Sinjar (a city near Al-Mosul), and thus, when all the Levantine regions (except those under rule of crusaders) fell into Saladin's hands as he seized the chance of dispute between the two remaining Zengid household members, the Abbasid caliph acknowledged him as the legitimate ruler of the Levant and urged him to fight the crusaders. Indeed, in order to return to Egypt and prepare for fighting the crusaders, Saladin made Ezz-Eddine Zengid rule Al-Mosul in his name after swearing fealty to him, and he made Emad-Eddine Zengid rule cities of Sinjar andSuruç [4]. Hence, Saladin ruled the region between Al-Mosul, Aleppo, Damascus, and the whole of Egypt, and he was bent to rule the rest of the Levant after defeating and getting rid of the crusaders.    

(B) Saladin and the crusaders in Egypt and the Levant:

  The crusaders began their attacks against Egypt as Amalric I himself led their troops into the Egyptian city of Al-Farama, and meanwhile, Saladin in Cairo was busy facing conspiracies, intrigues, and schemes of the retinue members of the former Fatimid palace-court, but he left huge troops at the city of Belbeis without leaving Cairo himself so as to stop anyone affiliated to the Fatimids to claim the throne. Yet, the crusaders managed to reach Damietta (in the north of the River Nile Delta) using Byzantine fleet ships, and Saladin sent military reinforcements to Damietta. The crusaders could not manage to invade Damietta, and their victuals were scarce while the Egyptian fleet prevented any victuals ever reaching them, and passing plenty of victuals to dwellers of Damietta. What aggravated matters for the crusaders was heavy rain that created many swamps in their camps. They had to negotiate Saladin for their moving away from Egypt in return for a heavy tribute paid to him. The ships of the fleet of the crusaders on their way to return to the Levant sank because of a terrible tempest. A truce was agreed upon between the crusaders and Saladin, but Raynaud de Châtillon (or Raynald of Châtillon, in English) violated the truce by raiding a huge caravan of Arab pilgrims heading toward Mecca, as they passed by Al-Karak seizing the chance of being protected by the truce. Saladin demanded from Raynaud de Châtillon to release his captives from this caravan and demanded also a huge tribute to make amends for his crime, but the famous crusader arrogantly refused to meet with envoys of Saladin. Those envoys went to Jerusalem to meet with its king, Guy of Lusignan, who did nothing to urge Renaud to make amends. Soon enough, the camp of the crusaders was divided because of so many disputes, despite the apparent veneer of being united;  Raymond III of Tripoli held close relations with Saladin and had many disputes with Guy of Lusignan, because Raymond  felt that he should be appointed as the king of Jerusalem instead of Guy of Lusignan who usurped that right. Later on, the troops of Saladin managed to pass Galilee after taking prior permission from Raymond, and the troops of Saladin managed to massacre Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar during the battle of Cresson. Raymond had to end the truce with Saladin and join his fellow crusaders Guy of Lusignan and Renaud. Bohemond I of Antioch joined them and all of them mobilized all their forces (mostly consisting of Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar) inside Acre.   

The battle of Hattin:

   Troops of Saladin were mobilized after his reinforcement came from Egypt to the Levant and he marched toward Tiberias as he received more news about movements of the crusaders. Saladin wanted to bait the crusaders to move from Acre to Tiberias. Raymond who ruled Tiberias advised his fellow crusaders to remain in Acre, but they never listened to him and accused him of being a coward who allied himself to the Muhammadans. The crusaders moved toward Tiberias as Saladin desired, while camping in a good place in Sepphoris that was fortified and could never be attacked. Part of Saladin's troops sieged Tripoli, and the wife of Raymond sent for her husband and the crusaders to help the city, but Raymond refused to allow troops of the crusaders to leave Sepphoris, but crusaders again disobeyed him and disregarded his pieces of advice. Once the crusaders marched toward Antioch and Tripoli, as planned by Saladin in his cunning plot, and whose spies told him news of crusaders on a daily basis, troops of Saladin left the siege of Tripoli and attacked crusaders in the area of Hattin in the north. Raymond was the general leader of the main troops while Renaud and Guy of Lusignan led other troops on the left and the right, leaving Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller at the rear of all troops for protection. The location of the troops of Saladin was better; he prevented troops of crusaders from reaching sources of water, thus winning half of the battle by making them suffering severe thirst and fatigue. The crusaders had to stop out of fatigue and thirst, and they knew that troops of Saladin surrounded them from all directions, thus feeling they were losing the battle already. Renaud had purportedly said that the war was over before battle began to meet their death and that the kingdom of Jerusalem ended. Thus, troops of Saladin attacked and defeated them, and any crusaders who tried to reach water sources and wells were massacred. The remaining crusaders suffered thirst and hunger, and the cunning Saladin increased their suffering of insupportable summer heat by burning huge amounts of dry leaves and plants around their camp. The remnants of crusaders stayed on top of a hill to protect the king of Jerusalem, but eventually they were too tired to carry their swords to resist the Muhammadans who captured them. Among the captives were Guy of Lusignan and Renaud, while Raymond managed to escape. Saladin had vowed before to kill Renaud himself and he did just that. Saladin treated the king of Jerusalem kindly and spared his life, and he ordered his soldiers to put all Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller to death. Saladin spared the lives of secular noblemen and their likes among the European invaders, plus so many ordinary soldiers. The victorious troops of Saladin marched toward Damascus where the captives among soldiers along with their families were sold into slavery for little money while noblemen were ransomed. Thus, Saladin crushed the most huge crusaders' armies and confiscated something holy to Christians at the time: what was deemed as the Original Cross.                   

After Hattin:

   Saladin conquered without fighting or any resistance the cities that surrendered to him, including Tiberias, Acre, Jaffa, Sidon, Ashkelon, and Gaza. All crusaders who fled such citied were overcrowded in Jerusalem. Saladin sieged Jerusalem with his troops, and the crusaders inside the holy city suffered scarcity of victuals, and thus, they could not stand the siege. They had surrendered and left the city for Saladin in return for a tribute paid by each European inside the city as he left it, but he was generous enough never to take money from the poor among them who were penniless [5].  

After the reign of Saladin (589 – 648 A.H.):

   When Saladin died, he left a strong Ayyubid State controlling Egypt and the Levant, except for few cost cities in the Levant still ruled by the crusaders. The successors of Saladin were not as strong as he was, and could not end the presence of the crusaders from such coastal cities. Indeed, sons of Saladin were busy disputing among one another and their rivalry was a chance seized by Al-Adil, brother of Saladin, to conquer both Egypt and the Levant and rule them alone. When Al-Adil died, his sons ruled region of the Levant beside Egypt, but in their turn, they disputed so often as rivals; when one of them ruled south of the Levant, he desired to ruled Egypt, while the one ruling Egypt desired to dominate and rule the Levant, but all of the were weak with no military experience or political shrewdness. The crusaders seized the chance to retrieve most of the lands and cities they lost before because of Saladin. The sons of Al-Adil, in their disputes, sometimes enlisted the help of crusaders to defeat one another. Crusaders began to send their military campaigns and fleets to attempt conquering Egypt, as they knew that Egypt was the real key to maintain their dominance in the Levant, and they have learned this lesson the hard way before when Saladin crushed their troops. Thus, the crusaders seized the chance of finding no powerful Arab ruler to impose the strategic unity between Egypt and the Levant, as weak rulers disputed among one another, and they attacked or allied themselves with such small rulers as occasions would arise, and this is the summary of the Ayyubid dynasty after the death of Saladin, until their Mamelukes (military leaders who were slaves bought and trained) inherited the lands ruled by the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt and the Levant later on.      

Successors of Saladin in Egypt and the Levant:

 The main line in the history of the rule of the Ayyubids after the death of Saladin was rivalry, competition, and struggle among one another and many of them enlisted the help of crusaders and allied himself to them, and meanwhile, the crusaders attacked Damietta again to attempt conquering Egypt to maintain their presence in the Levant.

Rivalry among sons of Saladin in Egypt and the Levant:    

 Saladin died in 589 A.H., leaving 17 male sons, and he used to depend on his brothers to help him establish his kingdom, especially Al-Adil who was intelligent and had military prowess. When sons of Saladin grew up, he replaced his brothers by his sons; Al-Afdal, the eldest son of Saladin, ruled Damascus and its near coastal area after the death of his father, while another son, Al-Aziz Othman ruled Egypt. Another son, named Ghazi, ruled Aleppo. Al-Adil, brother of Saladin, ruled Al-Karak and Al-Shoubak and the lands near the east of the River Euphrates. Al-Afdal ruled as a king and a sultan, and he was supported by Mamelukes used to be owned and trained by Assad-Eddine Shirkoh to serve him and the ones owned by Saladin. Of course, both groups of Mamelukes were rivals who competed for more power after Saladin died, taking advantage of the weak characters of sons of Saladin. Other rivalries inside the Ayyubid army leaders and Mameluke soldiers included other races: Kurds, Turks, Arabs, and Khwarazmians. Such state of affairs should have entailed strong sultan like Saladin to control such Mamelukes of different races who vied for more power. Besides, animosity and rivalry among sons of Saladin in Egypt and the Levant increased and incited the more by scribes, judges, and those assuming high posts in the Ayyubid State, such as Al-Fadil the high judge in Egypt, and Diaa-Eddine Ibn Al-Atheer.

Al-Adil took advantage of such rivalry:

 The Ayyubid ruler Al-Adil, brother of Saladin, took advantage of such conditions of his nephews to pave the way for himself as the only ruler of Egypt and the Levant; he contacted the rebellious Mamelukes owned by Assad-Eddine Shirkoh and made all resentment and animosity among his nephews increase more than ever until their military armies fought among one another, and battles ensued between Al-Afdal, who ruled Damascus and the Levant, and Al-Aziz Othman who ruled Egypt. When the conspiracy of Al-Adil yielded the desired results, he enlisted the help of the rebellious Mamelukes owned by Assad-Eddine Shirkoh, who forced his way to appoint himself as the guardian/custodian of the child Al-Mansour, son of Al-Aziz Othman, after his death, who used to rule Egypt. Soon enough, Al-Adil removed Al-Mansour and was enthroned as the king of Egypt, and he ruled the Levant after the death of Al-Aziz Othman and Al-Afdal, apart from parts of Iraq he already ruled before. Hence, Egypt and the Levant were united by one strong leadership, except for Aleppo, which was ruled by the successor of Ghazi, son of Saladin. Al-Adil justified himself for removing his nephews and their  progeny from rule by asserting in public, in Egypt, that rule was for those vanquishers who earned the right to rule and that he could not in his old age be merely a custodian to a helpless child, especially that the Levant and Egypt were under constant danger of being conquered by crusaders, and finally, he felt obliged to interfere to protect the Ayyubid dynasty members as he was the eldest among them. Of course, Al-Adil said so to absorb fury of his contemporaries; he wrote a will to divide his kingdom among his three sons shortly before his death, while disregarding the other Ayyubid household members. His son Al-Kamel and his progeny went on ruling Egypt until the end of the Ayyubid Era, and Al-Ashraf, son of al-Adil, ruled the Iraqi parts, whereas Eissa Al-Muazzam, the last son, ruled the Levantine regions from Damascus [6]. Before the death of Saladin, Al-Adil used to rule as subordinate to Saladin in Damascus, and he participated in the battles against the crusaders; he knew the strategic importance of the geographical location of Egypt to secure the Levant. Al-Adil maintained a long truce with the crusaders who settled in some Levantine cities in peace for a while. In general, Al-Adil tolerated crusaders and helped them more often than not, and he adhered mostly to peace; he even used to be the representative of Saladin in the negotiations with Richard the Lion-Heart. After capturing Jerusalem, Al-Adil requested from Saladin to set free 2000 captives from the crusaders in return for nothing to win the enemy to his side, and Saladin admired such wisdom. Thus, Al-Adil adhered to peace and avoided wars as much as possible during his reign, and he was glad that crusaders suffered at the time so many divisions and unsettled disputes, after they were defeated and crushed at the battle of Hattin. Yet, the fifth crusade from Europe (615 A.H./ 1217 A.D.) disturbed the peace of Al-Adil and violated the truce.                 

Crusaders attempt to conquer Egypt: the fifth crusade from Europe:

   Of course, crusaders knew the vital strategic importance of Egypt to secure the collapsing Levantine cities and regions ruled by them. Al-Adil, sultan of Egypt, appointed his son Eissa Al-Muazzam as the ruler of the Ayyubid Levantine regions from Damascus, and made his son Al-Kamel his successor in Egypt in his written will. Within the last years of the reign of Al-Adil, both Al-Kamel and Eissa al-Muazzam cooperated to face crusaders who attacked Damietta; reinforcements of huge troops came from Damascus and from Cairo  to Damietta, conquered by the fleet of crusaders and by infantry troops, and Al-Adil died of sorrow in 615 A.H., as he felt that if the crusaders' fleet would reach Cairo by the Nile, the Ayyubid dynasty would come to an end in both Egypt and the Levant. Al-Kamel was enthroned as he succeeded his father in Egypt, but the troops of Al-Kamel and Al-Muazzam were defeated by crusaders (by sea and by land) who had much more reinforcements, victuals, etc. provided by the cardinal Pelagio Galvani. The Ayyubids were defeated at first, but the fortune of the crusaders soon changed; tempests of the Mediterranean and the flood of the River Nile caused the destruction of the fleet of crusaders and the death of one-six of their soldiers, and they could not keep Damietta, but Al-Kamel could not achieve victory using such opportunity, even when troops of Eissa Al-Muazzam reached Egypt. Al-Kamel put to death traitors who cooperated with the crusaders in Egypt and in the Levant. The battles between the Muhammadans and the crusaders ended in nothing at all, and before the crusaders lost Damietta, they suffered ailments, hunger, and cold weather. No one o the two sides ever achieved a decisive victory, and Arabs could not yet retrieve Damietta as their attacks there failed as well. What forced crusaders to give up Damietta and surrender was the following: the cardinal Pelagio Galvani (representative of the pope and the one responsible for victuals etc.) had severe disputes with John of Brienne the king of Jerusalem. The Ayyubid troops managed to defeat a crusaders' attack by the land, and the European troops retreated to their camps. Al-Ashraf tried to seize the chance of Eissa Al-Muazzam being busy with fighting the crusaders and tried to annex the Levant to his Iraqi lands. Al-Kamel who broke many dams to drown the crusaders' fleet felt that a famine would occur in Egypt as a result, and he had to call the crusaders to agree on a truce. The truce was breached by the crusaders as victuals and troops of reinforcement reached them. Al-Kamel still preferred to adhere to peace amidst a famine coming soon; he proposed to the crusaders to leave Damietta in return for taking back the so-called the Original Cross, and to enable them to rule a larger part of Palestine, and he would pay a tribute to keep the southern region of the Levant nearer to Sinai. At first, the leaders of crusaders preferred to accept the offer to save their soldiers certain death in Damietta, but the Knights Templar and Pelagio Galvani adamantly refused to surrender and urged all crusaders never to accept the generous offer. Hence, more deaths out of ailments occurred in Damietta among the crusaders, and they could not march to the south to conquer the rest of Egypt as the Ayyubids sieged them. Meanwhile, Eissa Al-Muazzam returned to Damascus and sieged a fortress that housed Knights Templar, leading some crusaders to leave Damietta to help their brethren in the Levant. Disputes increased among the crusaders especially when John of Brienne left Damietta and the soldiers under Pelagio Galvani began to disobey him. At the same time, Al-Kamel kept off the famine out of Cairo, and he prepared his troops and fleet; he defeated troops of the crusaders that tried to march southward and his Ayyubid fleet destroyed the fleet of crusaders near Cyprus. Al-Kamel renew his offer of peace mentioned above, but Pelagio Galvani refused again as he hoped that the emperor Frederick II and his military campaign would reach Damietta by the sea soon enough, but this never occurred. Pelagio Galvani brought John of Brienne back to Egypt and they attacked by a 36-ship fleet the Egyptian port of Faraskur, near Damietta, and Al-Kamel whose troops went there to fight them, had to retreat as he saw that the number of their soldiers surpassed his. The crusaders conquered more lands within the Nile Delta, and Pelagio Galvani insisted to march southward, but he was prevented by Ayyubid reinforcements of huge armies of Eissa Al-Muazzam and Al-Ashraf (after they reconciled) as they came to help their brother Al-Kamel because they knew that if Egypt fell into hands of crusaders, they would lose their rule over Iraq and the Levant. Hence, the crusaders were sieged by troops of the three Ayyubid brothers, and the fleet of Al-Kamel stopped any victuals or reinforcements to reach crusaders and stopped their fleeing Egypt. Soon enough, crusaders had scarcely any victuals, and they retreated from areas they conquered in the Nile Delta. Al-Kamel opened all gates of water dams and their way of retreat was filled with swamps and many were killed by swords of the Ayyubids. The remaining crusaders were led by Pelagio Galvani to escape into Damietta, and he sent his envoys to Al-Kamel to ask for a truce and an agreement, as per conditions proposed by Al-Kamel before. Thus, crusaders left Damietta and stuck to an eight-year truce, in return for Arabs liberating their European captives and returning  the Original Cross [7]. Thus, the fifth crusade failed because the three sons of Al-Adil were united in their endeavors; but they never took heed of such a lesson, as they succumbed to circumstances and conditions instead of creating favorable ones. The volatile status required one powerful ruler to both Egypt and the Levant who would dominate everyone, but such a ruler was never found among sons of Al-Adil, as they returned to their usual ways of rivalry and disputes. The crusaders took advantage of such resurfaced disputes among the three brothers, and Jerusalem was surrendered peacefully to the emperor Frederick II, as we explain below.                        

Crusaders took advantage of rivalry among sons of Al-Adil:

The military campaign of the emperor Frederick II, the sixth crusade, and handing over Jerusalem to him:

  When the emperor Frederick II was reluctant to send a campaign to help crusaders in Egypt, pope Gregory IX excommunicated him. this made him hastily prepare few reinforcements to appease the people and crusaders inside Damietta did not welcome his few troops, as they expected huge reinforcements but he let them down. Frederick II was reproached in Europe severely, and he managed to take advantage of disputes and rivalry among the three sons of Al-Adil so that he would achieve his goal without fighting. Meanwhile, the Khwarismid State inside Persia pressurized the Abbasids because the Mongols threatened the Khwarismids. Eissa Al-Muazzam allied himself to Jalal-Eddine the Khwarismid to spite his brothers, Al-Kamel and Al-Ashraf, and this posed a threat to the Ayyubid Levantine regions as the troops of Khwarismids desired to sweep westward. Al-Kamel sent his diplomats or envoys to Frederick II to ally himself with him to enlist his help against Khwarismid troops threatening to invade the Levant and Iraq in return for giving Frederick II Jerusalem (at the time ruled by Eissa Al-Muazzam). Al-Muazzam died suddenly, and his son Al-Nasser Dawood assumed rule of the Ayyubid byzantine regions, and he was frightened when he heard news of his uncle, Al-Kamel, preparing to conquer the Levantine South and Damascus to crush him, and he enlisted his other uncle, Al-Ashraf, against Al-Kamel. Yet, Al-Kamel and Al-Ashraf agreed beforehand to remove Al-Nasser Dawood by force and to divide his Levantine lands between themselves. Thus, forces of both Al-Kamel and Al-Ashraf sieged Al-Nasser Dawood inside Damascus. Frederick II had to share part of the spoils, as he felt he served this after being humiliated and rebuked in Europe; he sent his troops (without intentions to fight) and his envoys/diplomats to Al-Kamel to agree on having Jerusalem, Galilee, Nazareth, and Bethlehem as well as the coastal area between Jaffa and Lod in return for his helping Al-Kamel. Frederick II promised to leave the so-called Al-Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem to the Muhammadans and allow them freedom of worships there as well as exchanging captives within a 10-year truce [8]. Al-Kamel agreed, thus allowing Frederick II to have the honor in Europe to recapture Jerusalem, though the pope and extremist crusaders never relented toward him. Thus, the grandchildren of the Ayyubids lost by their rivalry and competitions lands Saladin had liberated. The Khwarismids played a role in the loss of Jerusalem by the Ayyubids when they allied themselves to Al-Muazzam, as this led Al-Kamel to ally himself to Frederick II, thus ceding Jerusalem to him. yet, when the Khwarismids left their lands and State for good to flee the brutal, savage Mongols, they settled in the Levant and later on re-conquered Jerusalem after massacring all crusaders inside it and demolishing holy Christian sites in the city, and they allied themselves with the Ayyubids in Egypt.                 

Allying with crusaders after Al-Kamel:

   It was a main feature in the policies of most Ayyubids to ally themselves to crusaders. When Al-Kamel allied himself to Frederick II and gave him Jerusalem among other cities in the Levant, Al-Nasser Dawood kept only Al-Karak, and in his turn, he imitated his uncles by allying himself to the crusaders in the Levant by offering them excellent services that included his intercession and mediation between crusaders and the Khwarismids after the latter conquered Jerusalem and the formers cried for help from Al-Nasser Dawood. The negotiations resulted in allowing the remaining crusaders to leave Jerusalem in peace and security in return for surrendering the city to the Khwarismids. At another time, crusaders allied themselves to the Ayyubid ruler of Homs, but the most faithful Ayyubid ruler in his alliance with the crusaders was Al-Saleh Ismail ruler of Damascus. When Al-Kamel, ruler of Egypt, died in Cairo in 635 A.H., his two sons Al-Adil II and Al-Saleh Ayoub quarreled and disputed about who would rule Egypt. The mother of Al-Adil II was a powerful figure in the Ayyubid palace in Cairo at the time, and she managed to make her son be enthroned as the sultan of Egypt while moving away her step-son, Al-Saleh Ayoub, to rule over the Ayyubid Iraqi lands near the River Euphrates, despite the fact that Al-Adil II was the younger and the weaker. Of course, the military Mamelukes owned by Al-Kamel refused to be owned by such a weak person with no experience or military prowess; once Al-Adil II went out of Cairo on his way to fight his family members in the Levant, the Mamelukes of his late father arrested him in Belbeis and removed him from the throne formally in 637, and they sent for his elder brother, the powerful military leader, Al-Saleh Ayoub, to be enthroned as the sultan of Egypt. Realizing the fact that more power and authority would be attained when a ruler would buy and train more Mamelukes, Al-Saleh Ayoub did just that in order to ward off other Ayyubids from ever attempting to conquer Egypt, and he allied himself to the Khwarismids in the Levant [9].

Crusaders and rivalry among Ayyubids in Egypt and the Levant:

  Conflict and disputes between Al-Saleh Ayoub in Egypt and his relative Al-Saleh Ismail in Damascus seemed inevitable; the latter of Damascus was the main ally of the crusaders, and when the former of Egypt tried to ally himself to them, they refused and preferred Al-Saleh Ismail because of his previous relations with them and his power and authority in the Levant, and he helped them to have close relations with both Al-Nasser Dawood ruler of Al-Karak and the Ayyubid ruler of Homs. The leader of the Egyptians troops Rukn-Eddine Beibars led them into the Levant and the Khwarismids sided with him as per their alliance with the sultan of Egypt. This posed a veritable threat to other Ayyubids in the Levant and they held a meeting with their allies, the crusaders, to attack Egyptian troops. While Egyptian troops defended themselves against an attack, the Khwarismids attacked the troops of the Levantine Ayyubids who sided with the crusaders, and their troops fled before the mighty Khwarismids. The troops of crusaders were massacred completely, in this battle of Gaza, by Egyptian troops and the Khwarismids troops that joined them afterwards, and few crusaders survived and fled. The victorious Al-Saleh Ayoub feared that the Khwarismids would covet to rule Egypt after they decided to rule Jerusalem and Gaza in his name; he prevented them from ever entering into Egypt in return for their ruling the Levant freely; yet, they attacked Egypt many times through Sinai, but Al-Saleh Ayoub managed to defeat them many times and to achieve a decisive victory eventually after a long struggle [10]. Al-Saleh Ayoub became very powerful in Egypt, and the crusaders prepared a crusade against him in Egypt led by Louis IX of France.     

The crusade/military campaign of Louis IX to conquer Egypt (647 – 648 A.H./ 1249 – 1250 A.D.):

   Known to be pious and ascetic and titled as "Saint Louis" , Louis IX vowed to conquer Egypt to secure planned crusades to re-capture Jerusalem. The fleet of Louis IX was scattered by a tempest on its way from Cyprus to Egypt, and he had to send troops by the sea intermittently to Egypt. Meanwhile, Al-Saleh Ayoub was sieging Homs ruled by one of his Ayyubid kin, but once he got news about the crusade attacking Egypt, he hastily returned to Egypt. Because Al-Saleh Ayoub suffered Tuberculosis, he made a leader named Fakhr-Eddine lead the Egyptian troops to defend Damietta, providing him with huge troops, arms, and victuals, and these troops included Arab men known for courage from the tribe of Kinana. Louis IX conquered Damietta and defeated soldiers inside it despite the fact that his troops were not complete as yet, and Fakhr-Eddine made all the frightened residents that deserted Damietta follow him to safety as he retreated before crusaders' troops. Louis IX decided to stay inside Damietta for a while, waiting for the coming of reinforcements led by his brother Count of Poitou. Meanwhile, Louis IX turned Damietta into a crusaders' city, and he distributed its lands among his princes, cavaliers, and knights. Al-Saleh Ayoub proposed an offer to Louis IX to leave Damietta in return for surrendering Jerusalem to him, after Al-Saleh Ayoub took it from the Khwarismids. This was the same proposal made by Al-Kamel during the previous crusade that invaded Damietta. Of course, Louis IX haughtily refused the offer as he declared in public that he never make deals with Muhammadans. Before offering such a proposal to Louis IX, Al-Saleh Ayoub had executed some leading tribesmen of Kinana as a punishment for letting him down by being defeated and removed Fakhr-Eddine from leading the Egyptian troops. This led to the fact that some Mamelukes revolted against him, but he refused to accept their revolt, but he had eventually to appease their ire by re-appointing Fakhr-Eddine. Troops of Al-Saleh Ayoub had to retreat to Talkha, the small city near the bigger city of Al-Mansoura, where they build their military camp and sent their men to capture any wandering crusaders who left Damietta. As a result, Louis IX had to fortify Damietta with trenches and ramparts. His brother, Count of Poitou, at last arrived to Damietta with reinforcements from France, and Louis IX decided to attack Alexandria to surprise the unexpected Egyptians and to control the Mediterranean to pave the way for future crusades in the Levant. Yet, this did not happen; the Count of Poitou insisted on marching toward Cairo first, and thus, the French troops marched southward after they left Damietta with a garrison for defense, and the queen, wife of Louis IX, and the European former patriarch of Jerusalem, but they decided eventually to conquer the city of Al-Mansoura first. Meanwhile, Al-Saleh Ayoub died, and his wife, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor, had to hide news of his death for a while because his only son, Turan Shah, was in northern Syria and she feared that political troubles might cause divisions and disputes among the Mamelukes that would allow the enemy the chance to invade Egypt. When Queen Shagaret Al-Dor made everyone swear fealty to Turan Shah, the death of her husband the sultan was announced. Indeed, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor was the de factor ruler as Turan Shah lingered in the Levant, and she was helped in the palace by the powerful eunuch Jamal-Eddine Muhsin. When the crusaders knew about the death of the sultan of Egypt, they felt encouraged to march slowly toward Al-Mansoura, in a route filled with swamps and canals, and many little battles made their march toward Al-Mansoura even slower, until they camped in a location that separated them from the Egyptian army by a lake. Louis IX tried many times to build bridges to cross the lake to attack the Egyptian army, but the soldiers burned anything built by the crusaders, and Louis IX had to stop. The crusaders enlisted the help of a traitor who guided them to a dry route avoiding the lake in order to cross to Al-Mansoura, and thus, they surprised the Egyptian army by an attack from the direction of its rear. Even the military leader Fakhr-Eddine was killed by crusaders while he was taking a bath. Most of the survivors fled to Al-Mansoura.The rising of the Nile and its flood and the summer heat made it impossible for them to advance and follow up on their success, and Louis IX warned his brother the Count of Poitou against further attacks on the Egyptian armies without prior permission from him as he was encouraged by his initial victory. yet, the Count of Poitou attacked Al-Mansoura without telling Louis IX, and the sultan's Mamelukes led by Beibars managed to attack the crusaders and to defeat them inside Al-Mansoura and caused many crusaders to drown in the River Nile. Few crusaders survived from the army of the Count of Poitou, who himself was killed in the battle that was like a guerrilla war. Once Louis IX got news of such defeat and the death of his brother, he fortified Damietta more than ever as he expected to be attacked any time. Indeed, the Mamelukes sieged Damietta and throw countless number of arrows at crusaders, but the latter managed to defend themselves, and the Mamelukes retreated in an orderly manner for a short while. The crusaders felt that as the Egyptian troops increased by the reinforcements coming from Cairo, they will remain sieged until attacked anytime possible. Louis IX stopped his men from fighting outside walls and fortifications of Damietta, unless by throwing arrows for defense, but Egyptian arrows killed leader of the Knights Templar, and cause havoc and chaos in the crusaders' troops. Eventually, Turan Shah arrived in the scene, and he ordered his men to build a fleet and to carry its pieces on camels' backs to the north of Al-Mansoura. When the fleet was completed, it controlled the Mediterranean and stopped fleet of the French people carrying victuals to reach Louis IX in Damietta, and the French king and his crusaders suffered hunger and an epidemic. Louis IX had to offer Turan Shah an offer to retreat and leave Damietta for good in return for being allowed to recapture Jerusalem. Turan Shah refused because he knew that his foe was very weak; the crusaders retreated further to the north and were chased by the Mamelukes, until they were surrounded by the Mamelukes from every direction. All crusaders were held captives by the Mamelukes, even Louis IX. Turan Shah put to death all ill and dying crusaders because he could not keep such a number of the French soldiers. Louis IX was imprisoned in a big house in Al-Mansoura, and leaders of crusaders were arrested in a big palace there as well. Turan Shah imposed on Louis IX a heavy ransom to set himself free, and the Mamelukes entered Damietta victoriously after the rest of crusaders went out of Egypt; thus the crusade of Louis IX failed miserably [11]. After the Mamelukes and Queen Shagaret Al-Dor played a big role in defeating these French crusaders with great efforts and wise plans, they expected to be honored and rewarded by Turan Shah, but this ungrateful ruler treated them contemptibly and planned getting rid of them, as he bought so many new Mamelukes to serve him. The Mamelukes who defeated the French crusaders had nothing but to conspire with the powerful Queen, Shagaret Al-Dor, to assassinate Turan Shah, and Beibars murdered him inside his tower [12]. The Mamelukes attended formal celebrations to coronate Queen Shagaret Al-Dor as the legitimate Queen of Egypt and its sole ruler, and the Mamelukes as well as the Egyptian people swore fealty to her. She was helped during her short reign by the powerful Mameluke leaders Aqtay and Aybak inside the Ayyubid palace. This marked the beginning of a new State within an era of different successive sultans who ruled Egypt without forming dynasties: the Mameluke Era.                   

References:

[1] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/155-156.

[2] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/164:165.

[3] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/158, 166, 176, and 180:182.

[4] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/187, 189, 190, 194, 195, 218, 222, and 224.

[5] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/157, 163, 191, 198, 212, 215, 221, 228, 238, 239, 240, and 240:253.

[6] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/236, 12/44, 45, 51, 55, 65, 67, 72, 75, and 161, and "Mofarij Al-Qolob" by Ibn Wasil, pages 2/10:14, 28:33, 41:55, 61:65, 68:70, 75:77, 82:83, 87:101, and 108:114.

[7] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/147:150 and 162, Ibn Wasil, ditto, 3/254:256, 258:262, and 265, and "Al-Solok" by Al-Makrizi, pages 1/1/221:226, 230:234, and 237:246.

[8] Ibn Al-Atheer, pages 11/213, 218, 220, 221, 223, and 225, and Al-Makrizi, ditto, pages 1/1/250:253 and 256:270.

[9] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/1/277:279, 294:299, and 302:303, 1/2/269:270, 270:299, and 302:303, and 1/2/333:339, 346:351, 353:356, and 362:363.  

[10] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/302:305, 314:317, and 322:325.

[11] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/333:339, 351, 353:256, and 362:363.

[12] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/358:361.

Seventhly: Egypt during the Mameluke Era  (648 – 910 A.H./ 1250 – 1517 A.D.):

  The emergence of the Mameluke State was indeed an unprecedented and unique event in the history of the Muhammadans; the Mamelukes were just slaves bought and trained on martial arts and military fighting by their masters the Ayyubids. They were then dominated by a former female slave that became the Queen of Egypt, Shagaret Al-Dor, the very first sultana (i.e., female regent) in the history of Arabs/Muhammadans. Of course, her ruling Egypt for a while could not have lasted for some duration if it had not been for the powerful Mamelukes who obeyed and served her with their shrewdness, cunning, and prowess, while the Ayyubids elsewhere were engaged into wars and rivalry against one another. Egypt in its central position in the 'Islamic' world then was regarded as the only power that could save the Arab world from both dangers: the crusaders and the Mongols. Indeed, the Mamelukes asserted their power and authority by defeating the crusaders and chasing them completely out of both Egypt and the Levant, and shortly afterwards, the Mamelukes managed to crush the Mongols in the Levant before they could reach Egypt. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the Ayyubid household died, and no one ruled the Levant after them except the Mamelukes who driven away the Mongols. The Ayyubids' existence as rulers ended in Egypt and consequently ended in the Levant soon enough. Hence, the emerging powerful Mameluke State inherited all lands that was ruled by the Ayyubids in the Levant and in Egypt.        

Steps of establishing the Mameluke State in Egypt:

  At first, it seemed that the Mamelukes did not think about disobeying the Ayyubids or to rebel against them to replace them in the throne; because the Mamelukes did their best to crush the crusade of Louis IX and preserved Egypt to hand over the throne to Turan Shah the legitimate heir while his father, sultan Al-Saleh Ayoub, was dead. Turan shah was busy in the northern region of Iraq and the Levant, but the Mamelukes never took advantage of his absence to take over the rule of Egypt; they wanted Turan Shah to be grateful to them and they would be loyal in their service under him, but they were surprised that he was foolish and unwise, as he intended to kill them off and to employ new Mamelukes. Hence, he posed a veritable threat to them as he was no different from the weak, fickle Ayyubids that were finished off [1]. The Mamelukes were bound to assassinate him as a precautionary measure, before he would massacre them, as we know from history events, and the Mamelukes never sought the throne up to that moment, though. Indeed, the Mamelukes discussed the issue of who would be enthroned after getting rid of Turan Shah; thus, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor was crowned as she was the widow of the dead sultan, Al-Saleh Ayoub, and when other states, especially the last Abbasid caliph in Baghdad, criticized and mocked Egyptians for not appointing a male ruler, the Queen had to marry the leader of one group of the Mamelukes: Aybak. Indeed, Aybak and another leader of one group of the Mamelukes: Aqtay wooed the Queen at the same time, but she choose Aybak because he was more romantic and tended to agree to let her rule beside him, unlike the uncouth Aqtay, who had to be assassinated by the Queen and Aybak, as he incited revolt after his proposal of marriage was rejected [2]. Before the death of Aqtay, Aybak the sultan managed to impose his dominance, power, and authority in Egypt and the Levant, while warding off and deterring the remaining Ayyubids in northern Iraq, and Aybak sent Aqtay as a leader to the troops that defeated the Arab troops in Belbeis (a city between Sinai and the Eastern region of Nile Delta) who were formed from people originated from Arabian tribes settling in Egypt and desired to rule instead of the Mamelukes of non-Arab origin. After such victory, the leader of the Arab troops Husn-Eddine was captured along with the rest of his soldiers who plead for mercy and begged to be released, but they were put to death upon commands of the sultan Aybak, and the rest of all Arabian tribes in Egypt were humiliated and intimidated so as to nip in the bud any possible revolts they might incite against the Mameluke sultan, until they kept a low profile and stopped their aggression, as we know from Al-Makrizi [3]. Indeed, after the assassination of Queen Shagaret Al-Dor and Aybak before her, the real firm establishment of the Mameluke State began with the sultan named Qotoz who defeated the Mongols in the Levant, and then by his successor the sultan Beibars who crushed the remains of the crusaders and the Mongols in the Levant and chased them away. The reason: the Levant was the eastern gate of Egypt that must be secured by powerful Egyptian rulers, as per lessons drawn from history; most enemies that came to conquer Egypt came from the Levant when they felt that Egyptian rulers were weak.                   

The Mamelukes and the Levant:

  Of course, the emergent Mameluke State felt that the Levant must be dominated by the Mamelukes to secure their Egyptian throne; the crusaders in the Levant were eager to attempt to conquer Egypt after the end of the Ayyubids dynasty and to take revenge from the Mamelukes who defeated Louis IX in the Nile Delta. The second enemy of the Mamelukes were the remnants of the Ayyubids in Iraq and northern Levant, who were horrified to see their former slaves ruling Egypt instead of them after the assassination of Turan Shah that could never be tolerated. The third and last enemy of the Mamelukes (and indeed, of all people and races in the Arab countries) was the brutal and savage Mongols coming from the East, who defeated, massacred, and crushed Khwarismids, the Nizariyya assassins in Alamut, the Abbasids in Baghdad and destroyed the city  in 658 A.H., and also the weak states and rulers of the Seljuks and Ayyubids in Iraq and the Levant. Hence, the emergent Mameluke State had to face many threats, especially the Mongols who swept the Levant and endangered Egypt. After the Mamelukes defeated and crushed the Mongols after chasing away all crusaders, the regions they ruled beside Egypt included the whole Levant and Iraqi lands till the River Euphrates during the reign of the sultan Beibars, who assassinated Qotoz and succeeded him to the Egyptian throne. Beibars even dominated the Armenians in Asia Minor and leveled their capital to the ground, thus expanding his dominance to more lands more than Saladin. Let us below trace steps of the Mamelukes in annexing the Levant under their rule and how they dealt with rival powers existing at the time.                 

Ayyubid heirs in the Levant:

 The Ayyubids were bent on retrieving Egypt from the Mamelukes, and Al-Nasser Dawood retrieved Damascus during the reign of Queen Shagaret Al-Dor. He was the oldest of the Ayyubid dynasty at the time, and the one ruling Damascus had to secure his rule by attempting to dominate Egypt at any cost; thus, Al-Nasser Dawood allied himself to the crusaders and both fought the Mamelukes in the battle of Gaza in 548 A.H. The Mameluke troops led by Aqtay defeated Al-Nasser Dawood and the crusaders, but Al-Nasser Dawood did not despair; he gathered all his Ayyubid relatives and their troops in Damascus and marched toward Egypt to attempt conquering it. In the battle of Al-Salehiyya, inside today's Al-Sharqiyah Governorate, Egypt, the Mameluke troops managed to defeat troops of Al-Nasser Dawood again despite the fact that his soldiers outnumbered those of the Egyptian Mameluke army. One of the reasons of the defeat of the Ayyubid sultan was that his  own Ayyubid Mamelukes treacherously deserted him during battle and sided with their allies the Mamelukes of the Egyptian troops led by Aybak the sultan of Egypt at the time. Indeed, Aybak captured many Ayyubid dynasty princes and rulers after this battle. In 649 A.H., Aqtay managed with his troops to conquer many Levantine coastal cities including Gaza and Naples; Al-Nasser Dawood had to prepare his military troops from Damascus to Gaza, and Aybak led his troops to join those of Aqtay in the Levant. After exchanging envoys between Aybak and Al-Nasser Dawood, the last Abbasid caliph sent from Baghdad a high judge/sheikh to reconcile both warring rulers within negotiations supervised by the Abbasids. Within such negotiations, the Mamelukes demanded that they would rule Egypt autonomously and without interference from anyone, especially the Ayyubids, and would rule a large part of the Levantine south and the coast cities they had conquered there. Eventually, in 651 A.H., the reconciliation agreement included that the Mamelukes would reign Egypt and the Levantine South in Palestine (including coastal cities as well as Jerusalem and Naples) and Jordan, while Al-Nasser would rule the rest of the Levant, and the Mamelukes would release all Ayyubids captured by them, in return for the pledge of Al-Nasser Dawood never to attempt to conquer Egypt and the Levantine regions under the Mameluke rule [4].           

The Mamelukes and the Mongols:

  This was the real big test for the emergent powerful Mameluke State, as the Mongols were the biggest veritable danger that threatened the Arab world, after coming from the far east to destroy all cities and States on their way to form the Mongol Empire. Indeed, the Mongols destroyed and crushed the Chinese Empire, the Turkmenistan, the Khwarismids, and thus they paved their way to the Abbasid caliphate that came to an end as the Mongols destroyed Baghdad and massacred all its dwellers as well as the last Abbasid caliph and his progeny. The rest of the Arabs were terrorized by the brutal, savage, dehumanized Mongols as news of destroying Iraq and massacring thousands of people there reached everyone. Hulago was the leader and ruler of the Mongols, and some Ayyubid princes in the Levant surrendered to him such as the ruler of Homs who served Hulago for a while, and so did Al-Nasser Dawood who used to rule Damascus and Hama. Even the crusaders who ruled Antioch submitted totally to Hulago, and so did the Armenians in Armenia. The Mongols  thus dominated most of the Levant and they prepared to conquer Palestine by sending envoys of Hulago to ask the Mamelukes in Cairo to surrender and submit to them as did other rulers before them. At the time, the de facto ruler as Qotoz who was the guardian/custodian of the male child, Ali Al-Mansour, that succeeded his father the assassinated Aybak. Qotoz seized the chance of such threat by Hulago and declared himself as the new sultan of Egypt after removing Ali Al-Mansour son of Aybak from the throne. He prepared huge Egyptian troops led by excellent military leaders among the Mamelukes and sent some of them, led by Beibars, to Gaza in the Levant, where Beibars defeated the garrison of the Mongols situated there. Meanwhile, because Möngke Khan died, who was ruler of the Mongols, Hulago left the Levant with some troops and marched eastward to claim the throne as the legitimate successor of Möngke Khan his late brother. Hulago left the rest of the troops in the Levant led by Kitubqa to face the Egyptian Mameluke armies. The rest of the Egyptian troops were led by Qotoz from Cairo to Acre in the Levant, and Qotoz got news that Kitubqa and his troops crossed the River Jordan and marched into Galilee, and Qotoz decided to attack him soon enough by marching to the Palestinian village of Ain Jalutin the southeastern Galilee.         

The battle of Ain Jalut (858 A.H. – 1260 A.D.):

   Kitubqa did not know that the troops of Qotoz reached the Levant and that the Mameluke soldiers outnumbered those of the Mongols; Qotoz had hidden most of his troops within the Levantine hills, and the Mongol armies saw only the front of the Egyptian armies led by Beibars and thought them to be few in number. Hence, Kitubqa swallowed the bait and fell into the trap when he attacked with all his troops the Mameluke troops led by Beibars that lured him to come in the area of the hills, to be surprised by the huge troops led by Qotoz that surrounded the Mongols from all directions. Despite the fact that Kitubqa fought bravely and valiantly in vain, a landslide victory was achieved by the Mamelukes who crushed the Mongol troops, and this was the very first defeat in the history of the Mongols [5]. This decisive battle was very important in world history as well; it saved Egypt and North Africa and made the Mongols retreat eastward into Persia. The Mameluke authority in Cairo and the Levant received the admiration and respect from the 'Islamic' world as the Mamelukes saved the Muhammadans in the Middle-East and North Africa by bringing about the downfall of the Mongols in this battle and later on by other means; indeed, some of the tribes of the Mongols converted to 'Islam' in Iraq and established an 'Islamic' state there. Qotoz retrieved the whole Levantine regions until the River Euphrates, and even some remaining Ayyubid princes submitted to him in respect and ruled their cities as subordinate to the Mameluke State in Cairo. Among the results of the battle of Ain Jalut was the final removal of all remnants of the crusaders from the Levant, as the victorious Mamelukes decided with resolve to rule the entire Levant after removing all sorts of the 'infidels' (i.e., non-Muhammadans) from all of the Levantine regions. Beibars assassinated Qotoz the sultan to take the throne as sultan himself, and he went on with the endeavors to remove the rest of the crusaders and the Mongols from the Levant and reigned supreme as a powerful sultan over Egypt and the Levant for a long time. Beibars gave himself the title Al-Dhahir, which means literally in English: 'the prominent one' or 'the outstanding one'.               

Al-Dhahir Beibars and the Mongols:

  When Beibars asserted his full power and authority in Egypt, he conquered all Levantine cities that were ruled by Ayyubid rulers, and his troops punished the Christians that allied themselves with the Mongols like the king of Armenia and the crusader ruler of Antioch. Meanwhile, a leader of one of the Mongol tribes converted to 'Islam', and his name was Baraka Khan; he allied himself to Beibars and both cooperated in sending troops to Kaykaus I to help him restore his kingdom in Anatolia. Hulago could not take revenge from the Mamelukes despite his alliance with the Armenian and the crusaders, and he was busy by the attack against his troops led by the troops of Baraka Khan. This gave Beibars the chance to save his time and endeavors to end the presence of the crusaders in Acre [6]. Indeed, the Levant was made totally free from the presence of the crusaders later on during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun. In order for Beibars to add more legitimacy to his rule and to make Egypt the leader country of the whole 'Islamic' world, he invited one of the relatives of the murdered last Abbasid caliph to come to Cairo and made him live in a palace as an honorary caliph. Later on, Beibars feared that his Abbasid 'caliph' would attempt to be a real ruler and gather support from the Egyptian people, and this led Beibars to make him never contact anyone inside his palace. Beibars decided to get rid of him in a way that would not arouse suspicions; he sent him as leader of small troops to fight the Mongols in Iraq, and such troops were defeated and this Abbasid man was killed in battle. Beibars chose another weaker Abbasid relative and made him live in a palace away from people in Cairo, and his honorary role was to lend legitimacy to all decrees of Beibars and to swear fealty to any Mameluke sultan and so did his progeny [7]. Hence, it became a main tradition in the Mameluke Era in Cairo, Egypt, to make a descendant of the Abbasid swear fealty to every new Mameluke sultan. Hence, Cairo became the most important city in the world of the Muhammadans as the center of the 'Muslim' caliphate after Baghdad was leveled to the ground.               

The Mamelukes and the crusaders:

   The Mamelukes had excellent reputation and high stature all over the Arab world as they defeated and crushed the crusade of Louis IX in Egypt, and the firm establishment of the Mameluke State during the reign of Beibars was linked to military endeavors against the presence of the crusaders in the Levantine regions and cities. Beibars simultaneously faced militarily the crusaders, the Mongols, and the Armenians. Beibars  defeated the Armenians and looted and plundered their cities to secure his rule as a sultan dominating Aleppo and the Levantine North over. He relentlessly raided and attacked crusaders in Acre so many times that he turned their lives there to a veritable unbearable hell, and he conquered Antioch and razed it to the ground after massacring all crusaders inside it. When Antioch fell into the hands of Beibars, crusaders were so frightened and fell into disorder; even the Knights Templar deserted their castles near Antioch and fled in fear [8]. After the death of Beibars, his successor Qalawun the sultan continued the military efforts against the remaining crusaders in the Levant; he conquered the fortified Margat Castle in Syria (or Marqab in Arabic) and drove away its Knights Hospitaller, and then he conquered Latikia and Tripoli. When crusaders of Acre breached the truce, Qalawun decided to conquer Acre, which was the last city ruled by the crusaders in the Levant, but he died before he could do it. Upon his death-bed, he wrote his will urging his son and successor to conquer Acre. Hence, Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun led his troops and fought bravely until he managed to conquer Acre, and this resulted in crusaders handing over other surrendered cities to him in return for allowing them to leave the Levant in peace: Tyre, Beirut, Tarsus, Arwad, and Atlit. Hence, the Mameluke armies spent months in destroying and purifying all signs related to the crusaders from all Levantine coastal cities and the Mamelukes ruled and dominated the whole Levant, and the era crusades ended forever [9] which began 150 years earlier before the emergence of the Mameluke State  .             

The Mameluke State :

  The key to understand the Mameluke personality of any sultans among the Mamelukes is equality; all Mamelukes were previously slaves brought from all over the ancient world, bought and trained as military soldiers, and the distinguished ones would have enough military prowess, political shrewdness and cunning, and leadership abilities in order to rise as leaders. Hence, military and political merits and qualities would pave their way, and no one would question their origin or race. Hence, Beibars for instance was merely a slave to his prince Al-Bunduqdar, and he had the surname of his master, thus named Beibars Al-Bunduqdary. Later on, his master freed him from slavery, and Beibars used his shrewdness, sharp intelligence, abilities, and military prowess to pave his way to become the sultan of Egypt, and his former master became merely one of his henchmen and courtier. Beibars was also very cunning and sly in planning plots, scheme, conspiracies, and intrigues apart from his excellent military traits and actions. This made him very careful and cautious regarding any plots or schemes against him by others when he was enthroned as the sultan of Egypt. Hence, intrigues, schemes, and plots were everyday life within an endless vicious circle throughout the Mameluke Era. Before giving further details about that topic, let us briefly mentioned the following notes about the policies of intrigues and scheming of the Mamelukes.             

Intrigues and plots as the bases of the Mameluke authorities and politics and assuming rule: 

1- The Mamelukes had much experience in the art of intrigues and plots long before the formal establishment of the Mameluke State, as the Mamelukes during serving under their Ayyubid masters learned very well how to scheme conspiracies and to plan plots and intrigues against rivals among the Mameluke military leaders and sometimes against other rulers who were enemies of their Ayyubid masters. All plots of Al-Saleh Ayoub against his enemies inside and outside Egypt were executed to perfection by his Mamelukes who were very loyal to him. later on, they planned the assassination of Turan Shah, murdered in his tower by Beibars. Later on, when Qalawun was enthroned as the Mameluke sultan of Egypt, he bought lots of Mamelukes to serve under him and made them reside in towers of the citadel in Cairo, and this provoked rivalry and hatred between these new Mamelukes of the towers and the older ones who barracks were overlooking the Nile, with intrigues all the time planned and executed to undermine each group and to get nearer to Qalawun the sultan. Such rivalry and intrigues went on during the reign of the successors of Qalawun. Indeed, details of their intrigues and schemes throughout the Mameluke Era fill many volumes of history, as Mamelukes of both groups were enthroned at different points in time, with shifting loyalties and different conspiracies.              

2- In many cases, schemes and conspiracies would end up with a Mameluke sultan assassinated, and his murderer would be enthroned as the new sultan as long as he was competent enough based on new measures set by the Mameluke State. This was like the law of the jungle; survival for the fittest and the strongest, who would then be popular and legitimate ruler who soon enough would gain trust, admiration, and loyalty of the rest of the Mameluke military leaders and the Mameluke soldiers under them. This was typical of military regimes and authority, and the rest of the Mamelukes would never obey a sultan except when he would be a victorious one in his struggles to win the throne and defeat his rivals within his military abilities and political shrewdness cunning as well as personal greatness of mind and wisdom. When such a sultan died, his son and successor would be deemed merely a transitional stage until removed or murdered by a powerful, fit, competent Mameluke leader. It is very strange to historians how each dying Mameluke sultan would imagine (or rather deceive himself) that his fellow Mameluke leaders would respect and honor his wish to make his son succeed him to the throne and would believe the flattery and hypocrisy of their vows to swear fealty to this son with solemn oaths. In most cases, this son who would be a child or an adolescent would be removed peacefully from the throne or be murdered by a powerful Mameluke leader. The case of Qalawun was different because his successor was a man with military abilities and not a child or an adolescent. Each new sultan would buy and train new Mamelukes to gain more power within using loyal followers under him, and the vicious circle of intrigues and plots would never end within all types and groups of Mamelukes who strove for more power and some coveted the throne, until the Mameluke State came to an end upon the Ottoman conquest of Egypt. Indeed, the Mamelukes during the Ottoman Era did not stop their conspiracies and schemes for more money, authority, and power (their numbers decreased as a Mameluke would only make his military trained sons inherit his job/post, status, and possessions), but never dared to seek the throne as the Ottoman governors (who never bought any other Mamelukes in Egypt) had to serve the Ottoman sultans in Turkey who never allowed Egypt to gain autonomous rule, except to Muhammad Ali Pacha who established a dynasty as the king of Egypt but subordinate to the Ottomans, and who massacred all the Mamelukes in the citadel in Cairo in one day to get rid of them and of their troubles. We briefly mention below the main features of the Mameluke State within historical facts about its leaders and sultans.                

1- During the Ayyubid Era, before the Mamelukes would establish their State, the Mameluke leaders and princes participated in all the incessant disputes and conflicts among the Ayyubid dynasty members. For instance, when Saladin bought and trained his own group of Mamelukes to serve him (the Salahiyya Mamelukes; i.e., owned by Salah-Eddine/Saladin) who had special stature and more authority and power, the older group of Mamelukes owned and trained by Assad-Eddine Shirkoh (the Assadiyya Mamelukes) were marginalized, and this caused jealousy, rivalry, and resentment, but such sentiments were stifled because Saladin was a mighty, powerful sultan who would not tolerate such minor troubles while defending his State against the crusaders. Once Saladin died, his brother Al-Adil became the sultan of Egypt by siding with and enlisting the help of the Assadiyya Mamelukes and marginalizing the Salahiyya Mamelukes who grew weaker and had less power as a result. Once enthroned as the sultan of Egypt, Al-Adil bought and trained his own group named Al-Adiliyya Mamelukes and marginalized the rest. Al-Adiliyya Mamelukes later on hated his successor and son Al-Kamel as they saw him as unfit to rule, and he persecuted them and marginalized them while he bought and trained his own Al-Kameliyya Mamelukes. Those in turn hated the son and successor of  Al-Kamel, whose name was Al-Adil II, and they managed to depose him and to appoint instead Al-Saleh Ayoub, his elder brother, as the new sultan of Egypt, as they sent for him in Iraq to come to Egypt to be enthroned. In his turn, the sultan Al-Saleh Ayoub bought and trained his own Mamelukes and named them the Bahariyya Mamelukes (i.e., the River group) as they settled in their barracks on an island in the River Nile. This group of Mamelukes hated the successor of Al-Saleh Ayoub, Turan Shah, who despised and ridiculed them. Turan Shah never felt grateful for their preserving his throne for him during his absence, and as he distrusted them and feared their power and shifting loyalties, he planned to massacre them after he bought slaves to be trained as his own loyal Mamelukes, but he was assassinated by Beibars before he would kill off all the older Mamelukes. This caused the end of the Ayyubid rule in Egypt and the emergence of the Mameluke State instead. Hence, the Mamelukes, long ago before they ruled Egypt, were experts in intrigues, schemes, and conspiracies, and since they conspired to assassinate Turan Shah to rule instead, conspiracies and intrigues would go on as part of policies of any sultans during the Mameluke Era.                 

2- Once in power as sultans, the greedy and powerful throne-seeking Mamelukes kept their intrigues and conspiracies as internal matters among themselves to keep the throne or to attempt to reach it and not directed to outsiders or enemies or any non-Mamelukes. Hence, once Queen Shagaret Al-Dor, Aqtay, and Beibars plotted to assassinate Turan Shah and managed to do that, it was agreed among all the Mamelukes that the Queen would be enthroned as the ruler of Egypt, because she was the widow of Al-Saleh Ayoub and the mother of his late son Khalil. When the last Abbasid caliph in Baghdad condemned and ridiculed the fact that a woman was enthroned as a ruler in Egypt, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor had to marry soon, and the two powerful Mameluke leaders who wooed her were Aqtay and Aybak. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor rejected the offer of marriage of Aqtay who was too arrogant to share power and rule with anyone, let alone a woman, and was uncouth blood-thirsty warrior who lacked etiquette. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor chose Aybak who was gentler, lenient, and romantic, as she felt she could share power alongside him when he would be the sultan of Egypt. Thus, after the wedding, the Mamelukes under Aqtay and the ones under Aybak quarreled as rivals and conspired against each other. Of course, the savage and jealous Aqtay who sought the throne at any cost wanted to prove to the Queen that she had chosen the wrong man to be her royal spouse; as a man who always attacked his foes first, he ordered his men to spread chaos in Cairo by raiding and looting, in order to show to the Queen that the new sultan cannot restore and maintain security in the capital. At the same time, Aqtay proposed to an Ayyubid princess in the Levant and he asked the Queen of Egypt to make room for her in one of her palaces because this princess would be his wife. Of course, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor felt insulted by such a request, and she and her husband, the sultan Aybak, had to conspire to murder Aqtay. Qotoz was the primary aide of Aybak, and at the same time a great friend of Beibars, and the latter was the primary aide of Aqtay. Qotoz convinced Beibars that Aqtay was to be advised by him to meet the Queen secretly in the absence of Aybak. When Aqtay entered the sultan's palace alone without his personal guards (including Beibars) that were made to remain outside, Aqtay was murdered by Qotoz and other men of Aybak, and his severed head was thrown to his guards to frighten them. Indeed, those men, along with Beibars, fled from Egypt to the Levant. Beibars vowed to murder the treacherous Qotoz himself one day. The Queen and Aybak felt that they would rule Egypt in peace after defeating their arch-enemy; yet, disputes erupted between the Queen and Aybak because she was a very ambitious woman who wanted to rule autonomously while having her husband at her beck and call, whereas Aybak desired very much to be freed from her control to monopolize all power and authority and treat her a wife inside a seraglio. Thus, estrangement occurred between the Queen and Aybak, and he moved to live in another palace in Cairo. Soon enough, Aybak announced his intention to propose to the same Ayyubid princess that Aqtay asked for her hand before; Aybak, of course, wanted to spite the Queen and gain more power by such marriage, and to spite her more, he re-married his divorcée who was his first wife, Um Ali, and the mother of his only child, Ali Al-Mansour, but the Queen made him divorce her to accept him as a husband. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor was so jealous and furious, and she used all her feminine charms to convince Aybak that she wanted to make amends and reconcile with him, and asked him in a message to spend a night of love with her. When Aybak went to the bath of the Queen's palace to bathe after sleeping with her, her male servants murdered him upon her commands in her presence. When the Mamelukes knew about the murder of Aybak, their leader and sultan, the rebelled and revolted against the Queen and insisted on appointing the child, Ali Al-Mansour, as the enthroned sultan after the death of his father. His the widow of Aybak, Um Ali, took revenge from Shagaret Al-Dor by making her female slaves beat her to death with their wooden sandals while Um Ali was watching. Qotoz was appointed by the Mamelukes as the guardian/custodian of the child Ali Al-Mansour. Several months later, Qotoz agreed with the other Mamelukes to remove the child from the throne and declared himself as the new sultan to face the threat of the Mongols. Qotoz sent for Beibars and the other fleeing Mamelukes in the Levant to come to Egypt to help in defending Egypt against the Mongols. Once victory over the Mongols was achieved, Beibars of the River Mamelukes murdered Qotoz on their way back to Cairo to revenge his murdering Aqtay. Beibars was announced as the new sultan ascending the throne of Egypt in Cairo. Beibars firmly established the power and authority of the Mameluke state in the Levant, Iraq, and Hejaz, and shortly before his death, he tried to appoint his son, Saeed Baraka, as his successor and made the other Mamelukes swear solemn oaths, within a grand feast or celebration attended by Cairene people, to support this successor whom his father, the sultan Beibars, made him marry the daughter of the most prominent and powerful Mameluke leader, Qalawun, who was appointed as vice-regent. Of course, this son of Beibars never succeeded him to the throne; all solemn oaths were made in vain as the Mamelukes would never allow any non-warrior to rule over them. Saeed Baraka was inept and unfit to rule, and he was forced to abdicated the throne and allowed his father-in-law, Qalawun, to be enthroned in 678 A.H., and Saeed Baraka was exiled to Al-Karak fortress in the Levant till he died there. Qalawun managed to establish a dynasty as his progeny ruled Egypt for more than a century (678 – 784 A.H.). The troubles of the powerful sultan Qalawun did not end by arresting the Mamelukes owned by Al-Dhahir Beibars (Al-Ghahiriyya Mamelukes) to replace them with his own Mamelukes, as other Mamelukes princes revolted against him like the Mameluke Sonqur governor of the Levant. Qalawun had to purchase and train his own group of Mamelukes loyal to him alone, and he bought so many of them to be more powerful and made them settle in special towers in the citadel of Cairo, and hence, they were names the Tower Mamelukes, who later on revolted and conspired against descendants of Qalawun (who was originally from the River Mamelukes) until one of them, Seif-Eddine Barquq, became the sultan of Egypt.                  

3- Indeed, all Mameluke groups created many revolts and conspiracies against Qalawun and his decedents of sultans that ruled Egypt for more than a century, even against Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun who removed the remnants of crusaders from the Levant once and for all by conquering Acre, their last city there. the Mameluke prince Baydara assassinated Al-Ashraf Khalil and proclaimed himself the sultan of Egypt, but soon enough, he was arrested and killed for his crime by other Mamelukes loyal to the Qalawun household. When those Mamelukes struggled over who would be appointed as sultan, they eventually agreed to enthrone the child Muhammad Ibn Qalawun, titled Al-Nasser, while his guardian and tutor Kitubqa (or Kitubgha) would be the de facto regent or vice-sultan, and indeed, he controlled everything in the sultanate and in the palace until he removed Al-Nasser from the throne and exiled him to Al-Karak, in Jordan, and was proclaimed the new sultan in 694 A.H. A Mameluke prince named Hussam-Eddine Lajin conspired against Kitubqa; Lajin was one of the assassins of Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun, who disappeared and returned later on to Cairo, and after supporting Kitubqa at first to be enthroned, he defeated him in the struggle for the throne. Kitubqa feared for his life and leaned toward safety by abdicating the throne to Lajin. Lajin was later on assassinated by two small Mameluke princes who did not learn the basic tradition of respecting the elder Mamelukes, and the rest of the Mamelukes put the two murderers to death. The Mamelukes agreed on re-appointing the exiled Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun as the sultan (698 – 708 A.H.), but this young sultan was the victim of another conspiracy by the two Mamelukes controlling him, Seif-Eddine Salar and Beibars Al-Jashniker, that resulted in Beibars being enthroned as Beibars II after deposing the young sultan who fled again to Al-Karak. When Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun came of age and grew stronger, he retrieved his throne using military force as many Mamelukes supported him, especially that Beibars II was hated by the Egyptians and all soldiers, and they revolted against him many times. Al-Nasser put Beibars II and Salar to death and ruled as tyrant till his death. Hence, after so many conspiracies and plots throughout the century of the reign of the Qalawun descendants (who were originally among the River Mamelukes) in attempting many times to get the throne from them, the Tower Mamelukes archived victory over the River Mamelukes when their Barquq became the sultan of Egypt. The Tower Mamelukes never stopped their control during the one-century reign of the Qalawun descendants; after the death of Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun, eight of his children became sultans for the next 20 years (741 – 762 A.H.), and in the following 20 years, four of his grandchildren became sultans, and one of them was a one-year-old, and another one did not remain a sultan except for two months. Within such unrest and lack of stability, the main leaders and princes of the Tower Mamelukes managed to be enthroned as sultans after they controlled for a while young sultans of the progeny of Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun within so many intrigues and conspiracies that never ended, of course, during the reign of the Tower Mamelukes sultans.                 

4- The reign of the Tower Mamelukes sultans lasted for more than 134 years (784 – 922 A.H.), during which 23 sultans ruled Egypt, and nine of them ruled for 103 years. The main ones among the nine powerful sultans was Barquq, Nasr-Eddine Faraj, Seif-Eddine Barsbay, Seif-Eddine Jaqmaq, Seif-Eddine Inal, Seif-Eddine Khushqadam, Qaitbay, and Al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghoury. Barquq managed to establish a powerful, firm state after previous time of trouble and unrest, and he emerged victorious over so many intrigues and conspiracies that included his being deposed, but he retrieved his throne again. Before all that, the Tower Mamelukes used to control and dominate over the ruling progeny of the sultan Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun, and those Mamelukes rivaled and competed to assume the post of being vice-sultan (or vice-regent) to any child or adolescent sultan. The final dispute was between two powerful princes of the Tower Mamelukes (who were of Circassian origin) and their followers: Baraka and Barquq, and the latter defeated the former. Baraka had to swear before four high judges never to interfere in political life and leave Barquq the vice-sultan in peace as the guardian/custodian of the last child sultan of the Qalawun progeny. Soon enough, Barquq proclaimed himself as the sultan and removed the child sultan, and he arrested Baraka his rival in Alexandria, and had him murdered in his prison cell by the governor of Alexandria. When followers of Baraka revolted and demanded to avenge his murder, Barquq told them that he was surprised by his murder and allowed them to murder the governor of Alexandria to appease them. When Barquq was about to remove the descendant of Qalawun from the throne, he discovered that the public opinion in Egypt favored the Qalawun household, and they hated Beibars II for removing the legitimate sultan before. Barquq planned a cunning plot to deceive the masses who mostly believed in the Sufi myths; he bribed the Sufi sheikh/dervish Ali Al-Ruby, whom people used to deem as a 'holy' man who predicted the future, to announce that Barquq will be sultan in Ramadan 785 A.H. and this will cause the plague infesting Cairo at the time to stop and vanish, after the child-sultan would die first. Thus, Barquq had the last child-sultan, of the Qalawun progeny, murdered and buried on one day, and he appointed his adolescent brother, Amir Hajji Ibn Qalawun, as the new sultan, to be removed later on as the Cairene people swore fealty to Barquq in Ramadan of 784 A.H. as 'predicted' by the Sufi sheikh Al-Ruby who was made a saint later on (!). Soon enough, Barquq got rid of all the Mameluke princes who helped him reach the throne by having some murdered and some banished out of Egypt to avoid any further trouble and rivalries. Barquq arrested in prison the last progeny of the Abbasid dynasty, and sheikh Al-Ruby died mysteriously, and historians deduce that Barquq had him murdered as well to avoid any scandals and reproach  if the truth would be found out. The troubles of Barquq were far from coming to an end, of course, as a Mameluke prince in the Levant, named Yalobgha the governor of Aleppo, revolted and rebelled against Barquq the sultan, who had to send troops led by Mintash, his aide Mameluke, to force Yalobgha to submit. Yet, Mintash joined forces with Yalobgha and attacked Cairo with their troops to fight Barquq, who had no troops at all in Cairo to face them, and thus had had to escape from Cairo,but was captured and sent to exile in Al-Karak. Both Mintash and Yalobgha restored the prince Amir Hajji Ibn Qalawun to the throne as the legitimate sultan. As typical and expected, disputes erupted between the two Mameluke leaders Mintash and Yalobgha, who fought against each other and Mintash defeated Yalobgha. Meanwhile Barquq left Al-Karak and prepared an army and was joined by his supporters and marched toward Cairo, where he defeated and killed Mintash in the battlefield and ascended the throne again in 797 A.H.                     

5- Barquq died in 801 A.H., and his son Nasr-Eddine Faraj ascended the throne, but soon enough, he had to take hiding because of conspiracy plotted against his life, until he was restored to the throne by the Mameluke prince named Yashbak. Yet, Faraj had to abdicate the throne as two Mameluke princes revolted and rebelled against him, prince Sheikh and prince Nuruz, who both fought against each other over the throne until Nuruz was killed and Sheikh Al-Mahmoudy became the sultan, and his child Ahmad succeeded him under the guardian/custodian of Seif-Eddine Tatar, who removed him and proclaimed himself as the sultan of Egypt. Upon dying, Tatar made the Mamelukes swear fealty of his successor and son Muhammad, under the guardian/custodian of Al-Ashraf Barsbay, who in his turn removed the child sultan and appointed himself as the sultan. Again, the dying Barsbay appointed his son, Youssef,  as his successor, under the guardian/custodian of Jaqmaq, who removed him and ascended the throne instead as the new sultan. Again, the dying Jaqmaq made people swear fealty to his successor and son, Fakhr-Eddine Othman, under the guardian/custodian of Inal, who removed the child Othman and ascended the throne as the new sultan of Egypt. Thus, a period of weakness and deterioration lingered as weak sultans assumed the rule of Egypt and were constantly removed or forced to abdicate the throne, and the sultanate became unstable. It is noteworthy and funny thing to mention that at one time, one sultan (Kheir Bey) ruled for just one day in 872 A.H. The Mameluke sultanate or state flourished temporarily and gained strength when the powerful sultan Qaitbay ascended to the throne and ruled for 29 years, and when he sensed that he was about to die, he made all people and Mamelukes swear fealty to his son and successor Muhammad, who was murdered in a conspiracy later on. After a series of weak Mameluke sultans assumed the throne, another last powerful Mameluke sultan ascended the throne in 906 A.H., who was Qansuh Al-Ghoury [10], who ruled until he was killed as the Ottomans defeated him in the battle of Marj Dabiq, north of Aleppo, as Egypt then became part of the Ottoman Empire in 922 A.H.          

The Levant and the collapse of the Mameluke State:

  Of course, the firm establishment of the Mameluke sultanate began with asserting its dominance over the Levant by defeating Al-Nasser Dawood and then the Mongols and crusaders later on. Likewise, when Qansuh Al-Ghoury was defeated and killed in the battle of Marj Dabiq, in the north of Aleppo, by the Ottomans, the Levant was still filled with some Mameluke princes who desired to rule the Levant after losing Egypt to the Ottomans, and they hoped to be able to re-conquer Egypt if they would dominate the Levant. The same attitude was adopted before by some Mameluke princes in the Levant who tried to rule the Levant autonomously away from the Mameluke sultan in Cairo and hoped to conquer Egypt later on, such as the Mameluke Sonqur governor of the Levant who revolted and rebelled against Qalawun, as Qalawun removed the son of Al-Dhahir Beibars to rule instead. Another example was Yalobgha the governor of the Levant who revolted and rebelled against Barquq and when Barquq sent his leader Mintash with troops to fight Yalobgha, Mintash and Yalobgha joined their forces and attacked Barquq in Cairo, driving him to fled to the Levantine city of Al-Karak because he had no troops left in Egypt to support him. later on, Barquq managed in Al-Karak to gather supporters and troops to defeat Mintash, who before that defeated his ally Yalobgha, and this Barquq ascended the throne in Cairo once again. Within the period of unrest and troubles, the Mameluke sultans were perceived as weak if they could not stifle and quell revolts, and such conditions and circumstances usually would urge any Mameluke governor of the Levant to try to rule the Levant independently and to conquer Egypt to be enthroned in Cairo as sultan. For instance, the Mameluke prince of Aleppo, named Jakam, revolted in 809 A.H. and declared his ruling the Levant autonomously, but he failed and was murdered [11]. Another example was the governor of the Levant, named prince Ganem, who gullibly believed the mythical predictions of Sufis who asserted to him that they saw in their visions/dreams that he must be the coming Mameluke sultan in Cairo, and he rebelled and revolted but was defeated and killed [12]. This means that some Sufis deceived Ganem as they made use of his ambition to get some money from him by claiming they had Sufi visions of him as sultan, until he met his death by his foolishness and recklessness. Qansuh Al-Ghoury used to have doubts regarding his governor of the Levant, named Sibay, as he feared that he might rule the Levant independently and would try to conquer Egypt, and he never felt safe until Sibay and himself and became in-laws [13]. Qansuh Al-Ghoury knew very well that the Levantine region was the key to secure Egypt and he sensed that it was also the key to undermine the Mameluke sultanate in Cairo; another Mameluke prince in the Levant, Khair Bey, betrayed and conspired against Qansuh Al-Ghoury and allied himself to Selim I, the Ottoman sultan who coveted Egypt and the Levant. We assert here also that the downfall of the Mameluke sultanate was also because of the folly of Qansuh Al-Ghoury, when he allowed the Persian Shiite Safavid king (or shah) Ismail to manipulate him and use him in fighting his rival, the Ottoman Selim I. at first, Al-Ghoury was the ally of Selim I against Ismail the Safavid, who established his kingdom all over Persia based on Shiite Sufism in the 10^th century A.H., and the historical sources of the period call him Ismail the Sufi. This Safavid king spread his extremist doctrine of the Shiite religion beyond the borders of the two states near him: the Mameluke and the Ottoman ones. Moreover, he made his military troops march into both Sunnite states. Hence, Selim I had to cooperate with Al-Ghoury to face such military and doctrinal danger that threaten them both. Seeing that both rulers cooperated to face him, Shah Ismail managed via his secret envoys to win over Selim I to his side, and they made a secret agreement to make the Ottoman troops fight the one of Al-Ghoury in the Levant instead of the troops of the Safavids, in return for allowing Selim I to conquer Egypt and the Levant. Shah Ismail felt happy that the two Sunnite troops fought one another because of him in Marj Dabiq in north of Aleppo, and he never helped Al-Ghoury as he promised earlier and let him meet his death. The secret envoy between Selim I and Shah Ismail was a mysterious man named Al-Ajamy Al-Shanqjy, as we read in writings of Ibn Eyas, as the Safavids who were defeated in some battles against the Ottomans wished to make an agreement to get rid of the Mameluke State that threatened the Safavids and stopped Selim I from conquering the Levant, Egypt and North Africa. Al-Ajamy Al-Shanqjy was expected to reach Aleppo with a group of huge elephants to his Mameluke ''allies'' of the Safavids to help deter the Ottomans who coveted the Levant, but instead, he went to the Ottoman capital to make an agreement with Selim I to fight the gullible Al-Ghoury who thought that the Safavids aimed to win his friendship and help him fight the Ottomans instead of allying himself, as done before, to the Ottomans to fight the Safavids [14]. Another historian of the tenth century A.H. asserts in his accounts that Al-Ajamy Al-Shanqjy was very near to Qansuh Al-Ghoury, but turned out to be a traitor who served the Safavids and not a spying agent in their midst as he claimed, and he managed to deceive Al-Ghoury by making him sent his troops to Aleppo. Without knowing that Selim I was waiting to crush the Mameluke troops and not the Safavids ones as planned [15]. At first, Selim never thought about fighting the Mamelukes as they were his earlier allies, but he gave ears to Al-Ajamy Al-Shanqjy who advised him to be friends with the Safavids and to fight Al-Ghoury who betrayed the alliance with the Ottomans and sided with the Safavids. Selim I believed this because he wanted dearly to conquer the Levant and then Egypt. Selim I felt the urge to fight the Mameluke Egyptian army because he could not afford being wedged between the Safavids and the Mamelukes who change their alliances as per changing conditions and circumstances. This was why Selim I fought and crushed the Mameluke armies in Marj Dabiq, and Al-Ghoury was killed in the battlefield. This paved the way of Selim I to conquer the Levant, with the help of some Mameluke princes who sided with him like Khair Bey, and they urged him to conquer Egypt as the Mamelukes there were weaker than before. Selim I seized the chance and conquered Egypt and north Africa and Hejaz, as he always wanted, after a long period of focusing their conquests in Europe [16]. When Egypt was conquered by the Ottomans, Cairo was no longer the most important city of weight and stature and strategic and cultural importance of the Arabs/Muhammadans, as was the case throughout the period between the Fatimid conquest of Egypt in 360 A.H. until the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 922 A.H.                                              

   Let us recapitulate below the main strategic features of Egypt and the Levant from the Fatimids conquest to the Ottoman conquest.

1- As Cairo became central and very important religiously, culturally, politically and strategically during the Fatimids Era and the Mameluke Era, the power and centrality of Baghdad dwindled until the city leveled to the ground by the Mongols, and the remnants of the Abbasid household stayed in Cairo. This made Cairo for a long time the center of caliphate and the most important city all over the Arab and 'Islamic' world at the time. This has been the natural position of Egypt to lead for centuries  the region that came to be known as the Middle East, and such stature of vital importance of Egypt was restored by the Fatimids and firmly established and asserted by the Mamelukes. Thus, both the Fatimids and the Mamelukes in Egypt used to control, dominate, and rule the regions of religious importance: the Levant (where Jerusalem is situated) and Hejaz (where Mecca and Yathreb are situated), and territories beyond them, and Egyptians were the ones to defend the Muhammadans against outside veritable dangers such as the Mongols and the crusaders. 

2- Of course, the Levant was a source of trouble coming to Egypt from its eastern gate (Sinai) in case weak rulers were enthroned or in times when ambitious governors of the Levant would desire to conquer Egypt when a sultan/caliph died in Cairo and the State would enter into a transitional period before a new sultan/caliph would ascend the throne, especially during the Mameluke Era. Likewise, dangers typically came to Egypt from the Levant in times when a State was deteriorating or on the verge of collapse, as when the Fatimid caliphate and the Ayyubid dynasty ended. Thus, when the Fatimid State crumbled, the crusaders and the Zengid dynasty in the Levantine regions fought one another over who would inherit the rule of Egypt, and the Zengid military leader Saladin (Salah-Eddine in Arabic) assumed the Egyptian throne eventually to establish the Ayyubid dynasty and then conquered the Levant to assert his power and authority and defeated his enemies the crusaders in the battle of Hattin, thus securing his Egyptian throne. When the powerful Ayyubid State became weaker after the death of Saladin, as the Ayyubid rulers and princes in Egypt, the Levant, and northern Iraq disputed and fought one another as rivals, the crusaders led by Louis IX of France attacked Damietta, in northern Egyptian Nile Delta, during the reign of the Ayyubid sultan Al-Saleh Ayoub. When the Mamelukes crushed and defeated the crusaders, they established their State and removed their masters the Ayyubids, and they had to assert their dominance and control over the Levant and defeated all rivals and powers there (i.e., Ayyubids, crusaders, and the Mongols) to feel secure in the Egyptian throne in Cairo, and this made their State borders reach the Levant, Iraq, and parts of Asia Minor as well as Libyan coast, Hejaz, and parts of Sudan at the reign of Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun. When the Mameluke State deteriorated and was on the verge of collapse, two powers emerged that aimed to inherit the Mameluke lands: the Safavids in Persia and the Ottomans in Asia Minor, who won the struggle against the Persians, and thus, Egypt and Levant were conquered by the Ottomans, and the Ottomans reached Egypt through the Levant and only after conquering it first.         

3- When rulers of Egypt were as weak as rulers of the Levant, their disputes, conflicts, and warswould go on until a powerful third party would emerge and dominate as ruler over both Egypt and the Levant, as both regions would never allow but for one strong, powerful ruler. This is exemplified historically in the incessant conflicts that occurred among the Ayyubid dynasty members in Egypt and the Levant that ended when the Mameluke power emerged to dominate over both Egypt and the Levant.  

4- Of course, the above point is exemplified historically in many events related to Egypt and the Levant, within the Ikhshidid and Tulunid dynasties, previously within the Umayyad Era, and also within the Ptolemaic and Byzantine eras. This means that the Egyptian strategic policy never changed before and after the Arab conquest of Egypt; we mean the strategy of rulers of Egypt who must control and dominate the Levant (or at least the Levantine South or Palestine) to secure Egypt and ward off any possible conquerors coming from the Levant. Of course, even when Egypt was conquered from people coming from its west borders (e.g., Libyans and the Fatimids), those conquerors must reach the Levant to conquer it as well. Thus, the powerful ruler of Egypt must capture the Levant, and the ambitious ruler of the Levant would always desire to conquer Egypt especially in times of its weakness. Such are facts ascertained by so many historical events. Even the Ottomans conquered Egypt after conquering the Levant first, and Cairo/Egypt lost its pioneer position to be a mere subordinate country under the Ottoman rule.      

5- Of course, such political strategy explained above never changed after the Ottoman conquest; the Levant remained directly linked to Egypt strategically and in terms of maintaining security and power. Let us mention some facts of modern history during and after the Ottoman Era to exemplify this point. 

(A) Attempts of Shah Ismail to conquer Egypt and the Levant: The Safavid king Ismail saw that after the Ottomans conquered Egypt and the Levant, he would continue his plan, as he coveted to annex Egypt and the Levant to his Safavid Shiite kingdom, by inciting rebellion and revolts against the Ottomans. Shah Ismail contacted his followers among Shiite princes and governors in the Levant first, like Ibn Jansh, Ibn Harfoush, and Al-Druzi, to instigate them to declare revolt and rebellion against the Ottoman ruler, but they failed and were put to death. Shah Ismail contacted later on the Mameluke prince Janbirdi Al-Ghazaly, who was also the very first governor of the Levant under the Ottoman rule and the one who betrayed Qansuh Al-Ghoury and severed allegiance with him once he joined forces with the Ottoman caliph Selim I, to urge him to revolt against the Ottoman caliphate, but his movement failed and he was executed after the Ottomans defeated his troops in the Levant. Of course, the ambitious prince Janbirdi Al-Ghazaly hoped to rule the Levant autonomously and then gather forces and enlist the help of the Safavids to conquer Egypt one day. Janbirdi Al-Ghazaly planned to conquer Egypt, and what proves it was the fact that he sent his agent/spy Dhaheer-Eddine Al-Ardibily to Egypt, who managed to control the Ottoman governor of Egypt, Ahmad Pacha, to convert him to the Shiite religion, and to instigate him later on to rebel against the Ottomans as he declared himself as the sultan of Egypt, independent from the Ottoman Empire. However, after surviving an assassination attempt, he moved away from Cairo,and was finally captured and executed by Ottomans [17].

(B) The movement of Ali Bey Al-Kabeer(1170 – 1187 A.H./ 1756 – 1773 A.D.): When the originally Mameluke soldier, Ali Bey Al-Kabeer, rebelled against the Ottomans in Egypt, he declared himself as the sultan of Egypt who would rule Egypt autonomously after driving away the Ottoman governor out of Egypt and after defeating and subjugating and dominating over the rest of the Mamelukes, among his foes and rivals, as well as Arabian tribes in Upper Egypt and Al-Beheira and Al-Sharqiyah Governorates. After he asserted his authority and power in Egypt, he had to secure his position and power in Cairo by allying himself with another rebel ruler in the Levantine South in Palestine, named Zahir Al-Umar, and thus Ali Bey Al-Kabeer sent several military campaigns to help his ally to conquer the Levant and drive away Ottomans from it, as both men seized the chance of the Ottomans being busy in their wars against Russia. Indeed, Ali Bey Al-Kabeer tried to enlist the help of Russia against the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Ali Bey Al-Kabeer made use of the Levant as a passageway to assert his power and authority before his enemies the Ottomans. To be able to defeat Ali Bey Al-Kabeer, the Ottomans contacted his chief military leader, Muhammad Abou Al-Dhahab, who was in the Levant at the time, and they convinced him by promises to appoint him later on as governor of Egypt under the Ottoman to betray his master Ali Bey Al-Kabeer by retreating from the Levant to march his troops to Cairo to fight Ali Bey Al-Kabeer. Indeed Abou Al-Dhahab handed the Ottomans all conquered territories of the Levant and attacked Cairo, where he defeated Ali Bey Al-Kabeer who had to flee to the Levant to escape and prepare plans to recapture Egypt to restore his position. But Ali Bey Al-Kabeer was defeated and killed by Abou Al-Dhahab, the de facto ruler and governor of Egypt under the Ottomans, in the battle of Al-Salehiyya in1773 A.D.Acting on Ottoman orders, Abu Dhahab then invaded Palestine to defeat Dhahir Al-Umar, and after conquering Gaza, Jaffa, and Acre, he died there suddenly because of the plague.        

(C) Later on, the Egyptians were shocked and terrorized by the French Expedition of Napoleon Bonaparte to occupy Egypt. After Napoleon firmly established his power and authority all over Egypt, he naturally marched with his troops to conquer the Levant, but he failed to infiltrate the high fortified walls of Acre, and he lost battles in the Levant and then lost his hopes of making Egypt a base of establishing a French kingdom in the East when his fleet was destroyed in Abou Qir, Alexandria, in the Mediterranean coast in Egypt.     

(D) After Muhammad Ali Pacha asserted his power, authority, and dominance over Egypt as its governor under the Ottomans, he massacred all the Mamelukes off, got rid of all leaderships of the Cairene and Alexandrian people in Egypt, disbanded all Ottoman soldiers, and formed and trained a new army that recruited only Egyptian men under French military experts that undertook all military training. Soon enough, Muhammad Ali Pacha declared himself as the king of Egypt who ruled autonomously away from the Ottomans. He naturally and hastily conquered the Levant to secure his position in Cairo, and his well-trained Egyptian army reached Kütahya in Asia Minor, and if it had not been for the interference of Europe and Great Britain, the history of whole region would have changed forever.        

(E) After the Suez Canal was dug, Great Britain conquered Egypt in 1882 A.D., and France coveted to occupy Syria and Lebanon. After World War I, when the Ottomans of Turkey was defeated, France and Great Britain divided between themselves the Ottoman Levantine territories, as France took Syria and Lebanon, while Great Britain took Jordan and Palestine. Herbert Kitchener, the British military leader and a Freemason, perceived during his stay in Egypt that Palestine was of vital strategic importance to Egypt, and he urged the British government never to allow France to take Levantine South so as not to threaten British interests in Egypt and the Suez Canal. This attitude influenced of course the Sykes-Picot Agreement, as the Great Britain adamantly refused to leave Palestine to France [18].

(F) Colonial powers led by Great Britain caused the establishment of Israel in the Levantine South in Palestine to serve British interests in the long run; in 1905-1907 A.D., a scientific and historical committee chaired by Sir Campbell Bannerman (i.e., the Imperial Conference of 1907) was convened in London to discuss all possible means to avoid the collapse of the British Empire, described at the time by the phrase: "the empire on which the sun never sets". The resulting report tackled the threat posed against colonization in the East, especially in the south and eastern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea (i.e., the Arab countries in North Africa, the Levant, and Egypt), and more particular, the Suez Canal must not be endangered because it links Africa and Europe to Asia, and thus, the British and their allies felt that Egypt and Palestine must be controlled and their realities must change. Participants in the Imperial Conference of 1907 felt that a fatal blow would be dealt to colonial empires if the Arab nations would be liberated and achieve a renaissance; this must be voided by dividing the Arab world, maintaining its backwardness and preventing Arab nations from ever being united. The report recommended to divide the African Arab nations from the Asian Arab nations by creating a strong country (later on named Israel) to achieve such a goal and this country must ally itself to all colonial powers and be near the Suez Canal [19]. Hence, when Great Britain and its allies helped create Israel in 1948, after years of planning and preparations, they managed to separate Egypt and the Levantine South, thus threatening Egypt and its security all the time, while impeding and hindering all steps taken to make Egyptians and Arabs achieve any sort of progress in all fields, by throwing all the time seeds of disputes, unrest, and troubles. Egypt and Israel engaged in several wars and after peace accords in the 1970s, Israel made sure that Sinai is kept as demilitarized zone; thus, Israel threatened the strategic depth of Egypt and made Egypt isolated from its Arab neighbors in Asia so as to make Israel appear as the strongest country in the Middle East, after Egypt lost its strategic Levantine South region when Israel was created inside Palestine. Hence, Arabs are made weaker when Egypt is made powerless, because Egypt is the most important and central Arab country in many aspects.         

   Lastly: Within CHAPTER I of this book, we have traced the influence of the Arab conquest on the political strategy of Egypt's geographical location, and we have shown how the location of Egypt is directly linked to that of the Levant and vice-versa in the eras before and after the Arab conquest until modern times. Within the following CHAPTER II, we research the other aspect of the Arab conquest of Egypt: the spread of 'Islam', or rather what has been perceived to be as such, in Egypt, to see to what extent the religious life in Egypt was influenced and changed by the Arab conquest. 

References:

[1] "Al-Solok" by Al-Makrizi, page 1/2/368.

[2] Al-Makrizi, ditto, pages 1/2/380 and 404.

[3] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/386:338.

[4] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/:370, 372:379, 381, 382, and 385:386.

[5] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/414:319, 422:425, and 427:433.

[6] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/465, 473:474, 495, 497, 600, 602, 604, 607, 628, 629, and 633.

[7] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/448:449, 451, 453:457, 463:467, and 477:479.

[8] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/2/483:491, 510, 513, 524:530, 533, 543, 560:564, 571, 577, 585:588, 590:595, and 618:628.

[9] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/3/747, 753:754, and 762:766.

[10] "The Influence of Sufism on Egypt during the Mameluke Era", A. S. Mansour, unpublished PhD thesis, History Department, Al-Azhar University, pages 16:19 and 29:30. 

[11] ''Aqd Al-Juman'', a manuscript of historical chronicle, authored by Al-Ainy, events of 809 A.H.

[12] Abou Al-Mahasin, pages 16/229:230.

[13] "History of Selim and Al-Ghoury", a manuscript, by Al-Fiqi, page 7.

[14] PhD thesis of A. S. Mansour, pages 87:88, and ''Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Fact and Myth" by A. S. Mansour, pages 182:183.

[15] "History of Ibn Eyas", by Ibn Eyas, pages 5/35 and 38.

[16] "Al-Kawakib Al-Saaera" by M. Al-Ghazi, page 1/297.

[17] PhD thesis of A. S. Mansour, pages 87:88, and M. Al-Ghazi, ditto, pages 87:88.

[18] PhD thesis of A. S. Mansour, pages 87:88, M. Al-Ghazi pages 1/159 and 216, and ''History of Ibn Tulun" 2/74:75 and 78:79.

[19] "The Balfour Declaration" by Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mansi, published by Dar Al-Fikr Al-Araby, pages 49 and 100. 

CHAPTER II: The Arab Conquest and Egyptian Religious Life

Firstly: Islam and Egypt Before the Arab Conquest:

The real meaning of Islam in terms of behavior and in terms of faith:

   Literally, Islam in terms of faith and belief is ''submission'' to God (i.e., divine commands of the Quran, God's Word). The literal meaning of Islam is also directly linked to the Arabic root of the word ''Islam'': "salam", which means peace. Hence, the meaning of Islam in terms of behavior is peace, or adherence to peace in terms of demeanor and dealing with all peaceful people. Hence, in terms of behavior and not necessarily in terms of one's belief or disbelief in the Quran, any peaceful person of both genders is a Muslim (i.e., literally, a peaceful one). As in terms of belief inside one's mind and heart, judged only by God and never by humans/mortals, a Muslim is the one who applies and believes in the message of the Quran as it is the Word of God. people are to just only the outside behavior shown to them: peaceful demeanor as opposed to aggression and violence. God says the following about some disbelieving Arabian Bedouins or Desert-Arabs during Muhammad's lifetime who were also hypocrites: "The Desert-Arabs say, "We have believed." Say, "You have not believed; but say, 'We have submitted,' for faith has not yet entered into your hearts..." (49:14). Thus, God knew their inward lack of faith, never shown to Muhammad and the early believers; as God is the Only Judge on faiths of humans. As for Muhammad and the early believers, they treated peacefully with such hypocrites because those hypocrites were peaceful in terms of behavior, leaving the judgment on their inward belief, or lack of, it to God alone. of course, submission to God can be both in terms of faith (belief in the Quran) and peaceful behavior as well. Combining both is the real and complete meaning of Islam judged by God on the Day of Resurrection. Those winners on that Last Day are those who submitted their minds, hearts, bodies, senses, and souls to God by following the Quran, in secret and in public and in all their behaviors that adhere to peace and justice, worshipping God alone all their lifetimes in devotion to Him and dedicating their worship and their good deeds only to Him, while avoiding evils and sins as much as they can. This of course should be done without hypocrisy and without polytheism; i.e., deifying and sanctifying anything or anyone alongside with God; this is real submission to god in Islam. God says in the Quran: "Say, "My prayer and my worship, and my life and my death, are devoted to God, the Lord of the Worlds. No associate has He. Thus I am commanded, and I am the first of those who submit." (6:162-163). Real Islam in terms of faith and belief is based on 100% monotheism to which one adheres wholeheartedly all one's lifetime, without inventing mediators or intercessors between God/Allah and the Muslim person, and this is why God tells us in the Quran never to take allies alongside with Him: "...God is sufficient as an Ally, and God is sufficient as a Supporter." (4:45); "Say, "Shall I take for myself a protector other than God, Originator of the heavens and the earth, and He feeds and is not fed?" Say, "I am instructed to be the first of those who submit." And do not be among the polytheists." (6:14). Hence, real Islam is one thing, but how it has been applied through the centuries is something else; there has been a huge gap between real Islam and how the Muhammadans have applied it wrongly (while considering themselves as 'Muslims'). It is self-deception that some people may deem themselves as 'Muslims' in terms of faith just because they raise a banner or show a label as such, as if this would be enough without applying and pondering upon the Quran (real Islam) in terms of both behavior and belief/faith, so as to pave one's way to Paradise in the Afterlife after the Day of Judgment. Declaring one's faith in Islam in public is NEVER enough to guarantee one's entering into Paradise; God will judge humans by their adherence to peace, justice, etc. among other Quranic higher values as well as monotheistic belief as per the Quran, God's last message to humanity. Those who deceive themselves think that by labeling oneself as a 'Muslim', Paradise is guaranteed in the Afterlife; such people forget that God's mercy in the Afterlife is obtained through one's purely monotheistic faith and good deeds; as the ones who will be spared from entering Hell are the righteous ones living in piety and in the fear of God, regardless of labels or banners raised overtly during one's lifetime on earth. God says in the Quran: "As for him who was defiant. And preferred the life of this world. Then Hell is the shelter. But as for him who feared the Stature of his Lord, and restrained the self from desires. Then Paradise is the shelter." (79:37-41). Regardless of the names of various religious doctrines and      denominations, all religions on earth are divided only into two types: God's religion of monotheism (i.e., Islam: submission only to Him) or polytheistic religions fabricated by mortals after distorting God's religion of monotheism conveyed by all prophets and messengers, each in his tongue, until the last message of God was revealed in Arabic to the Seal of Prophets, Muhammad. God says in the Quran: "Religion with God is Islam (i.e., submission to God)..." (3:19); "Whoever seeks other than Islam (i.e., 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); "We never sent a messenger before you without inspiring him that: "There is no god but I, so worship Me."" (21:25); "We never sent any messenger except in the language of his people, to make things clear for them..." (14:4); "We made it easy in your language, so that they may remember." (44:58). Thus we perceive here that all God's prophets and messengers (from Adam to Muhammad) conveyed one, true, clear message of monotheism: There is no God but Allah. Yet, with the passage of time, followers of prophets have moved away from this real Islam and fallen into the trap of polytheism while retaining only the banner or label of 'Islam', thinking they have been doing very well  ass if they were guided indeed. Hence, researching, analyzing, and studying religious reality and culture of a given society or nation (i.e., the Muhammadans, as far as this CHAPTER II is concerned) will show the huge gap between real essence of Islam and how religious life and culture are applied and practiced regardless of overt labels or banners. We trace here religious life and culture of Egypt after the Arab conquest, using the Quran as the criterion to judge overt behavior of Egyptians and Arabs inside Egypt with the passage of time so as to avoid mistakes in such a study in this CHAPTER II as much as possible. The Quran is the only criterion to measure behavior of people (who claim to be monotheistic believers but they have been indeed polytheists) in all eras and geographical locations, regardless of their titles, names, denominations, labels, banners, etc. With the only criterion established and asserted here by us to be the Quran, in this study, we resort to other secondary sources to gain data and information which will be judged and measured as per the Quran as a yard-stick, and such sources include historical accounts, Sufi books, books on religious thought and practices that show religious notions, rituals, tenets, etc. that have dominated certain eras and tell readers about people's activities and ways of life.       

Egypt knew Islam long before the Arab conquest:

1- God says in the Quran: "We sent you with the truth; a bearer of good news, and a warner. There is no community but a warner has passed through it." (35:24).  The term ''warner'' here of course is more general than the terms ''prophet'' or ''messenger'', because warners may be preachers without divine inspiration or revelation  and this makes them not among prophets or messengers who receive divine inspiration. This means that warners were preachers who voluntarily called others to follow the Truth, but they were not inspired by God to do so. Thus, not every warner was a prophet or a messenger of God, but all prophets and messengers were warners of course to their peoples. What we mean to say here is that the Quran tells us that between one prophet and the one succeeding him, there were periods of warners who called for reform and preached to people to remind them of monotheism when people moved away from it and indulged into the polytheistic ways of distortion and misguidance, and this Quranic fact about warners is asserted, while history never mentions them, let alone their names. Therefore, we conclude from the above that certainly, God has sent prophets and messengers to Egypt BEFORE the Arab conquest, and He cause preachers/warners to emerge inside Egypt as well in many eras throughout the 50-century Egyptian history before the revelation of the Quran. Let us be reminded that God tells us in the Quran that He does not mention the totality of prophets and messengers or all their stories in the Quranic text: "Some messengers We have already told you about, while some messengers We have not told you about..." (4:164). Among those prophets/messengers mentioned in the Quran linked to Egypt are Joseph and Moses. As far as history is concerned, accounts of it narrate that Abraham and Sarah visited Egypt during the Hyksos rule and the king gave him Hagar, who was the mother of Ishmael, the first-born son of Abraham, who settled later on in Arabia and was one the ancestors of Muhammad. Sarah gave birth to Isaac, second son of Abraham, and both saw their grandchild Jacob, as we infer from the glad tidings brought by the angels: "His wife was standing by, so she laughed. And We gave her good news of Isaac; and after Isaac, Jacob." (11:71). Jacob/Israel had many sons who formed the tribes of the Israelites, but they hated their brother Joseph and got rid of him and he ended up being in Egypt and appointed as its grand vizier, and later on, he brought his brothers and parents into Egypt, and made them along with Jacob settle in Egypt, and of course, the Hyksos king welcomed them as they were coming from the east like the Hyksos. In later decades, Egyptians managed to end the occupation of their country by the Hyksos as they defeated them in many military battles and chased them away, but the wheel of fortune changed and turned for the Israelites who were persecuted by the Pharaonic rule, as we know from the Quran that Moses' Pharaoh persecuted them severely in many ways until Moses was sent from God as His prophet to Egypt, and Moses' story ended in the exodus and the downfall of Pharaoh who drowned.  

2- The Quranic text proves that Joseph was sent as a prophet for all Egyptians, and he began his ministry or call inside his prison cell: ""O My fellow prison inmates, are diverse gods better, or God, the One, the Supreme? You do not worship, besides Him, except names you have named, you and your ancestors, for which God has sent down no authority..."" (12:39-40). Thus, we infer that Joseph was the prophet of Islam sent by God to Egyptians, and he implored the Lord by saying that he desired to die as a Muslim (i.e., submitter to God): ""My Lord, You have given me some authority, and taught me some interpretation of events. Initiator of the heavens and the earth; You are my Protector in this life and in the Hereafter. Receive my soul as a submitter to You, and unite me with the righteous."" (12:101). Likewise, Moses was not sent by God only to the Israelites, but also to Pharaoh and to all Egyptians as well, as he told all his followers to be Muslims/submitters to God, as we infer from the following verses: " And We sent Moses with Our signs and a clear authority. To Pharaoh and his retinue members, but they followed the command of Pharaoh, and the command of Pharaoh was not wise. He will precede his people on the Day of Resurrection, and will lead them into the Hell-Fire..." (11:96-98); "Moses said, "O my people, if you have believed in God, then put your trust in Him, if you have submitted."" (10:84).  

3- The query raised now is as follows: to what extent was the Egyptians' acceptance to the monotheistic call conveyed by prophets? The answer is known from the Quran, as many verses show us the stories of the tyranny of Moses' Pharaoh and his retinue members. We can infer from the Quran some facts regarding the features of the Egyptian religious life and culture in the Pharaonic Era, in the points below.   

(A) Moses' Pharaoh proclaimed himself as a supreme god: "He said, "I am your Lord, the most high."" (79:24), and he went into the extreme of denying the inner instinct that makes people know/feel that God exists, as he denied God's existence: "Pharaoh said, "O nobles, I know of no god for you other than me. So fire-up the bricks for me, O Haman, and build me a tower, that I may ascend to the God of Moses, though I think he is a liar."" (28:38).

(B) The general public opinion supported Moses' Pharaoh in his disbelieving attitude, as he proclaimed in his conference his being a supreme god, instead of the Creator, and they never objected to him: "And gathered and proclaimed. He said, "I am your Lord, the most high."" (79:23-24). Besides, within the story of Moses' Pharaoh in the Quran, we fell his retinue members or nobles agreeing with him in everything, and he never really cared to have their opinions or to consult them, because he deceived them: "Pharaoh said, "Leave me to kill Moses, and let him appeal to his Lord. I fear he may change your religion, or spread disorder on the earth."" (40:26); "Pharaoh proclaimed among his people, saying, "O my people, do I not own the Kingdom of Egypt, and these rivers flow beneath me? Do you not see?" (43:51); "Thus he fooled his people, and they obeyed him. They were wicked people. And when they provoked Our wrath, We took retribution from them, and We drowned them all." (43:54-55).    

(C) Of course, Moses' Pharaoh was defending his very existence and his religious and political positions, as his people worshipped him as a deity and blindly obeyed him, and he feared that the call of Moses would make his regime crumble when his political and religious system would collapse. We infer that Egyptians at the time (of the retinue members and the affluent ones, not weak poor peasants) supported Pharaoh as they would preserve their status and protect their interests. Such protection seemed to require maintaining the notion of a deified Pharaoh as part and parcel of the Pharaonic religion at that era. In other words, to maintain polytheism within the Ancient Egyptians' religion, as Egyptians rejected Moses and his message (and Joseph before him) because the Egyptians adhered to their millennia-old religious tenets. "Yet when Our enlightening signs came to them, they said, "This is obvious witchcraft." And they rejected them, although their souls were certain of them, out of wickedness and pride. So see how the outcome was for the mischief-makers." (27:13-14). Of course, such attitude of the Egyptians was NOT derived from national or patriotic loyalty to Pharaoh or to Egypt as a homeland; because the Egyptian people rejected Joseph before and his message and hated him, though they knew he was God's prophets, as we infer from words of the believing retinue member inside the palace of Pharaoh, as this believer reminded them of Joseph: "Joseph had come to you with clear revelations, but you continued to doubt what he came to you with. Until, when he perished, you said, "God will never send a messenger after him."..." (40:34). This verse shows that Ancient Egyptians knew God and knew that Joseph was God's prophet, but they rejected Joseph nonetheless, despite their having no deified or sanctified Egyptian ruler at the time to whom they would remain loyal (as the Hyksos, hated by Egyptians, occupied and Egypt during the lifetime of Joseph). This makes us deduce that the Ancient Egyptians hated the monotheistic call because of their millennia-old religious traditions, and NOT out of loyalty for Egypt as a homeland or any patriotic nationalistic feelings. Hence, Ancient Egyptians rejected the call of Joseph despite his assuming a high-rank position of being the grand vizier in Egypt who controlled all its treasuries and food storehouses during a great famine that struck many countries at the time and despite Josephs' honesty and integrity that made people admired him, and once he died, they felt that God would not send any more prophets to them.                  

(D) Despite the fact that the Ancient Egyptian religion was based on polytheism, some monotheistic believers existed in Ancient Egypt as well, who adhered to their belief in monotheism in contrast to self-deified Moses' Pharaoh. The Quran mentions the situations and attitudes of some of those monotheistic Egyptian believers, without mentioning their names, as we show in the points below.   

1- Among the Ancient Egyptian believers in God were magicians who declared their belief in the message of Moses inside the palace court of Pharaoh when they saw the miracle of God when the staff of Moses turned into a huge serpent that ate up their serpents. At that situation in particular, Pharaoh resented their belief in the message of Moses without taking prior permission from him, as if Pharaoh owned their hearts and souls, and the magicians never cared about fury and punishments of Pharaoh and insisted on adhering to the Truth: "And the magicians fell down prostrate. They said, "We have believed in the Lord of Aaron and Moses." He said, "Did you believe in him before I have given you permission? He must be your chief, who has taught you magic. I will cut off your hands and your feet on alternate sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of the palm-trees. Then you will know which of us is more severe in punishment, and more lasting." They said, "We will not prefer you to the proofs that have come to us, and Him who created us. So issue whatever judgment you wish to issue. You can only rule in this lowly life. We have believed in our Lord, so that He may forgive us our sins, and the magic you have compelled us to practice. God is Better, and more Lasting."" (20:70-73).   

2- Among the Ancient Egyptian believers in God was the believing man among the retinue members of Pharaoh (or he might have been a prince from the family of Pharaoh) in his place court attempted to convince them to believe in God alone within the messages of His messengers: "A believing man from Pharaoh's family, who had concealed his faith, said, "Are you going to kill a man for saying, `My Lord is God,' and he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? If he is a liar, his lying will rebound upon him; but if he is truthful, then some of what he promises you will befall you. God does not guide the extravagant imposter. " (40:28). After arguing with them, they rejected his words, and he desperately ended his delivered speech to them in the manner that we read in the following verses: "O my people, how is it that I call you to salvation, and you call me to the Fire? You call me to reject God, and to associate with Him what I have no knowledge of, while I call you to the Mighty Forgiver. Without a doubt, what you call me to has no say in this world, or in the Hereafter; and our turning back is to God; and the transgressors are the inmates of the Fire. You will remember what I am telling you, so I commit my case to God. God is Observant of the servants."" (40:41-44). 

3- Among the Ancient Egyptian believers in God was one woman in the bed of Pharaoh himself and so very near him physically, his wife. Pharaoh's wife was a monotheistic believer as per the Quranic verse about her, and this shows that even inside the locations and headquarters of extremist polytheism, there might be real believers who adhere to the Truth no matter what. God tells us that this believing woman, wife of Pharaoh, invoked and implored God in a very particular manner that shows her deep faith, making her an example for real believers to follow: "And God illustrates an example of those who believe: the wife of Pharaoh, when she said, "My Lord, build for me, with you, a house in Paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his works, and save me from the unjust people."" (66:11).  

4- Among the Ancient Egyptian believers in God was the Potiphar's wife in the Quranic story of Joseph; during the era of Joseph, the dominant climate refused monotheism, and yet, we read the unique situation of the Potiphar's wife as she declared her repentance in public while people (friends and foes) are witnessing before the Hyksos king and his men. This situation was of an Egyptian woman in the affluent classes of high status, as she confessed her sin on her own free will and based on her free choice, and this shows how deep her faith was, as we infer from her words in the Quran: "... The Potiphar's wife then said, "Now the truth is out. It was I who tried to seduce him, and he is telling the truth." "This is that he may know that I did not betray him in secret, and that God does not guide the scheming of the betrayers." "Yet I do not claim to be innocent. The soul commands evil, except those on whom my Lord has mercy. Truly my Lord is Forgiving and Merciful."" (12:51-53).   

   Indeed, the Quran does not contain a more prominent example of extreme disbelief other than Moses' Pharaoh and this is why we read in the Quran that he and his retinue members will be made as imams/leaders leading others, who followed their footsteps and imitated them in later eras until the end of the world, to Hell-Fire: "And We made them leaders calling to the Fire. And on Resurrection Day, they will not be saved." (28:41). In fact, the Quran does not contain a more prominent example of adherence to belief despite persecution other than Moses' Pharaoh's magicians who never feared the tyranny of Pharaoh, in contrast to Moses and Aaron who were afraid – at first at least – of facing the tyranny of Pharaoh, and God has said to them: "But speak to him nicely. Perhaps he will remember, or have some fear." They said, "Lord, we fear he may persecute us, or become violent." He said, "Do not fear, We are with you, hearing and seeing." (20:44-46). Because of the tyranny of Moses' Pharaoh and his utter disbelief in God and his never admitting the fact that God has been the One to grant him many bounties during his lifetime, Moses' Pharaoh and his people (retinue members and family members) deserved curses in this life and in the Afterlife, as God answered the supplication of Moses: "Moses said, "Our Lord, you have given Pharaoh and his chiefs splendor and wealth in the worldly life. Our Lord, for them to lead away from Your path. Our Lord, obliterate their wealth, and harden their hearts, they will not believe until they see the painful torment." He said, "Your prayer has been answered, so go straight, and do not follow the path of those who do not know."" (10:88-89). Part of answering this supplication and invoking God's wrath on Pharaoh and his people was that the Pharaonic rule collapsed forever, and Egypt did not witness after them any Egyptian powerful rulers. The fate of Moses' Pharaoh in the Hereafter is the same fate waiting for any rulers who would follow the footsteps of Moses' Pharaoh. God says the following about Moses' Pharaoh: "He will precede his people on the Day of Resurrection, and will lead them into the Hell-Fire. Miserable is the place he placed them in. They were followed by a curse in this, and on the Day of Resurrection. Miserable is the path they followed." (11:98-99). God says the following about the believing man inside Moses' Pharaoh's people and then about Moses' Pharaoh and his retinue members: " So God protected him from the evils of their scheming, while a terrible torment besieged Pharaoh's people. The Hell-Fire. They are exposed to it morning and evening. And on the Day the Hour takes place: "Admit the people of Pharaoh to the most intense agony."" (40:45-46).

   Indeed, the key to the Ancient Egyptian civilization lies in its religion, as it was the point around which the life of Ancient Egyptians revolved, with all its different artistic, social, cultural, civilizational, and political aspects. In fact, the Pharaonic political system is a religious one essentially, with a deified pharaoh in its center. In addition, most Pharaonic architecture for millennia is linked to the Ancient Egyptian religion, as Pharaonic people cared to build temples, tombs, pyramids, etc. that would stand the test of time, while never cared much about preserving the duration of palaces, houses, etc. and we find no theaters or playgrounds at all, unlike other civilizations of the Greeks, the Romans, the Phoenicians, etc. Even cultural and artistic aspects of the Pharaonic people were mostly used in temples and for other religious reasons and were controlled by clergy who monopolized knowledge and culture to the extent that when clergy of Pharaonic gods ceased to exist, Pharaonic knowledge were no longer passed to any other generations, in contrast to the mostly secular knowledge, and culture of the Greeks that went on and were made available to citizens. If it had not been for Champollion, the French philologist, we would not be able to know hieroglyphics and to know more about the Pharaohs and their great civilization. In light of the Ancient Egyptian religion, we understand the political revolts of Egyptians because they were essentially incited or instigated (and then ended) within religious reasons; this applies to all revolts of the Egyptians against the Byzantines (revolts led by the Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church), Napoleon (revolts led by Al-Azhar), and the British occupation (revolts led by Al-Azhar). Religious reasons also caused the Egyptians never to revolt at all against Alexander the Great and the Ptolemaic rulers as they adopted Pharaonic Egyptian religion, gods, traditions, and customs. Similarly, the Egyptians never revolted against the Ottomans because they thought that the Ottoman caliphs were 'defenders of Islam'. Examples in history of similar nature are too many to be mentioned here in this CHAPTER II. This is why we find in the Quran two unique examples of Egyptians: 1) extreme disbelief of the self-deified Moses' Pharaoh who with his affluent people will be imams/leaders calling sinners (who imitated them) to Hell, and 2) pure and firm belief of the magicians who never feared death under commands of Moses' Pharaoh because they adhere to the Truth and thus deserving to be good examples (or imams) for believers to follow in all eras regarding adherence to the Truth with all one's might while fearing nobody and nothing on earth. Therefore, because of the fact that the millennia-old Egyptian life has been based on clergy, there has been incessant adamant refusal  by most Egyptians to monotheism of Islam brought by Joseph and Moses. This is expected from a civilization that has its firm, deep-seated tenets and notions for millennia before and after the eras of Joseph and Moses.    

Egyptianization and exporting:

   Since the core of the Egyptian civilization has been based on its unique religion, the Egyptian genius has been always used to preserve such national religion so as not to make it get influenced by foreign or external trends and impacts, which were so many as they were attracted by Egypt's location and richness. Hence, with the passage of so many foreign trends and invaders who settled in Egypt for a while, the weight of the Egyptian civilization did what is called now the process of Egyptianization of all religious trends coming from outsiders. And because of the Egyptian genius , prominence, and pioneer leading position, the process of Egyptianization was followed by exporting these Egyptianized religious trends (that would have the features, stamp, and print of the Pharaonic Egyptian religion) to other nations later on. The outstanding example of what we are referring to here is, of course, Christianity. The same process of Egyptianization and exporting was done earlier with Judaism and the Greek and Roman philosophies and religions.             

1- With Judaism: The Israelites multiplied in number after they settled in Egypt during the period from the era of Joseph and Jacob inside Egypt until the era of Moses and the exodus. Despite the fact that the Israelites suffered severe persecution by Egyptians and Moses' Pharaoh, they felt affinity to the Ancient Egyptian religion. Proof: we know from the Quran that when the Lord saved the Israelites from Moses' Pharaoh during the exodus by a great miracle, they forgot all about this and yearned and felt nostalgic to the Ancient Egyptian religion gods and asked Moses to make gods for them to worship: "And We delivered the Israelites across the sea. And when they came upon a people who were devoted to their statues of idols, they said, "O Moses, make for us a god, as they have gods." He said, "You are truly an ignorant people."" (7:138). Once Moses left them temporarily, the Israelites committed the sin of making a golden calf statue and worshipped it, which was similar to Apis, the Ancient Egyptian religion bull-god, and this shows that they used to worship Egyptians gods before the call of Moses. "In his absence, the people of Moses adopted a calf made from their ornaments....They took it for worship. They were in the wrong." (7:148). After the era of Moses, a faction of the Israelites specialized in misguidance and polytheism, and the Quran calls this faction ''the Jews'', and their being progeny of Jacob and their having many prophets and messengers sent to them did little to guide them to monotheism, as their being influenced by the Ancient Egyptian religion was too much, and they even murdered some of the prophets sent to them, and this incurred the wrath and punishment of God against them: "... They were struck with humiliation and poverty, and incurred wrath from God. That was because they rejected God's revelations and wrongfully killed the prophets. That was because they disobeyed and transgressed." (2:61). We notice that the Quranic text makes a clear distinction between two terms: "Israelites" and "Jews", while praising the believing ones among the former and condemning, criticizing, and cursing the latter. Some researchers and authors investigated the influence of the Ancient Egyptian religion on Judaism especially in terms of rituals, tenets, and notions. The Quran provides us with the example of the gold calf that we have explained above. Some notions in the Old Testament (especially the Torah or the Pentateuch) are believed to be heavily influenced by the Ancient Egyptian religion, especially the Book of Genesis and some Psalms. One prominent example of a term taken from the Ancient Egyptian religion and inserted into Judaism is "the holy of holies" [1].          

2- With the Greeks: The Israelites were enslaved by Egyptians and were influenced much by them as well, but the Greeks ruled Egypt during the era of Alexander the Great and the era of the Ptolemaic dynasty rule, and such Greek rulers were also heavily influenced by the Ancient Egyptian religion that was very impressive and dominant and left its deep mark on all foreigners entering Egypt whether they were slaves to Egyptians or rulers of Egypt. Alexander the Great went to Siwa oasis to offer rituals and oblation to the Ancient Egyptian god Amon, where he was proclaimed as the son of Amon. The Ptolemaic dynasty rulers forgot all about their previous Greek religious tenets and adopted the Ancient Egyptian religion, customs tenets, cults, traditions, etc. to the extent that they adopted officially formally the cult of worshipping previous rulers in their State, and it has been a very old Pharaonic tradition of deifying Pharaonic rulers. Hence, Ptolemaic rulers worshipped their ancestors of rulers and Alexander the Great who ruled Egypt. At one time, Ptolemy III restored to thee Egyptians statues of gods stolen by the Persians, and this made Ptolemy III popular among the Egyptian people and he was depicted with his wife as a benevolent god and goddess. Indeed, Ptolemy III cared about establishing Egyptian temples, such as the one dedicated to the goddess Isis in Alexandria, the one in Karnak, and the one in Esna in Upper Egypt. Ptolemy III started the erection of a huge, spacious temple dedicated to the god Horus in Edfu, in Upper Egypt as well, and this temple took 180 years to be build, and it was finished during the reign of Ptolemy XII [2].          

3- With the Romans: The Romans could never avoid being influenced and impressed by the Ancient Egyptian religion, despite the fact that they were both powerful, haughty, and arrogant. The Roman emperor Titus visited Egypt and witnessed the celebration of consecrating Apis, the Ancient Egyptian religion bull-god, as the formal official god of the Romans. The Roman emperor Domitian (81 – 96 A.D.) built temples in Rome dedicated to the goddess Isis and the god Serapis, and this shows that Isis was known and worshipped reverently all over the Roman Empire unofficially at first, but officially later on as such temples were built in Rome [3].   

Aspects of Egyptian religious influence on non-Egyptians:

  There are three different trends of the Ancient Egyptian religion that dominated religious life outside Egypt in the ancient world. We trace them as follows.

1- Polytheism and trinity of deities: the main feature or trend in the Ancient Egyptian religion is polytheism; i.e., there were many local gods in each main city or province in addition to three main deities forming a holy trinity of a god/husband, a goddess/wife, and their god/son. Of course, such trinity was imitated in different names by many different civilizations influenced by Egypt and it symbolized fertility, continuity, renewal, and eternity. Such symbolism was first inferred by Egyptian agricultural environment and the cultivation cycle of throwing seed, watering, harvesting, etc. The most ancient trinity in the world is of course the Egyptian one that influenced the religions and cults of most of the ancient world: Isis, Osiris, and Horus. This Ancient Egyptian trinity went on during the Ptolemaic Era under the auspices of all the Ptolemaic dynasty rulers that adopted the worship of this trinity officially and formally, along with other Ancient Egyptian gods. The Isis cult spread in Greece long time before Alexander the Great conquered Egypt, and the occult and esoteric notions and secrets of the Greek religion are very much similar to the secrets of the Isis worship and cult. Even the Ancient Egyptian god Osiris was named in Greece as Dionysus. The Greek god Zeus was interpolated into this Ancient Egyptian trinity in the form of the god Serapis in Alexandria that replaced Osiris, while Serapis was worshipped along with Isis [4]. Isis in particular had special high position in the hearts of all Egyptians as the most ancient goddess, or indeed deity, in the world, as it predates the era of written history. The cult and worship of Isis spread outside Egypt all over the ancient world while Isis retained its Egyptian features without much change, and most probably, this was due to the humanistic and very touching aspect in the mythical story of Isis, the goddess and the mother of the god Horus who sacrificed a lot and endeavored and strove for a long time for the sake of her son Horus and her husband, the god Osiris. The Isis cult spread in Rome, and the whole of Europe, very fast during the times of the Roman Empire and even in distant territories outside the Roman Empire, after caravans routes and fleets of merchants' ships connected the ancient world. Roman fleet and ships carried from Alexandria the cult of Isis worship and her statues and icons. This is proven by a famous papyrus discovered in Al-Bahnassa, Egypt, that was written in the second century A.D., describing locations of the Isis cult all over the ancient world, and in most Egyptian cities, among them 69 cities in the Nile Delta region alone, and at least 55 cities outside Egypt, showing that the Isis cult reached India, Arabia, Rome, Europe, and Sinop at the Black Sea. Along with Isis, Horus her son was worshipped in different names, but Isis retained her name and qualities all over the ancient world [5]. Not surprisingly, the Quran mentions the name of Isis as it was worshipped in Arabia before the advent of Islam, under the name Uzza, mentioned in 53:18-19 within a holy trinity of three goddesses: Al-Lat, Uzza, and Manat. The name Uzza is more similar to the name of Isis in the Ancient Egyptian language: Iza and Izzet, because the English ''Isis'' is derived from the Greek pronunciation. Isis cult spread from Rome to all over European regions while retaining her name, hymns, rituals, and hierarchy of clergy in her temples in Europe, which were all exact replicas of the Ancient Egyptian ones [6]. All Roman provinces used to include in their pantheon of gods and in their cults the worship of Egyptian goddesses and gods; from North Africa to the Danube and from Gaul, Britain, the Alps to Germania, the Isis worship and cult persisted until the end of the second century A.D. [7]. The Isis cult waned for a while and then the statues and icons of Isis carrying the baby Horus re-emerged within Christianity as the Virgin Mary carrying the infant Jesus, and both are deified figure in Catholicism within the notions of ''Son of God'' and ''Mother of God'', and the Quran refutes clearly such notions of course, as we all know. Hence, many researchers and authors assert that Christianity itself was influenced by the Ancient Egyptian religion, and a European historian asserts that Isis and her statues and icons spread from Egypt to the whole regions of the ancient world, the Ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor was perceived to be one of the images or figures of Isis, statues of Isis carrying Horus with a moon or a crescent above her or around her are related to the symbolism of the moon referring to the sacred feminine or goddess of heaven, how such images and symbols were reproduced in icons and statues of the Virgin Mary carrying the infant Jesus, votive candles and oblations offered to Isis were later on offered to the Virgin Mary as the ''Queen of Heaven'', and finally, celibate skin-headed clergy dedicating their lives to serve the goddess Isis influenced the appearance of Christian clergy and monks [8]. Thus, with the spread of Christianity in Europe, churches, convents, and monasteries dedicated to the Virgin Mary carrying the baby or infant Jesus imitated Isis temples that spread for centuries all over the ancient world and for millennia in Egypt. In fact, in the early centuries A.D., Coptic Orthodox Egyptians worshipped the Virgin Mary after ascribing to her all qualities and epithets of Isis while dedicating tens of churches, convents, and monasteries to her all over the Egyptian governorates, and the halo around Mary and Jesus resembled the crescent or moon above the head of Isis, while celebrations and festivities dedicated to Mary (to mark the supposed days of her birth and 'Assumption') near such monasteries and churches are attended now by Copts and Muhammadans in Egypt [9] in the same manner when all Ancient Egyptians attended celebrations and religious festivities dedicated to Isis. The link between the Virgin Mary and the goddess Isis (apart from conceiving and giving birth without sexual contact) is further asserted by Egyptian folklore (and not surprisingly mentioned in the Bible in the New Testament) as Copts believe that the Virgin Mary came to Egypt with her son to escape persecution of Herod, and the places assumed to have been the spots where she settled for while in her journey in Egypt (before returning to Palestine later on) have great monasteries and churches built on them [10] centuries later, s per history of the Coptic Orthodox Church. This myth indicates how the Egyptian Pharaonic religion has played a role in formulating Christianity and how the collective Egyptian mind has been influenced for millennia by the Isis cult and worship and it had to ascribe epithets, titled, and qualities of Isis the Egyptian goddess to Mary the Israelite woman. This notion of the Virgin Mary, of course, spread all over Asia and Europe in their forms of Christianity. Sufism spread during the Ottoman Era in Egypt, and this led to re-introduce Isis worship linked to the sacred feminine by ascribing qualities and epithets of Isis and Mary to a Muslim female figure by inventing a mythical story about Zeinab, daughter of Ali Ibn Abou Talib, coming to Egypt to live and then buried in Egypt upon her death, and over her supposed tomb, a mosque was built in 955 A.H./ 1548 A.D. Zeinab was given the title of "Sayeda" (i.e., the lady, the dame, or the female saint), given before to Isis and the Virgin Mary. of course never came to Egypt as historical accounts tell us that after the death of her brothers, she returned to Yathreb to take care of the progeny of her brothers until she died and was buried in Yathreb in 62 A.H. What further refutes the myth of Zeinab coming to Egypt is that her name was never mentioned in any Arabic books of history of Egypt after the Arab conquest or any Mameluke Era Sufi books on mausoleums inside Egypt, and we mean books that were authored before the Ottoman Era. The fabrication of this myth of Zeinab coming to Cairo and being buried there is based on a Sufi's saint's dream which was believed by the Ottoman governor, who believed in the sanctified Sufi sheikh, and who built a mausoleum in 955 A.H. dedicated to Zeinab on the spot where the spirit or phantom of Zeinab supposedly appeared in the Sufi sheikh's dream/vision. This mosque containing this Zeinab mausoleum was renovated by Abdul-Rahman Kitukhda, one of the Mameluke princes in Cairo, in 1173 A.H./ 1759 A.D., and then later on by the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowments in 1940 A.D. Hence, such mausoleum dedicated to Zeinab (made into a central feminine holy figure within Sufism believed by the gullible masses  at the time) has been established since about 4 centuries and a half, and yet, the masses and the Ottoman authorities thought it to be a sanctified ground and holy side and many people performed pilgrimage to it to supplicate "Sayeda" Zeinab as a holy saint. Zeinab was titled "head of the divan/diwan", which reminds us with Isis and Osiris and their judgment court of the souls of the dead in the Pharaonic religious mythology, and Isis was also titled the ''Lady (Sayeda) of the Elements'', ''Queen of the Dead'', "the Supreme Goddess", and "Queen of Heaven" [11]. Of course, the Egyptians gave such titles, qualities, and epithets of Isis in to the Virgin Mary (and other Egyptian Christian female saints) in their local version of Christianity that spread all over the East later on within the Orthodox Church. Of course, Sufi female saints in Egypt like Zeinab received the same titles, qualities, and epithets of Isis, tough Zeinab never came to Egypt as we have asserted above. It is noteworthy that the cult of Isis flourished once more in the twelve century A.D. in Europe as Christian Sufism emerged beside Arab Sufism which changed its terms using 'Islamic' ones nearly at the same period or before it. Even Goethe protested against this Isis cult in his country and purportedly said (... O Isis and Osiris, one wishes to get rid of both of you! ...) [12]. If this was the case in Europe, let alone in Egypt the exporting source of the Isis cult of worship.             

2- Monasticism: this system of ascetic individually or in a group was first invented by ancient Egyptians (and then spread later in European pagan cults and later on in Eastern and Western Christianity), and we find in the Pharaonic Book of the Dead  within its 64^th section that the book was to be read only by 'clean' men who did not eat animal flesh or fish and did not know a woman, and we read in the 137^th section a repetition of this idea, reminiscent of the rituals and fasting of the clergy of Isis and Osiris. In the berlin papyrus, its author reflects upon his soul and secrets of the universe, and many Isis cult monks or celibate clergy dedicated their lives to Isis in the Serapis temple (called the Serapeum) and accepted gifts and food given to them by worshippers of Apis and Isis, and such Isis monks claimed they could predict the future [13]. During the Greek Ptolemaic Era, there were papyri proving this monastic movement linked to the temples of Serapis, or the Serapeum of Memphis and the one of Alexandria, as those monks chose celibacy and used to dedicate their lives in service of religion in monasteries away from people while leading ascetic lifestyles. Of course, such traditions were followed by the clergy of Heliopolis before the advent of Christianity to Egypt, and such clergy/monks stayed away from people to dedicate their lives to acts of worship within asceticism, and even some religious Jews led a similar lifestyle as per what we read in writings of PhiloJudaeus, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, before Christian monks imitated and adopted the same traditions [14]. Of course, monastic movements flourished after the spread of Christianity in Egypt, especially after the Romans persecuted Egyptian Coptic Christians. Antonius the Egyptian was among the pioneers of Christian Egyptianized monastic movement, which spread from Egypt to European Christians and to other parts of the ancient world, as foreigners studied and imitated monastic lifestyles of Egyptians and carried them to their countries [15]. Later on, some of the Muhammadans in Egypt imitated their Pharaonic, Jewish, and Christian ancestors by adopting asceticism in certain mosques or houses of worship dedicated to them that imitated monasteries and convents.   

3- The philosophical notion of the unity/union between deities and human beings: natural elements of the environment in the River Nile Valley were directly linked to the daily life of Ancient Egyptians and their deities (gods + goddesses), and the cycle of agriculture and cultivation gave birth to the idea of deicide and resurrection of gods as per the myth of the trinity Isis, Osiris, and Horus, as Osiris the murdered god was resurrected by Isis and returned to the kingdom of the dead as per his own choice to be the god of the dead who would judge them in the afterlife, while Horus would continue practices and career of his father in the temporal, transient life. Thus, as the Ancient Egyptians during the Pharaonic Era added human qualities (especially  death) to their gods/deities, this made room for the notion of a possible union or communion between human beings and gods; acts of worship were perceived as  way of deliverance by being one with the gods or being united with them. This notion infiltrated the Greek philosophies that were heavily influences by the Pharaonic Ancient Egyptian civilization, and such influence has been manifested in the Epicurean, Gnostic, and neo-platonic philosophies, as the Greeks adopted the notion that man and god were united somehow by purification of the soul and body to reach perfection and goodness within a higher level and gain knowledge of the unknown or the future. Hence, the Gnostic philosophy spread in Europe within the Hellenistic culture based on the Pharaonic one, and such notions are mentioned also in the writing of Philo Judaeus, the Jewish Egyptian philosopher in Alexandria. Such notions spread also in the Levantine regions, as they are very near to Egypt and were heavily influenced by the Pharaonic Ancient Egyptian civilization in terms of culture, religion, and philosophy, and this influence seemed to have reached Paul the apostle within the dominant ideas of his age that he inserted in his vision of Christianity, making the Egyptianized version of it never seemed foreign to the mentalities of people in Egypt, Europe, or elsewhere in the ancient world.   

The dawn of Christianity:

  Of course, as per the Quran, Jesus was God's prophet conveying the monotheistic message of Islam (i.e., There is no God but Allah), just like Moses and Muhammad as well as the rest of the prophets, each in his tongue to his people. Jesus said the following to his people: "..."I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I make for you out of clay the figure of a bird; then I breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal the blind and the leprous, and I revive the dead, by God's leave. And I inform you concerning what you eat, and what you store in your homes. In that is a sign for you, if you are believers." "And verifying what lies before me of the Torah, and to make lawful for you some of what was forbidden to you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so fear God, and obey me."  "God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path."" (3:49-51). Jesus was surrounded by disciples and Jewish extremists and clergy hated him as their enemy, and the Quran tells us that not all disciples were real monotheistic believers in the message conveyed by Jesus as some of them were betrayers, hypocrites, and traitors. Apart from the figure Judas Iscariot in Christian sources, the Quran tells us that there were a group of traitors who betrayed the message of Jesus and not just one person: "When Jesus sensed disbelief on their part, he said, "Who are my allies towards God?" The disciples said, "We are God's allies; we have believed in God, and bear witness that we submit."" (3:52); those disciples then said the following to God: ""Our Lord, we have believed in what You have revealed, and we have followed the messenger, so count us among the witnesses."" (3:53), and then, the Quran comments on their words by this verse: "They planned, and God planned; but God is the Best of planners." (3:54). This last verse shows clearly that most of them distorted the message of Jesus after his death, and such misguidance and distortions (in both form and content) of the message of Islam conveyed by Jesus naturally increased with the passage of time after the era of Jesus. The Quran tells us that Jesus was not a universal prophet to all human beings, but only to the Israelites: And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel, as a messenger to the Israelites..." (3:48-49). The Christian sources tackle the notion of the Jews waiting for the messiah heralded by John the Baptist who brought glad tidings of his coming soon, and this shows that Jesus was perceived as a local prophet to the Israelites only, but this changed soon decades later when the Jewish-Christians moved away  from local circles and spread Christianity all over Europe, resulting in influencing Christianity by other notions of the native religious tenets especially the notions of the Pharaonic Ancient Egyptian religion that spread all over the ancient world centuries before Jesus Christ was born. This influence is manifested clearly in Paul the apostle who proselytized Christianity away from the Jewish circles, making Jesus in that new doctrine a deity/god or a son of God, thus changing the form and content of Palestinian or Jewish form of Christianity of the early believers in it.            

Paul the apostle and his intentional distorting of Christianity: the break from the true teachings of Jesus:

  Of course, we mean by ''true teachings'' here only those mentioned in the Quranic story of Jesus within different verses tackling his story. As for Paul, he was an extremist Jew imbibed with the Greek (Hellenistic) philosophy, and therefore, he knew all about the religious culture and atmosphere that dominated his native land (i.e., the Levant) and his era. Thus, he must have received indirect influences of the Ancient Egyptian religion, because it had a huge impact on the Levantine culture and religion. Paul is said in the legends to have come from Damascus to Jerusalem carrying a letter that urged massacring of Christians, and the myth continues as Paul is said to have seen a vision of Christ in daylight, and his anti-Christian position turned into vehement defense of it and proselytizing it to the gentiles. This made Christianity acquires foreign notions of holy trinity, monasticism and asceticism, deicide, hierarchy of clergymen typical of pagan cults, and other rituals such as baptism and the last supper, all of which are of Pharaonic origin. A Christian researcher, Menassa Youhanna, tackles in his book this radical change introduced by Paul, asserting that Paul struggled to free Christianity from Jewish sharia/Torah influences, and he set the main pillars of the religion, especially regarding many theological notions that were influenced by Greek philosophies, thus changing the portrayal of Christ in the gospels [16]. This means that Paul turned Jesus from a mortal prophet to a god. Another researcher, Lorimer, tackles in his book the impact of Paul on Christianity, asserting that Paul have authored about one-third of the New Testament in the Bible and that his theological notions and ideas became final ones in later eras [17]. This means that people believed his notion of a deified Christ. Charles Guignebert was the famous French author who tackles in his book many details about the evolution of Christianity and talks in three chapters about the influence of Paul on it as he propagated it in Europe during the era of the Roman Empire. Guignebert asserts that Paul never met with Jesus during his lifetime, and this makes his theological notions derived from the Jewish and Hellenistic background dominant at the time, especially regarding the Greek notion about deicide and then renaissance or resurrection of the dead/murdered  god, taken from the Ancient Egyptian god Osiris in the first place, and it is noteworthy that Paul never contacted the disciples, as there are no evidence to support the ideas that such a contact took place. This lends credibility to the proposed idea that Paul re-introduced his old notions of the Greek culture into the new direction using new terms and names when he deiced to convert to the new religion [18]. Guignebert asserts the pivotal idea of how Jesus was made to appear as a son of God; the Jewish community at the time used to call the assumed divinely inspired persons as ''servants of Jehovah'', and when this term was translated into the Greek tongue, the word for ''servant'' meant also ''child'', and this caused the notion of making Jesus appear as a son of God and not his servant, a choice made on purpose by Paul [19]. We understand now, in light of the above, the Quranic refutation of the notion of a 'deified' Jesus, as such polytheism is rejected in the monotheistic religion of Islam. The famous writer H. G. Wells tackles also Paul and his role in spreading a distorted form of Christianity, asserting that since Paul/Saul never met with Jesus, he must be doubted, especially when he had a history of persecuting early Christians and then he converted suddenly and hanged his name; Paul seemed to have thorough knowledge of all religions dominant in his era (especially Judaism and Mithraism) as well as the Greek philosophies taught in Alexandria at the time, and he transferred to his form of Christianity lots of notions derived from such rich cultural background: deicide, sacrifice of gods, and some other pagan theological notions and features, such as bald clergy, offering oblations and votive items, candles, hymns, alters, icons, and statues that were similar to the religion of Mithraism and the Pharaonic Ancient Egyptian religion; Paul seemed to have re-introduced old wine in new bottles, or old notions in new labels, especially about Jesus resurrected like Osiris to indicate immortality granted to human beings [20].                                    

The Egyptianized form of Christianity:

   After the death of Paul, his notion of a deified Christ caused much divisions and debate over the nature of Jesus, and such heated arguments still persist until now within the different Christian denominations, and it will remain an unsolved problem/issue because of its corrupt basic notion of deified mortals.  Deified Christ is a notion revived from the Ancient Egyptian Pharaonic religion, as we have mentioned above, using new names, mottos, and terms spread among people because they resemble their old polytheistic ways and cults. In light of this, we can understand why the Quran tells us that most people on earth never believe in God except within polytheism by deifying mortals: "And most of them do not believe in God unless while being polytheists." (12:106). In addition, the Quran tells Muhammad, and all Quran-believing people off course, that most people misguide and repel one another away from God's Path: "If you were to obey most of those on earth, they would divert you from God's path. They follow nothing but assumptions, and they only conjecture." (6:116). Hence, we understand now why Paul's Christianity matched the religious whims of the vast majority of people at that era, especially Egyptians who Egyptianized Christianity using Pharaonic religious notions. It is said that Christianity reached Egypt earlier in the first century A.D., and Christian sources assert that saint Mark proselytized in Alexandria, while the earliest Christian writings in Egypt date back to the first half of the second century A.D., as part of the gospel of saint John was discovered written in papyri just like some other Apocryphal gospels of the same period of time [21]. The Egyptianized form of Christianity (i.e., Coptic Orthodoxy) was persecuted by the Romans who ruled Egypt when they discovered that the Christians all over the Roman Empire did not deify the Roman emperor and considered heathen and pagan religions and cults as devilish and unacceptable. Thus, Egyptian Coptic Christians suffered persecution since 203 A.D. during the reign of the emperor Septimius Severus. A second wave of persecution took place in the middle of the third century A.D. during the reign of the emperor Trajan Decius who tried to massacre all Christians and to wipe out Christianity altogether. Later on, the emperor Gallienus allowed Christians the freedom of worship, but a third wave of severe persecution took place during the reign of Diocletian (284 – 305 A.D.), after this emperor made peaceful unsuccessful attempts at first with Christians to leave their faith. When Constantine I (or Constantine the Great) became the emperor (323 – 337 A.D.), he is said to have converted to Christianity (and later on, he was made a saint), as he made it the official and formal religion of the Roman Empire. During the previous times of persecution, Christians appeared to be united, but once they felt safe during the reign of Constantine the Great, divisions and disputes emerged among them about theological issues especially the nature of Christ [22]. When ecumenical councils were held to debate such theological issues, Egyptian Copts had their own view of Monophysitism (i.e., adhering to the view of the single nature of Christ a synthesis of divine and human), and because this view opposed the Roman view Diophysitism (two separate natures of Christ), the Copts were thus made enemies of the Roman Empire's official religion and suffered severe persecution. Roots of such theological debates emerged during the reigns of Constantine the Great, because of views of Arius the Libyan: Arianism, opposed vehemently by the Egyptian Coptic Church of Alexandria that has adopted a view similar to the Pharaonic holy trinity, while making God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit as One God, not three separate divinities, and later on during the reign of the emperorTheodosius I (379 – 395 A.D.) as Nestor (or Nestorius, founder of Nestorianism) asserted the human nature of Christ as distinct from the assumed divine nature. Again, the Egyptian Coptic Church of Alexandria led by pope Cyril opposed views of Nestor vehemently, as the Egyptian Orthodox doctrine has adopted the view that Christ had full divinity and this notions spread also in the Levant and in Constantinople. Later on, pope Cyril managed in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. to issue Christological canons and declarations against Nestor and opposing and refuting his views. In theCouncil of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., insisted on the completeness of Christ's assumed two natures (human and divine). When the emperor Marcianus (or Marcian) attempted to impose by force canons of this council on Egyptian Copts, this led to severe persecution wave in Egypt and the Levant as both region share the same view of Christ. This resulted in the separation between the Egyptian Coptic Church of Alexandria and the Church of Constantinople, and the two churches became enemies and rivals, and such enmity was among the decisive factors that facilitated the Arab conquest of Egypt [23]. The Egyptian Copts at the time adhered to their view not only because it stemmed from their Pharaonic ancient religious traditions, but also because of the fact that the Egyptianized form of Christianity (and Monophysitism) spread all over many regions, especially the Levant, because of Egypt and its international influence, and even the Syrian bishop Jacob Baradaeus proselytized this Egyptian doctrine of Christianity, and his followers in the Levant and Egypt were named the Jacobites. There is no doubt that Paul/Saul was influenced by Syrian tenets and religious borrowed originally from Egypt. This has made Egypt lead the religious opposition against Roman Empire and its capital Constantinople. The Egyptian influence of today's Christianity is not confined to some notions like monasticism, trinity, and union between human beings and God and other philosophies, but this influence also includes Pharaonic rituals, that predated Christianity itself and even adopted by other pagan cults before it [24], such the divine supper, oblation, votive candles, and baptism, as asserted by Charles Guignebert [25].  Egyptian Coptic for of Christianity has been embodied by two major figures. The first figure was pope Athanasius who led the Coptic nation for 50 years and was much loved by Egyptians, and his struggles caused the emergence of the Latin phrase: Athanasius Contra Mundum, which means, in English, Athanasius against the world, as he vehemently opposed Arianism and the Byzantine Empire and suffered persecution and exile and many intrigues and conspiracies against him [26]. The second figure was Antonius who was the pioneer of Coptic monks; he supported pope Athanasius against Constantinople (the empire and the church), and he never spoke any tongue apart from the Coptic Egyptian dialect derived from the hieroglyphics. He was the father of monasticism in Egypt and used to live ascetically alone in the deserts of Egypt, only appearing in public sometimes to support the Copts and Athanasius, and he was known for roaming and wandering the Egyptian deserts and he used at one time to live in a Pharaonic temple [27]. These traditions of Antonius were later on imitated by the Sufi Egyptian Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry who was influenced by the Pharaonic notions who influenced so many Arab Sufis later on in Egypt, as we will tackle in a coming section of this CHAPTER II. Thus, Athanasius (who was made a saint later on) and Antonius (or saint Anthony the Great) exemplified the Egyptian insistence on preserving old tenets and beliefs as they were originally a national and native ones reflecting millennia-old traditions and roots within the character of Egypt. Thus, it was very difficult to change such Pharaonic traditions and notions; they have been re-introduced to the Christians, and later on to the Muhammadans, within changed appellations or form, with little change in the core, content, or origin. A Coptic author shows in his book how his ancestors never knew schisms and huge divisions inside the Coptic Orthodox Church, unlike the case of the churches of Romans and the Byzantines among others, and how Copts remained independent religiously after the British occupation of Egypt [28]. The region of Upper Egypt in particular was the bulwark of Pharaonic religion and traditions, and this went on even during the Coptic era when popes had disputes with the ruling authorities like popes Athanasius and Benjamin I who used to escape into Upper Egypt. Before Christianity, Upper Egypt remained the region that preserved all pagan Pharaonic tenets and its role went on with Egyptianized Christianity that flourished there before other regions in Egypt, and even most Copts of today reside in Upper Egypt [29]. Understandably, because upper Egyptians cared much about preserving religious beliefs and rarely changed them easily, history tells us that even the Fatimid Ismaili Shiite religion gained momentum first in Upper Egypt and remained as the flourished religion for decades after the Fatimid caliphate ended. Indeed, the Fatimid Ismaili Shiite religion has revived many Pharaonic symbols that led to the spread of Shiite Sufism in later eras, and this caused some Pharaonic notions to infiltrate Muslims' religious thought and notions (or rather the Muhammadans' notions, not Islamic notions however easily labeled as such at the time), as we will tackle in the next sections of this CHAPTER II.                     

References:

[1] "A Social History of Egypt" by Ahmad Zaki Badawi, pages 38:42, and "A Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church" J. G. Lorimer, page 33.

[2] Al-Abady, pages 53, 63, 69:70, 179:180, and 274.

[3] Al-Abady, pages 53, 63, 69:70, 179:180, and 274.

[4] Al-Abady, page 50, and Ahmad Zaki Badawi, ditto, pages 28, 95, and 96.

[5] Al-Abady, page 274.

[6] "The Religion of Ancient Egypt" by Adolf Erman, translated into Arabic, the chapter on the Egyptian Pharaonic religion influencing Europe (especially  worship of the goddess Isis), page 479 and beyond.

[7] Erman, ditto, pages 486:487, and "History of the Coptic Orthodox Church" by the priest Menassa Youhanna, 3^rd edition, 1982, page 20.

[8] H. G. Wells, ditto, details on the religious developments within the Roman Empire, pages 168:169.

[9] "Khetat" by Al-Makrizi, pages: 3/551, 554, 558, 560, 561, 563, 565, 568, 599, and 580:583

[10] Menassa Youhanna, ditto, pages 17:19.

[11] Menassa Youhanna, pages 101 and 483.

[12] Menassa Youhanna, pages 101 and 483.

[13] "Monastic Groups in Al-Natrun Valley in Egypt" unpublished MA thesis, by Hakeem Amin Abdel-Sayed, 1955, Cairo University, Egypt, pages 7:8.

[14] Menassa Youhanna, page 92, and "A History of Christianity" by Habeeb Saeed, page 178. 

[15] Menassa Youhanna, pages 198 and 207:211.

[16] Habeeb Saeed, ditto, page 45.

[17] Lorimer, ditto, page 61, from the chapter on Paul and Christianity of the gentiles.

[18] "Ancient, Medieval and Modern Christianity: The Evolution of a Religion" by Charles Guignebert, Arabic edition, pages 89, 90, 103, 111, 112, and 127. 

[19] Charles Guignebert, ditto, page 135.

[20] H. G. Wells, ditto, pages 178:179.

[21] Al-Abady, pages 277, 282, 283, and 293: 295.

[22] Al-Abady, pages 277, 282, 283, and 293: 295.

[23] Al-Abady, pages 294:306.

[24] Charles Guignebert, pages 97:100.

[25] Charles Guignebert, pages 97:100.

[26] Menassa Youhanna, page 166.

[27] Menassa Youhanna, pages 99:100.

[28] Menassa Youhanna, pages 348, 372, 568, and 575.

[29] Menassa Youhanna, pages 222 and 372.

Secondly: Islam and Egypt After the Arab Conquest:

Stages of how Egyptians converted to 'Islam':

    After the Arab conquest, Egypt became part of the Arab Empire and was influenced by anything occurred in the capital of the caliphate (Yathreb, Damascus, and then Baghdad). New trends entered Egypt, to be later on Egyptianized like the rest of other previous and later trends, from Arabia, such as the linguistic dominance of the Arabic tongue while the Coptic dialect became confined to churches, especially when governmental diwans or offices imposed the Arabic language on all scribes in Egypt during the caliphate of Al-Waleed Ibn Abdul-Malik and the caliphate of his brother Hisham Ibn Abdul-Malik, and Coptic scribes had to learn the Arabic tongue to keep their jobs. The Arabic tongue son enough dominated all other aspects of Egyptian life and even Coptic popes and bishops had to translate religious texts into Arabic for the sake of their Copts who spoke only Arabic, but the Coptic vernacular dialect lingered for a while in Upper Egypt until the era of Al-Makrizi [1], especially in monasteries and villages away from larger cities, until this dialect was no longer used except sometimes in Coptic masses. We assert here that it was easy for the Egyptian civilization to sacrifice the Coptic tongue so as to allow the continuity of its millennia-old basis and foundation: the Ancient Pharaonic religion that caused the Egyptianization and exporting of all trends that came to Egypt, as we have explained in the previous section of this CHAPTER II when we have tackled the stance of Egyptians regarding the calls of Joseph and Moses and how Copts defended their Monophysitism notion of Christ derived from Pharaonic notions, especially trinity, and how Islam in the Quran refutes such polytheism in the whole of the Quranic Chapter 112 (which has four verses) and in other verses in the Quranic text. Languages are nothing but the medium of voicing beliefs; hence, the Coptic language was sacrificed as the form as long as the main content or essence of the millennia-old Ancient Pharaonic religion, with its nationalistic notions and the character of Egypt, is preserved in the new tongue (i.e., Arabic). Hence, notions and beliefs of the Ancient Pharaonic religion were re-introduced in Arabic using Arabic names or appellations, and it is only in that context that Egyptians converted gradually to the distorted Egyptianized form of 'Islam' which of course contradicts the only source of Islam: the Quran. the ruling Muhammadans of Egypt attempted to spread 'Islam', but their religiosity or religiousness was also distorted to some extent once Prophet Muhammad died and the Arabs committed many heinous crimes when they conquered Iraq, the Levant and then Egypt and the rest of the countries that formed later on the Arab Empire (N.B.: for more details on that topic, we refer readers to our book, in English, titled "The Unspoken-of History of the Pre-Umayyad 'Righteous' Caliphs"). It is natural to assume that the Egyptians' conversion to an Egyptianized distorted form of Islam was linked directly to their relations with Arab Muhammadans rulers of Egypt especially during the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates. Let us first trace below how the perception of Islam was distorted intentionally for political reasons by the Muhammadans within two stages.                      

Stage One:

  The deviance of behavior of Arabs by committing the crime called Arab conquests (which resulted in heinous crimes of killing, looting, enslaving, etc.) made them move away from the Quranic teachings that call for peaceful demeanor and justice, among other higher Quranic values. When spoils and ill-gotten possessions and money increased in Arabs' treasuries because of expansionist policy to form an Arab Empire, political and military conflicts and disputes were bound to occur, especially around the concept of caliphate. Hence, the four pre-Umayyad caliphs were assassinated within political disputes; the first one with poison, the second was stabbed by a Persian man, the third was stabbed with swords of rebels, and the fourth participated in the Arab Civil War battles when Mu'aweiya rebelled against him and later on stabbed with swords of rebels who were his allies. Such civil strife made Arabs disregard the Shura concept in the Quran (i.e., consultation), and the caliphs were no longer chosen by people, as Mu'aweiya turned caliphate into something bequeathed to a caliph's progeny, for the first time in Arab history, as he established the Umayyad dynasty. Because the Umayyads used all types of schemes, plots, ploys, conspiracies, and intrigues to reach the throne, they intentionally disregarded the Quran and disbelieved in it, and this went on as they used every possible method to maintain the throne, like committing massacres and quelling revolts with sheer violence as well as resorting to tribalism, racism, and all means of deception. Some Coptic Egyptians that revolted against the Umayyad rule were brutally quelled and severely punished. The terms ''Copts'' and ''Coptic'' at the time were used by Arabs to indicate Egyptians in general (even when some converted) and not just to mean Orthodox Christians, and Arabs knew of course that Egypt is mentioned in the Quranic text many times. Another reason for making Arab conquerors and settlers move away the more from the Quran was their imposing tributes in the name of Islam for those who did not wish to convert among people of the conquered countries. Later on during the Abbasid Era, the  clergymen of the Muhammadans theorized many theological notions to legislate and justify many crimes such as Arab conquests, enslavement, military aggression, imposing tributes, etc. while intentionally disregarding the two following Quranic facts. (1) Wars in Islam (the Quran alone) are never for the sake of aggression, but solely for the cases of self-defense: "And fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression; God does not love the aggressors...Persecution is more serious than murder. But do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they fight you there... But if they cease, then God is Forgiving and Merciful. And fight them until there is no persecution, and worship becomes devoted to God alone. But if they cease, then let there be no hostility except against the aggressors." (2:190-194), and this shows how the Muhammadan Arabs rejected true Quranic teachings applied by Muhammad in his self-defense battles and his never committing aggression at all, as per the Quran. (2) As per the previous Quranic/Islamic principle, imposing tributes is only in times of war when self-defenders achieve victory over aggressors and impose tributes on the aggressors as a form of making amends and as means of compensation (and NEVER a pretext to occupy and invade lands), as justice entails as per International Law now, and this is the context of understanding the following verse in the Quranic chapter Nine about the People of the Book/Scripture (Jews + Christians) who aggressively fought the peaceful believers in the Yathreb city-state: "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 due tax, willingly or unwillingly." (9:29).                  

   Hence, the Muhammadans overlooked and rejected the Quran and imitated the aggressions committed by the Byzantines and the Persians before them for expansionist reasons and to hoard worldly possessions and riches by conquering lands and confiscating all money and by imposing heavy tributes and taxes on conquered nations. Al-Makrizi the historian tells us in his book of history titled ''Al-Khetat'' (see Al-Khetat, 1/140) many details about imposing tributes on Egyptians by the Arab conquerors especially Amr Ibn Al-As, as men gave him each two dinars while elderly men, all women, and children were exempted from paying the tribute, and he collected eight million dinars in the first time. In other times, the tribute per head in Egypt was 40 dirhams by orders of caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, imposed on men only as usual, while getting 4 dinars of gold from the wealthy affluent Egyptians. Later on, Arabs imposed the same tribute and taxation system adopted before by the Byzantines. Indeed, Ibn Al-As was more merciful with Egyptians in comparison to Ibn Al-Khattab (as seen from the letters of correspondence between both men), as the latter saw that Egypt was a huge fat cow that must be milked thoroughly to the last drop; Ibn Al-As used to collect tribute money estimated to be the total sum of 12 million dinars annually, and the Byzantine governor before him 30 million dinars, while the Arab governor of Egypt Abdullah Ibn Saad during the caliphate of Othman used to collect 14 million [2]. It was natural that Egyptian at the Umayyad Era hated their Arab governors because of their cruelty in collecting taxes and tributes and their brutality in quelling revolts, and conversions to 'Islam' (i.e., distorted one of the Muhammadans) that were based on free will and personal choice were very limited as the Umayyads provided a very negative image of the religion they claim to rule in its name. Yet, severe persecution and pressures led some conversion cases occurred as an escape to avoid heavy taxes and tributes and in hope for better living conditions. Yet, the Umayyads would not be deceived; they felt that many Copts had feigned conversion to avoid taxes and they made all Egyptians pay taxes and tributes whether they converted or not. The Umayyad caliph Omar Ibn Abdul-Aziz was the only one who had stopped collecting taxes and tributes from converts in Egypt and in the other conquered nations in the Arab Empire, asserting that no one had the right to question hearts and intentions of people, and asserting to his household and governors that God sent Muhammad as a mercy and a guide, not as a tax-collector, but upon his death after a short caliphate, his Umayyad successors collected heavy taxes and tributes equally from all Egyptians whether they converted or not, as per Al-Makrizi; see 1/142. Hence, helpless, oppressed, persecuted, and impecunious Copts in some cases during the Umayyad Era converted to seek better conditions, whereas popes, bishops and monks usually fled to deserts and built monasteries there to preserve their faith. Well-off Copts at the time usually adhered to their faith and paid tributes for the poor who would declare their intention to convert, and in some cases bough Byzantine slaves so as not to allow Arabs to force them to convert. Within such conditions, we can assume that many converts (whether they converted willingly or feigned a conversion) never knew anything really about Islam and the Quran; they pronounced the testimony of Islam while not understanding it and performed prayers with the Arabic tongue that was not yet commonly used or understood, and some converts ascended the social ladder and became scribes and employees and owned lands etc. Hence, religious change had very slow pace during the Umayyad Era in Egypt, and many crushed and quelled revolts made Copts realize they were not going to get rid of Arab rulers at all; some of them feigned conversion to vent their anger and frustration and take revenge from the Muhammadans by many wiles and tricks to deceive and humiliate them, especially when those Copts rose in the social ladder, as per Al-Makrizi [3]. Undoubtedly, the bad, corrupt behavior and attitude of Arabs is to be blamed for their mistreatment of Copts; Islam (i.e., the Quran) is never to blame, as Islam is surely against all types of injustice. It was the crime of Arabs to use the name of Islam to justify their crimes of conquering other nations to loot, enslave, etc. and the crime of quelling and massacring and confiscating lands and money of others. As per Al-Makrizi (see 1/146), the cruelty of the Umayyads and other rulers after them violated items of the agreement made between Amr Ibn Al-As and the former Byzantine governor of Egypt, and Copts who respected Ibn Al-As hated the Umayyads very much, despite the fact that Ibn Al-As sometimes confiscated too much money from the Copts but he never used brutal actions with them except on few individual occasions. Let us not forget that Ibn Al-As, as the governor of Egypt, stole much money from tributes instead of sending all of them to Yathreb (and later on to Damascus). When Amr Ibn Al-As died in 43 A.H. in Egypt, Mu'aweiya, the first Umayyad caliph, confiscated his ill-gotten wealth: 70 large jars of golden dinars, refused by the two sons of Amr who knew that such sums were ill-gotten money; see Al-Khetat 1/564. Apart from distorted religious notions of the Muhammadans, real Islam (the Quran) is against compulsion in religion: "There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way. Whoever renounces Taghut and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handle; which does not break. God is Hearing and Knowing." (2:256). God has said the following to Muhammad: "Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Will you compel people to become believers?" (10:99). Hence, it was very wrong and surely deemed an anti-Islamic behavior that an Arab military leader would tell conquered people that they had to choose one of the following three options: to convert to 'Islam', to pay the tribute in return for keeping their religion, or to be murdered in case of refusing to choose any of the last two options. In such horrid situations, there was no freedom of choice, but compulsion using swords. Such severe injustices would increase when Arab rulers brutally quelled revolts; though conquered nations (including Copts) have the Quranic right to revolt: "And those who, when wronged, defend themselves." (42:39); "As for those who retaliate after being wronged, there is no blame on them." (42:41); "That is so! Whoever retaliates similarly to the affliction he was made to suffer, and then he is wronged again, God will definitely assist him..." (22:60). We conclude then that the conquering Muhammadans had intentionally shunned and ignored Quranic sharia laws of God when they committed the crime of conquering Egypt and other countries, thus coercing some people of the conquered nations (e.g., Copts) to convert and quelling their revolts that erupted to remove the injustice of imposing heavy tributes. This made some Copts feigned conversion to humiliate, deceive, and take revenge from the Muhammadans after those Copts ascended the social ladder, thus enabling themselves to have positions and posts and to own lands.                                  

Stage Two: features of distortions in Shiite faith tenets:

Crimes of Arabs mentioned in Stage One above entailed them to invent quasi-religious justification, especially during the Arab Civil War led by Mu'aweiya when he and caliph Ali fought over caliphate authority and over worldly transient possessions and wealth. Such quasi-religious justification began by fabricating oral narratives (called ''hadiths'' soon enough and were falsely ascribed to Muhammad after his death) during this Civil War and throughout the Umayyad Era, and they were written down within the Abbasid Era and their number increased exponentially. To face such Umayyad method of political quasi-religious propaganda of fabricating hadiths (that later on have formed the Sunnite religion), followers and supporters of Ali invented their own hadiths (that later on have formed the Shiite religion), and non-Arab Shiites began to deify Ali (even during his lifetime) as they were led by the Jewish Arabian Shiite man Abdullah Ibn Saba. Yet, the caliph Ali, in Sunnite books of history, is said to have burned alive some men who deified him and treated him as a god, while he chanted a line of poetry. After the murder of Ali, Abdullah Ibn Saba claimed to Shiites that Ali is 'immortal' and would return any time, as God made him oversee the universe with Muhammad (!). Since that time, Shiites multiplied and had their own 'holy' doctrines and denominations as well as sanctified imams and leaders who invented so many notions taken up from the pagan cultures of conquered nations, such as reincarnation, allowing incest, deifying imams and leaders, deeming them immortal after their deaths, etc., as per Al-Makrizi who gives more details about Shiite shocking notions of disbelief that we feel too embarrassed to quote [4]. It is noteworthy that Al-Makrizi, who in his book supports and sympathizes with the Fatimids and defends their claim of being the descendants of Ali and Fatima, asserts that the Fatimid Shiite Ismaili sect is an extremist, fanatic one stemming from the ideas of older sects established by Ibn Saba [5], and that he rejects some notions to this Fatimid Shiite Ismaili sect when he tackles them briefly, while describing such notions as extremist [6]. An expert researcher on Shiite creeds asserts that the Shiite Fatimid Ismaili sect fundamentals include ascribing divine traits, abilities, epithets, and qualities (especially the notion of infallibility) to Shiite leaders, imams, clergy, and rulers [7]. Even poets praised Fatimids caliphs in poems that reflect the Shiite way of ascribing divine traits, abilities, epithets, and qualities to Shiite rulers/imams, like the poet Ibn Hani [8]. We have mentioned in CHAPTER I of this book that one particular self-deified Fatimid caliph, named Al-Hakim, had proclaimed his being the Divine One officially and formally during his lifetime and forced formal Fatimid preachers to propagate this notion all over Egypt and imposed his certain peculiar decrees as a result. The self-deification of Al-Hakim was the basis of the Shiite sect of Druze. Of course, all of the above show how the Shiite religion contradict Islam totally, and the Fatimids were experts in political and religious propaganda  all over Egypt, the Levant, and Iraq. Because the Fatimids planned to make Cairo as the center of Shiite Ismaili sect all over the Arab world, they had built Al-Azhar mosque and madrassa to teach their Shiite creed in it and appoint graduates as (secret and overt) preachers and proselytizers within a special hierarchy all over Egypt and outside Egypt as well. Hence, the Fatimids gradually replaced the Sunnite sharia with the sharia one in all Egyptian governmental bodies and entities like judiciary courts etc. and in fatwas, the call to prayers, and inheritance rules, etc. while punishing Sunnite scholars and clergy who protested against such measures [9]. Of course, both of the Shiite and Sunnite religions have nothing to do with real and pure Islam (which is only the Quran), the one that God will use as the criterion to accept or to annul good deeds of people to reward real believers in Paradise and to punish polytheists in Hell, because polytheism annuls good deeds, as we know from the Quran: "We will proceed to the works they did, and will turn them into scattered dust." (25:23); " As for those who disbelieve, their works are like a mirage in a desert. The thirsty assumes it is to be water. Until, when he has reached it, he finds it to be nothing, but there he finds God, Who settles his account in full. God is swift in reckoning." (24:39). We surely assert that one's tenets and beliefs affect one's religious practices and deeds in particular; as Shiites made the changes we have mentioned above and imposed them on Egyptians and introduced so many invented, fabricated notions and practices that remain, sadly, influential within the Egyptian religious life until today. This has certainly widened the gap between 1) real Islam (only the Quran) in terms of faith/belief and in terms of behavior, and 2) the banner or label of 'Islam' overtly used to wrongly justify any faulty practices.        

Fatimid additions and distortions: corrupt faith tenets:

    The original source of the notion of deifying imams, the Twelver Shiite doctrine or the Ismaili sect, is for a long time gone from the collective memory of Egyptians, and yet, some vestiges of Shiite practices linger until now in Egyptian religious life of the masses. The example we tackle here is deifying and sanctifying mausoleums or tombs of the supposed female and male saints, by worshipping at them, supplicating the supposedly 'immortal' saint inside the tomb to get help/aid, and other polytheistic rituals. Sadly, most mausoleums built by the Fatimids are still being revered, honored, and worshipped reverently by the gullible masses inside Egypt, and chief among such tombs is the mausoleum ascribed to Sayeda Nafisa (i.e., Sayeda in Arabic means: the lady or the dame, a title indicating  female saint or goddess) inside a mosque bearing her name (Nafisa was the daughter of Al-Hassan, grandson of Prophet Muhammad and son of Fatima and Ali, and she is said to have lived, died, and buried in Egypt) and the mosque housing another tomb purportedly said to be the mausoleum ascribed to the severed head of Al-Hussein, the grandchild of Prophet Muhammad and son of Fatima and Ali. Al-Makrizi says [10] that the Fatimid caliph Al-Mustansir built the mausoleum of Nafisa in 482 A.H., though she died in Egypt in 208 A.H.. and during her lifetime, the Egyptians admired her adherence to piety, high morals, and religiousness. Upon her death, she was buried in a very ordinary tomb like all dead people at the time. Yet, Al-Mustansir built the mausoleum dedicated to worship and venerate  her in a randomly chose site in Cairo after more than two centuries after her death (!). The Fatimid propaganda invented and stressed stories of miracles occurring to visitors of her mausoleum to worship at it and invoke/implore her to aid them. Al-Makrizi writes that people who invoked God at her mausoleum usually had their prayers answered and their wishes granted (!). such practices went on throughout the Fatimid Era as well as the following eras of the Mamelukes and the Ottomans because Sufism was the formal and official religion at the time. It is noteworthy that at the decades when the Fatimid State was the powerful, the Fatimid caliphs never created or invented any mausoleums at all; rather, they built the city of Cairo and Al-Azhar mosque and madrassa. Indeed, they never even created mausoleums for entombed Fatimid caliphs who died in North Africa before the caliph Al-Moezz entered Egypt and carried their coffins with him to re-bury them in Cairo. Thus, in its decades of weakness and degeneration, the Fatimid State felt that many Egyptians began to reject it along with the Shiite creed because of economic disasters and other catastrophes like floods, famines, plagues, and epidemics, and because of weak caliphs controlled and dominated by strong grand viziers. Within such decades, the Fatimid State invented many mausoleums to distract Egyptians using what remained of sentiments of religiosity. Hence, a mausoleum within a grand mosque was built dedicated to Nafisa and later on, one was built around the tombs of Al-Shafei, the Sunnite scholar and fabricator of a famous doctrine, because this scholar was admired and respected by Egyptians, though he was never a Shiite and should have never been honored by the Fatimids. Indeed, the Egyptians at one point in time had stipulated that Jawhar Al-Seqilli must show respect to the Sunnite doctrine of Al-Shafei. The powerful Fatimid grand vizier named Al-Afdal who fully controlled the Fatimid and caliphate at a certain point in time had undertook the steps and taken all possible measure to revive the power of the Fatimid caliphate in order to be able to face the danger of the crusaders in the Levant and the threat of the Sunnite Seljuk rulers who controlled the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad. The Seljuks were extremist sunniest and hated the Shiite religion very much. Al-Afdal had also to face the fact that Egyptians no longer trusted or loved the Fatimids within the reign of Al-Mustansir. Thus, in order to keep Egyptians under control while facing outside military, economic, and religious dangers, Al-Afdal had to invent and fabricate the mausoleum of Al-Hussein, as he narrated the myth that he accidently found the severed head of Al-Hussein in a tomb in the Levantine city Ashkelon while he was leading the Fatimids troops there. Of course, he desired to win the hearts of Egyptians back to make them support the Fatimids once more. It is strange that the gullible Egyptians believed in that myth despite the fact that Al-Hussein never visited Ashkelon, and the Egyptians were happy to worship at the mausoleum/mosque supposedly containing the 'intact' severed head of Al-Hussein (!). Indeed, Al-Afdal made his Shiite propagandist return to Egypt before him to spread news about the severed head that would be moved to Cairo and how wonderful the miracles it worked (!). it is noteworthy that the father of Al-Afdal, the grand vizier Badr Al-Jamaly, was the one who built the Nafisa mosque and mausoleum. As per Al-Makrizi [11], the gullible Shiites used to sacrifice animals at such mausoleum dedicated to the worship of Al-Hussein, while Shiites would in Ashura feast weep there and curse murderers of Al-Hussein, among other rituals, until the Fatimid State came to an end. Yet, this mausoleum is still being sanctified and revered until now by many Egyptians who are not Shiites at all, and this proves the deep-seated influence of Shiite inventions, myths, and fabrications on Egyptian religious life and tenets until now. Ibn Taymiyya , the Sunnite extremist scholar, theologian, and author of the Mameluke Era, used to cast doubts on the assumed mausoleum of Al-Hussein as he asserts in his writings that Al-Hussein was buried in the burial grounds in Yathreb, Arabia, (as asserted by many Arab historians and in books of Al-Bokhary) and no one carried his copse anywhere, and he was murdered 250 years before the building of the city of Cairo, while the Fatimids built the mausoleum dedicated to him in 550 A.H., 14 years before their State collapsed  [12]. It is a sad fact that worshipping and sanctifying mausoleum goes on until now centuries after the downfall of the Fatimid dynasty, and this is perceived as something 'ordinary' as if it were not a polytheistic practice that entails condemnation. Hence, the practical side of the religiousness of the masses of the Muhammadans in Egypt, past and present, has been to prefer to pray in mosques that house mausoleums, and the gullible polytheistic masses ask for the benediction, intercession, aid, and mediation of the entombed 'saint'. Indeed, such mausoleums are items fashioned by the devil that must be avoided by the real Quran-believing person: "O you who believe! Wine, gambling, idols, and erected sanctified sites are abominations of Satan's doing. Avoid them so that you may prosper." (5:90). Thus, we assert here that this verse tells us to avoid also tombs/mausoleums made 'holy' by polytheists anywhere, as they are erected buildings and the gullible ones thought them as holy sites or 'sanctified' grounds; this is sheer polytheism, of course. Any food offered or animals scarified in such mausoleums are prohibited food as per the Quranic commands: "Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God..." (5:3); even the Arabs before the advent of Islam used to believe in the entombed saints, and God warns them, and warns their likes in all eras, in these verses:  "Those they invoke besides God create nothing, but are themselves created. They are dead, not alive; and they do not know when they will be resurrected. Your God is one God. As for those who do not believe in the Hereafter, their hearts are in denial, and they are arrogant." (16:20-22); God says the following about worshipping the so-called 'holy entombed saints' or 'allies': "Those you call upon besides God are servants like you. So call upon them, and let them answer you, if you are truthful. Do they have feet with which they walk? Or do they have hands with which they strike? Or do they have eyes with which they see? Or do they have ears with which they hear? Say, "Call upon your partners, then plot against me, and do not wait."" (7:194-195).       

Fatimid rituals:

  Of course, such rituals introduced by Ismaili Shiites revolved around sanctifying and deifying the Fatimid caliphs in all their acts and deeds performed by them and seen by people, especially during feasts, as the caliphs would sit on divans of pure gold encrusted with rubies and other stones, carried by slaves, surrounded by viziers and men of the government and the Treasury, and notables and high-rank people would offer the caliphs precious stones and priceless golden ornaments, within certain protocols and customs throughout the procession and all festivals and celebrations, and during congregational prayers as per Al-Makrizi [13]. Such rituals and protocols, typical of high-rank clergy of Rome in the Middle Ages, made prayers and religious feasts hypocritical rituals to deify and glorify the Fatimid caliph, not to deify, glorify, worship, and sanctify God, especially during the Friday congregational prayers and sermons, and Al-Makrizi describes in details such traditions and protocols of showing off the holiness of caliphs during prayers and street processions [14] as well as particular customs and rituals within religious feasts and their banquets [15], especially Shiite feasts imposed and invented by caliphs, festivities which had nothing to Islam [16].

Feasts and festivities:

  The Fatimid caliphate invented and fabricated feasts, festivities, and festivals (e.g., moulids) never part of Islam (i.e., the Quran), and they sponsored all such celebratory events and made their Shiite preachers and propagandists spread news of such events to get nearer to Egyptians of all denominations to make them adore and sanctify the Fatimid caliphs, such as the feasts of Nowruz/Nairuz, Ashura, Ghadeer, and certain nights in the lunar Hijri months of Rajab, Shabaan, and Ramadan, and they celebrated Coptic moulids and festivals like Christmas, Epiphany, Great and Holy Thursday, and Easter. The Fatimids also celebrated Egyptian/Pharaonic feasts like Sham Al-Nassim (spring feast or Egyptian Easter) and celebration of the Nile, and they introduced the custom of celebrating the first day of Ramadan and the nightly Sohor meal in this fasting months, and they introduced political feasts and celebrations to mark certain days related to caliphs and their history and battles, and this is not to mention days for each male and female saints (Sunnite and Shiite imams + Coptic saints) and the moulid or birthday of Prophet Muhammad. Al-Makrizi writes many details about the particular paraphernalia, traditions, protocols, and customs of each feast, while noting that people loved those feasts that consume many days annually, making them eat for free and to leave their work/jobs. It is a sad fact that some of such Shiite religious celebrations go on until now in Egypt (celebrated by most Sunnite Muhammadans there) and waste much time, efforts, and money, and such feasts and days have nothing to do with Islam at all of course.      

Religious philosophies:

   Shiite preachers and propagandists made their notion infiltrate the Egyptian collective mind also by other means away from faith or beliefs and festivals; the intellectual life at the time flourished and it revolved around philosophies and theology that are filled with intricate symbolism and notions supporting Shiite doctrine and deriving some ideas from Greek philosophical ideas to reinforce the Shiite creed. The most famous book made popular at the time, presumably authored by Iraqi anonymous Shiite scholars and thinkers, is called "Letters of the Brethren of Purity" (in Arabic: "Rasaal Ikhwan Al-Safa"). It is noteworthy that the intellectual Shiite life resulted in philosophy that gave momentum to the emergence of philosophical Sufism which was heavily influenced by the Shiite religion. One cannot help but notice the influence of many Shiite notions (especially about deifying mortals and the awaited Mehdi or imam) in the writings of Sufis that emerged in later eras, such as Ibn Araby and Ibn Sab'een, as Ibn Khaldoun writes in his famous book titled "The Introduction".     

Sufism:

  Sufism that linked itself forcibly to Islam seemed to have emerged first in the East within Shiite environment. The pioneer Shiite Sufi was named Maaruf Al-Karkhy, who lived during the reign of the Abbasid caliph Al-Maamoun, but because Shiites were severely persecuted by the Abbasids, many Shiite Sufis were put to death sometimes for political reasons like Al-Halaj. Such persecution resulted in later decades in the emergence of Sufism as a full-fledged separate religion that broke with the Shiite religion, even if both the Sufi and the Shiite religions share lots of symbols, rituals, notions, and tenets, as explained by a contemporary writer in his book on the link between the Sufi and the Shiite religions [17]. Of course, the Fatimids never spared any efforts in enlisting the help of Sufis (and Shiite Sufis) in Fatimid Ismaili propaganda and preaching especially when the Sunnite Sufism spread among Sunnite enemies of the Fatimid caliphate. The erection the Al-Hussein mausoleum in Cairo toward the end of the Fatimid caliphate was the last episode of the influence of non-Shiite Egyptian Sufis, because both Shiites and Sufis (and many Sunnites) deify, sanctify, revere, and honor Muhammad's grandson, and Shiites and Sufis deem him as the master of all allies/saints and the immortal grand imam of all times [18]. Of course, influences and trends of the Shiite religion remain until now vivid within Sunnite Egyptians in their religious life, as they were preserved for centuries during the dominance of Sufism throughout the Mameluke and Ottoman eras. The assumed Al-Hussein mausoleum and other mausoleums invented and built by the Fatimids are still being worshipped in Cairo now by the masses, despite the historical accounts asserting that Al-Hussein's corpse was buried in Yathreb along with its severed head. How come that some polytheists have believed that Al-Hussein is immortal god controlling the Afterlife? God has said the following to the grandfather of Al-Hussein, Prophet Muhammad: "It is no concern of yours whether He redeems them or punishes them. They are wrongdoers." (3:128).

Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry between Sufism and the Pharaonic religion:

  We have explained in the previous section of this CHAPTER II that the Egyptians, regardless of the Shiite Ismaili doctrine of the Fatimids, have Egyptianized and changed the faiths coming to their country, and their Pharaonic ancient religion made them deify Christ, and the Quran refutes this polytheistic notion: "They disbelieve those who say, "God is the Messiah the son of Mary."..." (5:72). The Copts defended their notion of Monophysitism against other Christian churches of Diophysitism, as they sided with their Pharaonic millennia-old tenets. Therefore, those tenets continue to impose their presence with vigor after the Arab conquest of Egypt and before the Fatimid Era. For instance, the Sufi Egyptian Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry had adopted Sufi notions that draw heavily on the Pharaonic ancient religion, as he imitated Antonius, the Coptic pioneer monk and father of monasticism, in roaming the deserts and living in Pharaonic temples and he took pride in being an Egyptian and never claimed any lineage to Arabs or to Ali and Fatima (like other Sufis did); he was also described as the pioneer of Egyptian Sufism whose influence was so great as a Sufi imam/sheikh who was loved and admired by Coptic Christians as well [19]. Some historians assert that Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry roamed deserts at some times, and in other times, he lived in Pharaonic temples while trying to decipher its symbols and drawings on the walls [20], while some others assert that he was an expert in alchemy that he supposedly learned from Pharaonic sources left by Pharaonic clergy [21]. Al-Masoody says in his writings that Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry had his own special Sufi ways that different from his contemporary, and he was therefore accused of being a heretic, and this resulted in his being arrested by men of the Abbasid caliph Al-Motawakil, but mediators managed to make the caliph set him free. Most Sunnite Egyptians thought that Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry was a blasphemer and an apostate [22]. Pharaonic traces in the notions of Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry include his hierarchy of Sufi statuses and clergy similar to hierarchy of Pharaonic clergy, and he introduced the Sufi notion of "the secret greatest name of God" known to high-rank Sufis alone (!) and some books ascribe Sufi miracles to Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry (after his death in 245 A.H.) and that he sanctified the Nile and certain animals revered and honored by Pharaonic Egyptians, and Sufis later on deemed Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry a great Sufi saint, leader, and imam [23]. Hence, Zu Al-Noon Al-Masry was the very first Egyptian thinker to provide full-fledged notions for Sufism as a religion separate from the Shiite one, especially that the Pharaonic Era and Coptic Era had their own Sufi notions re-introduced by this man within the Arab culture for the very first time [24]. Thus, the Fatimids found fertile soil of favorable environment fit for their Shiite propaganda that spread their tenets and beliefs. Even those who did not like the political propaganda of the Fatimids were drawn by their religious notions, especially Copts who enjoyed tolerance ad kind treatment by the Fatimids. Hence, the Fatimids appealed to the millennia-old religious sentiments and tenets of Egyptians, and the hierarchy of Shiite Fatimid preachers managed to get the attention of most Egyptians, as per Al-Makrizi  [25]. There are many shared points between Shiite Ismaili religion  and the Pharaonic religion, such as deification of mortals and making them after their death immortal deities controlling the universe, hierarchy of clergy, sacred secrets, and religious philosophies. Let us remember that the Shiite Ismaili thinkers were influenced by the Greek philosophies, which in their turn drew heavy from Pharaonic sources, and one researcher on Shiite Ismaili faith writes that Shiite thinkers mixed, selected, adopted, and adapted so many notions of ancient philosophies and creeds from all over the ancient world after giving them Arabic appellations that seem 'Islamic', as they also took many Pharaonic notions and integrated them into their Shiite theology [26]. We assert here that all polytheistic doctrines have but one basis despite their different names, locations, and eras; this basis is deification and sanctification of items, sites, and mortals by ascribing to them God-like qualities, epithets, and powers (such as controlling the universe and knowing the future and the unseen realm). This polytheistic basis makes gullible people imagine that they must worship names, items, sites, and mortals to gain benediction, intercession, aid, mediation, etc. Of course, the Quran refutes in many verses all such polytheistic notions in all eras before and after the revelation of the Quran. The query raised now is as follows: to what extent has the Fatimid Era influenced Egyptians' conversation to 'Islam'? A possible answer is provided in the following passages. Please read on.      

Spread of a distorted form of 'Islam' in Stage Two:

 Most Egyptians converted to the Shiite religion during the Fatimid Era (thinking that this was 'Islam'), and it is natural to assume that their adherence to the new faith was directly linked to religious fabrications and invented notions and practices introduced by the Fatimids, which were essentially similar to those of the Pharaonic ancient religion and the Coptic religion as well. Researchers assert that the Ismaili Shiites concocted their man-made doctrine using various notions from all previous creeds and cults in order to appeal to all people and urge them to follow the Fatimid rulers. Therefore, the Fatimid caliphs cared very much to participate in all formal and official celebrations of Coptic, Shiite, and Pharaonic feasts as well as those celebrating different Sunnite, Sufi, Shiite, and Coptic saints. Most of the religious notions and trends introduced within the Fatimid Era lingered throughout the eras of the Ayyubids and then the Mamelukes and the Ottomans. Even the sultan Saladin, the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty after the collapse of the Fatimid caliphate, had to fight the Fatimid Shiite call by sponsoring and spreading Sunnite Sufism all over Egypt by enlisting the help of preachers loyal to him, and he closed down Al-Azhar. Saladin used anti-Shiite propagandists all over Upper Egypt as Shiite preachers left Cairo and settle in Upper Egypt. After the reign of Saladin, his successors went on with the policy of encouraging Sunnite Sufism and combating Shiite Sufism, and so did the Mameluke sultans. This means that Sufism went on within the Egyptian religious life without the Shiite political leanings or tendencies after the downfall of the Fatimid State, but the Sufis religion has remained until now like a twin of the Shiite religion and both drew heavily from the Coptic creed notions and the Pharaonic ones, as per what Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahy writes in his book [27]. Hence, this similarity among all these creeds and tenets made it easier for people to convert to any new creed, because it was actually the same creed minus the appellations or names of certain figures and notions, with essentially the same content. It is noteworthy that the Fatimid caliphs were tolerant toward Egyptian Christian Copts in most times, apart from minor persecution or discrimination incidents led by Sufis or the masses (without consent of the Fatimid authorities) and apart from the period of Al-Hakim who hated Christians though his mother was a Christian, but the discrimination incidents were mostly because of injustices and humiliations committed by well-off high-rank Copts against the Muhammadan masses [28]. Because Copts were not persecuted in general during the Fatimid Era, they competed against one another because of positions, rank, and interests, as we read in Coptic sources [29], but they were usually united in face of formal and official persecution of any other State, like the Umayyads.

Shared points and similarities in Egyptian religious life of Christians and Muhammadans:

   Of course, the Quran asserts that the Judeo-Christian notion of deification of mortals was borrowed from ancient pagan ideas of people that lived before the Jews and the Christians: "The Jews said, "Osir is the son of God," and the Christians said, "The Messiah is the son of God." These are their statements, out of their mouths. They emulate the statements of those who disbelieved before..." (9:30). The Quran asserts that Jews and Christians deified clergymen: "They have taken their rabbis and their priests as lords instead of God, as well as the Messiah son of Mary. Although they were commanded to worship none but The One God. There is no god except He. Glory be to Him; High above what they associate with Him." (9:31). Of course, this shows how Pharaonic tenets influenced Judaism and Christianity to a great deal, and the Quran makes Moses' Pharaoh and his people imams/leaders in Hell to those disbelievers who follow their footsteps: "So We seized him, and his troops, and We threw them into the sea. Observe, therefore, what was the end of the oppressors. And We made them leaders calling to the Fire. And on Resurrection Day, they will not be saved." (28:40-41). Hence, some Jews and Christians of the nations conquered by Arabs accepted the new faith only after its essence was changed distorted by incorporating the Pharaonic tenets. Hence, the ancient Pharaonic religion has distorted many notions to the Muhammadans and those of the Jews and Christians before them. The three Abrahamic religions have been Egyptianized, as we have explained above. This is why we assert the only real Islam is Quranism. Hence Muhammadans, Christians, and Jews who followed the polytheistic religion of Moses' Pharaoh will have him as their imam in Hell, unless they repent and return to their original monotheistic faith that contains no deifications of items and mortals. Later on, after the Fatimid Shiite Ismaili call had waned after drawing heavily from the Pharaonic religion, Shiite Sufis like Al-Halaj and Ibn Araby spoke directly about Pharaonic notions, and some asserted that the self-deified Moses' Pharaoh was the god and master of Moses (!) and that the real Sufis must worship and follow Moses' Pharaoh (!). one Sufi has written actually a booklet on clearing the name of Moses' Pharaoh and declaring him innocent while denying his being tormented and entering Hell in the Hereafter, and Ibn Araby authored distorted, twisted interpretations of all Quranic verses that mention Moses' Pharaoh [30]. In addition, we find in an another seminal book or source of 'moderate' Sufism that Sufis celebrated the self-deified Moses' Pharaoh [31]. This corrupt notion of praising the self-deified Moses' Pharaoh is echoed by other self-deified Sufis (in their notions of revelation, apotheosis, union with God, seeing God in Heaven, etc.) and by Al-Ghazaly in his seminal book "Ehiaa Olom Eddine" [32]. This means that Sufis at the time contradicted the Quran by thinking that Moses' Pharaoh is blameless and guiltless as he declared self-deification cherished by all Sufi saints and the Sufi hierarchy of sheikhs and imams. Thus, the Pharaonic ancient religion has huge influence over Egyptian religious life in all eras until now.  Since tackling more details on that topic is beyond the scope of this book, we trace very briefly below the main features of this similarity between the Pharaonic ancient religion and the Egyptianized religions and trends that came Egypt in the following three points.

1- Egyptology books prove that Egyptians knew God in the Pharaonic Era but preferred to worship their gods alongside with Him in addition to allies, saints, associates, and clergy who would mediate or interceded on their behalf before God. This is repeated in all eras of Egyptian history (Coptic, Fatimid, Mamelukes, etc.) regarding religious life of Egyptians and regardless of the new faiths coming to their land to be Egyptianized. Adolf Erman asserts in his book titled "The Religion of Ancient Egypt" [33] that the Pharaonic people knew God the Creator of the Universe: (…"… it is surprising that Ancient Egyptians, despite their so many deities, talked about a general God, as we read in their literature when the Supreme Power controlling fates of people is mentioned. For example, they would say 'what is going on is the Decree of God', '…God did not grant him success', '…What you sow, plant, and harvest is the bounty of God', 'The one beloved by God must be obedient to Him', '…God knows the evil ones and will punish them', 'When you feel happy, you must thank God for it'… … We read in an ancient papyrus scroll that contain wisdom that God is Unseen and people must sanctify and glorify Him …… Indeed, if these were such sentiments of Ancient Egyptians, they were very near to the true religion, but at the same time, they had adhered as well to the traditional religious heritage that made them faithful to their ancient deities as well…"…). This is asserted in the Quranic Chapter 12 as well. the Quran has preserved some Ancient Egyptian words in the Quranic Chapter 12, within the story of Joseph, words that entered Arabic language later on because of the influence of the Quran as a linguistic authority in later eras. For instance, the expression uttered by Potiphar's wife in 12:23 is in the Quranic tongue: "hait lak" , which literally translates as ''I'm yours'' or ''I'm here for you'', when she tried to seduce Joseph. Indeed, some people in Siwa oasis in Egypt whose dialect has retained some hieroglyphic words still say the term ''hait'' until now, to mean the command: ''Come!''. The expression "God forbid!" mentioned in 12:51 is in the Quranic tongue "hasha lillah", still used by Siwa oasis people as well as the other expression/term in 12:51 ''Has-Has'', which in their dialect means literally to make sure or to affirm something as true. When most Egyptians refused the message of monotheism of Joseph, they wished that God would not sent them another messenger: "Joseph had come to you with clear revelations, but you continued to doubt what he came to you with. Until, when he perished, you said, "God will never send a messenger after him."..." (40:34). This means that Ancient Egyptians knew God but hated monotheism.      

2- The Pharaonic people knew the notion of union with God or being united with the divine by saints and clergy as per certain rituals, and they thought that one's heart is where the divine nature resides in every mortal, and this heart needed to be trained by certain ranks of clergy named Sakhn Akh, which means the enlightened master [34]. The Pharaonic notion of union with the divine is linked to knowing the so-called "the secret greatest name of God" to have a type of esoteric arcane knowledge of sorcery secrets and abilities like the goddess Isis or any godhead [35]. Within the Coptic Era, the philosophies that advocate union between man and God spread, such as Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism, and all such philosophies are heavily influenced by the Pharaonic ancient religion that propagated the notion of being united with God through certain practices and rituals to purify the soul. Origen was the Egyptian theologian and church father born in Alexandriawho was a prolific writer in multiple branches of theology and who was one of the most influential figures in early Christian asceticism; his ideas spread all over Iraq and the Levant and reached the Muhammadans when translated into Arabic. These ideas (especially unity between man and the divine) influenced Sufis like Al-Ghazaly, Ibn Araby, Ibn Sab'een, and Abdul-Kareem Al-Jeily. In the early centuries of Christianity, the notion/term "Logos" spread to show how man and God can be united or how the divine would be incarnated or manifested in a human body, and Paul's ideas in the New Testament of the Bible reflect this view as well as the Biblical stories about the Holy Spirit entering disciples to enable them to heal the sick and predict the future; see Mathew 5:9 and Acts of the Apostles 2:5, 2:17, 3:6-9, 4:6-12, 4:31, 5:32, 6:5, and 7:55. Within the era of Sufism within the Muhammadans, the same Christian notions described above were popular and spread within Arabic names that retained the Gnostic and Christian content and meaning about seeking divine knowledge, and a Sufi 'saint' or sheikh was named "the knowledgeable one" to indicate he/she knew the future and the unseen realm. Even a 'moderate' Sufi author, Al-Jeineid, says that "the knowledgeable one" was the Sufi saint who would tell one's hidden secret though never divulged before, as he maintains that 'saints' receive direct divine inspiration from God [36]. The same idea of divine inspiration or direct intuition granted to certain men is propagated in writings of Sufis and Christians [37]. Hence, the Sufi or Christian saints would claim (or followers after the death of these saints would claim) that they know the unknown and the unseen realm and could predict the future. This is blasphemous for sure, because the Quran tells us that only God is Omniscient regarding the metaphysical and the physical realms, not any mortals: "Say, "No one in the heavens or on earth knows the future or the unseen except God; and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected."" (27:65). Many Sufi orders of the Muhammadans claimed they knew the so-called "the secret greatest name of God", especially the order of Al-Shaziliyya. Even the Sufi author Al-Shaarany claims in his writings that God granted him knowledge of "the secret greatest name of God" and he used it to make his prayers be answered immediately by God, and he has to hide such a ''name''/Logos because this is a divine secret given only to the chosen ones by God through divine inspiration and revelation [38]. This strange notion was linked of course to Sufis' claim of knowing and/or visiting the unseen realm to get to know the known and the future. In later eras, such notions were linked to alchemy (the claim to turn metals into gold) and Sufi miracles of Sufi saints [39] and Coptic saints [40]. It is noteworthy the terms ''alchemy'' and ''chemistry'' in English and in European languages are derived from the Pharaonic name for ''Egypt'': Kemet (from the hieroglyphic root ''kmt''), which literally means "the black land", in describing fertile soil of Egypt in contrast to barren deserts. Hence, the ancient word for Egypt is linked to secrets of sorcery and witchcraft of the clergy of the ancient Pharaonic religion.  

3- The Ancient Egyptians of the Pharaonic Era believed in the unity or union between mortals and the divine, and such people endowed with the spirit of God inside them could control the universe or the physical realm; in that context, Ancient Egyptians worshipped Pharaonic rulers and kings as well as demi-gods among mortals like wise men or clergymen like Imhotep and Amenhotep son of Hapu. Pharaonic religion clergy used to have names and titles that indicate their being knowledgeable with holy secrets of heavens. Hence, the barriers were hazy between mortals and Pharaonic gods and their spheres overlapped and this made room for describing these gods and goddesses with human qualities and ascribing them human actions and sentiments [41]. Within the Coptic Era and the era of Christian Sufism, Copts used to believe that male and female saints can control the universe and interfere miraculously in the events of daily life, and the Muhammadans later on in Egypt have adopted the same notions without much change in their belief in miracles of their male and female saints. There is no room in this book to mentions much details to exemplify the similarity between Egyptian Muhammadans and Egyptian Christians in that respect; but we assert here briefly that Copts believed in saints' power to heal the sick and Paul has written this in the New Testament in the Bible; see Mathew 8:13 and Acts of the Apostles 3:6-9 and 4:6-12, and books of Coptic mythology and hagiology are filled with many examples of this [42]. Likewise, the Muhammadans believed in myths such as the power of entombed saints to heal the sick especially by using dust from their sanctified tombs or mausoleums, and this was part of social and religious life during the Mameluke Era [43]. All Sufi books of hagiology are also filled with mythical stories, about saints' miracles and healing powers, that imitate Christian hagiology, and this similarity is because of their shared source: the Ancient Pharaonic religion. Let us remember that for millennia, the Ancient Egyptians cared too much about erecting tombs and pyramids, as they believed in the Afterlife, and they built many temples dedicated to many gods and goddesses; the Copts imitated their ancestors in erecting many churches and monasteries dedicated to patron saints and sanctified clergymen and martyrs with many mausoleums for them. The Ancient Egyptians used to have 40 mausoleums for Osiris, and many Egyptians until now remember and celebrate the memory of their dead ones after 40 days of burial, and there were even many mausoleums for a Sufi saint named "Sheikh Al-Arbeieen" (i.e., literally in Arabic, the saint of the 40 days). Since the Fatimid Era, so many domes were erected above real or fake tombs of Sufi (Sunnite and Shiite) saints in cemeteries, with many books authored by Sufi writers to guide non-Egyptian people visiting Egypt to the famous mausoleums in Cairo and all over Egyptian cities and villages, and many Sufi sheikhs worked as tourist guides to visitors of such mausoleums and to inform visitors how to worship at them in detailed rituals and customs, as these saints were believed to be controlling the universe and the earth, and as mausoleums of the Sufi saints of the Muhammadans and those of the Coptic saints drew so many visitors and each had its own myths [44]. Apart from mausoleums, monasteries of Copts imitated the architecture of Pharaonic temples, and Copts imitated the systems and the clergy hierarchy of their Pharaonic ancestors. Later on, Egyptian Sufi Muhammadans imitated both Copts and Pharaonic ancestors in the same manner, as Sufis adopted ascetic lifestyle, living in isolated small rooms in deserts or remote areas away from people, and roaming deserts for long periods of time. It is noteworthy that one of the Coptic founders of monasticism during the Coptic Era, named saint Pachomius, used to advise his followers in monasteries to stop babbling and chattering as much as they could, and Al-Shaarany the Sufi author imitated Pachomius centuries later when he criticizes in his writings some Sufi followers and disciples who were busy chattering, babbling, and blubbering, especially about political issues     [45]. There were of course convents for Coptic nuns that were later on copied by Sufis who made Sufi certain special houses of worship confined to women or female Sufi disciples/followers [46].

Thirdly: Converging Trends in the Religions of the Muhammadans and Coptic Christian in Egypt:

 It is natural to expect and to find great similarity between Egyptian  Copts and Egyptian Muhammadans, past and present, in faith tenets and rituals since their religions are essentially, in fact, one religion of the Ancient Egyptian Pharaonic faith; this has been the shared source and basis for Egyptian religious life for millennia until now even with changed names of people, practices, and notions. Let us tackle very briefly this similarity between Egyptian  Copts and Egyptian Muhammadans, in the past, in the following points.

1- In locations: Many Coptic houses of worship were originally Pharaonic temples that were turned into a church or a monastery [47]. Some Coptic and Pharaonic houses of worship, especially in Upper Egypt, were turned into Sufi institutions, as per Al-Makrizi in his story about the several monastery in Upper Egyptian governorates (like Asyut and Qena) turned into Sufi locations, especially by the Sufi order of Al-Shaziliyya [48]. Al-Muqattam hill (in Cairo now, but outside it in the past) was sanctified and deemed to be a hallowed site by both Muhammadans and Copts in Egypt for centuries, and it was for a while the favored location to bury saints of different orders and denominations. It is said (by some Sufis and historians) that even Amr Ibn Al-As (the Arab military leader who conquered Egypt) made an agreement with the last Byzantine governor of Egypt to specify certain areas in Al-Muqattam hill to be cemeteries for Arabs and the Muhammadans in general, after this governor insisted, at first, to buy the whole area for 70 thousand gold dinars. So many Sufi authors have written about miracles and mythical stories related to Al-Muqattam hill and its tombs and invented ''hadiths'' about being buried in it, as per Al-Makrizi [49]. It is clear that the Muhammadans in Egypt were heavily influenced by Coptic heritage and mythology about Al-Muqattam hill to the extent that they have fabricated hadiths ascribed falsely to Prophet Muhammad about Al-Muqattam hill and Egypt in general (!), and this link between Pharaonic, Coptic, and Muhammadan mythology led to the spread of another myths related to discoveries of Pharaonic treasures near or inside Al-Muqattam hill [50].      

2- In feasts and festivities: These included moulids and other religious celebrations and festivals that have been enjoyed and shared by both Egyptian Muhammadans and Copts, as the Muhammadans celebrated with Copts in their Coptic feasts in monasteries and churches, and celebrations include banquets and vendors selling their goods, drinks, and food, and masters of ceremonies presenting their shows of Sufi dancing, singing, and theatrical pieces, horseback riding etc., as per Al-Makrizi [51] and his details about monasteries and festivities there attended by all Egyptians from all denominations, apart from shared festivities like Sham Al-Nassim (spring feast or Egyptian Easter) and the Nile feast, days of patron saints, days of martyrs, etc. It is noteworthy that some Sufi celebrations included tents for customers who liked to drink wine or to have sex, in return for money, with whores and homosexuals, and some crimes of theft and swindle were committed and had to be faced by the Mamelukes who imposed order on such gatherings in all festivities.      

3- In healing: As per Al-Makrizi, some of the Muhammadans for centuries believed that they could get healed through the healing powers of Coptic saints and clergy in churches and monasteries, even if the cure concocted to be consumed by the ill person contained pork flesh prohibited in the Quran. likewise, many Copts for centuries believed that they could get healed through the healing powers of well-known Sufi dead and living saints and sheikh, and one of them, Al-Shaarany, took pride in this, as we read in his writings [52].

  Of course, the above points about religious life and culture in Egypt after the Arab conquest show the huge gap between real Islam (i.e., only the Quranic teachings) and the practices of the Muhammadans performed under the label/banner 'Islam'. This is inferred undoubtedly when one reads historical accounts of Egyptians after the Arab conquest and use the Quranic text as a criterion to judge all their religious rituals and practices. Indeed, a real Muslim researcher of history must show this discrepancy in order to show true Islam (i.e. Quranism) to the Egyptian readers so that they purify their religious beliefs from myths of polytheism.       

References:

[1] "Khetat" by Al-Makrizi, pages 1/138 and 3/561, 581.

[2] Al-Makrizi, ditto, pages 3/536:538.

[3] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/546:547.

[4] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/293:298 and 303.

[5] Al-Makrizi, page 3/303.

[6] Al-Makrizi, page 2/278.

[7] "The Ismaili Shiite Sect" by Dr. M. Kamel Hussein, pages 151:153 and 156:157.

[8] M. Kamel Hussein, ditto, pages 159 and 160.

[9] "Al-Hakim Biamrallah" by Abdel-Moneim Majid, pages 74:75.

[10] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/448:449.

[11] Al-Makrizi, pages 2/161:162.

[12] "Takseer Al-Ahjar", a manuscript without a name of an author, papers 146 and 147, No. 404/6 in Cairo National Library.

[13] Al-Makrizi, pages 2/86:88, 482.

[14] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/170:172.

[15] Al-Makrizi, pages 2/204:215.

[16] Al-Makrizi, pages 2/170:174, 230:255, 274:282, 91:95, and 168:170.

[17] "The Link between Sufism and the Shiite Creed", by Mustafa Al-Sheiby, published by Dar Al-Maaref.

[18] "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Fact and Myth" A. S. Mansour, pages 22:32.

[19] Al-Makrizi, page 1/56, and "The Encyclopedia" by Muhammad Mustafa Hilmy, pages 9/411:412.

[20] "Moroj Al-Dhahab" by Al-Masoody, page 2/401.

[21] Hilmy, ditto, 9/409, "Islamic Sufism" by Nicolson (translated into Arabic), pages 9, 10, and 12, and "Ikhbar Al-Hukamaa" by Al-Qafty, page 127.

[22] Al-Masoody, ditto, 2/401, Al-Siyouti, pages 1/511:512.

[23] "Nafahat Al-Ins" by El-Jami, page 26, and ''Tabakat'' by Al-Manaoui, pages 1/223:224.

[24] "The Philosophy in the Orient", authored originally in French 1939 by Paul Masson-Oursel, a translated Arabic edition, page 63.

[25] Al-Makrizi, pages 2/97:104.

[26] M. Kamel Hussein, pages 174:175.

[27] "On the Islamic Thought" by M. Al-Bahy, 4^th edition, 1962, page 16.

[28] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/188, 541, and 570, and Al-Siyouti, page 1/601.  

[29] Menassa Youhanna, pages 455, 457, 461, 471, 475, 476, 482, 484, 514, and 522:525.

[30] The booklet titled (in Arabic) "Eman Pharaon" (i.e., in English, the Faith of Moses' Pharaoh) by Jalal Eddine Al-Dawany, published by Ibn Al-Khateeb, and quoted often by the Sufi Ibn Araby in his book titled "Fusus Al-Hukm", pages 248:264, with comments by Al-Kashany, editions of Al-Halaby Publishers. 

[31] ''Al-Risala Al-Qosheiriyya'', by Al-Qosheiry, page 8.

[32] ''Ehiaa Olom Eddine'' by Al-Ghazaly, pages 3/243:244. 

[33] Adolf Erman, page 70.

[34] "Periodicals of Cairo" by Abdel-Aziz Saleh, pages 27, 159, 195, and 195.

[35] "The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians" by Georg Steindorff, pages 84:86.

[36] Al-Qosheiry, ditto, pages 31 and 32.

[37] About inspiration among Coptic notions, Menassa Youhanna, pages 422, 593, 594, and 650, and about the unseen and the unknown, Menassa Youhanna, pages 142, 167, 196, 198, 201, 205, 301, 369, 385, 400, 401, 423, and 466, to name but few examples, as there are countless of them regarding that topic in Sufi references and seminal books.

[38] "Lataeif Al-Minan" by Al-Shaarany, page 508, ''Tabakat'' by Al-Shazily, page 253, and within the book-series of notable Arabs: "Al-Shazily", by Abdel-Haleem Mahmoud, page 44. 

[39] About alchemy and alchemists among the Copts, Menassa Youhanna, pages 294, 395, 438, and 509.

[40] About alchemy and alchemists among the Sufis, about Al-Shazily Sufi order, "Al-Tanweer" by Ibn Ataa, page 82, "Taateer Al-Anfas", a manuscript, pages 31 and 48, about the rest of Sufis: "Tabakat" by Al-Shaarany, pages 2/73 and 586, and "Lataeif Al-Minan" by Al-Shaarany, page 750, to name few examples.   

[41] "Life in the Pharaonic Era" by Cornell, page 13, Georg Steindorff, ditto, pages 22 and 56:57, and Ahmad Zaki Badawi, page 28.

[42] Menassa Youhanna, pages 27, 126, 229, 356, 388, 393, 420, 421, 424, 425, 473, 647, and 650.

[43] "Periodicals of Cairo" by Abdel-Aziz Saleh, pages 27, 159, 195, and 196, ''Al-Manhal Al-Safy'' by Abou Al-Mahasin, a manuscript, 1/93 and 2/405, and "Al-Kawakib Al-Sayyara", pages 144, 207, 244, 245, 294, 233, 197, 119, 184, and 291. 

[44] About Muhammadan Arabs, Al-Makrizi, pages 3/448 and beyond, 2/161, 3/478, 437, 446, 449, 479, and 485, about Copts, Al-Makrizi pages 3/552/569, and Menassa Youhanna, pages 224, 361, 376, and 444, to name but a few examples, about mausoleums of Muhammadan Arabs, Al-Makrizi pages 3/426, 437, 446, and 3/161, about mausoleums of Copts, Al-Makrizi pages 3/554:560 and 563:566 and beyond.

[45] Menassa Youhanna, page 195, and Al-Shaarany, ditto, pages 302, 316, and 340.

[46] Menassa Youhanna, pages 194 and 196, and Al-Makrizi, pages 3/423:267 and 565.

[47] Menassa Youhanna, pages 141, 175, 200, 210, and 309, and Al-Makrizi, pages page 3/559.

[48] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/560:561.

[49] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/450:454.

[50] Al-Makrizi, pages 3/561, 568, 569, and 581.

[51] Al-Makrizi, pages 1/125 and 3/555:558 and 579.

[52] Al-Makrizi, page 3/562, and Al-Shaarany, ditto, pages 272:274.

CONCLUSION:

1- We assert here that the Arab conquest of Egypt did not marginalize the strategic importance of the geographical location of Egypt and its relation to the Levant. Hence, the strategy of Egypt controlling the Levant to secure and protect Egypt has remained pretty much the same before and after the Arab conquest. The Levant, or at least the Levantine South region, is of vital importance to protect Egyptian lands and borders against possible invasions coming from the East (Asia), and this is why many powerful and strong Egyptian rulers had to control and dominate over the Levant; similarly any invaders coming to Egypt from the West (Libya and North Africa) would threaten the Levant and invade it to secure and maintain Egypt. Hence, any ambitious ruler of the Levant would readily think of conquering Egypt in its periods of weakness. We have provided in this book many examples from history to prove these points in strategy. In most cases in history, Egyptian ruler controlled and conquered the Levant, as the Levantine region has been a mosaic/mosaïque of races and religions that were rarely united as one powerful State. Hence, typically, the Levant was subordinate to powerful Egyptian rulers for the protection of Egypt from any possible threat coming from the East. Therefore, Egypt and the Levant are one strategic unit that is very strong and mighty when united, and any weakness or deterioration periods in Egypt would resulted in heavy price paid by both Egypt and the Levant, especially the Levantine region that would suffer unrest and wars. In our modern times, this is more true than ever; the colonial powers have wedged and planted Israel in Palestine in 1948 for many reasons, chief among them is to separate Egypt and the Levant, and Israel poses a threat to both Egypt and the Levant until now, but because Egypt has always been more powerful than the Levant, most of the Arab-Israeli conflicts involve Egypt mainly in 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars. When the late leader and president Gamal Abdel-Nasser attempted to make a unity between Egypt and Syria to face Israel (and its secret alliance with Jordan), he failed and then the Nasserite project/dream collapsed in 1967 when Israel occupied Sinai, resulting in the marginalization of the role of Egypt in the Arab world even after 1973 war and after Egypt has liberated and regained its Egyptian peninsula of Sinai. Throughout the presidential terms of Sadat and Mubarak, Egypt lost its leading role in the Middle East and has been subordinate to the USA, the KSA, and Israel. Arab countries paid a heavy price for this marginalization of Egypt, as dwarfed and relatively new Arab countries attempted to fill in the void created by this marginalization of Egypt, without their having weight, civilization, long history, and strategic structures at all to play such a role (we mean especially Libya, Iraq, and the KSA). Historically, these Arab countries were ruled for long periods of time by Egypt and were subordinate to it in other periods, and they could never play the role assumed by Egypt for tens of centuries. Therefore, unrest in the Arab world never cease until now, and Arabs are getting more weak, whereas Israel gets more powerful. Hence, a strong Egypt one day will assume its role in leading all its neighboring countries and act as the safety valve for the Middle East. Historically, Egyptian weakness periods and powerful periods were linked to the character of its ruler or Pharaoh. Tyranny has been the dominant culture of the previous eras, but the Nasserite period proves that tyranny cannot create, in modern times of democracy, a powerful State however good the intentions of a tyrannical ruler like Nasser. Egypt cannot be powerful and strong again except through real democracy that will activate millions of Egyptians to tap into their inherent dormant power and their sentiments of nationalism to neutralize or get rid of the external danger (of Israel and the KSA) and the internal danger (the Wahabi terrorist MB group and Salafists, and their likes who aim for backward theocracy). Both external and internal dangers or threats increase in magnitude and power because of the backwardness and weakness of Egypt. When Egypt regains its power, strategic weight, and leading role after applying democracy and getting rid of tyranny, Egyptians will save themselves and save the Levant and the whole Arabs. Because the colonial powers realize this fact, they make sure Egypt would remain threatened and weakened. We repeat here that the Arab conquest of Egypt has never changed the strategic policy of Egypt at all.   

2- The Arab conquest of Egypt that carried banners and labels of 'Islam' wrongly and falsely (as such Arab conquests had nothing to do with real Islam/the Quran) had little influence, if indeed any influence had occurred, over the millennia-old Egyptian religion inherited from the Pharaonic Era. This is a historical fact known by so many and yet still refused by many others inside Egypt. Let us bear in mind that there is always a huge gap between God's commands in the celestial religion of the Quran (real Islam or the last version of it in Arabic in the last message of God to humanity) and how people have applied them in different eras until now. This huge gap is manifested in many stages of the millennia-old Egyptian history that prove that Egyptians have sanctified inherited traditions so much that they have Egyptianized Islam, and thus, they moved away from the monotheism of (There is no God but Allah) by deifying and sanctifying sites, items, relics, tombs, and mortals until now. Yet, there is a unique element in Egyptian history, and never mentioned in any book of history,  mentioned exclusively in the Quran; namely, Egypt had its monotheistic believers in God honored by Him by being mentioned in the Quranic text as examples of deep, monotheistic faith in Allah. These people are 1) the repentant Potiphar's wife in the story of Joseph, 2) magicians of Moses' Pharaoh, 3) wife of Moses' Pharaoh, and 4) the believing man within the retinue or family of Moses' Pharaoh. This means that Egypt was not devoid of real monotheistic believers in Allah/God, however intimidating the tyranny, control, and power of pharaohs ruling it. Therefore, Egypt is the pioneer country where, in the 20^th century, religious reformers and reformist thinkers emerged and authored their books of enlightenment to dispel centuries-old religious myths imposed on Islam, and where Quranism or Quranist school of thought emerged in the 1980 by us, Dr. A. S. Mansour, in order to direct people toward real Islam (Quranism) within peaceful intellectual jihad. We sincerely hope that the Quranist trend will cause a revival of real Islam to purify religion and faith (of Egyptian and non-Egyptian Sufi, Sunnite, and Shiite Muhammadans) from polytheism and mythology derived from the Ancient Pharaonic religion.             

3- The last point in this book about the character of Egypt before and after the Arab conquest is to assert a very important fact; our views and those of others regarding the similarity of polytheistic notions between Egyptian Muhammadans and Copts are relative, as history and its accounts record only overt events, with huge gaps never known to most people in all eras. Yet, we assert also that the Quran more than 1400 years ago tells us that the vast majority of people (regarding religion) follow their whims and the devils, as disbelief and polytheism in the Quranic text are synonymous and linked to the lack of understanding, insight, and, good reasoning: "But most people, for all your eagerness, are not believers." (12:103); "And most of them do not believe in God unless while being polytheists." (12:106); "Have you seen him who chose his desire as his god? Would you be an agent for him? Or do you assume that most of them hear or understand? They are just like cattle, but even more errant in their way." (25:43-44); "... but a few of My servants are thankful." (34:13); "... except those who believe and do good deeds, but these are so few..." (38:24); "And the forerunners, the forerunners. Those are the nearest. In the Gardens of Bliss. A throng from the ancients. And a small band from the latecomers." (56:10-14). The Quran also tells us that the vast majority of the People of the Book/Scripture (i.e., Jews and Christians) moved away from God's Path, and few among them were really monotheistic believers in God: "They are not alike. Among the People of the Scripture is a community that is upright; they recite God's revelations throughout the night, and they prostrate themselves. They believe in God and the Last Day, and advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and are quick to do good deeds. These are among the righteous. Whatever good they do, they will not be denied it. God knows the righteous." (3:113-115); "Among the People of the Scripture are those who believe in God, and in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed to them. They are humble before God, and they do not sell God's revelations for a cheap price. These will have their reward with their Lord. God is swift in reckoning." (3:199). The same applies to the Egyptian Muhammadans (who think of themselves wrongly as 'monotheistic Muslims'), because they imitated their Pharaonic and Coptic ancestors in their inherited religious traditions while changing names and labels into Arabic 'Islamicised' ones that re-produced the basic, millennia-old, and deep-seated Egyptian faith tenets, as we have explained how each new trend or faith that came into Egypt has been Egyptianized by adding religious traits, qualities, practices, and features of the 50-century-old Egyptian civilization that remain influential before and after the Arab conquest. Sadly, many Egyptians through many generations and eras in the last 1400 years have followed the ways of Moses' Pharaoh, but it is a source of comfort and consolation that there were also some Egyptians who adhered to the monotheistic faith (i.e., Islam, God's religion conveyed by all messengers and prophets) as God tells us in the Quran. this shows that the spread and dominance of tyranny and disbelief in any era of Egyptian history would not remove the existence of true monotheistic faith in God within Egypt. Yet , history does not tell us about them anything and does not mention them or their name at all within the Coptic, Fatimid, and Sufi eras; because history tackles only overt movements and general events within relative facts and links its lines in books, accounts, and chronicles to people of power, authority, and wealth. This is why we cannot find even between the lines of history the mention of monotheistic believers that God tells us about in the Quran. Finally, it is enough consolation that God honors these Egyptian monotheistic real believers in Him by mentioning them in the Quranic text to notify us about their existence in the past, as great examples and parables of good faith for us to learn from and ponder about. These Egyptian believers are as follows: the believing man in the retinue of Moses' Pharaoh's palace-court who was saved by the Lord: "So God protected him from the evils of their scheming, while a terrible torment besieged Pharaoh's people." (40:45); the great endurance and patience of the Egyptian magicians of Moses' Pharaoh when they believed in the God and the message of Moses: "They said, "We will not prefer you to the proofs that have come to us, and Him who created us. So issue whatever judgment you wish to issue. You can only rule in this lowly life. We have believed in our Lord, so that He may forgive us our sins, and the magic you have compelled us to practice. God is Better, and more Lasting." Whoever comes to his Lord guilty, for him is Hell, where he neither dies nor lives. But whoever comes to Him a believer, having worked righteousness-these will have the highest ranks." (20:72-75); and the Egyptian wife of Moses' Pharaoh who is made by God as an example and model for real believers of both genders: "And God illustrates an example of those who believe: the wife of Pharaoh, when she said, "My Lord, build for me, with you, a house in Paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his works, and save me from the wrongdoing people."" (66:11).     

REFERENCES LIST:

- "Ehiaa Olom Eddine" by the Sufi author Al-Ghazaly.

- "Al-Insan Al-Kamel" Vol. I&II, by the Sufi author and poet Abdul-Kareem Al-Jeily.

- "Fusus Al-Hukm" by the Sufi author and poet Ibn Araby.

- "History of Ibn Al-Atheer", by Ibn Al-Atheer.

- "History of Al-Tabari" by Al-Tabari.

- "History of Ibn Eyas", by Ibn Eyas.

- The Balfour Declaration" by Dr. Mahmoud Al-Mansi, published by Dar Al-Fikr Al-Araby.

- "Lataeif Al-Minan" by the Sufi author Al-Shaarany, Dar Al-Fikr, edition of 1288 A.H.

- "The Link between Sufism and the Shiite Creed", by Mustafa Al-Sheiby.

- "The Religion of the Ancient Egyptians" by Georg Steindorff.

- "Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra" by Al-Shaarany.

- ''Al-Risala Al-Qosheiriyya'', by the Sufi author Al-Qosheiry.

- "A Social History of Egypt" by Ahmad Zaki Badawi.

- "A Short History of the World", H. G. Wells, translated into Arabic by Abdel-Aziz Gaweed, 1985.

- "The Ismaili Shiite Sect" by Dr. M. Kamel Hussein, Maktabat Al-Nahda Publishers, 1^st edition, 1959.

- "Ministries and Ministers during the Fatimid Era" by Al-Manaoui, published by Dar Al-Maaref.

- "History of the Coptic Orthodox Church" by the priest Menassa Youhanna, 3^rd edition, 1982.

- "Egypt from Alexander the Great to the Arab Conquest", Al-Abady, published by the Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop, 1972, Cairo, Egypt.

- "Islamic Sufism" by Nicolson.

- "On the Islamic Thought" by M. Al-Bahy.

- "Periodicals of Cairo" by Abdel-Aziz Saleh.

- "Al-Hakim Biamrallah" by Abdel-Moneim Majid, published by the Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop, 1959.

- "Ancient History of Iran", Hassan Pirnia, translated into Arabic by Dr. Noor-Eddine Abdel-Moneim and Dr. Al-Seibaay M. Al-Seibaay, published by the Anglo-Egyptian Bookshop, 1979.

- "A Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church" J. G. Lorimer.

- "The Religion of Ancient Egypt" by Adolf Erman.

- "Ancient, Medieval and Modern Christianity: The Evolution of a Religion" by Charles Guignebert, translated into Arabic in Egypt by Dr. Abdel-Haleem Mahmoud.

- "The Philosophy in the Orient", authored originally in French 1939 by Paul Masson-Oursel, a translated Arabic edition.

- A. S. Mansour, "Al-Sayed Al-Badawi between Fact and Myth", edition of 1982.

- A. S. Mansour, unpublished MA thesis, at the History Department, Al-Azhar University, titled "The Influence of Tribalism on the Umayyad Caliphate".

- A. S. Mansour, unpublished PhD thesis, at the History Department, Al-Azhar University, titled "The Influence of Sufism on Egypt during the Mameluke Era".