Sixty-seven years ago today, one of the greatest Coptic leftist intellectuals, Salama Musa, died. Born in 1887, Salama Musa died at seventy-one years old on the 4th of August 1958. Despite being one of Egypt’s most influential modernist thinkers, Musa’s Coptic identity is treated as incidental, if even mentioned at all. Yet, far from being peripheral, his Coptic identity was critical to Musa. Yet this is often neglected as they most strongly highlight his strive for secularisation, and in a rather deceptive manner tend to treat Musa as completely removed from his Coptic identity.
Those who tend to highlight Musa’s religiosity often do so with disdain. Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali (1917-1996, a Sheikh who testified in support of the assassins who murdered secularist author Farag Foda, and a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood), is one of the key individuals who do so. He aimed to try and isolate Musa not only from his Christian writings, but also ‘turn’ the Coptic community against Musa. In key articles, such as ‘Between the Crescent and the Cross’, he aims to incite Copts to disown Musa due to his ‘atheistic’ nature. This is a common trend from those like Al-Ghazali, from groups who are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or similar groups.
On the other hand, some writers about Salama Musa attempt to portray that Musa would in some way ‘equalise’ the impact of Islamic religious beliefs and Christianity on society and their roles. For example, the only reference to ‘Christian’ on Musa’s Wikipedia shows this:
“In the 1930s, Salama Moussa affirmed his belief in a shared humanity and was an advocate of secularism, democracy, liberalism, and the liberation of women. He criticised the status of Egyptian women amongst both Christian and Muslim Egyptians and called for the improvement of their role in Egyptian life.”
Yet whilst at face value accurate, the subtle attempt is to say that Musa viewed Islam and Christianity as on equal footing responsible for women’s rights issues. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, in an article in the Masr paper dated 7 January 1948, he wrote:
“And we [Copts] have a religion [Christianity] that penetrated the marrow of our bones, and changed our human nature into the Christian one – a religion that has taught us traditions, and directed our morals in a way that made the dealings of a Coptic man with his wife and a Coptic woman with her son based on the values of kindness, tenderness and generosity; something which makes the Coptic family a strong unit, with a model structure and behaviour.”
Of course, Musa was a modernist who hoped for a new life for Copts. He certainly had his critiques of the Coptic Orthodox Church institutionally and aspects of life he wanted to change for Copts. But in no way did he see Christianity and Islam as equal contributors to societal problems. As read in the latter excerpt, Musa saw a distinct gender positionality for Copts, not all Egyptians and Muslims, but for Copts uniquely due to their Christian faith. As a distinct group, Musa finds that the Copts have unique traditions and moral culture, which means that women are treated well by their husbands, in a ‘model behaviour and structure’.
Despite what it may seem that there are striking differences in his secularism and Darwinian beliefs, Musa’s philosophy may not be too far from what most Copts believe in. Musa viewed modernity, freedom, and development through radical secularisation. Secularisation was not intended to be a direct attack on the Christian faith, but rather that no state should have a religious mandate.
Much of the suffering of Copts since the Arab conquest has been due to the imposition of a fanatical level of Sharia law. Many prominent Copts today still advocate against Islamic law’s application to all Egyptians, and that religion should be a choice of the people, with Copts existing as equal citizens. The central vein of Musa’s works was advocating for this style of governance, and what led him to identify strongly with movements that promised equality. As anti-imperial sentiments heightened in Egypt leading up to the 1919 revolution, Musa returned from travelling Europe to sentiments of nationalism which promised an equality that relied on secularism as it abolished religious prejudice. In 1907, Musa travelled to France, learning of socialism and egalitarianism, then had a stint in England studying social Darwinism and Marxism through the Fabian Society. He returned to Egypt in 1913 and joined Zaghloul’s Wafd Party. Throughout the 20s and 30s, he would continue publishing journalistic magazines, before being arrested in 1946 for trumped-up charges of criticising the monarchy.
In many ways, Musa also continued to identify as a Christian even through his politics. In his book, ‘The Education of Salama Musa’, he wrote:
“To a certain extent, of course, my leftist attitude was due to cultural influences that came with my economic and social position, namely my belonging to a Christian minority. The Jews, as a European minority, always were and still are the bearers of the standard of leftist culture there, in matters of politics and society generally as well as in the economy.”
Musa not only identified with his Coptic identity but also found that the minority position of his identity furthered his philosophy and influenced it in some ways. Especially in Leftist politics, he saw Copts as furthering the cause the same way their fellow minority, Jews, did. Musa never truly stopped being Coptic in any way, and found the church a way to connect with his identity in a different dimension, writing in his autobiography:
“As a young man, I was wearied of it [the Church], because I very strongly felt the urge of the modern sciences. Afterwards, I returned to it with feelings of sympathy, for I found in it the history of our tortured and mangled past, and even the voice of the Pharaohs echoing still loudly from its pulpits. Thus, in my mind, the Coptic Church became the national church of Egypt; but this had nothing to do with religion, only with historical affections.”
Whilst Musa mentions how growing up, his attitudes shifted, it is even clearer in his written word. It is likely that Musa, as a younger man, had vehemently believed that by minimising religious identity and increasing imagery of a unified Egyptian nationalism, society would become better and more equal. However, it is likely that after witnessing the betrayals of Egyptian nationalism, especially towards the Coptic communities in the following decades his position changed. For example, the 1938 election resulted in the lowest Coptic representation in Parliament of only 2.3% compared to two years earlier when it was 8.8%. Musa likely started to identify more strongly with his Coptic identity. In the same Masr paper, he wrote:
“We, the Copts, are distinguished by a nationality; have a different physiognomy, and we are unique in having a morality that distinguishes us all wherever we are, so much so that it is easy to say about one of us when seen for the first time, ‘This is a Copt in whom is no guile.’ And we have a religion that penetrated the marrow of our bones, and changed our human nature into the Christian one…”
On the 23rd of April 1937, Musa published an article on the importance of ‘Coptic Art monuments’, specifically labelling Ancient Egyptian art dated until the Arab invasion as specifically Coptic rather than part of all national Egyptian history. On the Coptic language and antiquities, he wrote:
“The continuous development of the Coptic language and culture; we must all be concerned with this lesson and devote our most intelligent minds and most abundant money to it. Those who are jealous of the Church must know that their jealousy is worthless unless they spend their time and money studying the Coptic antiquities, language and culture.”
In a different article published on 18th November 1936, he wrote:
“This language [Coptic] connects us to our ancestors seven thousand years ago. It was and still is the key to the language of the Pharaohs; from this point of view, it is a glorious heritage that we must not neglect. Our church must preserve all its heritage and traditions; the history of the Coptic community is the history of the Coptic Church.”
Musa continued to care about the health and vitality of the Church. On 21st February 1938, he wrote an article dedicated to ensuring the good education of Coptic Priests titled: “The ordination of Uneducated Priests is a Danger that the Patriarchate Must Combat.” Similarly, on 8th October 1946, he published “The Seminary Examinations”, and on 31st July 1946, “The Coptic Monks”, and on the 7th of July 1947, an article titled, “A Magazine for the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate”. This continued especially in 1946 and 1947, when there was a distinct uptick in the number of articles specifically aimed at Copts and about Copts.
Therefore, when we, as Copts, read critical pieces remembering Salama Musa, we must stop and consider. Musa spent years, especially in the latter years of his life, writing to and about the Copts. On the positive strength of our Christian faith, the importance of the Coptic language and antiquities, and numerous articles about the Coptic church. Let us not fall victim to lies that attempt to portray Musa as estranged from the Coptic people simply because his philosophies may differ from those of the Church, but to be proud that a Coptic figure displayed such high levels of political intellect and a figure who changed many parts of political and social philosophy.
It is important to remember him as a figure which fundamentally changed modern Egyptian history, considered the “spiritual father” of Naguib Mahfouz, and Musa as the Father of Egyptian Socialism and Enlightenment, and all whilst being a Coptic figure that we are proud of today.
