CC BY
2Ayman A. Mahamoud 3>
Associate Professor, Department of History, College of Arts, Sciences and Information Technology, University of Khorfakkan
Address: PO Box. 18119, Khor Fakkan, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates E-mail: [email protected]
The Ottomans' Attitude towards St. Catherine's Monastery in the 16th Century: A Study Based on the Decree (Ferman) of Sultan Selim II (1566-1574) and an Analysis of Its Historical Impacts
This article discusses the relationship between Islam and Christianity, focusing on the interaction between society and the Ottoman authority, as well as Saint Catherine's Monastery and its monks, which achieved victory over the Mamluks at the Battle of Ridaniya in 1517, resulting in Egypt becoming a part of the Ottoman Empire. Subsequently, Ottoman sultans adopted flexible policies towards Christian institutions in Egypt, including St. Catherine's Monastery, where monks faced attacks and harassment from the surrounding Bedouins and some Ottoman authorities. This led the Ottomans to issue orders regulating relations between Ottoman authorities as Muslims and the monastery and its monks as Christians, reflecting their broader stance towards Eastern Christians, specifically Christians and their monasteries in Egypt. This study aims to assess the impact of attacks on the monastery and its resident monks by surrounding Bedouins and to analyse the historical effects of these orders during the sixteenth century. This article examines and discusses Ottoman policy towards St. Catherine's Monastery through an important and rare document found in the Egyptian archives dating to the late sixteenth century, discussing the monastery's situation, its monks, and the stance of Ottoman Sultan Selim II (1566-1574) towards the monastery.
Keywords: Ottoman Empire, Saint Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, monasticism, Egypt, Ferman, Sultan.
For citation: Mahamoud A.A. The Ottomans' Attitude towards St. Catherine's Monastery in the 16th Century: A Study Based on the Decree (Ferman) of Sultan Selim II (1566-1574) and an Analysis of Its Historical Impacts. Christianity in the Middle East, 2024, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 5-20. DOI: 10.24412/2587-9316-2024-0110
Махамуд Айман Ахмед О
доцент кафедры истории колледжа искусств, наук и информационных технологий, Университет Хор-Факкан
Адрес: 18119, Хор-Факкан, Шарджа, Объединенные Арабские Эмираты E-mail: [email protected]
Отношение османов к монастырю Святой Екатерины в XVI веке: исследование на основе указа (фермана) султана Селима II (1566-1574) и анализ его исторических последствий
В этой статье рассматриваются отношения между исламом и христианством с упором на взаимодействие общества и османской власти,а также монастыря Святой Екатерины и его монахов, которые одержали победу над мамлюками в битве при Ридании в 1517 г., в результате чего Египет стал частью Османской империи. Впоследствии османские султаны приняли гибкую политику в отношении христианских учреждений в Египте, включая монастырь Святой Екатерины, где монахи подвергались нападениям и притеснениям со стороны окружающих бедуинов и некоторых османских властей. Это привело к тому, что османы издали приказы, регулирующие отношения между османскими властями как мусульманами и монастырем и его монахами как христианами, отражающие их более широкую позицию по отношению к восточным христианам, в частности христианам и их монастырям в Египте. Целью данного исследования является оценка влияния нападений на монастырь и его монахов со стороны окружающих бедуинов и анализ исторических последствий этих приказов в XVI в. В этой статье рассматривается и обсуждается политика Османской империи в отношении монастыря Святой Екатерины на основе важного и редкого документа, найденного в египетских архивах и датируемого концом XVI в., в котором обсуждается положение монастыря, его монахов и позиция османского султана Селима II (1566-1574) по отношению к монастырю.
Ключевые слова: Османская империя, монастырь святой Екатерины, Синай, монашество, Египет, ферман, султан.
Для цитирования: Махaмуд А.А. Отношение османов к монастырю Святой Екатерины в XVI веке: исследование на основе указа (фермана) султана Селима II (1566-1574) и анализ его исторических последствий // Христианство на Ближнем Востоке. 2024. Т. 8. № 3. С. 5-20. DOI: 10.24412/2587-9316-2024-0110
Introduction
St. Catherine's Monastery, located on the Sinai Peninsula, is one of the oldest Christian monasteries in the world. Following the Ottomans' victory over the Mamluks at the famous Battle of Ridaniya in 1517, Egypt became a part of the Ottoman Empire and a province under the Ottoman Sultan. Consequently, Ottomans sought to extend their control over the Sinai Peninsula. The Ottoman sultans adopted various policies towards Christian religious institutions in Egypt, including St. Catherine's Monastery, to ensure political and social stability in Egyptian Province. The monastery faced a series of attacks and assaults that threatened the existence and safety of its monks. These attacks ranged from direct military assaults to attempts at looting, theft, and vandalism by Bedouins residing in the area surrounding the monastery. Thus, Ottoman policies and stances towards St. Catherine's Monastery varied.
In this framework, this article addresses the Ottomans' stance towards St. Catherine's Monastery in the 16th century through the study of the Ferman of Sultan Selim II1 and an analysis of its historical impacts.This article discusses Ottoman policy towards St. Catherine's Monastery through an important and rare document discovered by the researcher in the Egyptian archives. This document, dating to the late 16th century, discusses the state of the monastery, its monks, and the position of the Ottoman Sultan Selim II (1566-1574) towards the monastery. The significance of this study lies in the fact that most studies on St. Catherine's monastery have relied on documents preserved by the monastery and recorded by its monks. In contrast, this study relies on a document issued by Ottoman authorities and recorded in one of the Ottoman judicial institutions in Egypt.
In this context, this article raises several questions about the stance of Ottoman sultans towards St. Catherine's Monastery and its monks. Does this Ferman reflect Ottomans' commitment to the policy of religious tolerance adopted by religious minorities in their territories? Consequently, was this stance a model of peaceful coexistence and religious tolerance by Muslim Ottomans towards Christians? Did this policy feature relative tolerance and respect for the monastery's privacy and monks? Did these attitudes persist or did some sultans impose stricter constraints on the monastery? Did the monastery maintain good relations with Ottoman authorities? Were the relationships between the monastery and the local community based on continuous exchange and interaction or did the monks live relatively isolated from their surrounding society? Or were the relations between the monastery and the surrounding Bedouins characterized by mutual animosity? Did Sultan Selim II's Ferman have a lasting historical impact?
Importantly,most studies on St. Catherine's Monastery have relied on documents preserved by the monastery's monks, whereas this study relies on a document from the Ottoman judicial institutions in Egypt, this article is essentially a study tracing the relationship between the Ottoman authorities and the monastery. The central point of the article is that the monastery and its monks continued to thrive and maintain a strong presence within an Islamic society, an Islamic political environment, and a local community characterized by Bedouin lifestyles surrounding the monastery. To discuss the issues raised in the Ferman and find answers to these hypotheses, this study examines the historical context of the period when the Ferman was issued and analyzes its content and its effects on the monastery and its monks to practice the rites of monasticism2 as follows:
Historical Context of the Decree of Ottoman Sultan Selim II
First, it is important to note that we cannot study the text of the Ferman issued by Ottoman Sultan Selim II, analyze its content, or understand its consequences without considering the historical context surrounding the Ferman. This includes understanding the real motivations and reasons
1 Sultan Selim II: Born on May 28, 1524CE, Sultan Selim II was the son of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent and the eleventh Ottoman Sultan. He was the second son of Suleiman, born to his concubine Hurrem, after his brother Prince Mehmed. Selim II was the first Ottoman Sultan to be born in Istanbul and also the first to die there. Additionally, he was the first Sultan who did not lead military campaigns personally. Despite receiving a high level of education, he delegated state affairs to his son-in-law and Grand Vizier, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha. He was also the second Ottoman Sultan to sign friendship treaties and trade agreements with several European countries, He was more tolerant towards Christians, much like his father, Sultan Suleiman. Selim II ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1566 to 1574 and passed away on December 15, 1574CE [Oztuna, 1988. P. 381-382].
2 Monasticism: Monasticism was Egypt's gift to Christianity, a uniquely Egyptian system. Monks were crucial in Egypt's religious, political, and cultural history. Among them were the Patriarchs of Alexandria and the clergy who gained popularity and had a strong influence on the public. Their ascetic lifestyle and detachment from worldly pleasures earned them a special place in the hearts of Egyptians. Monks and their followers rallied to support their leaders in their conflict with the state, rejecting all things Greek in terms of culture and thought, and clinging to their own language [Ata, 2003. P. 351]. At Saint Catherine's Monastery, the number of monks varied according to their lifestyle, living conditions, and security situation. In the 11th century, there were three hundred monks; in the 14th century, the number reached four hundred; and during the Ottoman era, their numbers ranged between 100 and ninety. The decline in numbers may have been due to deteriorating Ottoman-European relations and the persecution of the monks by the surrounding Arabs and Bedouins [Nasif, 2008. P. 105].
behind the relationship between the Ottoman authorities in Egypt and the monasteries, churches, and resident monks, as well as the role of this relationship in organizing interactions between the monastery and the local community in Sinai. This was explored as follows:
St. Catherine's Monastery: Its Location and Founding Story
Monasteries played a crucial role in expressing the institutional ideals of monastic life and served as the spiritual and intellectual centers of their local communities [Dowman, 2021. P. 31]. Among these monasteries is St. Catherine's Monastery, also known as the Monastery of Sinai, located at Mount Moses amidst the mountains of the southern Sinai Peninsula. The monastery lies northeast of the town of El-Tor and is approximately 55 km in a straight line [Ramzy, 1994. P. 267]. It is one of the most significant monasteries known in Arabic sources and documents as the Monastery of Sinai, later known as St. Catherine's monastery. The monastery was surrounded by a large, fortified wall [Qasim, 1979. P. 134]. It was built by architect Stephanos Ailas in the 6th century AD during the reign of Byzantine Emperor Justinian3 . The walls of Justinian's fortress and the main church were constructed in the 6th century and are of great importance for studying Byzantine architecture as part of the Byzantine Empire's defensive system, according to historian Procopius.Justinian had other motives for building the fortress at Mount Sinai, in addition to his stated aim of protecting the monks. He intended the monastery and church to serve as a refuge for the monks if they were attacked by bedouins. Initially, the monks did not live in the monastery immediately after its construction, but continued to reside in caves and grottos around the monastery and fortress until the episcopal see was moved from Wadi Feiran to Sinai in 649 AD. The monks then inhabited the fortress, turning it into a monastery and the center of the Diocese of Sinai. The head of the monastery became the bishop of the Diocese, titled Bishop of the Monastery of Sinai and Pharan. The monastery's church was originally called the Church of the Virgin, only later named St. Catherine after 600 ADS, as noted in the manuscript known as the "Martyrdom of Anthony". The monastery houses an impressive collection of Christian manuscripts, icons, and a mosaic of transfiguration [Palanti, 2021. P. 1].
During this period, the monastery was called the Monastery of Mount Sinai, the Mountain of Supplication, or the Sinai Monastery, as mentioned in the Quran [Nasif, 2009. P. 30-31]. Its current name, Saint Catherine's Monastery, dates back to the Middle Ages when Saint Catherine, who lived during the early days of Christianity, was a pagan who converted to Christianity and began preaching it. This troubled the pagan authorities, who persecuted her, leading her to martyrdom. Consequently, Emperor Justinian ordered the construction of the monastery in the mid-6th century AD, and the remains of Saint Catherine were transferred to the monastery in the 8th century AD hundreds of years after her death [El-adl, 2004. P. 307].
Another account mentions that the traveller Birtator visited the Monastery of Mount Sinai and recounted a legend regarding the reasons for the monastery's construction. According to the legend, a terrible famine once struck, forcing monks to flee the monastery into the desert in search of food, leaving Saint Catherine's body unguarded. The saint appeared to them and commanded them to return where they found a mound of wheat, prompting them to build the monastery in her name. The monastery comprises not just one building but several smaller churches scattered throughout the monastery, including the Church of Saint Damian, the Church of Saint Simeon, and a mosque within its walls [Qasim, 1979. P. 137].
This monastery is thus considered an important religious and historical site, containing manuscripts, relics, and religious symbols reflecting a significant cultural and religious heritage. The monastery served as a sanctuary and refuge for monks throughout the Middle Ages.
The Ottoman Stance on Eastern Christians
The Ottoman era marks a pivotal phase in the history of Christianity, not only for the Near East and Eastern Churches but also for global history and the universal church. Therefore, Ottoman history remains a fundamental reference for writing the history of Eastern Christians, linking them with numerous intellectual and social legacies, as it is the most recent period closest to Arabs in time and place. Within Ottoman occupation, European privileges were granted to protect various Christian churches [Abou Nahra, 2013. P. 24-26]. After the Ottoman Empire granted foreign privileges in the 16th century, ensuring the right of residence, personal freedom, and freedom of belief. Consequently, these privileges included all Christian subjects in the countries under Ottoman rule [Farjeet, 2008. P. 120-121].
3 The Justinian Covenant: This monastery was built during the reign of Emperor Justinian (537-565 AD) in the Byzantine style and designed like a medieval fortress, so that the monks could devote themselves to their worship in safety from the Arab tribes who had previously attacked them before the monastery was constructed [El-sarougi, 1982. P. 106].
Christians in Egypt and the Arab East did not regard the transfer of power from the Mamluks to the Ottomans in 1516 and 1517 as significant events with noteworthy changes. This is because of their long experience with Islamic rule, which classifies the population based on a certain criterion and establishes a legal system for governance. Under this system, they had no say or participation in decision-making, as they were considered "dhimmis" under Muslim protection, not equal in rights but rather subordinate in obtaining and exercising them. When the Ottomans occupied Egypt, they did not significantly alter the existing conditions and maintained the administrative and economic systems in place during the Mamluk era.
In the first half of the 16th century, Ottoman conquests encompassed most of the Arab world, making the Ottomans the supreme power in the Islamic world and guardians of the holy Christian and Islamic lands in Egypt and the Arab East.The Ottoman Sultanate, as an Islamic empire, adopted the Hanafi school of thought as its official doctrine, with muftis playing a crucial role in various fields, including religious matters related to issuing fatwas. The extensive conquests spanning three continents meant that the Ottoman Empire ruled over diverse peoples of different nationalities, religions, and languages, including the Middle East and Egypt, home to various churches: Greek Orthodox, Syrian Jacobites, and Armenians. While Christians did not enjoy complete equality with the state's Muslim subjects, they were granted some religious freedom to practice their rituals, and the state took responsibility for protecting their lives and properties under the millet system, which classified state subjects based on religious doctrine rather than nationality or language [Abou Nahra, 2013. P. 3-4].
Thus, there were ties and contradictions that played a role in the evolving relationship between Ottoman authority and Christians, stemming from the nature of the relationship between civil and spiritual authority. Here, their role was limited to religious minorities. The question that remains pertains to the precise nature of the relationship between monastic communities and Islamic society [Afifi, 1992. P. 29].
The answer becomes clear through the policies of diverse population groups that not only succeeded in establishing relatively harmonious coexistence but also facilitated the collective exchange of ideas, interests, and concerns across potential sectarian divides [Dowman, 2021. P. 31].
Hence, Cyril Mango noted the impact of sectarian biases on administrative policies, stating that even under Arab rule, Orthodox monks were able to maintain their principal institutions in Palestine and Mount Sinai (referring to Saint Catherine's Monastery) [Dowman, 2021. P. 31].
In this context, the Ottoman Empire has adopted Islamic law and classified its subjects accordingly. Christians, in legal terms, were considered "People of the Book" and "dhimmis" or "covenanted people", meaning they enjoyed guarantees provided by a covenant in exchange for certain obligations and restrictions. This distinction among members of Islamic society based on religion was not new to Eastern Christians,as they had known about it since the Arab Islamic conquests and through the Umayyad and Abbasid eras, intensifying during the Mamluk period. Under Ottomans, the dhimmi system was applied to Christians and Jews. The Ottomans adhered to the principles of Islamic law that distinguished between the "House of Islam", encompassing all lands under Islamic authority, and the "House of Covenant", which included dhimmis under specific criteria and conditions established by Islamic jurisprudence and implemented by the Ottomans in the territories they occupied [Abo Nahra, 2013. P. 7-8].
It is clear that every society faces problems arising from inequalities among various groups. In the Ottoman Empire, religion defined a person's identity as Muslim, Greek Orthodox, or Eastern Christian, even before they saw themselves as Ottoman citizens. Although the Ottoman government granted official recognition to these millets and religious communities, it maintained religious distinctions [Davison, 1954. P. 844].
Thus, the terms of coexistence between Muslims and Christians, or other non-Muslims, were implemented under the supervision of the dhimmi system, where the supreme authority recognized the legal personality of groups united by common religious orientations. Under the dhimmi system, society consists of groups rather than individuals, with each group having the freedom to follow its personal status laws. However, in their dealings with Muslims and the ruling authorities, they were subject to Islamic law.
Monks and the local community
The Arab population has been the primary inhabitants of Sinai since the time of the Justinian. Naoum Shuqair discovered in the Sinai Library that the Bedouins of Banu Ismail lived in the area before the monastery was built. The literature on the nature of the relations between the monks and the Bedouin tribes of Sinai indicates that these relations were neither straightforward nor uniform.Various periods and incidents reflect the deep and solid connections between neighboring communities, with
historical relations dating back to the monastery's beginnings, even before its construction [Nasif, 2009. P. 144].
The oldest tribes in the region of Mount Sinai until the Ottoman era included the Hamada4, Tibna5, and Mawatera tribes as well as the Al' ayd tribe. Successive ruling powers, including the Ottoman Empire, entrusted the Al' ayd tribe to protect and guard noble Mahmal from Egypt to Aqaba. They were mentioned in the Book of Umm,where they oversaw the tribes of Mount Sinai and arranged agreements regarding camel rentals and road security between the Arabs of Mount Sinai and the monks of the Sinai Monastery. There was also the Wasil tribe, believed to be from the Banu Uqba Arabs of Hejaz, who migrated to Mount Sinai and shared land with the Hamada tribe, as well as the Nufei'at tribe [Nasif, 2009. P. 49-50].
Next to the monastery was the Jabaliya tribe6,who considered themselves Romans and identified with the nationality of the monastery's monks, although other tribes viewed them as servants of the monastery. Other nearby tribes included Awlad Sa'id7 Al-'Awarmi and Mazina [Nasif, 2009. P. 146].
The relationship between monasteries and their surrounding geography was influenced by the local population's perception and religious experience, as Muslims interacted with Christian monks. The monastery, as a holy entity, was surrounded by an environment filled with sanctity, separating the monks within the monastery walls from the surrounding society [Dowman, 2021. P. 31].
The monks treated the Bedouins around the monastery kindly and well for several reasons, including preserving the monastery and protecting the monks' lives from any attacks. This protection extended to the monastery's visitors and pilgrims, with the Bedouins serving as guards for the monastery's caravans to and from Mount Sinai in exchange for agreed-upon payments. They also hired Bedouin guards to protect vineyards in return for flour, fruits, and olives [El-sarougi, 1982. P. 114].
Therefore, Bedouins living near the monastery were responsible for guarding the monastery and bringing food to the monks. The monastery's interaction with the outside world was limited to obtaining essential supplies, leading French campaign scholars to call it the "holy prison" during their time in Egypt [Al-Adl, 2004. P. 270].
Despite the mutually beneficial relationship, some Bedouins often attacked the monastery and its properties whenever possible. These attacks took various forms, including beating and insulting the monks, demolishing parts of the monastery walls, forcibly entering the vineyards to seize the fruits, and forcibly taking them [El-Adl, 2004. P. 270].
Monks and the Ottoman Authority in Egypt
The Prophet Muhammad praised the asceticism of Sinai and advised kindness towards the monks, establishing a precedent that governed the relationship between the monastery and the Muslim rulers since the dawn of the Islamic conquest. This tradition was not only a religious one but also a political necessity, as the monastery was situated on the route between Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula. Ensuring the monastery's protection from theft and looting was in the Arabs' interest. When the Prophet Muhammad sent letters to the rulers of Egypt, Byzantium, and Persia, a delegation travelled to these realms, likely passing through Sinai. The monks may have sent a delegation to the Prophet requesting protection for the roads and the monastery. It is probable that the Prophet granted this request and continued to recommend the monks kindly. As a result, the Arab conquest did not alter the management of the monastery; the conquerors respected the area, protected it from the Bedouins of the Sinai Peninsula, and punished those who engaged in theft and looting [Ghali, 2015. P. 173].
Initially, it is important to note that the relationship between the ruling authorities in Egypt and the monks of the monastery was marked by continuous support, especially during the Fatimid Caliphate, which provided full protection to the monks dedicated to worship at Saint Catherine's Monastery. Although Saint Catherine's Monastery did not receive much attention from the Umayyad and Abbasid states, it was fortunate during the Fatimid period. Under the Fatimid Caliph al-Amir bi-
4 Al-Humadah Tribe: al-Humadah are one of the ancient tribes in the Tür region. They settled in Wadi Feiran, the richest area in the south, and shared it with the Banu Wasil tribe. However, wars broke out between them, weakening the Hamadah and allowing other tribes, such as the Ulayqat and the Sawalha, to overcome them and settle their lands.
5 Al-Tibnah Tribe: They are one of the oldest tribes that left their mark in Sinai after the Arab conquest of Egypt. The monks initially sought their assistance to protect themselves against other tribes, and they are from the inhabitants of Feiran [Ali, 2021. P. 106].
6 Jabaleya Tribe: The Jabaleya tribe emerged as a distinct group from the Bedouins of Sinai. They are descendants of two hundred soldiers from Bosnia, brought by Emperor Justinian after the construction of the monastery. Over time, they intermingled with Egyptians and became a blend of Romans, Arabs, and Egyptians. Initially Christian, they later converted to Islam and lived a nomadic lifestyle. However, some Arab tribes considered themselves superior and refrained from intermarrying with them [Ghali, 2015. P. 50].
7 Awlad Sa>id Tribe: Awlad Sa'id al-Sawalha are a branch of the Awlad Ali tribe,one of the Arab tribes that historically lived near the Monastery of Saint Catherine. They were responsible for guarding the monastery and became more prominent during the Mamluk and Ottoman periods [Ali, 2021. P. 406].
Ahkami-Allah, the monks of the Sinai Monastery were well-cared for and received his special attention and protection. Some senior Christian officials also took an interest in the maintenance of monasteries. As a result, the monks refused to host King Baldwin I, the Crusader king, in Jerusalem and to grant his request to stay a night at the monastery during his exploratory campaign in the Sinai Peninsula in 510 AH/1116 CE, out of fear of the Fatimid authorities and in gratitude for their own protection [Shafii, 1982. P. 252-253].
This support continued during the Ayyubid era when Saladin renewed the fatimid caliphs' care for the monks. His brother Al-Adil Saif al-Din Abu Bakr followed suit, as evidenced by a document threatening severe punishment for anyone who harmed the monks [Nasif, 2009. P. 61]. Throughout the Mamluk era, Saint Catherine's Monastery enjoyed special status with the Mamluk state. Orders were issued to high-ranking officials in the Tor region and other cities and ports in Egypt to provide all the necessary facilities for the monks to ensure their safety during their travel within and outside the country. Although the monks were granted nearly complete exemptions from all taxes, as one document states, "from our blessed view, the community of Christian monks and nuns, both Melkites and Jacobites", the same document also affirmed that "the Christian monks and nuns, both Jacobites and Melkites, should not be subjected to any obligations, charges, or injustices upon entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre". Despite this, they have faced numerous financial injustices [Qasim,1979. P. 74-136].
The monks did not escape Bedouin attacks, particularly during drought years when the Bedouins resorted to looting the monastery's crops and produce. During the Mamluk period, the authorities had to issue several decrees to prevent Bedouins from harming the monks or entering the monastery [El-Adl, 2004. P. 307].
Orders were frequently given to state officials to enforce these decrees,with violators being taken to the "noble gates" for punishment. In some instances, the government required the surrounding Bedouin tribes to sign pledges so as not to attack the monks [Qasim, 1979. P. 136], especially after Saint Catherine's monastery was looted at the end of the Mamluk era. When Father Makarios, the head of the monastery, demanded the return of stolen items, a Bedouin named Muhammad bin Abdul Qadir and his brothers attacked, killed him, and plundered the monastery. The Mamluk authorities' investigation revealed that the motive for murder was economic rather than religious, aiming to steal food supplies stored in the monastery, such as wheat, olive oil, salt, and other provisions. It also became clear that the killing was not an isolated incident, but a collective act carried out by one of the Bedouins and his brothers [Ali, 2021. P. 346].
It is worth noting that the central administration in Istanbul played a limited role compared to the primary role of the local administration in Cairo. This was due to the powers granted to the local administration by the central authority and the policy of granting local administration a greater degree of autonomy concerning Egypt's internal affairs. The Ottoman sultans viewed Christians as one of the Sultan's subjects, sharing certain rights and financial obligations with other dhimmis regardless of their religious beliefs [Afifi, 1992. P. 29-30].
Regarding the guarantees provided to the monastery and its monks, protections have been in place since the Ottomans first occupied Egypt, especially concerning the relationship between the monastery and the surrounding Bedouin tribes. When a delegation from the Jabaliya tribe went to Sultan Selim I8,presenting their desire to convert to Islam and their wish to cease serving the monastery, Sultan Selim agreed with their conversion but refused their request to stop serving the monastery. He emphasized that they should continue as servants and guardians of the monastery in accordance with Prophet's covenant with the monks. Consequently, Sultan Selim I issued a decree on this effect. Over time, this decree evolved into a legal statute, as it regulated the relationship between the Bedouin tribes and the monastery's monks [Nasif, 2009. P. 166].
The Saint Catherine's Monastery Decree: Between Text and Implementation
The decree was essentially a charter of freedom and protection for the monastery and its monks. Due to the relative scarcity of historical documents issued by the authorities in favor of the monastery, this document is considered one of the key instruments regulating the relationship between the
8 Sultan Selim I: He was Selim I, son of Bayezid II, and is commonly known as Selim I or Selim Shah. He was the ninth sultan of the Ottoman dynasty and the seventh to bear the title of sultan after his father Bayezid II and his ancestors from Mohamed the Conqueror to Murad I. He was the third to hold the title of "Caesar of the Romans" among Muslim rulers, specifically the Ottoman sultans, following his father Bayezid and his grandfather Mohamed the Conqueror. He was the first Ottoman caliph and the seventy-fourth caliph overall. Born in October 1470, he was the youngest son of Sultan Bayezid II. He was the first Ottoman sultan to defeat the Mamluks and Safavids and control the Arab lands. His policy was characterized by tolerance towards nonMuslims, granting them security and freedom to worship in churches and monasteries. He died in September 1520 [Shaw, 1976. P. 20].
authorities and Christian religious communities. Its significance lies in the fact that it was issued by the Ottoman authority itself and documented in one of the Ottoman Shari'a courts, an Ottoman judicial institution under its authority.
The decree includes two dates:
• 1st Safar 975 AH / August 23, 1567, CE, the date when the decree was issued by Sultan Selim II, who took over the Ottoman Empire a year after the death of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent;
• 28th Muharram 981 AH / June 8, 1573, CE, the date when the decree was reaffirmed for the benefit of the monastery's monks, as written at the end of the document.
The presence of these two dates indicates that the first date marks the actual issuance of the decree by Sultan Selim II, whereas the second date reflects the re-issuance of the decree six years later. This suggests that the administrative authorities in Egypt might have delayed or failed to fully implement the privileges and rights granted to the monks of Saint Catherine's monastery.
The wording of the document raises an important question: whether the Ottoman authorities' attention to the monastery reflected contradictions and delays between the central administration in Istanbul and the local administration in Egypt or what is known as the discrepancy between the text of the decree and its implementation. This is examined further in the following analysis.
Introduction of the Decree: Regulating the Relationship Between the Monastery and the Ruling
Authority
The decree begins with an introduction aimed at confirming that its contents are directed at all officials and institutions in Egypt that might interact with the monks of Saint Catherine's monastery. It reads: "A copy of the high and noble decree... this edict or decree has been issued to all who receive and read it, including judges, governors, rulers of the regions, Arab leaders, stewards, and security officials in the provinces, cities, and Islamic coastal areas, informing them that the monks of Mount Sinai (Saint Catherine's) hold a noble imperial decree and a ruling attached to it" [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131].
The introduction indicated that the decree was issued to judges, regional governors, customs officials, port authorities, security personnel, and Bedouin leaders. In this context, sultanic decrees were sent from Istanbul to Cairo and distributed to judges and regional governors as representatives of the Ottoman Empire in Egypt. Despite decisions and orders concerning Saint Catherine's Monastery being addressed to the judge of Mount Sinai and the governor of the Eastern Province,which administratively controls the monastery, the document confirms that the Ottoman authorities sent Sultan Selim II's decree to all administrative and judicial entities in Egypt.This highlights that monks faced persecution, harassment, and harm throughout Egypt [Nassif, 2009. P. 165].
Protection and Security Guarantees
Sultan Selim II's decree affirmed the protection of the monastery from attacks and safeguarding its properties, stating: "It has been customary that the Arabs (Bedouins) do not enter (cause disputes with) the monks or priests and do not harass them in the streets" [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131]. Notably,the protection of the monks and their lives is covered in the second part of the decree,indicating a regulation of the relationship between the monks and Bedouins surrounding the monastery. Natural and geographical conditions likely contributed to conflicts and friendly relations between the monks and the Bedouins, as the monastery had fertile valleys such as Wadi al-Arba'in and Wadi Feiran in Sinai, while the Bedouins lived around these valleys and adjacent mountains, leading to disputes. The monks also refused Bedouins' requests to store their grain in the monastery's granaries and faced attacks from the Bedouins of Awlad Said.
Under Ottoman rule, the monastery experienced a somewhat difficult period compared to its status under the Mamluk rule. With the arrival of the Ottomans, Sultan Selim I considered himself a worthy protector of the monastery, especially after the monks provided him with the alleged original document of the Prophet Muhammad's covenant9. European monarchs followed Sultan Selim's example, showing great interest in the monastery by providing financial contributions and participating in the preservation of the monastery's properties across different parts of the world [Nasif, 2006. P. 99-153], Thus, the decree underscores the importance of the monastery, rights of its monks, and guarantee of its protection.
Given the tranquillity that enveloped the monastery area and the peaceful nature of the monks, any disturbance to their peace caused them considerable distress. To address this, and to protect
9 The Prophet's Covenant: The monks of the monastery rely on the Prophet's Covenant, which is the agreement issued by the Prophet Muhammad to all Christians and the Muslim community, including Egypt, to protect the lives and property of Christians and ensure their freedom from any fear in practising their religious rites according to their teachings.
the monks from such disturbances, they were permitted to employ Muslim individuals to defend themselves against aggressors [El-sarougi, 1982. P. 110].
Exemption of the Monastery's Lands and Orchards from Taxes
Since the monastery owned agricultural land in the Sinai valleys and beyond, including those within its endowments "wqaf" [El-sarougi, 1982. P. 114], The monks of St. Catherine's Monastery own the monastery and its surroundings. They have an orchard in the Wadi Telah, a large orchard on Jebal al-Fir'a, west of the monastery, a large orchard with palm trees in Wadi Feiran, and a large orchard and house in Hammam Musa. When asked about the monastery's properties, the monks say that the monastery and its surrounding land cover an area that takes three days to traverse. In Cairo, there are many houses endowed to the monastery in the Al-Jamaliya district, as well as land and orchards in Alexandria [Shuqair,2007. P.202],it faced issues with taxes and fines imposed without legal or legitimate grounds. Therefore, the decree exempted the monastery and its monks from paying land taxes, tithes, and other charges related to the monastery's land and produce. The decree states: "And all rights, fees, and tithes due to them from lands and ports in the Syrian and Egyptian regions and Alexandria, and the fruits from their gardens, palm trees, and olive orchards, are forgiven, and they should not be opposed in any way" [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131]. Consequently,the monks of the monastery have the right to own, through endowment, their churches, farms, houses, fields, vineyards, orchards, and all other properties, including land and farms in Sinai or Alexandria, without any imposition of burdens.
These exemptions had a legal and religious foundation that the Ottoman state could not deviate from. Instead, it applied all these legal principles within the framework of the Hanafi school of thought and in accordance with the covenant given by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to the monks of Saint Catherine's monastery. Exemption of monks from the jizya (tax) in the early Islamic periods was not a privilege because of their religious status, but was associated with their way of life, which involved vows of poverty and asceticism imposed by monastic laws and traditions [Abou Nahra, 2006. P. 208].
In accordance with Shari'a law and legal principles, the Ottoman state exempted the Christian clergy in Egypt from paying jizya and tithes on agricultural land, vineyards, and other produce. Sultan Selim issued the first decree confirming the exemption of monks from paying jizya and land tithes.
Therefore, we see that the endowments of the monks of St. Catherine's Monastery, both in Egypt and abroad, received the same care from the rulers of Egypt as those of Muslims. This is evident from the decrees issued in favor of the monks of St. Catherine's Monastery, which explicitly state that their endowments should not be interfered with and that they should be assisted in managing their endowments and all related matters.
It appears that although Ottoman sultans relied on legal principles to exempt monks and priests from taxes and monasteries were integrated into the Islamic social and economic context, tax collectors sometimes violated this by demanding jizya and land taxes from the monks. This is evident from the complaints made by monks and priests residing in the churches of Alexandria due to the frequent visits of tax collectors to their churches and monasteries demanding taxes. Consequently, an order dated late Jumada II, 1052 AH, was issued to prevent harm to monks, priests, and their churches and monasteries [Alexandria Shari'a Court, 1642. P. 30].
The question that must be asked here is: Did the implementation of Sultan Selim II's decree regarding the exemption of the monks of St. Catherine's Monastery and other monasteries continue? Or did the Ottoman authorities disregard the application of the decree's provisions? If that was the case, what was the stance of the monks of the monastery and other monasteries on this matter? To answer this hypothesis, it appears that the Ottoman tax collectors, especially those responsible for collecting taxes from the non-Muslims, were indifferent to orders abolishing these injustices, disregarding them. altogether. This led some non-Muslims to resort to secretly burying their dead and seeking protection from Arab sheikhs due to the social and economic negative impacts of these injustices on them [Damietta Shari'a Court, 1715. P. 618]. Consequently, some monks in Egyptian monasteries and churches filed complaints with the Chief Judge in Egypt, protesting these burdens.
They presented orders canceling these injustices,one dated 1102 AH/1690 AD, another 1104 AH/1692 AD, and the third 1107 AH/1695 AD.Their complaint stated that when a merchant from the non-Muslims fell ill, the tax collector would take seven qirsh for his examination, and if he died, the collector would take one qirsh for permission to bury him [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1715. P. 624]. Non-Muslims in Rashid and Alexandria submitted similar complaints at the same time [Alexandria Shari'a Court, 1715. P. 32].
This is confirmed by an order issued by the Governor of Egypt on the 24th of Rabi' al-Awwal, 1127 AH/1715 AD, which mandated the investigation of injustices and the wrongful seizure of non-Muslims' property and inheritance and prohibited the chief treasurers and collectors from committing these
injustices, based on the decree issued by Sultan Selim II [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1715. P. 409]. Therefore, this decree served as evidence for the monks in Egypt's monasteries and churches to confirm their exemption from taxes, based on the Prophet's Covenant they held.
The monks and priests residing in the monasteries of Alexandria had to repeatedly complain that the tax collectors had been harassing the monks inside the churches for the past four years, demanding that they pay the jizya and other taxes from which they were exempt. Consequently, an order was issued to prevent tax collectors from committing such injustices [Alexandria Shari'a Court, 1642. P. 30]. In 1195 AH/1780 CE, all the monks residing at the Coptic monastery in Alexandria went to the High Court in Cairo and lodged a complaint against the tax collectors for their harassment of the monks [Alexandria Shari'a Court, 1660. P. 14].
Exemption from Customs Duties on Monastery Imports
Monks did not rely solely on their orchards, fields, or endowments for their livelihoods. They also depended on alms and offerings sent to them by Greek Orthodox Christians from the Levant, which were brought to them by sea, as well as donations and food from the Egyptian Copts. All of these were exempt from customs duties and taxes.The decree states: "All that comes to them from both seas, sweet and salty, and from Alexandria, Rosetta, Damietta, Al-Burullus, Al-Qatia, and other places like Jaffa, Beirut, Sidon, Tripoli, Latakia, and other Egyptian and Levantine regions and Islamic ports, including exports, mountain oil, offerings, and alms, are exempt from all rights and customs duties" [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131].
These exemptions were part of the foreign privileges granted to Europeans, their monasteries, and monks in Islamic states under Ottoman rule, thereby extending them to all Christian subjects in Ottoman territories [Farjeet, 2008. P. 120-121]. The decree shows that exemptions were not limited to agricultural lands and monastery endowments, but also included all external donations and imports, whether related to alms or external endowments in the Levant.
Facilitation of Visits to Jerusalem
Pilgrimage was widespread from the early days of Christianity, with Egypt being considered a holy land.Most pilgrims heading to Jerusalem included Egypt and Sinai in their itinerary, often visiting St. Catherine's Monastery for blessings before continuing their journey [Ghali, 2015. P. 50]. This practice reflects the broader Christian tradition of traveling to sacred sites.
In Jerusalem,the significance of Christian sites is highlighted by the historian and traveler Mujir al-Deen, who observed, "In the Holy Jerusalem, there are several churches and monasteries from the Roman era, around twenty in total" [Ali, 1986. P. 265]. These sites, many of which are linked to the early days of Christianity and the life of Jesus Christ, hold immense importance for Christian pilgrims, with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre being particularly notable.
Additionally, it was customary for Christians and monks from Egypt to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem, visiting sacred sites such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Bethlehem. However, the journey was fraught with challenges, as monks from St. Catherine's Monastery often faced harassment and attacks from Bedouin tribes along the road. To mitigate these issues, a decree from 1573 specified, "If they travel to Jerusalem for visits, they shall be treated according to their old customs" [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131]
Religious visits to Jerusalem were among the most cherished aspirations and dreams of Egyptian Copts and other Christian communities in Egypt. They usually travelled in a caravan from Cairo to Sinai, often joined by monks from Saint Catherine's monastery. However, the caravan frequently faced attacks from Bedouins, preventing the monks from reaching Jerusalem because of Bedouin rebellions and assaults in Sinai [Afifi, 2009. P. 57].
Based on the above, it becomes clear that Sultan Selim II's firman was concerned with the well-being of the monastery's monks and their visits to the holy sites in Jerusalem, ensuring that they were not disturbed. The firman includes the phrase "according to their old customs" indicating that the Ottoman authorities did not impose any changes on the monks' way of life or their religious rituals.
Non-Opposition in Burials and Inheritance:
Christians, especially foreigners, suffered economically and morally due to injustices imposed by the Ottoman authorities responsible for tax collection. Despite Sultan Selim I's decree exempting them from fines and injustices, authorities-imposed taxes known as "mudaf aldafn" during a Christian's illness and "burial permit" upon death.These were among the most heinous injustices faced by dhimmis at the time [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131]. Furthermore, when a Christian died, their inheritance
was subject to the Muslim treasury and they could not be buried until their estate was inventoried and confiscated [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131]. Therefore, the decree states: "Anyone who dies among them shall be buried without opposition, and no one shall interfere with their inheritance10. If it is taken unjustly, it shall be returned, and those who oppose it without legitimate cause shall be prevented"[Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131].
Consequently, Upon the death of a monk, neither the treasury officials nor any Ottoman authority is permitted to interfere with the possessions or belongings left by the deceased, as the property of deceased monks becomes the property of the surviving monks.
It appears that the oppressive measures and injustices inflicted upon the dhimmis by Ottoman tax collectors had significant negative economic and moral effects on the monks of Saint Catherine's Monastery.This sometimes compelled them to send their grievances to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul. On other occasions, the monks sought the opinions of Muslim scholars regarding the fines, harassment, and injustices they faced, hoping to obtain fatwas (religious rulings) that they could refer to when necessary. Most fatwas prohibited from harming the dhimmis, and the specific fatwa concerning the monks of Saint Catherine's Monastery addressed the imposition of taxes on them despite their exemptions. In many instances, the Shafi'i mufti in Egypt ruled in favor of the monks, affirming the validity of the covenant they claimed was given to them by the Prophet Muhammad, which exempted them from taxes [Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131].
Conclusion of the Decree: Emphasis on Implementation
The decree concluded with a definitive directive to the Ottoman administrative authorities in Egypt, asserting that the content had been affirmed since the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and successive rulers in Egypt. It referenced previous sultanic rulings concerning the monastery and its monks issued by Sultan Selim I and Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, based on the covenant granted by the Prophet to the monastery. This covenant was the primary factor motivating Ottomans to protect the monastery and its monks. Historical accounts indicate that Sultan Selim I took the original copy of the monks and provided them with duplicates for their archives. The decree's conclusion reinforced this covenant of safety and security for the monks of Saint Catherine's Monastery, stating that they should not be harassed by authorities and should be free from any oppression or undue hardship, with strict adherence to the decree's provisions.
The conclusion of the decree included: "Witnessed by the Rightly Guided Caliphs and previous sultanic rulings, and a decree from the late Sultan Selim Khan based on the aforementioned prophetic covenant, ensuring their utmost security on Mount Sinai. A noble decree was issued by the late Sultan Suleiman11, reinforcing his father Sultan Selim's ruling and confirming the continuation of the previous noble decrees. The decrees were presented to the noble court and renewed during the imperial sultanate's era, perpetuating its rule. This noble decree was issued, ensuring that no one opposes them as long as they abide by the Shari'a. Any opposing decree is void, and no one imposes hardship or oppression on them. This noble decree, dated early Safar 975 AH, must be adhered to, and deviation from its content is forbidden. Obedience to sultanic orders is mandatory. Issued on the 28th Muharram, 981 AH From the final wording of the decree»[Rashid Shari'a Court, 1573. P. 131].
This decree reflects the Ottomans' commitment to their policy of religious tolerance towards religious minorities and their respect for non-Islamic religious institutions such as monasteries and churches, acknowledging their religious and historical significance within the framework of Prophet Muhammad's covenant with the monks, regardless of its authenticity. Thus, this stance of tolerance exemplifies an important model of mutual coexistence and faith.
The decree also, in its final wording, emphasizes the need to protect the monastery, ensure its safety from attacks, and safeguard the monks' property and rights and their privileges granted by the Ottoman Empire.
10 The inheritance of dhimmis was under the supervision of the Treasury responsible for collecting taxes from dhimmis since the 16th century, to ensure the state received its share of these inheritances [Damietta Shari'a Court, 1601. P. 618]. If a dhimmi dies, the deceased would not be buried without the knowledge of the tax collector or their agent, in order to manage the deceased's estate [Alexandria Shari'a Court, 1592. P. 157]. The tax collectors received orders and documents authorising them to manage the estates of dhimmis. Therefore, the issued orders specified that if there were no heirs among the dhimmis for the deceased, the tax collector would receive one thousand and a half, with the remainder going to the Tax Office [Damietta Shari'a Court, 1615. P. 256].
11 Sultan Suleiman: He was Suleiman I, son of Selim I (born on 6 November 1494 in Trabzon). He is considered the tenth Ottoman sultan and the seventy-fifth caliph of the Muslims, and the second to bear the title of Amir al-Mu'minin from the Ottoman dynasty. During his reign, the Ottoman Empire reached its greatest extent, becoming the strongest state in the world at that time, and he had the longest reign from 6 November 1520 until his death on 7 September 1566. He succeeded his father, Sultan Selim I, and was followed by his son, Sultan Selim II. Known in the West as Suleiman the Magnificent due to his positive relations with Western powers and his policy of tolerance towards Christians, he was known in the East as Suleiman the Lawgiver for his judicial reforms in the Ottoman legal system. He died on 7 September 1566 in Szigetvar, Turkey [Syed, 2001. P. 66].
The historical impacts of Sultan Selim Il's decree
Sultan Selim II's decree had a profound impact, as it not only renewed the old covenant but also heightened the interest of Ottoman Sultans in St. Catherine's Monastery. For instance, Sultan Mustafa
I sent numerous letters to the monastery's head, Metropolitan Gabriel IV, during the 17th century. Additionally, Sultan Mohamed Khan emphasized the Ottoman Sultans' commitment to protecting the monastery and its monks,following the traditions of their predecessors,Sultan Selim I and Sultan Selim
II [Ghali, 2015. P. 173]. The decree reinforced previous decrees, urging the need to uphold and implement its provisions. It included a pledge from the Ottoman Sultans to protect the monks and defend them in accordance with the principles of true Islam.
The relationship between the monastery and the surrounding tribes in the Sinai Peninsula was formally recognized, ensuring the safety of the monks and shielding them from potential harm by Bedouins or other local inhabitants. This protection allowed the monastery to continue its activities throughout the Ottoman era without hindrance. The Sultans paid special attention to safeguarding Christian clergy, monks, and pilgrims in Sinai, which is evident in the consistent enforcement of Ottoman orders by the rulers of Sinai [Ghali, 2015. P. 200-201].
The decree provided ongoing protection for St. Catherine's Monastery, enabling the monks to maintain their religious traditions and practices for centuries. As a result, the monastery remained a significant religious and cultural center in the region.
The decree reflects the relative tolerance adopted by the Ottoman state towards Christian communities, which helped stabilize these communities under Ottoman rule. It also enhanced the image of the empire as a protector of religious sanctities, including Christianity.
The decree was part of the Ottoman Empire's broader policy of managing multi-religious and multicultural regions within its territories. This approach to handling religious diversity contributed to the stability of Ottoman rule across various regions.
Thanks to this decree and subsequent ones, St. Catherine's Monastery was able to preserve a rich heritage of manuscripts, sacred books, and religious artifacts spanning several centuries. This heritage continues to be studied and respected today.
Conclusion
The study reached several conclusions: Protection and Security: Sultan Selim II grants full protection and security to St. Catherine's Monastery and its resident monks, ensuring their freedom of worship and peaceful coexistence with the local community and Bedouins surrounding the monastery. The Sultan guarantees the protection of the monastery from any attacks or harm from the Bedouin tribes living and grazing near and around the walls of the monastery, and he orders all governors, rulers, and soldiers to maintain the safety and security of the monastery.
Exemption from Taxes and Fees: The decree exempts monks residing at St.Catherine's Monastery from paying taxes and fees imposed on their endowments, orchards, and agriculture, as well as on any external donations they receive. They are granted the freedom to manage their affairs without interference from Ottoman administrative authorities.
Freedom of Movement and Visits: Monks are allowed to travel freely within the territories of the Ottoman state without any obstacles or restrictions, and they are permitted to visit Jerusalem without hindrance from either the authorities or the Bedouins of Sinai.
Preservation of the Monastery's Property: The Sultan ensures the preservation of the monastery's properties and lands, prohibiting anyone from encroaching upon or attempting to seize them.
A copy of the Decree (ferman)of Sultan Selim II (1566-1574)
Translation of the Decree of Ottoman Sultan Selim II from Arabic to English
Source of the Document: Egyptian National Archives: Records of the Rashid Shari'a Court, Record No. 6, Page No. 28, Document No. 131.
Date of the Document: 18 Muharram 981 AH / 29 May 1573 CE.
Text of the Document:
Copy of a High and Noble Decree
This decree is addressed to all judges, chiefs, Arab chieftains, trustees, rulers, overseers, and governors in the provinces, cities, ports, and Islamic coasts, informing them that the monks of the Sinai Monastery have upheld and possess a noble sultanic order and a high decree stipulating that it is customary for the Bedouins not to harass the monks or priests, nor interfere with them on the roads. They are not to be troubled by any of their rights, dues, tithes, or in what is brought to them from the Tauri, Levantine, Egyptian, and Alexandrian lands and ports. They are exempted from dues and taxes on their orchards, harvests, and olive groves and are not opposed in their endowments. All that arrive at them from the sweet and salt seas and from the mainland, Alexandria, Rosetta, Damietta, El-Burullus, El-Qatya, and others, including Jaffa, Beirut, Sidon, Tripoli, Latakia, and the Egyptian, Levantine, and Islamic ports,including exports,mountain oil, offerings, and donations, are exempted from all dues and customs. If they travel to Jerusalem for pilgrimages,they are treated according to their ancient customs. If any of them die, they are allowed to bury their dead without opposition, and no one interferes with their inheritance. If anything is wrongfully taken from them, it must be returned, and they must be protected from unjust opposition. This noble decree is based on the prophetic covenant, blessed by the Rightly Guided Caliphs, previous sultanic decrees, and the decree of the late Sultan Selim Khan, who may God illuminate his resting place. According to this covenant, they were to live in utmost security and peace in Mount Sinai, and they were given a noble decree from the late Sultan Suleiman, may God bless his soul, confirming the decree of his father, Sultan Selim, may God illuminate his resting place. The decrees were renewed during the reign of the everlasting Khaganate, and it was ordered that no one should harm them as long as they adhere to Shari'a . Any decree contradicting this noble order is null. From this day on, no individual shall trouble them, nor impose any hardship or difficulty on them. This is the meaning of the noble decree dated early Safar 975 AH. All who see, hear, and read this decree must adhere to its contents without deviation. Compliance with sultanical orders is obligatory. Issued on the 28th Muharram, 981 AH.
Written in Egypt.
Appendix No. 1
Document Title: Decree on the Prohibition of Tax Collection from Monks and Christian Clergy
Source of Document: Alexandria Shari'a Court, Register No. 28, Document No. 66/ Date of Document: Early Rajab 1001 AH / 12 April 1593 CE.
Summary: The document outlines the administrative measures issued by the Ottoman authorities in Egypt concerning the exemption of monks and Christian clergy from tax collection and the prohibition of seizing the estates of deceased individuals.
Appendix No. 2
Document Title: Decree from the High Court Abolishing the Injustices of Tax Collectors
Source of Document: Rashid Shari'a Court, Register No. 93, Document No. 140 Date of Document: 10 Jumada al-Awwal 1107 AH / 16 December 1695 CE.
Summary: The document reveals a decree from the High Court abolishing the injustices committed by tax collectors, specifically the unfair burial and inspection fees imposed on dhimmis, monks, and Christian clergy.
Appendix No. 3
Document Title: Order Issued by Ibrahim Bey Regarding the Exemption of the Monks of the Coptic Monastery from the Jizya
Source of Document: Alexandria Shari'a Court, Register No. 13, Document No. 899. Date of Document: 28 Safar 1195 AH / 22 February 1781 CE.
Summary: The document details a plea from the monks of the Coptic Monastery in Alexandria who were subjected to harassment by tax collectors.Their appeal to the High Court in Cairo led Ibrahim Bey to issue a decree exempting them from the jizya, as they had been exempt since the time of the Companions and based on the prophetic covenant, and the decree of Sultan Selim II.
References
Abou Nahra, Joseph. Christians and the Obsession with Freedom during the Ottoman Era (almsihiun wa hajis al-huryyah fi al-'ahd al-uthmani). International Conference: The Discourse of Christian Communities in the Near East during Times of Transformation, Center for Eastern Christian Research and Publications (CERPOC), Saint Joseph University, 24-26 January 2013.
Abou Nahra, Joseph. Tax Exemptions for Monastic Endowments and Monks during the Shihabi Emirate (1797-1842). In the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the History of the Levant: Endowments in the Levant from the Arab-Islamic Conquest to the End of the 20th Century, 2006.
Afifi, Mohamed Abdel-Khalek. The Copts in Egypt during the Ottoman Era. Egyptian General Book Organisation, no. 54, Cairo, 1992.
Afifi, Mohamed Abdel-Khalek. The Coptic Presence in Jerusalem in Modern Times (al>aqbat fi misr fi al-asr al-uthmani). Proceedings of the Conference on Jerusalem Through the Ages, 15-16 November 2009, National Library and Archives,Cairo, 2009.
Ali, Omar Jamal Mohamed. The Murder of the Head Monk of Saint Catherine's Monastery in the Late Mamluk Era. Historical Records Journal, Cairo University, no. 35, DOI: 10.216808/hev.2021.72038.1074.
Ali, Sayyid Ali. Jerusalem in the Mamluk Era, Dar al-Fikr for Studies, Publishing, and Distribution, Cairo, 1986.
Ata, Zubaida. A Copt in the Christian Era, Supreme Council of Culture, Cairo, 2003.
Davison, Roderic H. Turkish Attitudes concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the nineteenth century. The American Historical Review, vol. 59, no. 4 July, 1954.
Dowman, Bradley. Christian Monastic Life in Early Islam. Edinburgh University Press, 2021.
El-Adl, Sabri Ahmed. Sinai in Modern History (sina' fi al-ttarikh al-hdith) (1869-1917). National Library and Archives, Egypt Renaissance Series, 2004.
El-Sarougi, Mohamed Mahmoud. Ottoman Documents at Saint Catherine's Monastery (alwatha>iq al-uthmanyyh bi dayr sant katrin): A Historical Study. Cairo: King Abdulaziz House, 1982, vol. 8, no. 2.
Farjeet, G. Muhammad Ali: Founder of Modern Egypt (Muhammad ali mu'assis misr al-haditha), translated by Mohamed Rifaat Awad, National Translation Project, National Centre for Translation, no. 2/492, Cairo, 1994.
Ghali, Ibrahim Amin. Egyptian Sinai Through the Ages, Egyptian General Book Organization, Social Sciences Series, 2015.
Oztuna, Yilmaz. History of the Ottoman Empire (Translated by Adnan Mahmoud Salman), vol. 1, 1st Edition, Faisal Finance Institution, Turkey, Istanbul, 1988.
Palanti, Sabrina. 'Case of Study, Assessment, and Control of Termite Infestation in the Holy Monastery Saint Catherine Sinai Egypt', Academia Letter, May 2021, https://doi.org/10.20935/AL885.
Qasim, Abdou Qasim. The Dhimmi in Egypt during the Medieval Period: A Documentary Study. Dar Al-Ma'arif, Cairo, 1979.
Ramzy, Mohamed. Geographical Dictionary (alqamus al-jughrafi), Volume Two, Part Four, Egyptian General Book Organisation, 2009.
Records of the Rashid Shari'a Court: Register No. 6, 981 AH / 8 June 1573 CE.
Records of the Rashid Shari'a Court: Register No. 102, 1107 AH / 1695 CE.
Records of the Alexandria Shari'a Court: Register No. 28, dated 1615 CE.
Records of the Alexandria Shari'a Court: Register No. 116, dated 1715 CE.
Records of the Damietta Shari'a Court: Register No. 40, dated 1601 CE.
Shaw, Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge University Press, 1976, vol. 1.
