In an editorial written by the proprietor of al-Mu'ayyad newspaper in 1892, Shaykh ‘Ali Yusuf commented on the ongoing factionalism within the Coptic community: ‘Any step taken by either party, other than one based on a mutual agreement, to strengthen its own position in the dispute, would not only be unlawful but also detrimental to the wellbeing of the community (ta'ifa)’. The ‘ta'ifa’, traditionally led by the Coptic pope, had been locked in a twenty-year conflict over a question of power and authority: who was responsible for the Coptic community? To what extent was the church accountable not just for spiritual welfare, but also material welfare? By the last decade of the nineteenth century, the control and distribution of Coptic material resources had become synonymous with the urgent need for educational and religious reform. On the one hand, Pope Kyrillos V, with his entourage of the Holy Synod, monks and clergy, vociferously claimed the right to the distribution of funds to the community and, in particular, control of waqf (pl. awqaf [religious endowments]), which he claimed traditionally fell within the remit of the church and patriarchate. On the other, the Majlis al-Milli – the Coptic Community Lay Council – which had been established in 1873 by the acting patriarch, Bishop Murqus, and landed gentry, challenged this prerogative. The Majlis, which increasingly viewed the church as obstructive and backwards, sought lay control of awqaf in order to implement and fund a series of reforms, with education and the establishment of schools at its centre. The Majlis and its supporters hoped that through the provision of schools they could encourage greater Coptic participation in communal affairs – a process which would later also have an effect on broadening Coptic participation within Egyptian society.

Less than ten days after the al-Mu'ayyad editorial, which had so strongly advocated a peaceful and mutual compromise, new discord arose. Pope Kyrillos V and his assistant Bishop Yu'annis were dismissed from their duties by Khedivial decree and banished to a monastery in the Wadi Natrun Desert. Members of the Majlis, who had strong links to the Khedive, had promoted and welcomed this action and in doing so manifested the trend of tension and discord that would continue between the two parties and have lasting consequences on the Coptic community throughout the twentieth century.