What do you think?
Rate this book
From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt: Religion, Identity and Politics after the Arab Conquest
The conquest of Egypt by Islamic armies under the command of Amr ibn al-As in the seventh century transformed medieval Egyptian society. Seeking to uncover the broader cultural changes of the period by drawing on a wide array of literary and documentary sources, Maged Mikhail stresses the cultural and institutional developments that punctuated the histories of Christians and Muslims in the province under early Islamic rule. From Christian to Islamic Egypt traces how the largely agrarian Egyptian society responded to the influx of Arabic and Islam, the means by which the Coptic Church constructed its sectarian identity, the Islamisation of the administrative classes and how these factors converged to create a new medieval society. The result is a fascinating and essential study for scholars of Byzantine and early Islamic Egypt.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 2012
10 people are currently reading
125 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 3, 2025
A very interesting book that conducts historical and archaeological analysis to document the shift in Egyptian society from a Greek/Coptic Christian society to an Arabic / Muslim one. It covers the first few centuries of Islamic rule and heavily subverts some of the common narratives and histories that are ideologically driven and utilised by Muslims, Arabs and Copts alike.
For example, it subverts some very pervasive narratives including the 'nationalist' discourse that Copts universally accepted the Arab invasion as salvation from roman rule. It seems the Clergy did not welcome invasion, and the notables who did were Melkites and not copts with only one exception. The meeting between Amr and Pope Benjamin (which both Muslims and Copts hold as part of their history) is seemingly also mythological, as the latter was still in upper Egypt for years following the invasion, and the Melkites were ascendent and accepted by the Arabs following the invasion.
The earliest conversions to Islam similarly were not necessarily brought about by force (the early Arab rule was indifferent to islamisation), nor were they necessarily convinced of Islam. They wanted upwards social mobility and to avoid the taxation levied against people of the book. The book does seem to completely avoid a discussion of the very repressive Mamluk era that followed, for reasons the author does not explain.
Speaking Arabic similarly, would not have been an ideological decision but a pragmatic one, and only later was it heavily associated with Islam, and Coptic with Christianity.
Another area that is avoided or is ignored by the commonly taught history of Egypt is the fact there were SEVENTEEN revolts against Arab/Muslim rulers in the first two centuries of rule. These are often framed as 'Coptic Revolts' but were in fact often started by Arabs and were usually prompted by unfair taxation practices. Copts and Arabs alike took part in these revolts
The book also covers other interesting topics such as the relationship between the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian, Nubian and Syrian churches during this era which is greatly, polemics between communities and so on.
It is interesting to see how the communities themselves created narratives that suited them in the present in relation to history. Copts for example began to frame Byzantine rule as absolutely oppressive at all times. Records from Copts in that era do not attest this. Arabs and Muslims began to claim Copts welcomed the invasion, again records do not attest that either. Arabs and Muslims similarly at points claimed that they were resisted by Copts and claimed 'Adwa' as a pretext to oppress Copts, which again was not historical.
We also get very funny or bizarre subsections of history such as an elderly Bishop chasing other bishops out of a meeting with a stick to prevent them electing a pope he doesn't like, or a Muazzin throwing himself into the foundations of a new church and shouting he would rather be buried alive than let the Christians have their church. These are interspersed with depressing conditions Copts had to live in over the centuries and the occasional failures of the Coptic Church hierarchy - internal squabbling, failure to adapt to the times, simony and so on.
In the spirit of the book though, which interrogated sources and their rationale: what else would a Copt, funded by an Arab, majority Muslim institution want you to think? Why for example, does the text focus solely on the era of peace and tolerance just prior to the tumultuous reign of Al Hakim who violently oppressed and forcibly converted Christians? And the subsequent Mamluk rule, in which copts were similarly massacred, villages depopulated and conversions forced? As a Copt, I am interested in learning about the history of my ancestors - but this book and it's narrow focus was both helpful, and unhelpful in this regard.
I would recommend other books on the topic which are both more engaging and helpful for Copts specifically who want to learn about their ancestors. These include Motherland Lost and The Popes of Egypt series.
For example, it subverts some very pervasive narratives including the 'nationalist' discourse that Copts universally accepted the Arab invasion as salvation from roman rule. It seems the Clergy did not welcome invasion, and the notables who did were Melkites and not copts with only one exception. The meeting between Amr and Pope Benjamin (which both Muslims and Copts hold as part of their history) is seemingly also mythological, as the latter was still in upper Egypt for years following the invasion, and the Melkites were ascendent and accepted by the Arabs following the invasion.
The earliest conversions to Islam similarly were not necessarily brought about by force (the early Arab rule was indifferent to islamisation), nor were they necessarily convinced of Islam. They wanted upwards social mobility and to avoid the taxation levied against people of the book. The book does seem to completely avoid a discussion of the very repressive Mamluk era that followed, for reasons the author does not explain.
Speaking Arabic similarly, would not have been an ideological decision but a pragmatic one, and only later was it heavily associated with Islam, and Coptic with Christianity.
Another area that is avoided or is ignored by the commonly taught history of Egypt is the fact there were SEVENTEEN revolts against Arab/Muslim rulers in the first two centuries of rule. These are often framed as 'Coptic Revolts' but were in fact often started by Arabs and were usually prompted by unfair taxation practices. Copts and Arabs alike took part in these revolts
The book also covers other interesting topics such as the relationship between the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian, Nubian and Syrian churches during this era which is greatly, polemics between communities and so on.
It is interesting to see how the communities themselves created narratives that suited them in the present in relation to history. Copts for example began to frame Byzantine rule as absolutely oppressive at all times. Records from Copts in that era do not attest this. Arabs and Muslims began to claim Copts welcomed the invasion, again records do not attest that either. Arabs and Muslims similarly at points claimed that they were resisted by Copts and claimed 'Adwa' as a pretext to oppress Copts, which again was not historical.
We also get very funny or bizarre subsections of history such as an elderly Bishop chasing other bishops out of a meeting with a stick to prevent them electing a pope he doesn't like, or a Muazzin throwing himself into the foundations of a new church and shouting he would rather be buried alive than let the Christians have their church. These are interspersed with depressing conditions Copts had to live in over the centuries and the occasional failures of the Coptic Church hierarchy - internal squabbling, failure to adapt to the times, simony and so on.
In the spirit of the book though, which interrogated sources and their rationale: what else would a Copt, funded by an Arab, majority Muslim institution want you to think? Why for example, does the text focus solely on the era of peace and tolerance just prior to the tumultuous reign of Al Hakim who violently oppressed and forcibly converted Christians? And the subsequent Mamluk rule, in which copts were similarly massacred, villages depopulated and conversions forced? As a Copt, I am interested in learning about the history of my ancestors - but this book and it's narrow focus was both helpful, and unhelpful in this regard.
I would recommend other books on the topic which are both more engaging and helpful for Copts specifically who want to learn about their ancestors. These include Motherland Lost and The Popes of Egypt series.
January 25, 2023
Maged Mikhail’s book lays the groundwork for thinking about Christian-Muslim encounters in medieval Egypt, by historically analyzing the Egyptian society after the Arab conquest in 641 CE. Using a wide variety of Arabic, Coptic, and Greek documentary and narrative sources, the book presents a complex picture of Coptic history. It untangles the intertwined threads of doctrinal disputes, language, law, communal identity, fiscal policies, and literatures, and ultimately challenges several trends in the historiography of Egypt, or what one might call “pure narratives.”
First, From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt challenges the notion that Egypt’s Islamicization was simply a matter of Arab military victory. Egypt became Islamic over centuries and numerous aspects of life were negotiated to produce, in piecemeal fashion, the sociopolitical reality that would become Islamic Egypt. Second, the book writes against the narrative of continuous Christian antagonism to their Arab conquerors. By grounding his research in the sources and untangling the threads of intra-Christian doctrinal conflicts Mikhail demonstrates that Coptic Christians welcomed the conquerors and believed they were appointed by God. It is only later that they would challenge such a political ideology, mostly in polemical literatures.
Another pure narrative Mikhail deconstructs is that of continuous antagonism between the two groups, and of systemic Muslim persecution of Christians. For example, the eighth- and ninth-century Bashmūrite revolts were traditionally though to be nationalist Christian revolts against the invaders. Mikhail disagrees. By closely reading accounts of the revolts, he concludes the seventeen revolts were protesting increased taxation. Both Egyptian Christians and Arab Muslims joined forces against a common enemy: Egypt’s rulers. Eventually, the revolts were brutally suppressed. But whereas traditional historiography, including al-Maq̣rīzī, regarded this suppression as the beginning of Copts’ demise, Mikhail argues that these were politically motivated revolts against the government’s fiscal policies.
Ultimately, Mikhail challenges the pure narrative of a stable Coptic identity that was already present in, and has persisted since, the Arab conquest. Egyptian miaphysite Christians in Late Antiquity moved seamlessly between Greek and Coptic languages, cultures, and identities. A Coptic identity would develop gradually, complexly, and in conversation with numerous surrounding factors. Most importantly, it would be an intentional project to demarcate communal boundary, heralded by the ecclesial hierarchy in the middle ages and disseminated through various means such as hagiography, historiography, polemical literature, and legal canons. This identity would center on the Coptic community as the “Righteous Sufferer” (133) across the centuries. The reality of Christian-Muslim encounter in late antique Egypt, Mikhail argues, was messier than any “pure narrative” would have us believe.
First, From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt challenges the notion that Egypt’s Islamicization was simply a matter of Arab military victory. Egypt became Islamic over centuries and numerous aspects of life were negotiated to produce, in piecemeal fashion, the sociopolitical reality that would become Islamic Egypt. Second, the book writes against the narrative of continuous Christian antagonism to their Arab conquerors. By grounding his research in the sources and untangling the threads of intra-Christian doctrinal conflicts Mikhail demonstrates that Coptic Christians welcomed the conquerors and believed they were appointed by God. It is only later that they would challenge such a political ideology, mostly in polemical literatures.
Another pure narrative Mikhail deconstructs is that of continuous antagonism between the two groups, and of systemic Muslim persecution of Christians. For example, the eighth- and ninth-century Bashmūrite revolts were traditionally though to be nationalist Christian revolts against the invaders. Mikhail disagrees. By closely reading accounts of the revolts, he concludes the seventeen revolts were protesting increased taxation. Both Egyptian Christians and Arab Muslims joined forces against a common enemy: Egypt’s rulers. Eventually, the revolts were brutally suppressed. But whereas traditional historiography, including al-Maq̣rīzī, regarded this suppression as the beginning of Copts’ demise, Mikhail argues that these were politically motivated revolts against the government’s fiscal policies.
Ultimately, Mikhail challenges the pure narrative of a stable Coptic identity that was already present in, and has persisted since, the Arab conquest. Egyptian miaphysite Christians in Late Antiquity moved seamlessly between Greek and Coptic languages, cultures, and identities. A Coptic identity would develop gradually, complexly, and in conversation with numerous surrounding factors. Most importantly, it would be an intentional project to demarcate communal boundary, heralded by the ecclesial hierarchy in the middle ages and disseminated through various means such as hagiography, historiography, polemical literature, and legal canons. This identity would center on the Coptic community as the “Righteous Sufferer” (133) across the centuries. The reality of Christian-Muslim encounter in late antique Egypt, Mikhail argues, was messier than any “pure narrative” would have us believe.
January 27, 2019
For anyone interested in Egypt, Late Antiquity, or the relations between Christianity and Islam, this book is a must-have. Mikhail offers a comprehensive analysis of the changes that came over Egypt following the Arab Conquest, providing primary source evidence that rejects the traditional nationalistic historiography. The Copts are no longer presented as a monolithic culture that saw the Arab Conquerers as liberators but as a changing group that had internal divisions of their own. The centuries following the conquest were paramount to the shaping of Coptic culture and this book presents a nuanced view of the politics and culture of the Egyptians and Arabs in a time of transitions.
December 28, 2025
The book is clearly not written for casuals (like me), but for an audience already familiar with the relevant historiography, whether Coptic, Greek, Melkite, or Arab Islamic. This helps explain why several moments that might otherwise be considered pivotal in Coptic history are treated only elliptically.
That said, the book is relatively brief, and a patient reader will find it useful.
With respect to the Arab conquest, Mikhail challenges the frequently repeated claim that the Copts welcomed or actively collaborated with the invaders. Using John of Nikiu as a source instead suggest a far more ambivalent reality. While Copts experienced both repression and accommodation under Byzantine rule, they did not interpret the conquest as a just liberation. Rather, the Coptic community itself appears deeply divided in its response.
Under early Islamic rule, Muslims did not pursue coercive conversion, though they did enforce the jizya and the ghiyār regulations on Copts. Church construction was at times permitted, even as churches built after the conquest were occasionally destroyed. On the whole, Copts were tolerated, forced conversion remained rare until the ninth century, and large scale conversion occurred primarily through fiscal incentives, most notably exemption from the jizya. This process coincided with the settlement of Arab Qaysi tribes in the Delta, arguably the most transformative development of the period, as it reshaped the Muslim presence from a largely martial elite into an agrarian society.
Beyond gradual Arabization and fiscal pressure, Mikhail resists any singular narrative of Muslim treatment of Copts. Instead, he emphasizes fluctuation - periods of relative tolerance alternated with episodes of persecution, the Umayyad and Mamluk period being a notable example of the latter. While ibn Marwan as an example of the former.
Several episodes in Coptic history, however, receive only cursory attention. The Bashmurian revolts, for instance, are mentioned only in passing and are framed not as expressions of Coptic nationalism but as uprisings of farmers (this I found strange, since the majority of Copts were farmers?). Mikhail notes that Muslims sometimes participated in these revolts, although I felt this claim needs further elaboration. Given that the principal leaders are known to have been Coptic, the nature of Muslim involvement and what such participation entailed remains opaque.
Similarly, the reign of al-Hakim and the later Mamluk period are treated with striking brevity. The extensive violence against Copts under the Mamluks, as well as the broader impact of the Crusades on Egypt’s Christian population, is largely absent from the book.
By far a strength of the book are the stories of the polemical and political struggles between Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian factions, the latter favored by Muslim authorities due to their demographic dominance. Muslim rulers appear to have exploited these ecclesiastical divisions with political acuity, leveraging them in the service of the effective governing.
In sum, the book is a valuable and often illuminating, though one marked by notable lacunae that at times obscure the overall story, I think.
That said, the book is relatively brief, and a patient reader will find it useful.
With respect to the Arab conquest, Mikhail challenges the frequently repeated claim that the Copts welcomed or actively collaborated with the invaders. Using John of Nikiu as a source instead suggest a far more ambivalent reality. While Copts experienced both repression and accommodation under Byzantine rule, they did not interpret the conquest as a just liberation. Rather, the Coptic community itself appears deeply divided in its response.
Under early Islamic rule, Muslims did not pursue coercive conversion, though they did enforce the jizya and the ghiyār regulations on Copts. Church construction was at times permitted, even as churches built after the conquest were occasionally destroyed. On the whole, Copts were tolerated, forced conversion remained rare until the ninth century, and large scale conversion occurred primarily through fiscal incentives, most notably exemption from the jizya. This process coincided with the settlement of Arab Qaysi tribes in the Delta, arguably the most transformative development of the period, as it reshaped the Muslim presence from a largely martial elite into an agrarian society.
Beyond gradual Arabization and fiscal pressure, Mikhail resists any singular narrative of Muslim treatment of Copts. Instead, he emphasizes fluctuation - periods of relative tolerance alternated with episodes of persecution, the Umayyad and Mamluk period being a notable example of the latter. While ibn Marwan as an example of the former.
Several episodes in Coptic history, however, receive only cursory attention. The Bashmurian revolts, for instance, are mentioned only in passing and are framed not as expressions of Coptic nationalism but as uprisings of farmers (this I found strange, since the majority of Copts were farmers?). Mikhail notes that Muslims sometimes participated in these revolts, although I felt this claim needs further elaboration. Given that the principal leaders are known to have been Coptic, the nature of Muslim involvement and what such participation entailed remains opaque.
Similarly, the reign of al-Hakim and the later Mamluk period are treated with striking brevity. The extensive violence against Copts under the Mamluks, as well as the broader impact of the Crusades on Egypt’s Christian population, is largely absent from the book.
By far a strength of the book are the stories of the polemical and political struggles between Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian factions, the latter favored by Muslim authorities due to their demographic dominance. Muslim rulers appear to have exploited these ecclesiastical divisions with political acuity, leveraging them in the service of the effective governing.
In sum, the book is a valuable and often illuminating, though one marked by notable lacunae that at times obscure the overall story, I think.
September 12, 2025
This book offers a rich analysis of Egypt’s transition from a Byzantine province to a dominion of the nascent Islamic state, as well as the many cultural and political developments that followed the Muslim conquest in 641 CE. Mikhail’s central argument is that this shift was not a sudden rupture, but a gradual and continuous process that developed over several centuries. The depth of scholarship is impressive; he draws on Arabic and Coptic papyri alongside other textual sources from that time period written by both Muslim and Christian authors. Most importantly, the book challenges and refutes several long-standing misconceptions which are a result of a more nationalistic historiography.
Some chapters felt rather dry—particularly the discussion of intra-Christian polemics or the politics of the Coptic Church—though their inclusion in this work is understandable given the scope of the study. The prose can be dense sometimes, but it is still an extremely rewarding read if you are genuinely interested in this topic. And finally, I must say I don't agree with all of the author’s personal views regarding the early Muslim generations or the conquest itself, which is only natural given that he is Christian and I am Muslim. Nonetheless, I definitely consider this a valuable work and would recommend it to anyone truly interested in learning more about early Islamic Egypt.
Some chapters felt rather dry—particularly the discussion of intra-Christian polemics or the politics of the Coptic Church—though their inclusion in this work is understandable given the scope of the study. The prose can be dense sometimes, but it is still an extremely rewarding read if you are genuinely interested in this topic. And finally, I must say I don't agree with all of the author’s personal views regarding the early Muslim generations or the conquest itself, which is only natural given that he is Christian and I am Muslim. Nonetheless, I definitely consider this a valuable work and would recommend it to anyone truly interested in learning more about early Islamic Egypt.
November 15, 2025
Fantastic and deep analysis, which relies heavily on primary sources and is strongly revisionist to the modern literature on the topic, focusing on the 600s-900s AD period of Islamic rule in Egypt, and how it led to a large cultural shift.
New ideas are asserted, for example that the Coptic hierarchy did not defect and receive benefits from the Arabs initially, or that the Egyptians were happy to be free of their Byzantine oppressors. The Coptic hierarchy was brought into the administration decades after the conquest, with the Chalcedonian/Melkite secular elite of the Byzantines initially remaining predominant. And the Byzantine Oppressor narrative came about in the 800s, by both Muslim and Christian sources for their own reasons (justifying their conquest vs forging a distinct identity without upsetting the ire of the Islamic government for example).
Whilst key periods of oppression are noted, Mikhail argues that this process of transformation was primarily peaceful and voluntary. Eventual changes in the law: Positive treatment of non-Arabic Muslims from the Abbasids in the 750s onwards, a key migration to the delta of 300 Qaysi Arab families in the early 700s etc., made for an incremental but overall radical and transformation of Egyptian society (the 700s being the initiation of changes that came to large fruition in the 800s-900s).
I honestly still find it so incomprehensible it happened despite the factors discussed, given the sheer population of Egypt (3-4ish million) at the time in comparison to the Arabs. Makes me want to study Arabisation in other regions further, I often feel "these factors seem important but would they really shift such a large society so drastically?". I think elite theory may be relevant here, particularly in the fact that the large Coptic population did not revolt and establish independence governance over an initially tiny Muslim elite (not having a tradition of self governance since 339 BC, so 1000 years by the Arab conquest, probably helps explain that, albeit the cultural shift under the Arabs is so much larger than what happened under the Persians, Greeks and Romans).
The book is well written and compelling, it's not only carried by the fascinating topic. It also remains gripping despite the incredibly niche discussions at times (talking about the story of a moving mountain and how it signifies communal distinctions within a context of blending similarities between Christians, Muslims and Jews for example).
My main complaint would not be the fault of the author, but that specific details on points of the demographic makeup at certain points etc. aren't able to be explored without the needed data. Despite learning so much I feel the fundamental questions aren't super clear still, but it's enough of an understanding to have the broad picture of what would have happened, something I want to supplement with further (and perhaps dissenting from this book) literature. But I really appreciated the book for what it was, and it's deeply enriched my understanding of the topic and period.
New ideas are asserted, for example that the Coptic hierarchy did not defect and receive benefits from the Arabs initially, or that the Egyptians were happy to be free of their Byzantine oppressors. The Coptic hierarchy was brought into the administration decades after the conquest, with the Chalcedonian/Melkite secular elite of the Byzantines initially remaining predominant. And the Byzantine Oppressor narrative came about in the 800s, by both Muslim and Christian sources for their own reasons (justifying their conquest vs forging a distinct identity without upsetting the ire of the Islamic government for example).
Whilst key periods of oppression are noted, Mikhail argues that this process of transformation was primarily peaceful and voluntary. Eventual changes in the law: Positive treatment of non-Arabic Muslims from the Abbasids in the 750s onwards, a key migration to the delta of 300 Qaysi Arab families in the early 700s etc., made for an incremental but overall radical and transformation of Egyptian society (the 700s being the initiation of changes that came to large fruition in the 800s-900s).
I honestly still find it so incomprehensible it happened despite the factors discussed, given the sheer population of Egypt (3-4ish million) at the time in comparison to the Arabs. Makes me want to study Arabisation in other regions further, I often feel "these factors seem important but would they really shift such a large society so drastically?". I think elite theory may be relevant here, particularly in the fact that the large Coptic population did not revolt and establish independence governance over an initially tiny Muslim elite (not having a tradition of self governance since 339 BC, so 1000 years by the Arab conquest, probably helps explain that, albeit the cultural shift under the Arabs is so much larger than what happened under the Persians, Greeks and Romans).
The book is well written and compelling, it's not only carried by the fascinating topic. It also remains gripping despite the incredibly niche discussions at times (talking about the story of a moving mountain and how it signifies communal distinctions within a context of blending similarities between Christians, Muslims and Jews for example).
My main complaint would not be the fault of the author, but that specific details on points of the demographic makeup at certain points etc. aren't able to be explored without the needed data. Despite learning so much I feel the fundamental questions aren't super clear still, but it's enough of an understanding to have the broad picture of what would have happened, something I want to supplement with further (and perhaps dissenting from this book) literature. But I really appreciated the book for what it was, and it's deeply enriched my understanding of the topic and period.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews