As regards the environment attending the birth of Islam we have already discussed brightly about the Arabian peninsula, making a survey of the particular conditions prevalent in the Hejaz and Najd region. Also discussed were the eastern neighbour of Arabia, Iran and the northern neighbour, Rome. It is now intended to deal with its western neighbours, one of them being Egypt which will be discussed in this chapter.
Egypt is an ancient land about which abundant scientific research has been carried out owing to its wealth of ancient monuments and archaeological treasures that have survived intact and much has been written about them. Among the many countries engaged in such studies, Egyptology has become a leading branch in archaeology.
The monuments existing in Egypt reveals to a considerable extent, the Egyptian history for about 6500 years, a condition which is hard to find in any other part of the world. Some of the relies which are found in the tombs and pyramids (which, too, are really tombs) belong to 2000 to 4000 B.C. For instance it would suffice to mention that the first calendar found in Egypt belongs to the years 4241 to 4238 B.C. Such a find elsewhere is unlikely.
The main point of this matter is related to the tombs and the pyramids and the belief and desire of those ancient people in Egypt for building massive tombs which should remain undisturbed. The original name of this land was not 'Egypt'. Likewise the name, Egypt, and 'Aegypten' used in Persian, Arabic and European languages are not the original names of this land. Its original name of this land in local language had been 'Kemt' or 'Kemte' which meant 'black land.[50] The name Egypt has a Hebrew origin, and the Hebrews, namely the Israelis, gave it a name which stuck and later on took the form of 'Egypt' in Arabic. The name given to it by Europeans has a Greek root from the word Aigyptos, given to it by the Greeks after the name of one of the local kings.
In the territory of Egypt, as far as history reveals, there had existed social units since ancient times, and this condition prevailed in Egypt even in pre-historic times since the beginning of history. Villages had existed in pre-historic times as a unit of civilisation in the Nile River valley.
What should be considered is the existence of higher levels of social communities in Egypt. The central government, according to available sources, had existed for about 6500 years in Egypt, and these sources are mainly the royal tombs. Thus 6500 ago Egypt was a state having kings, rulers and a central government. Obviously where ever a central government is formed, such thins as architecture, large buildings, communications, writings, script, industry, art etc. follow. All these things existed in ancient Egypt, since ages ago so that even a kind of medical science of a type existed in Egypt comparable with the level of Greek medicine during the years 2600 to 2400 B.C.; this information has been discovered by historians from the scripts which have been found. Chemistry, embalming and mummifying of bodies around which the science of chemistry had developed, as well as armoury, glazed tiles, ship-building and evidence of arts' industry and technical trades have been the other aspects of life about four or five thousand year's ago in Egypt. The central government of Egypt of that time possessed a regular army, so that king Ramses II who ruled about one thousand years B.C.[51] had a regular army and legions that he dispatched to various parts, and even hired soldiers from such countries as Libya, Turkey and Syria. It is interesting that in that age ministers managed the affairs under a central government and the king. The king was regarded as God, a god incarnated in human body who appeared amongst the people, who regarded themselves as his servants. The priests and ministers were intermediaries between that god, or god-king and his subjects. Accordingly the 'vizier' was the contact between man and god. Of course the king was not the only god, and there were numerous other gods in Egypt, such as the god of man, god of life etc. to the extent that the god-king himself was expected to repose his faith in those gods. Some of these gods were human, and others were non-human, the king belonging to the first group. Non-human gods had idol-temples where a number of priests served them. The priests possessed special powers; they were regarded as the greatest power in Egypt, the power of god-king included. Usually some rivalry existed between these two power centers. In the following discussions ('elated to the manner of spread of Islam in this region, we will examine how Islam succeeded in sweeping all these away, and replace them with entirely new concepts.
Religion Laws and traditions that existed in Egypt accorded the king a divine position, but no laws about justice and equity Courts did exist which were however held by the representatives of the minister and the feudal lords to see to the claim of the subject. According to Iranian writers at that time in Egypt no laws existed even to compare with the 'Code in Chaldea and Assyria.[52]
Among the traditions existing in ancient Egypt which seem odd to us was the legitimacy of marriage with close relatives, and even marriage between a brother and sister. This was particularly in vogue in the royal houses.
The religion prevalent in Egypt was idolatry, and, like the present day India, there seems to have existed a predisposition to idolatry which gave no ground to any other beliefs to make headway. The deviational education of the Egyptians had prepared them for receiving the religion of idolatry. In the time of the pharaohs two of these rulers who belonged to priestly families and believed in the One God, wished to propagate this faith in Egypt. This God was called 'Aton.[53] But they were not successful in this task, and when the second pharaoh died, the people and priests joined hands and revived idolatry, and burnt the body of the second pharaoh for heresy against their formal religion. This idol worship persisted until the third century A.D. It is noteworthy that in the third century as Christianity found its way into Egypt, in the same century the concept of Christian trinity took shape in the school of Alexandria. Thus the best and the most comprehensive and scholarly[54] analyses and definitions of trinity were formulated in the third century A.D. in the scholarly and philosophical seminary of Neo-Platonics of Alexandria.[55] Thus it becomes apparent that even as Christianity spread into Egypt, it accepted the form of plurality and trinity already existent in that country.
C) Government in Ancient
Egypt
Egypt had passed through various periods of government, most of which had been of local rulers. Certain points here merit attention: For about one century Egypt was ruled over by Iran and since Darius and Xerxes conquered Egypt, Egypt was administered by a governor appointed by Darius to represent the Iranian government. After a time local governments took control there. Next Egypt was conquered by the Greeks and Alexander of Macedonia who built the port of Alexandria. After Alexander's death, the Ptolemies who were his followers governed Egypt for several centuries.[56] Then once again local governments Greek ruler exchanged power, and this struggle continued for a long time. In the time of Anushirvan, Egypt was ruled for a period of ten years by Iran. During all these periods that the imperialist powers of the age, Iran, Greece and Rome conquered Egypt, none of them were able to assert any influence there to the extent that Islam and the Arab Muslims did. In this historical survey, one of the essential aspects is to show the degree of influence that Islam succeeded in asserting in various regions including Egypt; for, firstly the natural conditions for the acceptance of the faith of monotheism were not favourable in Egypt, and secondly in the different periods that Egypt had been under the Iranian, Greek and Roman rule Egypt had not accepted foreign domination and nor did those foreign rulers find much stability in that land, or influence it to any extent. How did it happen, then, that for the first time when Omar dispatched only four thousand soldiers Egypt succumbed readily in 641 A.D. when the Muslims entered Egypt the prevalent religions was mainly Christianity in the north, and idolatry with a small mix of Christianity and Judaism in the south. Since Judaism was a nationalistic faith, it did not easily spread into non-Jewish regions. Thus at the time of the rise of Islam, Egypt did not have a single faith. This was the general state of affairs in Egypt, a neighbour of the birth place of Islam. When the prophet of Islam began to propagate his faith in Arabia, governors were ruling in Egypt whose names are mentioned in our history books. One of them was Maquqas to whom the prophet addressed a letter in the sixth year of his migration; this point will be discussed later in connection with the Prophet's letters to various kings and rulers.
In brief, Egypt had an ancient civilisation and was far ahead of Arabia from the viewpoint of science and arts etc.
It should be borne in mind that, that part of Arabia, namely Hejaz, was then at a tribal stage prior to the birth of the prophet, and had not till then attained an organised form of government, whereas Egypt had had such a government for several centuries in addition to a regular army, science, industry and was familiar with different schools of philosophy It should be added that Alexandria had been a great center of learning for nine centuries before the rise of Islam, and how did a country with such a background fell so easily to the army of Islam will be discussed later.
It was stated that Judaism was a nationalistic faith. What does that imply?
You know that the Jews themselves claim that Judaism was a faith brought by Moses (a.s.) to save the Israelis and they don't normally say that he came to save the people of the world. But we, Muslims, never declare that Muhammad (a.s.) came to save the Arabs. We never think like that. The Jews consider themselves as one nation, and the word 'Jew' is a tribal word meaning the nation of Jews.
What was the social environment within Egypt from the viewpoint of class divisions before the birth of Islam and during the rise of Islam?
As it was explained briefly, the roots of idolatry still dominated the life of the people. It might appear that Idolatry had no effects on everyday life, but in reality it plays an important role in shaping social conditions. As one reads in history of Egypt the Pharaohs who were named god-kings and their high priests resisted so tenaciously against the concept of monotheism. What was the motive behind this resistance? They resisted because their vital interests were threatened, since monotheism is not just a simple idea but a new concept leading the way of human life. Thus Egypt was typical idol-worshipping country in its social life in which the rulers enjoyed absolute power and besides them were the high priests and clergy, the military and the feudal lords who exercised a relative degree of power. Egypt was wholly feudal, and even till recent times some of the towns were governed by local lords. Slavery that existed there had the most inhuman form which has even existed in the history of the world. For every one of the stone blacks placed in the pyramids, fifty slaves lost their lives. It has been narrated about ancient Egypt bow earth works and pathways were laid out and how huge blocks of stones were pulled by a thousand slaves altogether under command of an overseer by means of ropes and pulleys and beams. Why was all this trouble taken? Only to build a tomb for the mummified corps of a god-king and his accompaniments for the life in the hereafter, so that the Pharaoh would face no problems in his eternal life, and also to protect the tombs intact from interference of times. So many lives were wasted for the sake of a futile wish, while those slaves did not even get enough food to perform such hard labour, just enough to keep their bodies and souls together for the performance of the labour as if so many flies had been killed off Of course the social environment in Egypt was not so severe during the last few centuries before the rise of Islam, but anyhow these were the situations the like of which, in so far as history can show, did not exist in ancient Iran, even though exploitation of deprived classes did exist there. Slavery had its most inhuman manifestation in Egypt, whereas in Greece or Rome it never reached such a cruel and violent degree.
At the time of the rise of Islam, the internal situation in Egypt was chaotic with political unrest. The social order was shaking, though this was not the first time that Egypt was seized by such turmoil and instability. Such periods in the history of the world are discernible. We see this in the case of Iran which fell under foreign domination several times. How far did Alexander penetrate Iran? Was the influence of Greek civilisation similar to the spread of Islamic civilisation in Iran? Are they comparable at all? Is the comparison conceivable? In the periods when Iran come under the Turks and later the Mongols, it was weakened socially and politically. From one side came the Qur'an while from the other side came the code of Chengiz. But has anything remained of the code of Chengiz? In this context a small book has been written entitled "The Rapid Spread of Islam"[57] is a highly readable book by an Italian lady who is a university professor. Though the subject has not been discussed at length in this short work, yet the writer is a researcher of history who has been impressed by the rapid expansion of Islam. This point will come up for discussing later, but no other factor but the universal nature of the teachings of Islam could be the cause for its rapid spread. Even the compilers of encyclopedia of Egypt have stated that the Christians of Egypt welcomed the soldiers of Islam with open arms.
Following the rise of Islam and its movement, Christianity organised centralized authority which had no precedence, and as Islam spread with such unparalleled rapidity, was Christianity's centralisation and mobilisation intended to be used as a check?
The system of centralisation of Christianity in the prevailing form dates back to the period before Islam and is related to Constantine. The councils held by the cardinals in our time are a reminder of the great conventions which were held at that time by religious leaders in order to propagate Christianity in the world. They reached decisions and amended procedures and all these activities were related to the days of Emperor Constantine, several centuries before Islam.[58]
Of course as you have observed, Christianity organised itself against the influence of Islam assuming a more aggressive form. In the history of Egypt it has been recorded about ancient Rome, that the Roman Emperors during their domination of Egypt for several centuries, used Egypt as the granary for the empire. Of course Europe of that period was a different Europe altogether. Today Europe lives in very odd conditions: it is a continent which cannot provide subsistence for all its inhabitants at the level they are used to. If the doors of Europe were to be closed so that its own inhabitants would have to provide for themselves by the strength of their own scientific and technological efforts, and could not estimate how far their standard of living would be lowered. They employ all means fair and foul, to maintain and raise their standards of living. In my view, a realistic view about them is that they are an active and a determined people equipped with the weapons of science and technology for raising their standards of living and protecting their position in the world by using all fair or foul means. They employ their perseverance and initiative in the most profitable manner. This is my view of Europe, a picture that you can see reflected in the past history of Europe in different shapes. For example, the Greek were a people equipped with science and technology who invaded other lands in order to secure what they could not find in their own country to suffice their needs. Rome had a different aspect, but there, too, a similar situation existed. I have not studied the east extensively to be able to express my views about aggressive tendencies from that quarter. On the face of it the Mongol invasions would appear to be of this type, but a superficial view is not enough, especially as historians have ascribed other causes for the Mongol invasions.