From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt: Religion, Identity and Politics after the Arab Conquest by Maged S. A. Mikhail (review)

California State University professor Maged Mikhail attempts more than simply dismissing the centuries-old lie that seventh-century Islamic armies converted Christian North Africa by the sword. He characterises the Arab Islamic takeover of Egyptian society as slow and piecemeal, taking centuries. The old Byzantine order stayed surprisingly long in many areas, such as with the use of the Diocletian calendar well into the Islamic period. The implication seems to be that Muslim rulers had relatively limited reach into the mostly Christian villages for decades and even centuries.

In From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt, Egypt's Christians are portrayed as surprisingly supportive of their rulers, whether Greek-Byzantine or Arab-Islamic. Theological disputes between pro- and anti-Chalcedonian theological traditions in the decades leading up to the Islamic conquest had not destroyed loyalty to Constantinople. The Christians maintained the same attitude towards the new sovereign: whether Christian or Muslim, rulers received their mandate from God. Mikhail points out that this belief "was predicated upon the influence of the New Testament Scriptures, which enabled the Christians of the pre-Constantinian era and those living under Sasanian rule to serve as faithful subjects to non-Christian emperors" (180). The author thus concludes: "Transitioning from Byzantine to Islamic rule did not require the majority of Christians (and presumably Jews) in Egypt to make a radical adjustment to their political ideology" (181). Ample evidence is provided for those still stuck in previous assumptions of Islamic violence.

The melding of political power and God's will impacted church life, with the caliph soon taking on the role of choosing the Coptic patriarch. This latter, in turn, claimed authority "from God and the caliph" (185). This did not differ so terribly from imperial Germany or the Sun King's France, where the monarch appointed church leaders. Egypt's hierarchy, similar to those in Europe, did not always accept such meddling, and found passive ways around it. This is where the author's explicit naming of important individuals and historical accounts to illustrate his arguments becomes helpful. Each case had its own unique characteristics. Whether at the Christian-Muslim or church-state level, relationships were not frozen. The author avoids the kinds of sweeping generalisations that have led to the western "spreading Islam by the sword" view of the Arab conquests of North Africa and the Near East.

Islamic persecution of Christians was not the norm. Government-sponsored violence tended to be directed towards both Christians and Muslims. This is reflected in a series of revolts in which the old Coptic population and the newer Arab Muslims fought authority side-by-side. Mikhail argues that these rebellions were not last-ditch attempts by the Christians to regain their country. They were mostly tax-related, affecting farmers of both religions. "Eighth- and ninth-century insurrections," the author claims, "are best interpreted within their socio-political environment without dwelling on the religious or 'ethnic' affiliation of the rioters" (119). The author's wider social science approach frees us from a religious-only view of events which would pit Muslim against Christian.

Living in an Islamic state did greatly influence the church, including ecclesiastical government at the highest levels. Perhaps because Islamic government officials wanted only one person to deal with as representative of the Christians, the Coptic patriarch grew in authority by the ninth and later centuries, even as he moved from Alexandria, the ancient seat, to Cairo. Egypt's growing Islamic identity led to greater Christian unity, the author shows.

Mikhail never buys the Coptic self-image as the long-suffering victim, emphasising that these Christians had also had good relations with the Byzantine emperors, and had not welcomed the conquering Islamic armies as liberators, as was argued in the eleventh century and after. In fact, Mikhail's linguistic and papyrological knowledge goes a long way here...