Egypt’s Revolt, 644-6

During Uthman’s rule, it became obvious that if the Islamic State was going to maintain its place among the nations, it needed to create a navy. East and South Arabians had always been sea-going, but their cultural ways were not at the heart of Islam. Both Mecca and Medina were inland cities, although Mecca shipped goods through a nearby port on the Red Sea. Abu Bakr and Umar mistrusted ships, and Umar specifically decreed that Muslim armies could only go where camels could take them. (He may have learned this from a failed invasion of Ethiopia by ship in the Red Sea.) But Uthman, whose family may have been more involved in international shipping, knew that this small port was not adequate to their new needs. He ordered a new port in Jeddah to be developed.

But the new port in Jeddah would not take anyone into the Mediterranean, where Roman naval power was still supreme. Syria and Egypt had both been conquered by land, but they could be retaken by sea. Byzantine Cyprus was very close to newly-Muslim Syria; Mu’awiya claimed that they could hear dogs barking on Cyprus. That wasn’t true, but on a clear day, you could see Cyprus on the horizon. If the Romans chose to attack from there, they could quickly retake port cities.

The Roman navy had been making plans to retake their Egyptian province. After Umar died in 644, the Roman navy sailed to Alexandria, while the residents of Alexandria rose up and killed the thousand Arab soldiers in the city garrison. The Roman forces began systematically retaking the cities of the Nile Delta. Umar had fired Amr, the general who conquered Egypt, replacing him with Abdullah ibn Sa’ad, a Qurayshi man who was renowned for his cleverness—-and Uthman’s adopted brother. But Abdullah was not able to push the Roman invasion back, so Amr was re-appointed.

Amr chose to fight at the driest place in the Delta: the eastern town of Nikiou, where he had won a battle before. Hard fighting at Nikiou began to push the Roman invasion west, backing up until they reached Alexandria, where they could use the fortress and their ships at harbor. Re-taking Alexandria required serious fighting with a high body count, unlike the city’s first surrender. In 646, Amr entered the city again as a real conqueror, and his soldiers were allowed to loot and destroy, while killing or enslaving the residents. The east-facing side of Alexandria’s defenses was torn down.

At this time, Christian Egypt was divided. In the eyes of Rome and Constantinople, the native bishops had been cast out of the church for heresy. In the eyes of the native Christians, there had been no heresy but only a power play against Egypt. The cities of the Delta typically had a native Coptic Bishop and a Greek “Melkite” Bishop. Melkite takes the Semitic root for “king,” melek, and turns it into a Greek word. The Melkite bishops were appointed by Constantinople.

The Greek Melkite churches had been involved in the revolt, but the Coptic churches had not been. The Coptic Patriarch, Benjamin, argued to Amr that his native people had not been disloyal, so they should not suffer dispossession. Amr judged in his favor. Not only were Coptic lands (and people as possible) protected, but he returned to them the sum of half the taxes they had paid that year. It’s an interesting example of the social contract between ruler and ruled: the Arabs had failed to protect “their” city of Alexandria against attack, so they had not kept their side of the bargain.

Amr was again fired. He was very popular with the army, and he was allowed to live as military leader in Fustat, the City of Tents. But he was not allowed to govern, which entailed tax collection and management. Umar and Uthman both feared that Amr might set himself up as an independent ruler in Egypt. So instead, Abdullah ibn Sa’ad was reappointed. It was an even easier choice for Uthman, since Abdullah was his adopted brother and a fellow Umayyad.

But Abdullah ibn Sa’ad was a good example of the way Uthman was forcing Umayyads on everyone. That Abu Bakr gave him any authority in Amr’s invasion force showed great pragmatism, for while Amr had been a late convert, Abdullah ibn Sa’ad was something worse. He was an early convert who went back to Meccan paganism, now cursing Muhammad and probably spreading rumors about him. When Mecca surrendered and the Prophet was handing out pardons left and right, he drew the line at Abdullah. Abdullah was finally pardoned when Uthman begged, but his character stood out as unworthy compared to the others, the true Companions or even those who had at least stood with Muhammad in a battle or two. And yet there he was, Governor of Egypt, with all the financial records in his hands. Uthman didn’t seem to care so much if he enriched himself, as long as he would maintain family loyalty.

This entry was posted in Islam History B: the Umayyads and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.