Hurghada

Hurghada is a small tourist village at the red sea.heres a few pictures of street life in Hurghada. The guys in the shop are coptim, a Christian minority which constitutes 10% of Egypt. Copts lived in Egypt since 2000 years, even before the Arab conquest of Egypt. The life of this minority as "Dhimmis" among a Muslim minority was not always easy, they had to pay special taxes and were forbidden to ride horses. Since the 19th century they integrated more and more, in the 1919 revolution they fought together with Muslims for the liberation of Egypt from the British, but after that they still continue fighting for equal rights. This story is covered in my article about the Copts in Egypt which I will add in excerpts here:

The Role of the Copts in the National Movement in Egypt until the 1919 Revolution

With a special Emphasis on the Early Stage

1. Introduction

see all photos »

During the 1919 revolution, under the slogan „Egypt for Egyptians“, the Copts fought hand in hand with their Muslim brothers for a national independence. The banner of the revolution was a cross within a crescent, the ancient incompatibility of Christianity and Islam was abolished.

Only one decade before this unity seemed impossible, after the assassination of the Copt Prime Minister Butrus Ghali, the mob in the streets of Cairo had been praising the murder with slogans, such as:” Wasrani (the name of the killer), Wasrani, who killed the nasrani (Christian)”. And the Coptic newspaper Al-Watan had stated in 1908 that “The Copts are the true Egyptians and the Islamic conquest of Egypt was oppressive”.[1]

On the other hand the Copts participated in the Urabists´ Congress in 1882 and supported this mutiny, when they signed the petition for Egypt Independence. A mutiny that led to the massacre of Alexandria, a violent street fighting between Muslims and foreign Christians who left many murdered and made thousands of foreign Christians flee the country. An incident that was used by the British forces to occupy Egypt, according to Lloyd[2] and the official British sources, in order to protect the Christian well-being, without differentiating between foreigners and Copts.

This paper will examine the factors that determined the role of the Copts in the national movement between its emergence in 1879 and the 1919 revolution. These factors are:

1. The degree of benefiting/ suffering from the British policy towards the Copts and whole Egypt
2. The degree of social integration and juridical equality/ exclusion as a distinguished religious community from the (Muslim) majority
3. The degree of Islamisation/ secularisation of the national movement
4. The degree of sectarian strife between Muslims and Copts, mainly incited by the British policy of “divide and rule”.[3]
5. The degree of fear of the Copts to be persecuted or isolated if they don’t participate in the movement and the chances of the movement to succeed.

The role of the Copts in the national movement is as complex and ambiguous as the national movement itself. We have to weight and consider all the factors mentioned above together in order to understand the different roles of the Copts in the movement. We also have to differentiate between Coptic Clerks, fellahin and urban Copts as well as between the Muslim mob and the Muslim leaders of the national movement, latter often influenced by ideas of western enlightenment.

The interests of the British are more obvious; it had to keep the strategically important Suez Canal. But this does not mean that the occupation was only negative for Egypt: England modernised the agriculture, the finance system and the political system – latter only to some degree, too much power in the hands of the people would have endangered the British occupation. Some Egyptians took advantage out of these modernisations; the Copts, educated in many modern languages, became Consular agents and many of them preferred to stay under British occupation because they feared a more liberal and independent Egypt will increase Muslim fundamentalism and endanger their well-being[4].

The British used the policy of “Divide and rule” in order to weaken the national movement. Prior to World War 1 this policy worked well. The Copts tended to identify as a minority, and demanded minority rights in the Congress of Asyut in 1911. Only World War 1 brought the necessary changes, a social order based on economical instead of religious and ethnical attributes and a disappointment from the British. The general trend to discuss independent states of the former Ottoman Empire contributed also to the development of a joint movement, including Copts as well as Muslims.

But also the wise leader of the Wafd (Arab: delegation), Zaghlul, was an important player in the unification. He had understood that the real reason of the crisis was the fear of the Copts, enhanced by the British policy: “His insight and years of ex­perience made him realize that an even-handed approach would end the crisis and totally eliminate its causes. Thus, he understood that if the majority were to take the initiative in providing a sense of security for the minority, peace between them would ensue; the Copts would no longer fear for themselves, for their property or for the future of their children and there would be no more cause for fanaticism.”[5]

Before we will examine the different stages of the national movement and the specific factors that influenced and changed the role of the Copts during each period, we will have a brief retrospect of the Coptic history prior to the beginning of the national movement in 1879, in order to understand what motives formed their identity, another important point that influenced their role in the movement.

2. The Main Influences on the Formation of Coptic Identity Prior to 1879:

1. The deep rooted identity as ancient Egyptians[6]. It is important to notice the difference between foreign Christians and Copts, which were two separated churches since the division during the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 451[7]and to separate Muslim-Christian relations from Muslim-Copt relations.
2. The experiences under the first European and colonialist influence on Egypt: The French occupation (1798-1801). The Copts took advance out of the occupation. They related the ideals of the French revolution and asked from Napoleon to grant them equal rights. After the withdrawal, however, the Copts, accused of collaboration, suffered from Muslim persecutions and learned about the dangers of collaboration with foreign powers that occupied Egypt.
3. The attempts of Muhammed Ali(1805-1848) and his successors to build a modern, contemporary state with the help of European advisors, not preferring but including Copts in his services and in local governates.[8] During the reign of his successor Muhammed Said in 1855 the jiziya (poll tax)[9] was abolished[10] and the Hamayouni Decree of 1856, aiming to support equal rights for the Copts, enlisted them in the military. Furthermore it guaranteed freedom of religion, including no restrictions in church building.[11]
4. This time marked the beginning of a gradually absorption of the Milla identity and societal transformation into a modern society, based on economical classes instead of religious communities. Prior to the middle of the 18^th century each community was treated different by the rulers in matters of taxes, rights and army service, the Copts were organised in autonomous Millas headed by a Patriarch. This raís were responsible for dealing with the government and could also demand advantages for the whole community. After being granted equal rights and duties, the Copts suffered alongside with Muslims under governmental measures imposed on the population, such as heavy taxation; hence a united resistance could develop. But the process went on slowly, most of the Copts still preferred to organise as a distinguished minority group. Another fact why Copts preferred this policy were tensions between them and the Muslims, due to the deep rooted distrust among the Muslim population, which had partly developed out of the fact that “Coptic emancipation attempts since the adventures of General Yaqub (who formed the first Coptic army in 1798-1801) were always connected with foreign involvement.”[12]
5. The geographical factor: Egypt was a flat land without many hills or distant areas. Hence the Copts lived among the Muslims and not separated in one area. They were fellahin, urban people, public workers and clergies. The Islamic restrictions on Dhimmis were less respected in the villages and the difference between Copts in cities and Coptic fellahin were larger than between Coptic and Muslim fellahin. Bemelen reports that a long-time resident European in Egypt claimed, “A Coptic peasant has much less in common with a Copt from the city than he has with a Muslim peasant.” [13]
6. The civil service as a Coptic monopoly, which was very important to the Copts and endangered by the financial reform of the British even prior to 1879. After the Arab conquest the Copts had managed to hold a good position only because of their abilities in the civil service and good education, they were simply irreplaceable. The Copts had learned very early that it is important for them, as a minority, to ensure this place in the society and the educational reforms during the age of Coptic emancipation under the progressive Patriarch Cyril 4 helped to secure their positions in civil services and Egyptian administration in the 19^th century[14]

3. The Reign of Khedive Ismail and the Early National Movement

The reign of Khedive Ismael (1863-1879) was described by many Copts as a “Golden Age”[15] The national awakening of the Copts, not only religious but also political became obvious in the foundation of the first Coptic newspaper, Al-Watan (The Homeland).[16] The name of the newspaper “…expresses Coptic legitimacy and activism as Egyptians, not merely as tolerated but benign Dhimmi in a Muslim land.”[17] The Milla system became less and less important and Ismail wished to regard Egypt as a part of Europe, which conceded well with Coptic ambitions. Copts faced no obstacles in their favoured area of employment, the civil service. Coptic diplomas were regarded equal to normal diplomas and opened them good job opportunities. By the 1880-ies about 90 percent of state employees were Copts.[18] Furthermore, the foundation of the first parliamentary assembly in 1866 marked a new era for the Copts: The election law was not connected to religion and Copts were elected, even in districts with a Muslim majority.

It seems to us that the Copts had no reason to oppose Khedive Ismail and the European influence in Egypt, but a closer look shows us that the European influence, supported by Ismail, also disadvantaged the Copts and the Copts, in 1879, had more reasons to oppose the Khedive and join the national movement than to support him.

Fitzgerald, the first British head of the accounts department, started to reform the archaic Coptic system of keeping state accounts, and replaced Copts with Syrians.[19] The Coptic system of keeping state accounts was archaic and they were accused of keeping it so difficult in order to maintain the monopoly as clerks. Al-Watan led a campaign for years against the prejudicial treatment of the “educated sons of the fatherland”.[20]

But the main reason for Copts, as well as Muslims, to oppose Khedive Ismail and the European influence in Egypt was the unsuccessful financial policy of Ismail, who had to sell the Egyptian shares of the Suez Canal to Britain and drove Egypt into bankruptcy in 1875. In 1878, Egypt, although officially independent, was put under European finance control, supervised by the British. Heavy taxation was imposed on the population, and as a reaction to Ismail´s unsuccessful policy a national movement arose. Ismail reacted on the increased attacks on him with shutting down critical newspapers. The Coptic editor of Al-Watan, was forced to print a notice in his own newspaper of its two weeks suspension and fine for ignoring “times and conditions”. He included a protest against the order along with the notice and appealed to the European ideal of free press. ”Egyptians, he said, were suffering from ignorance and closing down newspapers was rather like denying a sick man his medicine.”[21]

We can see in this example that the Copts were opposing the policy of Ismail but also appealed to European values and described Egypt as backward. This provides us with the ambiguity towards the national movement, which was partly progressive but partly Islamic in a fundamentalist and backward character. We might suggest that the Islamic tendencies were rather an attempt of the progressive leaders to mobilise the masses and to enjoy support of the system of the ulama with its mosques as means of mass mobilisation. But nevertheless it contained the danger for the Copts to be excluded from or even endangered by a regressive, Islamic movement and to loose the freedom they had gained since Muhammed Ali promoted European freedom and values in Egypt.

It is not only difficult to measure out the advantages and disadvantages of a national revolution for the Copts, because many Copts opposed Ismail; but feared the anti-European, Islamic tendencies in the movement.[22] Behrens-Abouseif furthermore claims that “it is not …easy… to analyse the role of the Copts in the nationalist movement…since no Coptic names are mentioned in connection with the Egyptian intelligentsia of that period”[23] and although we have protocols of persons arrested during these period, they distinguish only between occupations, but don’t give us evidence if someone was a Copt or a Muslim[24]. We have to gather our information about Coptic participation from other sources: Historical experiences of the Copts with supporting or opposing foreign occupation, reasons for Copts to participate, the character of the movement, the participation of Copts in the meetings and petitions and the examination of the Alexandria riots, which were inspired by the spirit of Jihad, but not directed against Copts.

3.1. Retrospect: Historical Experiences with European Occupation and Egyptian Independence

We will now have a brief look at the Copts´ experiences with independence and Western occupation in history in order to find out what might have made the Copts support or oppose the strive for national independence during 1878-1882.

During the French occupation (1798-1801) the status of the Copts improved. They sent an appeal to Napoleon – attributing to the principles of the French revolution – and the restrictions and discrimination on the Dhimmi were abolished for the first time since the Arab conquest. After the French left, however, Copts were persecuted and killed because they had collaborated with the French. This historical experience made the Copts aware of the danger of collaboration with a foreign (Christian) power and might have been a reason to support the nationalist movement, at least formally, in order to prevent another persecution.

But the Copts had also positive reasons to support an independent Egypt, even with a Muslim majority. They not only regarded themselves as true Egyptians and felt more close to their Muslim brethrens than to foreign Christians, also their former experiences as a Christian minority within an independent Egypt had been positive: During the years 1769 and 1771 Bey al-Kabir had established an independent Egypt, which was described by Copts as a “Golden age”. They gained equal rights, replaced Jews in custom administration after an anti-Jewish campaign led by Ali Bey al-Kabir, and were even preferred to Muslims in the finance sector.

The British, however, had disadvantaged the Copts by replacing them already prior to their occupation 1882 in their traditional monopoly.

3.2. The Ambiguous Program of Mohammed Abdu– Including and Excluding Copts

Behrens-Abouseif claims that Muhammed Abdu´s program “offered a reformed humanistic understanding of Islam”[25], but Cole also states that he used the ulama to mobilise masses and subsequently the ulama declared Jihad against England in 1882. The role of the Copts in this movement could only be a fragile one, as they could not join in a Jihad. The program of Abduh was quite ambiguous. On the one hand he spoke only in the name of Muslims, claimed that the leader of Egypt had to be a Muslim and religion should besides blood and race essential criterions for the leadership. In these speeches he spoke in terms of an Islamic society.[26] On the other hand, Abduh explained that his speeches were addressed only to Muslims because they were the majority, and that common historical experience should be the basis of nationalism in spite of religious differences. Behrens-Abouseif concludes that the terms of an Islamic society excluded Copts “since they saw themselves as the true Egyptians undermined by Arab domination”.[27]

In this period the Copts still had problems adapting the term ”Islamic“. During the second national congress the Coptic leadership intended that the attendees act on a pro-nationalist rather than a purely Islamic basis.[28] Four decades later, in a so-called secular society which downgraded the meaning of religion, at least for the Copts, to a personal matter divided from social and political importance, that Copts did not have these problems any more; they had managed to transform the meaning of the term “Islamic” from a religious into a cultural meaning and their own Christianity had become a personal matter, divided from politics. Ubeid (Wafd party) claimed in 1936, that he is a Copt by religion but through his country he is a Muslim.[29]

On a superficial basis the program of Abduh included and excluded Copts at the same time. He found for every audience the right words that would ensure their support. Boztemur mentions also Abduh´s “inconsistent ideas and positions between Islamism, Arabic patriotism and modernism”[30], without explaining the reasons for this inconsistence. One explanation for this ambiguity could be the attempt to mobilise the (Islamic) masses as well as integrating the intellectuals and minorities, but Laban[31] provides us with a deeper understanding of the real intentions of Abduh[32]: The transformation of the Egyptian society towards enlightenment in order to become equal and strong enough to resist European superiority. Laban claims that it was Abduh´s secret intention, to undermine and subvert the stuck Islamic theology by means of the Islam and therefore it was necessary to pretend to be an orthodox Muslim.[33]

We can suggest that Abduh´s aims, as defined by Laban, were not known to the majority of the Copts during that period, because they were too subversive. It is possible, that some Coptic intellectuals, familiar with the reform ideas of Ibn Khaldun or Saint Simon understood Abduh in this way, but we have no sources that can proof this thesis.

The supporters of the nationalist movement were quite heterogeneous. It contained the traditional, Islamic Ulama as well as westernizing intellectuals and army officers. These different groups, often contradicting in their goals, were thrown together against Khedive.[34] Cole claims that the intelligentsia used the ulama in order to mobilise the masses, and in 1882 the ulama consequently declared Jihad against the British. Cole mentions journalists as one segment of the intelligentsia, we would expect Coptic names to be mentioned among them as Coptic newspapers existed and had been a target of Khedive’s campaign against free press. Cole, however, does not mention any specific names, so we don’t know anything about Coptic participation [35] and although the intelligentsia in Alexandria contained bureaucrats, clerks and professionals and 90% of the state employees were Copts, no names of Copts are mentioned among them.

3.3. The Role of the Copts in the Urabi Mutiny and the Massacres of Alexandria

During 1879 until 1882 Colonel Urabi led the so-called “Urabi revolt” against the Khedive and the European domination of Egypt. The Coptic patriarch was among the religious leaders that signed in 1879 a manifesto of a group of nationalists that supported Urabi and demanded the formation of a completely Egyptian cabinet without foreigners.[36] Three years later the Copts, represented by Cyril 5 and some other Coptic dignitaries supported Urabi again, signing a petition that condemned the dismissal of Urabi by the Khedive Tawfiq.[37] Blunt states that “The Copt and Arab element of the fellahin unanimously supported him (Urabi)”[38] The Coptic fellahin supported Urabi because Urabi himself was born as a peasant and regarded as “the voice of the Egyptian people”.[39]

In 11.6.1882, prior to the news of the massacres of Alexandria, a letter was sent to Blunt and informed him that “Sheikh Aleysh, the great holy man of the Azhar, has issued a fatwa in which he states that the present Khedive, having attempted to sell his country to the foreigners by following the advice of the European Consuls, is no more worthy of ruling over the Muslims of Egypt.”[40] .On the same day the riots of Alexandria took place.

This fatwa was a result of the hate against rich foreigners, most of them Syrian or Greek Christians, and the taxes imposed on the population by Khedive Ismail. Blunt states that in 1875 “women sold jewellery to Greek usurers because tax collectors were in their villages with the whip in the hand”.[41] European sources tend to claim that the riots had anti-Christian undertones, and prove it with the anti-Christian slogans that were shouted by the angry mob such as “O God, succor the Lord of Islam, and destroy these depraved unbelievers”.[42] These slogans were abused by the British as an excuse to bomb Alexandria in July 1882 and invade Egypt. But there is no evidence that Copts were a target during the riots of Alexandria.[43] Sharubim mentions the persecution of the nasara (Christians), but specifies that they were Syrian, Greek or British.[44] Butcher also mentions only possible harm for Copts, if the British had not interfered in time.[45] After the riots ten thousands of foreign Christians fled the country, but the Copts remained.

The Urabi mutiny, like most protonationalist movements in the 19^th century included two sorts of conflicts:

1.) A struggle of social classes in a society moving towards capitalism. These societal changes increased during WW1 and did not distinguish between religions.

2.) Regional patriotism, aimed at integrating the subaltern classes on the bases of linguistic, religion, ethnic and territorial identity.[46] Christian Europeans were rivals of this patriotism, being linguistic, religious, ethnic and territorial different. Ottomans were linguistic, ethnic and territorial different. Copts, however, were religious and ethnical different and hence they had problems to find their place in this patriotism, although “real Egyptians” and endangered if the Islamic element in the movement gained influence.

3.4. The British Invasion – The Uninvited Saviours

Nisan[47] states that the Copts were indeed afraid after the massacres of Alexandria and “sought security in the interior and hoped that the coming of the British would ensure Christian well-being, perhaps even preferential treatment”. Carter, however, stresses:”It seems distinctively unlikely that the Copts were ever threatened with any kind of genocide” [48] and accents that “Cromer, anxious about the fate of the supposedly temporary occupation used alleged threats against the Copts to reinforce his superiors´ determination to stay in Egypt. He never reported that some Copts opposed the occupation”[49] The main reason for the invasion was probably the fear of loosing their influence in Egypt to fanatic Muslim mobs. A fear incited by the experiences during the Indian uprising in 1877. The Suez Canal was very important for the British and they could not risk loosing their influence on this strategic important area to fanatical Muslim mobs.[50] The British, officially claiming to save minorities, reacted within one month: On 11.7.1882 the British forces started a bombardment.

The consequence was another round of plundering and another wave of anti-European riots in several towns in Lower Egypt. These riots had again Islamist and anti-Christian undertones, the mob shouted slogans like:”O merchants close your shops, for the Christians have begun killing Muslims on the bridge”[51], but again no Copts are mentioned among the Christians attacked. This gives us serious doubts if the slogans were really directed against Christianity, or just anti-European resentments, resulted from the hate of the rich and the foreigners[52], as similar movements by pre-industrial crowds in Europe.[53] This hatred of foreigners had many dimensions, only one of them religious and hence excluding the Copts. Other dimensions were xenophobic, Egyptian nationalistic, and class conflicts, none of them directed against Copts.[54]

3.5. The 2^nd National Congress – Coptic Pleads for Pronationalism instead of Islamism

( The full article is available on http://www.hausarbeiten.de/faecher/vorschau/50898.html)