The idea that the Coptic Christians in Egypt welcomed the Arab troops as liberators in the mid-seventh century is a staple of Islamic apologetics today, and (not surprisingly, given the abysmal state of academia today) is generally accepted among historians. However, it has always had weak foundations, and is actually yet another example of a phenomenon we see increasingly often: the revisionist whitewashing of history to remove any hint of wrongdoing on the part of Muslims. In my 2005 book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), I noted that Islamic tradition has the Caliph Umar making a “telling admission in a message to an underling: ‘Do you think,’ he asked, ‘that these vast countries, Syria, Mesopotamia, Kufa, Basra, Misr [Egypt] do not have to be covered with troops who must be well paid?’ Why did these areas have to be ‘covered with’ troops, if the inhabitants welcomed the invaders and lived with them in friendship?”
“Professor Harald Suermann: The Idea That the Copts Received the Muslims As Liberators is No Longer Tenable,” from On Coptic Nationalism, February 2:
Christian-Muslim Relations; A Bibliographical History, Volume 5 (1350-1500) was published by Brill in 2013.[1] One of its most interesting articles is that written by Prof. Dr. Harald Suermann, of the Institute of Oriental and Asian Studies, Bonn University, Copts and the Islam of the Seventh Century.[2]
I have today finished rereading Suermann’s article. He talks about early sources on Coptic reaction to the Islamic conquest. The question he wanted to answer is: Did the Copts regard the Islamic conquest as a liberation from the Byzantine yoke? He surveys the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and what C. Detlef G. Müller found in it about the Coptic-Muslim relations in the 7th century. He also uses The Romance of Cambyses, The Legend of Eudoxia and the Holy Sepulchre, The Dialogue of the Patriarch John, and The Life of Patriarch Isaac. But the source that settles the question strongly for him is The Panegyric of the Three Holy Children of Babylon. The author of the homily is anonymous but it’s believed by scholars that the original writing was in Sahidic, and that it was most probably composed shortly after the Arab invasion of Egypt. The writer of the Panegyric describes the Saracens (Arabs) as “oppressors who follow after prostitution and massacre.”[3]
The Panegyric of the Three Holy Children of Babylon is not the only source from the 7th century that demonstrates what the Copts felt about the invading Arabs: The Chronicle by John of Nikiu is well known and gives even a stronger evidence of the way in which the Copts saw the Arabs. The Panegyric, however, is the earliest record of the Coptic sentiment that the Muslims were not liberators but oppressors.
Suermann concludes: “The Panegyric of the Three Holy Children of Babylon does date from the early period of Islamic rule in Egypt, and provides an important witness to Egyptian Christian attitudes towards this rule… [T]he Panegyric calls the Muslims ‘oppressors’. This evidence suggests that the idea that the Copts received the Muslims as liberators is no longer tenable.”[4]
The evidence is overwhelming.

Henry says
Liberated from whom?
John Stefan Obeda says
Henry, I can’t thank you enough for what you have given us in youtube. I listened to him to the very end. How utterly sad that what he has lectured is not taught in our schools and churches. We must not only pray, but we must work and get the word out and even die if necessary. Yes, die, for the sake of our descendants, if necessary.
Wouldn’t what Scripture tells nations to do have a lot to do with our salvation from the devil destroying civilizations? “If my people , who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” ( 2 Chronicles 7:14). I believe this has much to do with our salvation from the devil. One thing leads to another. Repent, seek God’s face, and then tell the truth about Islam and destroy it.
David Hayden says
Thanks, Mr. Spencer, for the informative article on the Copt attitude toward the Saracen invaders in the 7th century. It will enter my Copt file.
gravenimage says
German professor: The idea that the Copts welcomed the Muslims as liberators is no longer tenable
The idea that the Coptic Christians in Egypt welcomed the Arab troops as liberators in the mid-seventh century is a staple of Islamic apologetics today, and (not surprisingly, given the abysmal state of academia today) is generally accepted among historians..
………………………………………….
Bravo, Professor Harald Suermann.
The idea that the Copts, whatever day-to-day issues they might have had with the Byzantine authorities, would have considered it a “liberation” to be taken over by conquerers who would oppress and brutalize them and treat them—at best—like second-class citizens is simply grotesque.
It is like asserting that the Czechs or the Poles or the French welcomed the Nazis as “liberators”. Ludicrous.
And Professor Suermann actually goes to contemporary sources to prove his points.
Actual rigorous scholarship! How un-Islamic…
PJG says
I had thought the Egyptians were fooled by the Muslim line that they came in peace and even to help, and that they woke up when it was too late; a bit like the scenario in the West now, except that now they are saving us from the horrors of materialism and Godless “secularism” rather than Byzantium.
Kepha says
By the time the Muslim Arabs invaded Egypt, the church in that country had become bifurcated between an Orthodox, Greek-speaking church of the elite and a “Monophysite”, Coptic-speaking church of the common people. There had been conflict between the two sides for some time.
This is the source for the legend that Egypt’s Christians welcomed the Arabs as liberators.
Mo-Blows says
Islam in the 21 century is even worse than it was in the 7th, if that is actually possible.
A more FAILED and vile ideology would be hard to find by on this earth.
Even Hitler and Naziism posed less of a threat to humankind.
The genocide that would occur , given unrestricted free reign to muslims on earth to deal with non believers as they chose fir would be unlike anything the world has ever seen.
Sound like hyperbole? sound extreme or paranoid?
One only has to do a rudimentary research to see countless examples in the media, in print, and all over the net , to see Imams, religious leaders, political leaders , Terrorist groups and the man on the street telling exactly what they think of the Infidel and what they would like to do to him to please their apparently ” misunderstood ” Prophet.
Kinda hard to misunderstand a warrior , bandit , slave owning thief who commands to ” strike at their necks” re non muslims, and to ” let them fund harshness in you” etc etc
To STILL be oblivious or willfully blind is Chamberlainism to the extreme degree
Lookmann says
‘ Even Hitler and Naziism posed less of a threat to humankind’
Both Islam and Nazism are cruel, despicable cults .
How can one be less dangerous than the other?
I am at a loss to understand your logic.
Zathras says
National socialism had the Koran and Lenin as its manifesto with childhood Indoctrination and violence as its main actions. Hitler was leading +Nazism to a religion by 1944. Unfortunately he had as an enemy: Stalin who had more men to waste so he lost. Hitler’s idol: Muhammad had no such opposition and the world is still paying for it.
voegelinian says
As bad as Hitler and Stalin were, there can always be someone worse. Islam never disappoints in manifesting an even worse evil than we had experienced or imagined.
Look at the history of just one region — India. Over 60 million massacred (and countless other millions ravaged, tortured, oppressed, displaced, and their temples and homes destroyed). That’s six Holocausts right there.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
Hitler never played the “god card” and pretended to be something he wasn’t. He was a wolf and presented himself as such. Islam is a RABID wolf…in sheep’s clothing. That makes Islam more dangerous. Add that to the fact that it has been afflicting mankind for 100+ times as long as Nazism did, and there you have it…
Brian C. Hoff says
The people of Indonesia who where not Dutch of not christian welcome the Japonese in WWII as liberators from oppressive Dutch rule. When the Dutch try to rule oppressive again after WWII the people of Indonesia upraiseing against the Dutch. That the reason why the Allies didnot Invade Indonesia durning WWII. The Japonese have no underground resistion movernment against then in Indonesia.
Brian C. Hoff says
Than spid prosfer gave me f which he have to change to than c. He said cave man have no writen language as none was fround, I said it they wrote on leaves and bark they will not last the 50,000 years. Most paper willnot last more than 100 years.
mortimer says
Brian, When the Muslims invaded Islam they burned all the PAPER, they stopped the production of papyrus …which became EXTINCT in Egypt…then they stop trade and commerce and cultural and educational exchanges between the East and West of the Mediterranean! THE MUSLIMS CAUSED THE DARK AGES BY DESTROYING PAPER AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF BOOKS.
Islam creates darkness, ignorance and backwardness! Go join the braindead Muzzies, Brian, bang your head and talk to thinking people if you find out how sick the Muzzies actually are. Before that, beat it. No one here is interested in your off-topic blather. You are part of the destruction of civilization and I resent it.
mortimer says
WHEN THE MUSLIMS INVADED EGYPT…
Brian C. Hoff says
Reread what I wrote than supid treach said that cave man have no writen language as we found no writen material of they. It they wrote on leaves or bark from trees those material wouldnot last long than come down to us. Regurate cheap notebook paper will last no more than 100 year at max most will be unreadable in 50 year time. Too much acid in the paper. Paper with base chemical instead of acid will last 2000 year but cost alots of money to make. Egpt was running out of the raw material to make they paper from the reed they use.
JLaprime says
To what teacher are you referring? From your grammar and spelling ( or complete lack, thereof) it must have been an elementary school teacher. Deep thoughts for a little kid, though! Even if they’re ludicrous, in retrospect.
Semeru says
Mortimer, before calling people brain-dead get your facts straight.
And your rant is just as ignorant and backward as Brians gibberish
NO THE MUSLIMS DID NOT CAUSE THE DARK AGES BY DESTROYING PAPER AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF BOOKS.
No Mortimer, the mohammedans did not burn paper when they invaded Egypt in 639–642. It was not until after the defeat of the Chinese in the Battle of Talas in 751 that paper and its the invention spread to the Middle East
The legend goes, the secret of paper-making was obtained from two Chinese prisoners from the Battle of Talas, which led to the first paper mill in the Islamic world being founded in Samarkand. There are records of paper being made at Gilgit in Pakistan by the sixth century, in Samarkand in modern day Uzbekistan by 751, in Baghdad by 793, in Egypt by 900,
The fact is it was the mohammedans that introduced paper to the middle east and Europe
The oldest known paper document in the West is the Mozarab Missal of Silos from the 11th century, probably using paper made in the Islamic part of the Iberian Peninsula.
voegelinian says
Semeru, purveying, with the help of prodigious globs of Wiki-Paste, the Myth of the Golden Age of Islam when Islam brought all innovations to the West.
Semeru says
I am not claiming that there was an islamic golden age, just stating a fact that it was impossible for the mohamedans to burn paper 100 years before it was introduced to the middle east. Also the mythe of the golden age was a hundred years after the invasion of Egypt.
If you are going to criticize islam, then you can at least get your facts right.
Muslim conquest of Egypt, 639-642
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquest_of_Egypt
Introduction of paper to Islamic world 751
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paper#Islamic_world
The Islamic Golden Age starts with Abbasid historical period beginning in the mid 8th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
The Abbasid Caliphate was the second of the Islamic caliphates to succeed the Prophet Muhammad. 750-1258
Brian C. Hoff says
The ancient world use Papyrus to write on it was alot like paper in many way,papyrus was make from reeds from the nile river marshland. The supply of reeds was unable to keep up with demand. It was than tracher of highter learning the dean said to say that caveman didnot have than writen language base on we didnot find any wriien material when any material they use like leaves and bark wouldnot last thousand of years, also what about natural distates and war to destory what reaine of just material.
gravenimage says
“Brian C. Hoff” wrote:
Than (sic) spid (sic) prosfer (sic) gave me f (sic) which he have (sic) to change to than (sic) c. He said cave man have no writen language as none was fround (sic), I said it they wrote on leaves and bark they will not last the 50,000 years. Most paper willnot last more than 100 years.
……………………………………..
A frightening glimpse into the “reasoning” of “DefenderofIslam”.
While the the absence of survival of materials is not in and of itself proof of its absence at the time, still less is it *proof of its existence*. Ludicrous.
Moreover, “DefenderofIslam” would have us believe that Neolithic man—what serious student uses “cave man?—left no artifacts behind at all, but this is utterly false.
There are cave paintings like those at Lascaux and other sites, and there are sculptures such as the “Venus” figures, the most famous being the “Venus of Willendorf”. There are also megaliths and tombs.
*None* of these productions, which included stone work, carving, and painting included any writing—even though it would have been just as simple to include writing as other features in all of these media.
The idea that Neolithic man had nothing to use but leaves and bark is demonstrably false.
So—assuming that any part of this story is true at all—why did the professor agree to change “DefenderofIslam’s” grade?
I believe that it is fairly clear from “DefenderofIslam’s” grammar and level of reasoning that he didn’t belong in college-level courses at all. But these days it is quite common for those completely unable to do college-level work to wind up in college-level classes.
As a corollary, it is also quite common for instructors to hand out grades completely unrelated to the quality of the work as a sop—especially if challenged or threatened by the student, as here. Yet another problem with our fractured educational system in these times.
Brian C. Hoff says
Why do we write on paper more often than carvering it into stone block or clay talet or put it in painting answer that. First cavering into stone take alot of work and the stone is heavy to carry around, caveing painting mostly show they hunting animal an they believe that it was magic to show the animal they want to hunt and painting words on the wall will ruin the magic. To the other than reason about will apply, and may-be the paints they use for writing wear away as time past away. Why do people paint the outside of house so own as the paint start to wear away from sunlight and weather.
gravenimage says
And “DefenderofIslam” continues to prove my point. Terribly sad.
mortimer says
‘The Panegyric of the Three Holy Children of Babylon’ was a homily composed shortly after the Muslim invasion of Egypt.
The title of the sermon is a strong indicator of the content: The “Song of the Three Holy Youths” is a hymn sung in church during Matins and other services. It reflects the story of three Hebrew martyrs thrown into a firey furnace by the Babylonians…a story of severe persecution and cruelty. It strongly suggests that severe persecution had already begun in Egypt and it was resented strongly, rather than WELCOMED! A self-serving piece of Muslim propaganda which does not square with any facts. Dr. Suermann’s once again shows up the deception of Islamic propaganda and self-conceit.
Semeru says
Yes the Panegyric is about Daniel and the three youth, but this happen quite a long time before the mohamedans rose their ugly heads, also Babylon is now today Iraq
The Holy Youth Ananias (“God is gracious”) was a companion of the Holy Prophet Daniel. He was chosen to serve in the king’s palace with Daniel, Azarias, and Mishael (Daniel 1:6), who were all from the tribe of Judah. They gave Ananias the Chaldean name Shadrach (“royal”). They gave Azarias the Chaldean name Abednego (“servant of Nego”). They gave Misael the Chaldean name Meshach (“guest”). They were thrown into a fiery furnace when they refused to worship the golden idol set up by King Nebuchadnezzar, but the angel of the Lord preserved them (Daniel 3:25).
Salah says
“The idea that the Copts welcomed the Muslims as liberators is no longer tenable”
No longer???
Dear professor, every coptic child knows this fact!
ChrisLA says
Another seminal study about the Arab take-over of Egypt is “The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of Roman Dominion” by Alfred Joshua Butler, (Forgotten Books 2012). Originally published in 1902, it characterizes Egypt as the bread-basket of the world and the Copts as sedentary farmers tied to the land and the seasonal flooding of the Nile. Egypt had been swept over and dominated by imperialist forces from Persia, Rome, and the Arab world. While the imperialists fought over the turf, the Copts just tried to carry on. Yes, the Coptic Monophysite theology was incompatible with the Roman creed, but that difference was small compared with the ideology of Islam. When the Arabs finally prevailed over the Byzantines, the Copts were thrown into panic, and the plunder and jizyah imposed was harsh. The Copts never saw the Arabs as liberators — just another imperialist power.
Semeru says
We should notice that the article and RS avoided quoting the part that mentions mohammedans which can be found in the second part of the homily,
As can be seen, the copts had no love for the jews
Concerning us O my dear beloved, let us fast, pray without respite and observe the commands of the Lord, so that the benediction of all our fathers who have pleased him comes down on us. Let us not fast like the deicidal (killer of god) jews; neither let us fast like ! Saracen oppressors who follow after prostitution and massacre, and who lead the sons of men into captivity; saying: ‘We fast and pray at the same time.” Let us not fast like those who deny the healing suffering of the Son of God, who died for us in order to liberate us from death and perdition. But let us fast like our fathers the apostles
Then Suermann writes
If this homily really was written shortly after the Arab conquest, it is the earliest record of Coptic sentiment that the Muslims were not liberators but oppressors. They are at the same time discerned
to be a competing religious group: they fast in a manner similar to Christians, even though Christians should not fast like them because their morality is different. Their fasting, like the fasting of the jews, is not correct. If what follows also refers to the Muslims then we have here a very early record of the Muslim denial of the saving death of Christ. We note, however, that it is not stated here that Muslims deny that Christ was crucified at all
http://goo.gl/etDhSb
gravenimage says
Semeru wrote:
We should notice that the article and RS avoided quoting the part that mentions mohammedans which can be found in the second part of the homily,
As can be seen, the copts had no love for the jews…
…………………………..
Why? It’s totally off-topic. That the Copts believed that Jews did not fast correctly has *nothing* to do with their being victims of Islamic savagery.
This is just another attempt at moral equivalence from Semeru—and an even weaker one than most, at that.
Semeru says
The copts described the Jews as deicidal (killer of god)
By the way why not go to the source and read what RS and the article leave out. There you will find that the professor uses the word probably and if.
So why did RS avoid quoting the part that mentions mohammedans
Is it because it exposes the copts as anti-semetic.
This is just another attempt at moral equivalence from Semeru—and an even weaker one than most, at that.
No not an attempt at moral equivalence, but an attempt at getting to the truth, thats why I linked to the source.