Samir Sadiq, Mamdouh Bitar:
We do not know whether Omar ibn al-Khattab actually said the phrase “When did you enslave people?” Many jurists confirm that Omar said it, while many jurists deny it. Let us assume that Ibn al-Khattab was indeed the source of this phrase. The phrase includes a part affirming the state of enslavement and a part denouncing it. Some in this era found in the title of the article a reason to consider Omar one of the most just of the just. In the form of a question, Omar ibn al-Khattab wrote to his agent, Amr ibn al-As, expressing surprise and disapproval at Amr ibn al-As’s enslavement of people. Thus, Ibn al-Khattab was considered a remarkable human being and one of the greatest humanists in the world, despite being primarily responsible for the enslavement practiced by Amr ibn al-As against the people of Egypt. Umar ibn al-Khattab was the one who sent Amr ibn al-Aas and his army to occupy Egypt by force. Tens of thousands of people were certainly slaughtered in the course of the occupation or conquest. Was Ibn al-Khattab ignorant of the meaning of occupying Egypt by war? We think not! Ibn al-Khattab was aware of the actions of his army commanders, and was undoubtedly fully aware of what Ibn al-Aas had done. Therefore, he asked Amr, “How did you enslave people?” Enslavement was a reality that Ibn al-Khattab understood. It is difficult to imagine a deceit similar to this form of deceit, sending his armies to occupy, knowing the consequences of this occupation (i.e., enslavement), and then denouncing slavery. It is a deceit uncommon in human history. He sends Bedouins to steal, plunder, and pillage, and then denounces the plunder and pillage. How amazing!!! There are numerous accounts recounted by historians from the era of the Caliphate. All of these events demonstrate Ibn al-Khattab’s legendary deceit and brutality. The Umayyad invasion was not a clean military outing, but rather a bloody colonial war, followed by a despicable plunder, in which blood was shed. It robbed peoples and confiscated their will to live, make decisions, and choose their religion and language. In terms of mechanism, there is no difference between the fall of the Persian state and the fall of Egypt. Before the fall of Persia into the hands of the Bedouins, Ibn Abdullah promised his fighters to obtain the treasures of Khosrau. Here, some of the companions mocked this promise, “Does your master promise you the treasures of Khosrau when one of us is not safe from relieving himself?” But the promise was fulfilled after a while, that is, after the occupation of Persia, as its treasures were plundered, and tribute was imposed on the Persians and land was imposed on the Persians. The Persians never attacked the Bedouin Peninsula. The Bedouins of the Peninsula were the ones who attacked the Persians, enslaved their women and daughters, took them captive, and stole their money and possessions. Didn’t this process include enslavement of the Persians? Who were born free, like the Egyptians, the Quraysh, and others! Ibn al-Khattab forgot to ask his army commanders about this point. He did not ask Ibn al-Walid how they enslaved people when their mothers gave birth to them free. The Persians, as well as the Indians, Syrians, Spaniards, and others, were also born free according to Ibn al-Khattab’s concepts. He did not ask because he was a usurper and a liar, and his killing at the hands of Abu Lu’lu’ah the Persian was an act of self-defense. Abu Lu’lu’ah had the honor of defending his country. Conquests are humiliation and shame. Stealing from others and then enslaving their daughters and women is an even greater humiliation and shame. The Byzantines occupied Egypt, so some Egyptians helped the Bedouins of the peninsula expel the Byzantines to spite the Eastern Romans, and in the hope of liberating themselves from colonialism. However, Egypt was not liberated from colonialism; rather, it was placed under the control of a new, criminal, and murderous colonialism that burned everything green and dry. Even the greatest library in human history (the Library of Alexandria) was not spared from its brutality. Then the dead were also required to pay tribute. There are not enough pages to list everything the Bedouins of the peninsula did to Egypt and the massacres they committed. The Copts in Egypt were as rich as the Persians, and they had skills in the administrative field. The Copts worked in the administrative field at first, because the Bedouin invaders were ignorant in all fields except the use of swords. The Copts became rich and acquired many civil skills under the Byzantine colonization, but under the Bedouin colonization, there was impoverishment, killing and looting, due to Amr ibn al-Aas’s looting of the wealthy Copts and due to their undertaking of administrative work that the conquerors of the island were ignorant of. Amr ibn al-Aas was somewhat lenient with them, which prompted Ibn al-Khattab to dismiss Amr and appoint Abdullah ibn Abi al-Sarj in his place. In the context of reprimanding Amr for his failure to collect money and export the captives to Ibn al-Khattab, Ibn al-Khattab said, “The camel has given more milk than its first milk,” meaning that the income from the Egyptian dairy cow increased after the appointment of Ibn Abi al-Sarj. Here, Amr replied to Omar, “Because you have harmed the faction.” You harmed her son, that is, you violated the rights of her children
What Amr and Omar did to the Egyptians in terms of humiliation, killing, and gathering captives and wealth was beyond imagination. Egypt was a cash cow to them (its land is gold, its women are playthings, its men are victorious, and its people are gathered by drums and dispersed by sticks). This was how Omar and Amr viewed the Egyptians. Then Omar Ibn Al-Khattab asked, “When did you enslave people when their mothers gave birth to them free?” A fabricated legend!! The so-called Covenant of Omar was the best witness to the brutality and crimes of Ibn Al-Khattab. The Egyptian incident is not unique, and there are hundreds of similar ones. The aim of mentioning that incident was to demonstrate what humiliating and degrading historical events must be apologized for, and what must be avoided in the present and the future. The harm of adopting barbarism as a method of dealing with others is not limited to others only, as practicing barbarism on others was harmful in itself, as barbarism turned into an internal approach in the nature of the descendants and followers of the Arabized and the Brotherhood in this era. After the arrival of the stage of imperial tyranny and after the military castration of the Bedouins, and after the drying up of external plunder, the Arabized turned inward, and turned into an internal colonialism that steals, plunders, robs and loots, not according to the rules and customs of five for the Caliph and four-fifths for the thieving, looting herd. The rule was reversed, so that the Caliph, i.e. the leader, currently has four-fifths and the herd approximately one-fifth. The lives of the Arabized who practice internal colonialism developed in a way that a person would not wish even for his most bitter enemies!