Talk:Coptic language

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Examples

[edit]

I have removed this from the list of Coptic words in Standard Arabic:

  • sabeii سَبِيّ "captive" (sebi)

The reason is that سبى sabā "to capture" is found not only in Arabic but general Semitic, including Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic, Syriac, Sabaic (Old South Arabian), etc. If related at all, it would likely be on the level of common Afro-Asiatic, but this needs checking. In any event, it is not a loan from Coptic into Arabic. —Nefertum17 09:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You convinced me. --Alif 22:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have modified an earlier discussion regarding "ebony". The Coptic actually borrows it from Greek, though the Greek is of Egyptian origin. —Nefertum17 09:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have removed τ̀.μετ ρεμ.ν̀.κημε from the "language box" for 2 reasons.

  • It uses the Greek, not Coptic, alphabet. Once Coptic is added to unicode later in 2005 and fonts such as Lucidia Grande support it, I agree it should be added back in, though in Coptic.
  • It uses Bohairic orthography for a Sahidic phrase (the Bohairic is slightly different).

I have also broken up the translitation of the phrase to reflect actual words. While it would be written as one big word in the Coptic alphabet, in transliteration it is not. —Nefertum17 10:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So do we have the Coptic scripts available now? Let's go check and see if there's an entire Wikipedia in Coptic yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.58.237.50 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'300 speakers'

[edit]

We need to either verify this supposed fact about Coptic having 300 speakers, or simply get rid of it. All three of the sources sited as saying Coptic has only 300 speakers worldwide are unverified and have been so for years. Moreover, all three of these sources are the exact same article--the only difference is that the first one is translated into English, and the second one has a different title on the page, but all three site the exact same interview and give us no new information. I suggest at the very least we delete two of these repeated sources so that at least this fact looks as unreliable on the page as it truly is: having only one completely unverified source. Another thing that concerns me is that I have read these (this) article, and know personally that at least part of the information it cites is completely false: the article's pull is that they got an interview with the "only Egyptian family that still speaks the Coptic language inside Egypt", but I personally know at least one other family in Egypt that speaks Coptic as their primary language. Now I know that one cannot site personal knowledge or experience on Wikipedia, and I am not suggesting that we do so. The point I would like to make is that I know for a fact that this article cited is false in its premise--it exaggerates the truth for the purposes of making a catchy article, and so I fear that it may also be exaggerating or perhaps completely making up this '300 Coptic speakers' fact that it claims. Furthermore, I believe that, if this fact is false, that the true statistics are out there somewhere and need to be found. One way or another, we absolutely need to do some housecleaning and get this fact verified as soon as possible. -3loodlust (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I'm surprised it's been accepted this long. If true, it would have gotten a lot of press in linguistic and egyptological circles. — kwami (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
is there any credibility to the report that 2 families in Egypt still spoke Coptic in 2005 https://dailynewsegypt.com/2005/12/10/coptic-languages-last-survivors/ 82.11.163.59 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beta is not a labio-dental fricative.

[edit]

In the consonant inventory, the voiceless and voiced labio-dental fricatives are both purported to be part of the language. However, beta (the lowercase Greek character used in IPA for the sound that b or v make in medial positions in Spanish, for example) is put as the voiced pair of /f/. This is not the case. The voiced pair of /f/ is /v/.

I do not know anything about Semitic languages or more specifically Coptic, so I cannot say whether it should be beta or /v/. 98.64.228.117 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Tom in Florida.[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_labiodental_approximant
Correct. It's an approximant. Vedisassanti (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic still spoken in the late 19th century

[edit]

Why is the text of reference 3 not in the main text? Werner Vycichl, a distinguished philologist and scholar in Coptology and Egyptology did field research in the village al-Zeiniyya ar:الزينية in Luxor Governorate in the 1930s where he recorded four men between 50 and 65 years whose parents had still spoken Coptic among each other and who still had some knowledge of the language. Vycichl wrote in detail about what he found there. Why is this not more important than a guess ("maybe") of James Allen? Vycichl's article about his findings is even online and available for everyone who understands German. Menischt (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the question of the reported late attestations of Coptic deserves to be covered in the main text, even if only in order not to violate MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.
As for Vycichl's article, it is not easy access that determines due weight for inclusion in WP, but its overall impact and reception in the field. Vycichl's report is covered in a handful of publications, a critical evaluation is found e.g. in Peust (1999:31) (for all page watchers who have time to expand the article). –Austronesier (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Austronesier! Do you read German (your name and the pronunciation are German)? In a footnote Carsten Peust cites the "rather mysterious remark by Till" in Walter Till 1954: review o/Steindorff (1951), in Or 23:156 where Till states:
"Über die Angelegenheit der «koptisch sprechenden Familien» in Zeniya gibt es an massgebender Stelle eine völlig andere Ansicht. Es wäre mit Rücksicht auf die Wichtigkeit dieser Frage sehr wünschenswert, wenn diese einmal geäussert würde, so dass die wissenschaftliche Welt darin nicht einseitig orientiert bleibt."
Here my translation of this remark (German is my mother tongue):
"On the matter of the "Coptic speaking families" in Zeniya, there is a completely different view at the authoritative office. In view of the importance of this question, it would be very desirable if this were finally uttered, so that the scientific world does not remain oriented in a unbalanced way." –Menischt (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still used, but extinct?

[edit]

Seemingly, the coptic language is used at least as liturgical language in churches. How can it be extinct at the same time? KristallograefIn (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct as an L1 language (spoken from birth, mother tongue). Same with Latin and Sanskrit. The distinction is sometimes blurred though because some of these languages are used fluently outside liturgical settings. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vowels

[edit]

The text says:

Differences centre on how to interpret the pairs of letters ⲉ/ⲏ and ⲟ/ⲱ. In the Attic dialect of Ancient Greek in the 5th century BC, the first member of each pair is a short closed vowel /e, o/, and the second member is a long open vowel /ɛː, ɔː/. In some interpretations of Coptic phonology,[1] it is assumed that the length difference is primary, with ⲉ/ⲏ /e, eː/ and ⲟ/ⲱ is /o, oː/. Other scholars[2][3] argue for a different analysis in which ⲉ/ⲏ and ⲟ/ⲱ are interpreted as /e, ɛ/ and /o, ɔ/.

The second citation for the second interpretation is Lambdin 1983, p. xii–ix. However, what Lambdin actually gives there is simply a popularising pedagogical instruction: he says that ⲉ should be pronounced as the vowel in let, ⲏ as in hate, ⲟ as in log, and ⲱ as in hope. It is difficult to say what he means with this in reality. First of all, interpreting this statement as describing of a contrast in quality rather than quantity presupposes an old-style American analysis of American English vowels that ignores the diphthongised nature of the vowels of American English hate and hope. From a British perspective, for instance, the second pair of vowels is bimoraic while the first is monomoraic, so it is partly a contrast of quantity. More importantly, even if Lambdin does mean a contrast between a more open and a more close vowel, the relationship between ⲉ/ⲏ and ⲟ/ⲱ would be the exact opposite to the one that the wiki article suggests both with the order of the letters and with the Attic Greek parallel: in Attic Greek e and o are closer than ɛ and ɔ, and the wiki article mentions ⲉ, ⲟ and /e/ and /o/ first in the pairs. In contrast, Lambdin's version would be that ⲏ and ⲱ in Coptic express closer vowels, not more open ones. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attic vowel quality is obviously irrelevant here. Koine /η/ must have been closer than /ε/ because it merges with /ι/. This isn’t the only time that section contradicts itself, either: cf. ‘ⲉⲓ /i/’ in the Bohairic table paired with the statement ‘Bohairic… /i/ was only written ⟨ⲓ⟩’ and the confusion over which of /ⲟ/, /ⲱ/ and /ⲟⲩ/ are distinct phonemes. 95.37.236.31 (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Plumley 1948.
  2. ^ Greenberg 1962/1990
  3. ^ Lambdin 1983, pp. xii–ix.

Coptic Language Prohibition?

[edit]

He issued strict orders completely prohibiting the use of Coptic anywhere, whether in schools, public streets, and even homes, including mothers speaking to their children. Those who did not comply had their tongues cut off. He personally walked the streets of Cairo and eavesdropped on Coptic-speaking homes to find out if any family was speaking Coptic.

Is there a contemporary source on this? I looked into multiple historical sources of that period, Al-Maqrizi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Al-Athir, Ad-Dahabi, as well as the History of the Patriarchs, a Coptic Christian source. They all mentioned Al-Hakim's insanity and his persecution of minorities, but none mentioned any prohibition on the Coptic Language.

The referenced source here is Coptic Language, Spoken by Emil Maher Ishaq. The source does include the claim, but among its own bibliography, I couldn't find a source that included the claim. Furthermore, the paper is loaded with biased language, like calling Copts willingly converting to Islam "apostasy".

If someone could verify the claim from other sources or find something I might've missed, that would be appreciated. If not, I suggest this claim to be removed or marked as having an unreliable source. Dubious Detector (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your charge of the source being biased has no grounds. The quote of the source in question is; "The gradual apostasy of the Copts to Islam as a result of the successive waves of financial pressures and religious persecution." Definition of apostate; "a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle." The word is being used exactly as its definition implies. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The connotations of the word apostasy are almost always negative, and imply rebellious defection or abandonment of their previous religion, rather than a conscious decision out of a change in belief. It also implies that the previous religion is the true one, and the apostate has somehow strayed away from the light. This is evident by its original sense in the Greek of the Septuagint: "rebellion against God" [1], and its use in English since then. The author could've used more neutral vocabulary like "conversion". But this is consistent with the overall bias against Islam and the Arabic language in the rest of the paper. He avoided similarly negative language when talking about the spread of Christianity in Egypt, or the influence the Greek rulers had on the Coptic language.
Regardless, have you found anything that proves the claim? I'd be happy to concede if it is mentioned in a primary source from Al-Hakim's reign, or any source within 500 years after. In the meantime, I suggest you revert your change and restore the tag, so that more people come across the discussion and contribute to it. Dubious Detector (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is from a very reputed, even leading, Coptic Scholar and linguist as well as a well known University library. He cites his sources which you can find here; https://archive.org/details/TheCopticEncyclopedia6_201811/The%20Coptic%20Encyclopedia_2.pdf, which in turn probably have their own citations in turn. Your charge that the word apostasy has a innate bias in this case is false; it is being used in the strictly technical sense as a verb describing people who have abandoned one set of beliefs/principles for another. You could say the word 'surrender' also has an innately negative connotation but that doesn't make its every usage loaded. It is almost as if you are mistaking Apostasy for the word 'Heresy' which does indeed imply the new belief is inherently wrong. Also, using more 'neutral' language, like say 'conversion', would likely serve to whitewash the inherently coercive nature of the Arabization and Islamization of Egypt which for some reason you wish to describe as simply 'willingly'; even when the basics of Islamic Law leave non-Muslims as second class citizens at the mercy of an Islamic Court and forced to pay a heavy tax to fund their own occupation by Muslims. Interesting to note as well how even after 1,165 years of Persian, Greek, and Latin rule Egyptians had never changed their primary language so 'willingly' before... 172.91.72.116 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I would like to clarify that I don't deny the persecution of Copts in any of its forms, before and after the Islamic Conquest. I only doubt this specific claim about eavesdropping and cutoff tongues and banned orality. I believe it's healthy to talk about the persecution the Copts had to endure, but it's not healthy to include unfounded claims such as this one, to enhance the issue or draw sympathy to it. It's also unfair and biased to highlight persecution of Copts specifically under Muslim rule, and forego greater persecution under the Greeks and the Romans, which at times reached higher loss of life than Islamic persecution ever did, as in the Diocletianic Persecution or the Era of the Martyrs.
About the burden of proof, I believe a claim has been made, and I'm disputing its authenticity. It's then your responsibility to prove the claim. The burden of proof here is on you, or the author, or anyone who believes the claim without credible proof. Nevertheless, I will provide proof of its absence in any historical account of Al-Hakim's reign:
• Al-Maqrizi (Kitab al-Mawaʿidh wal-Iʿtibar bi-Dhikr el-Khiṭaṭ wal-ʾAthar): This source mentions Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in discrete instances throughout the text, since it is not a chronological record. Whenever he is mentioned alongside Christians, Al-Maqrizi enumerates instances of his extreme persecution of Coptic Christians such as destroying and looting churches, burning crosses, preventing religious celebrations, enforcing distinguishing clothes, and even threatening expulsion of all Christians. Tragic as they are, these instances do not include any prohibition on speaking the Coptic language.
• Ibn al-Athir (Al-Kamil fi Al-Tarikh): This source also mentions Al-Hakim's persecution of Christians, albeit in less detail and less emphasis over other aspects of his insanity. It mentions the destruction of churches all over Egypt and the Levant, and singles out the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. No mention of a Coptic language ban.
• History of the Patriarchs: In this source, Al-Hakim's reign and persecution mostly falls into the period of Saint Zacharias. It tells of an incident a group of learned Christian men where forced to convert or tortured to death, where Al-Hakim offered one of them called Abu Nagah Al-Kabir a high administrative position in his court on the condition that he converts to Islam, and then had the man whipped to death when he refused. It also mentions that Al-Hakim had some Christians say that he is Christ himself. He also banned Mulukhiyah, an Egyptian dish, and banned all women from leaving their houses. He banned wine and pork, and ordered the slaughter of all pigs and the burning of all fermented grapes and honey in the country. It also mentions the persecution frenzy of Al-Hakim, previously recounted in the Al-Maqrizi section, adding the incident where Al-Hakim threw the Pope of Alexandria in a pit of hungry lions, but he miraculously survived unharmed, after which Al-Hakim cut down on the persecution. I must stress that these are of course abhorrent actions (except for the Mulukhiyah ban lol), but none of them include a ban on speaking the Coptic language.
• Apocalypse of Samuel: If you want an honest answer to the question "Why did the Copts start speaking Arabic?", you'll find it in this apocalyptic work attributed to the 7th century Saint Samuel of Qalamoun, but actually dated to the 10th or 11th century (This is an example of a primary source). Here, Saint Samuel supposedly mourns the phenomenon that Coptic Christians speak Arabic in churches and teach it to their children from infancy. Here is a part of it:
[The Christians] do something else, that if I were to tell you of it your hearts would be greatly pained: they are abandoning the beautiful Coptic language, in which the Holy Spirit has spoken many times through the mouths of their spiritual fathers, and they are teaching their children from infancy to speak the language of the Arabs, and to take pride in it! Even the priests and monks—they as well!—dare to speak in Arabic and to take pride in it, and that within the sanctuary! Woe upon woe!!
He didn't mourn how the evil Arabs and Muslims imposed their language and religion on Copts, and forced them to speak Arabic or cut their tongues off. He mourned the fact that Copts taught their children Arabic from infancy and took pride in it! I don't know about you but this sounds willing enough to me.
In conclusion, this story about Al-Hakim banning the Coptic language and personally eavesdropping on Copts and cutting off the tongues of any who speak it, is likely an elaborate fiction. Since it's not backed up by any historical source, Coptic or otherwise, Ishaq likely heard it from an elder and included it as "oral tradition." If that is the case, it would be extremely unreliable if not supported by other sources, since people tend to make up these sorts of stories about people they hate, in this case Muslims.
P.S.
About the sources you added later, this corroborating source you cite is an amateurish article that is no more significant than a blog post. This blog post clearly quotes the Claremont article by Emile Maher Ishaq, so it can't be a corroborating source.
About the Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt by Mark Swanson, I invite you to read the book yourself, because you'll find that it has no mention of a Coptic language ban, and instead quotes the previously mentioned Apocalypse of Samuel in Chapter 5 called Transitions to conclude that this replacement of Coptic was rather gradual and much less coercive than you think.
I want to thank you for finding a text for the other referenced paper by Fatin Morris Guirguis, because I've been looking for it and couldn't find it myself. It also quotes Ishaq with the added context that confirms that it is oral tradition. It then mentions that Al-Maqrizi documented "many of these types of events", but weirdly not this specific one? Either way, Al-Maqrizi's book is very large. I've searched through much of it, but found nothing about a language ban like I said. So, if you think you can find this specific incident or any incident of a Coptic language ban or eavesdropping or cut off tongues in the time of Al-Hakim, please have a look: https://shamela.ws/book/11566.
Until you find it, I will restore the dubious tag and it will remain there, so other people can contribute to the discussion. Dubious Detector (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not sure how to reconcile what you are saying anymore. You wish to one moment describe the Copts as 'willing' converts; even though you claim to have read Al-Maqrizi's works carefully. If so, how did it escape your notice that in section 9 of History of the Copts, Al-Maqrizi is describing a new Muslim pogrom or other extreme persecution against Christians/Copts practically every other page? Al-Maqrizi also makes mention of similar things in Al-Khitat even though speaking of the Copts themselves is far from his focus there. Here are some quotes from Al-Maqrizi's Al-Khitat and History of the Copts as examples;
"The incident of the Christian churches also belongs here: On Friday, the 9th of Rabīʿ II, 721 (8 May 1321), while people were at prayer, it seems that a call went out all over Egypt, from Qūṣ to Alexandria, to destroy the churches. Within that one hour, over that large area, a great number of churches were demolished, as it will be told in its proper place when we discuss the churches of the Christians."
"The church of the Christians was destroyed and the martyr’s finger in a box was taken away from it. It was brought to al-Malik al-Ṣāliḥ and burned before his eyes in the public square. Its ashes were scattered in the river, lest they be taken by the Christians."
https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/237608/1/MaqriziKhitatPart1.pdf
"Then again, Uskam Ben Zeid et-Tanuki, commissioner of revenues, oppressed the Christians still more for he fell upon them, robbed them or their possessions, and branded with an iron ring the name of every monk on the monk's own hand, and the name of his convent, as well as his number, and whosever of them was found without this brand, had his hand cut off. Then he wrote to several districts, that Christian found without a written certificate, should have ten Dinars taken from them. He then attacked the convents, where he found a number of monks without the brand on their hands, of whom he beheaded some, and other he beat so long that they died under the lash. He then pulled down the churches, broke the crosses, rubbed off the pictures, broke up all the images- and there were many- in the year 104 under khaliphat of Yezid'Abd-el-Melik."
"in his days the strife took place between El-Amin and El-Mamum, during which the Christian Alexandria were plundered, and their houses burnt in great numbers. The monasteries in Wadi-Habib were also burnt down, and only a very small company of monks remained there."
"“Tell us how much tribute each of us owes so that we can live with it.” And ʿAmr answered, pointing to the corner of a church: “If you paid me (enough to fill this church) from floor to ceiling, I would not tell you how much you owe. You people are like a treasure house for us: If there are heavy demands on us, we will lay it heavy on you, if things ease up on us, we will go easy on you.”—Anyone holding to this tradition must believe that Egypt was conquered by force of arms."
"This (tradition of ʿAbd al-Malik) indicates that ʿUmar was of the opinion that Egypt had been conquered by force of arms, and that payment of the jizyah was indeed assessed on the villages so that, if one of the villagers died, that poll tax would still remain constant for them and the death of one of them in no way reduced the tribute they owed."
"Then el-Hakem Biamr-illahi was so angry at it, that he could not control himself from rage. He laid hands on the Christian Isa Ben Nestoris, who once held an office akin to that of vizier, and cut off his head. He then seized upon another Christian, Faid Ben Ibrahim, secretary to a Doctor Berdjewan, and cut off his head also. He then further oppressed the Christians obliging them to wear a distinct dress, and a sash around their loins; he forbade them to hold an public processions and games at the Feast of Hosannas or at that of the Cross, and at the Epiphany, as it was their wont to do at these festivals. He then laid his hand on all endowments of the churches and of the monasteries, which confiscated to the public treasury, and wrote the that effect to all his provinces. He then burned the wood of a great many crosses, and forbade Christians to buy men or maid servants; he pulled down the churches that were in the in the street Reshida, outside the city of Misr [Old Cairo]. He then laid in ruins the churches of El-Maqs outside El-Qahira [Cairo], and made over their contents to the people, who plundered them of more goods than can be told. He threw down the convent of El-Qosseir, and it to the people to sack. He then forbade Christians to celebrate the Feast of Baptism on the Banks of the Nile in Egypt, and put an end to their gatherings on those occasions for the sake of recreation. He then obliged every man among the Christians to wear, hanging from his neck, a wooden cross of the weight of five rotl (about 5.5 lbs), and forbade them to ride on horses; but made them ride on mules and asses, with saddles and bridles, on which no gold or silver trimmings were allowed, but all made of black leather. He also proclaimed publicly, at the sound of the bell, in Qahira and Misr, that no livery-stable master should let out a steed to any of the dependent population [Copts], and that no Mussulman should let one of them sail [or cross the river] in his boat. He also ordered that the head dress and turbans of Christians should be a deep black; that the stirrups of the saddles should be made of sycamore wood, and that the jews should wear outside and over their dress, hanging from their next, a round piece of wood, weighing five rotl. He then set about demolishing all churches and made over to the people, as prey and forfeit, all that in them, and all that was settled on them. They were then all demolished, all their furniture and chattels were plundered, and their endowments were forfeited to others, and mosques were built in their place. *snip for brevity* Then many people sent up letters to request to be allowed to search the churches and monasteries in the provinces of Egypt. But their request was hardly delivered, when a favorable answer was returned to the request; so they took the vessels and chattels of the churches and of the monasteries, and sold them in the market places of Egypt, together with what they found in those churches of gold and silver vessels, and things of the kind; and bartered their endowments. But they found enormous wealth in the Church of the Senuda, and in that of Mo'allaqah, a very great, endless quantity of gold fabrics and of silken vestments. The Emir also wrote to the intendents of the provinces to support the Mussulmans in their destruction of the churches and of the monasteries. And the work demolition in Egypt was so general in the year 403 that according to statements on which one can rely, as to what was demolished at the end of the year 405, both in Egypt and in Syria and the provinces thereof, of temples built by the Greeks-it amounted to more than three thousand churches. All the gold and silver vessels in them were plundered, their endowments were forfeited; and those endowments were splendid and bestowed on wonderful edifces. And lastly he ordered all Jews and all Christian to depart out of the land of Egypt, and go to the cities of Rum. But they all gathered together under the castle of El-Qahira, beseeching and imploring mercy from the emir of the faithful, until he let them off from being banished.""
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybXUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA72&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
Some bits from Swanson's book too;
"John’s history itself gives examples of interest in the martyrs. Among the many edifying anecdotes that adorn his history is the story, well-known in a number of versions in the Christian east, about the beautiful nun who saved herself from sexual violation by offering her own neck for a demonstration of the miraculous powers of a sword-stopping salve in her possession. One of Marwan’s soldiers took the bait, and unintentionally beheaded the maiden." So Muslims sexually violating Nuns is implied to be a thing and also Al-Maqrizi relayed this exact same story with only a slight variation; instead of a fake magical salve it was fake magical olive oil.
"“His days” also included the communal disturbances of 1354, regarded by some historians as a turning point in the history of the Islamization of Egypt.28 In that year, anti-Christian rioting broke out, churches and monasteries were destroyed, and Christian civil servants were either dismissed or compelled not only to convert to Islam, but also to behave in a manner that demonstrated their willing integration into Islamic society."
"We note that with the exception of the monk “Abu Qufayfah” (executed for his preaching against Islam), the other martyrs were put to the sword for apostasy: these were people who had been identified as members of the Muslim community, but who then returned to Christian faith and sought salvation in martyrdom."
So not only were Christians forced to convert, but converting back would get you killed by Muslim. There are other accounts of Muslim who converted to Christianity who were killed or tortured by other Muslims. Yes, this all seems very 'willing' doesn't it?
I also want to make clear the above quotes are not an exhaustive list of all the things that were done to Copts/Christians in Egypt but merely what I found on skimming 2 of 2 of Al-Maqrizi's works when he has 6 major works and 6 minor ones in total and I do not believe all of them are available online. There are several quotes that stick out in my mind I didn't quote that I couldn't find again later that described mass forced conversion on penalty of death and a mob of Muslim killing a Christian tax collector for riding a horse.
That said; a reputable authoritative academic who probably has read them all in Emile Maher Ishaq seems to have found this info about cutting tongues to be supported which wouldn't seem out of place considering a lot of what I quoted above. Emile Maher Ishaq article featuring the tongues being cut, 'Coptic Languages Spoken' also features in Volume 2 of the Coptic Encyclopedia; who chief editor was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya. That is to say this fact regarding tongues appears to have clear support from notable career Coptologists beyond Emile Maher Ishaq alone. This cutting tongues is corroborated by the The Vision of Theophilus which was signed off on by 6 PHDs at the Atlantic University of Florida. It should also be noted the source can well be a secondary source that is quoting a now lost primary source; IE it does not HAVE to come from a primary source directly. This is pretty common as we often only have fractions of all the works that were written and later works often directly reference earlier lost works. Oral traditions of marginalized and persecuted peoples also are valid sources to draw from. Anyway, I do not believe you have the authority to cast doubts on these actual academic sources on the topic. You are welcome to find published academics of similar standing who do though. If you can; then you can return the dubious tag. It cannot be dubious on your authority versus theirs.
In regards to the Apocalypse of Samuel Swanson had this to say;
"One of the more curious texts of the Copto-Arabic heritage is an apocalypse whose anonymous author puts his words into the mouth of a seventh-century Coptic saint, Samuel of the Monastery of Qalamun. As eloquent as the text is, so far it has frustrated the best efforts of scholars to determine its date (although recent studies tend toward the tenth or eleventh centuries). In any event, the text is a single localized witness to a complex process of linguistic transition, which undoubtedly affected the Egyptian Christian population at varying rates according to social and geographical location" Unknown author and origin, and a single view point contrasting what appears to be most others.
I’m also curious. What explanation do you posit for the profound linguistic transition from Coptic to Arabic in only about 600 years when 1,165 years of previous foreign rule had not fostered the same? Despite your charge there isn’t undue attention being paid to Arab oppression of Copts; rather the oppression is used to explain changes that had not taken place before.
172.91.72.116 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There also are corroborating sources such as; https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/blog/coptic-identities-as-indigenous-the-politics-of-recognition-improving-interfaith-relations-in-egypt#:~:text=Historical%20persecution%20of%20the%20Copts,to%20punish%20Coptic%2Dspeaking%20families which in turn sources Swanson, M. (2010). The Popes of Egypt Volume 2: The Coptic Papacity in Islamic Egypt (641-1517). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. pp.102; for the same claims in question. Per the table of contents this book itself has a bibliography of 6 pages of cited primary sources and 16 pages of secondary sources.172.91.72.116 (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also spoken of in the following source with it's own explanation of where the information comes from;
https://www.proquest.com/openview/a122d769903487236f3cbc70641f96b8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750#:~:text=Their%20tongues%20were%20cut%20the,Archdeacon%20Habib%20Girgis%2C%20and%20Yanney.&text=This%20study%20acknowledges%20that%20Coptic,in%20the%20broader%20Coptic%20diaspora.
"15 Such historical facts are frequently evoked in the context of contemporary Coptic worship services, and their historicity verified through oral transmission. In the Coptic Church in Miami on March 23 2009, for example, a priest mentioned in a public lecture that informants walked through small villages where houses were made of uncooked mud bricks and voices could be easily overheard; even small children were subject to arrest. Their tongues were cut the following Friday in the public square, in front of the village's mosque. As a strategy of intimidation, bags of severed tongues of Copts were left on the streets to warn those who dared use the Coptic language. In a follow-up interview given on November 27th, in Tampa, Florida, Father Kyrollos explained that this information is a part of his family's communal knowledge, having been passed on from generation to generation. He added that the Arab Muslim historian Al-Maqrizi (1364-1442 AD) had documented many of these types of events."
There seems to be ample references to this across many sources which in turn are crediting Al-Maqrizi, Coptic Oral tradition, and it appears to be a widely held belief by academics on the topic. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you conflating "speaking Arabic" with "conversion to Islam"? As I said, I don't deny the persecution Copts had to go through, including forced conversion to Islam. I quoted instances of this in my previous comments, and read all the quotes you provided, earlier in Arabic. You are preaching to the choir here. That doesn't mean that Christians cannot willingly convert to Islam. This has always been happening in Egypt and all over the world, centuries back and to this day. Forced conversion is bad, I don't deny that, but it's not the subject of this discussion.
However, in the last comment, when I used the word "willingly", I was talking about speaking Arabic, not becoming Muslim. You don't have to be a Muslim to speak Arabic. The rational reason why Christian Copts would teach their children to speak Arabic as a first language is to overcome a societal disadvantage. Egyptian society under Arab rule was structured so that Arab Muslims were at the top, enjoying the most rights, having access to high governmental positions and other privileges. Beneath them were the majority Copts, both Christian and Muslim Copts, as well as Jews and other ethnicities and faiths. As a result, Arabic became the prestige language, and a desirable language to learn and teach your children if you want them to gain higher status (This was similar with Greek, but not to the extent to replace the native language completely). This same dynamic resulted in other side effects like Muslim Copts fabricating Arab ancestry to hopefully pass as Arabs and gain their privilege, and eventually the whole country adopting the Arab identity in modern times, even though most Egyptians don't descend from Arabia. The author of the Apocalypse of Samuel knew this. He saw this phenomenon at its infancy and called it out. The reason I cited the Apocalypse of Samuel at all is because it contradicts the claim about Al-Hakim banning Coptic and forcing Arabic onto Copts.
Now to get to the actual topic we're supposed to discuss, did it ever actually happen that Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah actually banned the use of the Coptic language and start personally eavesdropping on Coptic houses and cutting off people's tongues if they spoke it? No. The first ever source to mention this is the 1991 paper: Coptic Language, Spoken by Emile Maher Ishaq. And I've grown more confident in my opinion by the fact that you could only cite other papers and blog posts who cite the 1991 paper, or the Wikipedia page itself. Unless your argument is "Well, the Muslims did all of these bad things, they might as well have banned Coptic too!", there is no point in quoting other aspects of persecution. You want to cast doubt about what has been transmitted to us, but I will not allow it.
You then try to appeal to authority by implying that Emile Maher Ishaq can do no wrong or make no mistake or have no bias, just because he published linguistic papers about Coptic. He doesn't actually cite Al-Maqrizi in that paper, so why do you speculate that he has read all of it? He's a linguist, not a historian. If you think that having academic reputation absolves you of making mistakes or having biases, or gives you the right to shoo away criticism, you don't know the first thing about academia or scientific reasoning. If the president of the world came out and repeated Emile's claim, it wouldn't be any less false. I don't flex any published papers or honors or accolades in my arguments, I only point out the facts.
Now, will you please consider my proposal? I'll repeat it again. Find any source whatsoever from Al-Hakim's reign or 500 years after that mentions this specific incident of banning Coptic and cutting off the tongues of Coptic speakers. If you do so, I will happily concede in fair and honest sportsmanship. But if you can't, you have to concede and agree to the claim being removed from the page. I do want to convince you, not just win the argument. I don't want to start an edit war, so I'll give you a month at max. If the month is out before you provide a source or concede, I will at least restore the dubious tag. Dubious Detector (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
"Overview
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."
Emile Maher Ishaq and his editor in Chief, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya, are such sources as described. And you wish to remove these sources or cast doubt on them based on what besides your personal interpreation; ie what is explicitly stated to not be what articles are based on per Wikipedia policy. So again, do you have a Reliable Source, per the wiki guidelines, that casts doubt on this actual reliable source? If not, you have no ground to add the dubious tag and the burden of proof rests on you. To make it clear; Wikipedia is not where truth is decided. It is not an academic or debate battleground. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is where truth is decided. Most people take it as their primary source of information, maybe less so now because of ChatGPT, but people read things on here and go on believing them without doing their due diligence. I personally read this claim on this page a long while ago, and took it at face value. Later, when I came back and actually looked into it, I found that it's unsubstantiated by any historical source, and that's why I started this discussion. When you say "Wikipedia is not where truth is decided", you're almost saying you're okay with having falsehoods on Wikipedia. When we're talking about history, this is a very dangerous notion.
It was clear from the beginning that I am doubting a specific claim. I'm not attacking Emile's paper for any linguistic information it provides, I'm targeting this specific claim about a historical event, because of its lack of verifiability with any historical source, primary, secondary or even tertiary. If I were to provide a reliable source, I would cite Al-Maqrizi's Kitab al-Mawaʿidh wal-Iʿtibar bi-Dhikr el-Khiṭaṭ wal-ʾAthar as the most reliable source on Medieval Egyptian history, and the most extensive on the persecution of Copts. It lists many incidents of persecution, but the claimed incident is not one of them.
If I were to point to specific points from the Accuracy Dispute page, I would invoke:
  • Implausible information, without providing adequate references; (Emile is a late source without a primary source to back it up)
  • Existence of reliable sources that corroborate divergent claims. (Many primary and secondary sources present a different scenario)
It's not a matter of personal interpretation, and not up for debate. The claim is completely absent from historical record. End of Story.
I will ask for a third opinion. Dubious Detector (talk) 06:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
""Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research)"
Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians, who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."
The information is from a reliable source and fulfills Wikipedia guidelines. You have argued only by presenting primary source with your own interpretations which is explicitly not what Wikipedia articles are to be based upon. Do you understand this? 172.91.72.116 (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just said that Emile is a late source without a primary source to support it. It's ridiculous that you're asserting that it's impossible to doubt a claim from a "reliable" source without having a later published source that specifically addresses that claim and denies it. That's not what the guidelines say. Dubious Detector (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emile Maher Ishaq gives a lengthy bibliography for his Coptic Languages Spoken and you continue to ignore this claim is not limited to Emile Maher Ishaq but is also supported by his chief editor; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya and is published in highly reputed works and presses. Fulfilling Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources essentially to the letter. Your opinion on whether Emile Maher Ishaq's works that are supported by his chief editor is reliable is an opinion that cannot have any bearing on the article. You can provide your own sources that dispute these or there is no grounds for further argument. Again, Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth. It exists to essentially paraphrase reliable academic works from reputable and reliable sources. And you do no have the standing to cast doubt on the work of at least 2 different highly reputable, published, career Coptologists. Does this make sense to you? 172.91.72.116 (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lengthy bibliography means absolutely nothing if said claim is not mentioned in any of it. That lengthy bibliography has about two or three sources that would count as historical, and none of them primary. That would make sense, as it's a linguistics paper, not a historical paper. But unfortunately, you try to present it as an assertive historical source because it fits your agenda.
You keep mentioning Aziz Suryal Atiya as if it's the lengthier the name the better. Again, the reputability of an author doesn't make everything they say automatically true. Dubious Detector (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really believe most of what your saying anymore; because you appear to claim to have read just about everything and that all the highly reputed career Coptologists are wrong because... you know so much more? I'm not sure what to tell you anymore but you seem to have the wrong idea of what Wikipedia is for and how articles are to be made. I find it comical you, who was trying to claim the mass transition was 'willing' in the context of extraordinary oppression, wants to claim agenda or bias here. I don't recommend you continue making unsupported edits that don't fit Wikipedia criteria. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources
"Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research)
Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties. Unfinished dissertations are generally not reliable sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources." 172.91.72.116 (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have moved away from attempting to prove the claim, because you lost that debate, and now you're lecturing me about how to edit. Dubious Detector (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite confident i won that debate since I provided far more sources, quotes, and examples of extreme persecution in line with tongue removal and certainly make your characterization of 'willing' to describe the mass and profound linguistic, cultural, and religious shift that occurred in only 600 years but didn't in the previous 1,165 years of foreign rule look rather silly.
But I realized it was pointless to continue this line of debate because we were straying from the Wikipedia Reliable Sources criteria and going into original research territory by trying to debate primary sources ourselves. You have no provided any reliable secondary sources per wikipedia guidelines better than Emile Maher Ishaq and his Editor in Chief or any that directly dispute them. You have only tried with primary sources as far as I can see or remember. It is as simple as that really. Everything else is a waste of time and energy. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall you finding any historical source that actually supports the claim. You only kept beating around the bush and finding remotely similar incidents, but never actually proved this one. You're more interested in toeing the guideline than actually finding the truth.
Oh, and you thought this was reddit apparently. Don't think I didn't see that. Dubious Detector (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research)" isn't clear to you? You keep fixating on primary sources when it is clear that isn't what actually matters and you expect us to trust your word vs those of multiple career reputable published Coptologists. I mean who do you think you are really? 172.91.72.116 (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I'm here from WP:3O. I took a look through the debate and it looks like there are two issues that seem to get conflated at points. 1) Was the Coptic language prohibited as described in the quote from the page? 2) Is the use of apostate/apostacy loaded or biased?
I think we need to disentangle these and I would suggest we address issue 1 first. I do not have the bandwidth to review all the sources referenced. Can one of you cite the best two or three sources for this claim for me to review? Thanks
Squatch347 (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming. First, the main issue is that this claim seems to have been non-existent, not mentioned nor quoted nor cited anywhere by anyone before the cited source Coptic Language Spoken, by Emile Maher Ishaq, published in 1991. This is easily proved by the fact that all mentions of the quote now on the internet or anywhere stem from this publication or the Wikipedia page itself. The other party tried and could only find one other later publication and one blog post. The later publication cites Emile directly, while the blog post quotes the Wikipedia page and incorrectly cites The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt by Mark Swanson, a different source in the paragraph that does not include the quote whatsoever.
The problem with the claim is that it's completely absent from any historical source prior to Ishaq. In this case, Ishaqcannot even be considered a secondary source when there is no primary source it quotes from. My conclusion is that Ishaq included this quote from his oral tradition, if not outright fabricated it. He has motive to do so, because of his bias which we will get to later. Furthermore, Coptic Language Spoken is a linguistics paper. It only makes this claim in passing before actually focusing on the linguistic material. So, it is hardly an authoritative source on history.
Part of my plight in this discussion is having to prove a negative. I need to prove that it's not mentioned in any historical source about Medieval Egypt, so I can only point to its absence from major historical records about Medieval Egypt, such as Al-Maqrizi or the History of the Patriarchs.
  • In Al-Maqrizi's Kitab al-Mawaʿidh wal-Iʿtibar bi-Dhikr el-Khiṭaṭ wal-ʾAthar, the medieval Egyptian author talks about Copts and their persecution in different sections of the book, and does not neglect Diocletian's or Al-Hakim's persecution of Copts or other periods earlier or later. He mentions many instances of persecution and forced conversion to Islam, as previously quoted by the other party and myself. But, he doesn't mention any ban of the Coptic Language whatsoever, or anything similar to the disputed quote. You can check this yourself by searching through the Arabic text here: https://shamela.ws/book/11566, and using keywords like "الحاكم بأمر الله" (Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah) and "القبط" (The Copts) or "النصارى" (The Christians) and then translating the passages, or better yet finding an English translation.
  • The History of the Patriarchs is a chronological history about the Popes of Alexandria and the Coptic Church in general, arranged in sections for each pope, and written by Coptic Christians themselves. In this case, the relevant section is that of St. Zacharias, Pope No. 64, since it falls during the reign of Al-Hakim and his persecution of Copts. The History of the Patriarchs here recounts the persecution of Copts by Al-Hakim in great detail, and supports Al-Maqrizi's account, and adds more instances of forced conversion as well as the Pope himself being thrown in a pit of hungry lions and surviving. This primary source, written by medieval Coptic Christians, does not mention any prohibition of the Coptic language whatsoever, by Al-Hakim, or by any other Muslim ruler. You'd think that they mention it if it were true, since they would be the most steadfast in documenting their own persecution and the most accurate in reporting it. You can of course check this by reading the source yourself. I read through this section in the Arabic version, but you can easily find an English version on the Internet Archive, and read the section about Pope Zacharias.
There are other sources which talk about Al-Hakim's reign and persecution of Copts that I've checked and quoted earlier and do not include the claim at all, but these two can paint a full enough picture of the situation.
Furthermore, another source quoted in the paragraph, The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt by Mark Swanson, paints a completely different picture. In Chapter 5 called Transitions, it quotes the Apocalypse of Samuel. This apocalypse is dated to the 10th or 11th century, around the time of Al-Hakim. The author of this Apocalypse laments and mourns the phenomenon where Coptic Christians began to speak Arabic in church, and teach Arabic to their children from infancy and take pride in it. This would not have been written or presented that way if a Coptic language ban had occurred. The conclusion Swanson reaches in his book is that the process of replacement of the Coptic language was slow and gradual. This is directly contradictory to the claim made by Ishaq.
Through the course of this discussion, the other party cited other incidents of persecution of Copts by Al-Hakim or other Muslims. This only establishes plausibility that a prohibition could've happened as another instance of persecution, but never actually proves it did. They essentially proved my argument that Ishaq is a late disconnected source, and could not even qualify as a secondary source on this. When the other party couldn't find any source before Ishaq 1991 that actually supports it, they shifted the argument to the "reliability" of the author and his editor, and displayed a shameless appeal to authority. As previously mentioned, Ishaq is a linguist, and most of his publications are about linguistics or Coptic hymns. He should not be an authority on history to be blindly trusted with a baseless claim whatsoever. Then, they shifted again by getting technical about Wikipedia's guidelines, and attempted to block my argument and dismiss it and dispute my right to edit under the "No Original Research" rule, even though my research is limited to pointing out the claim's absence from historical record. Even then, my argument is fully supported Mark Swanson's book, which is not my original research. Then, the other party devolved to petty insults and personal attacks and belittlement in typical Reddit fashion. I entered this discussion in extremely good faith, and was willing to be proven wrong if it meant reaching the truth on this subject. Instead, I was met with bad faith arguments, logical fallacies, and personal attacks. Dubious Detector (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the Apocalypse of Samuel Swanson had this to say;
"One of the more curious texts of the Copto-Arabic heritage is an apocalypse whose anonymous author puts his words into the mouth of a seventh-century Coptic saint, Samuel of the Monastery of Qalamun. As eloquent as the text is, so far it has frustrated the best efforts of scholars to determine its date (although recent studies tend toward the tenth or eleventh centuries). In any event, the text is a single localized witness to a complex process of linguistic transition, which undoubtedly affected the Egyptian Christian population at varying rates according to social and geographical location." Swanson, Mark N., The Coptic Papacy In Islamic Egypt 641-1517, Pg 59., American University in Cairo Press, 2010.
Unknown author and origin, and a single view point contrasting what appears to be most others.
That the other user is pushing this single account that we don't even know who it is from that goes against almost every other accounts that speaks of extreme persecutions of Copts/Christians seems very odd. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Encyclopedia
"In 2009, the Claremont Graduate University (CGU) School of Religion acquired the right to develop an updated and continuously expanding and evolving web-based version of the Coptic Encyclopedia."
So while originally published in 1991 it is continuously updated and expanded on by a very reputable, even prestigious, university with an undergraduate 11.1% acceptance rate; And they have not seen to remove or change the article in question, Coptic Languages, Spoken by Emile Maher Ishaq. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

pg.606 of volume 2 ::https://archive.org/details/TheCopticEncyclopedia6_201811/The%20Coptic%20Encyclopedia_2.pdf

https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cce/id/520/rec/1
https://www.proquest.com/openview/a122d769903487236f3cbc70641f96b8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750#:~:text=Their%20tongues%20were%20cut%20the,Archdeacon%20Habib%20Girgis%2C%20and%20Yanney.&text=This%20study%20acknowledges%20that%20Coptic,in%20the%20broader%20Coptic%20diaspora
All the above contain or cite the following; IE Coptic Languages, Spoken, by Emile Maher Ishaq.
"3. The excessive persecutions of the natives, notably by AL-ḤĀKIM BI-AMR ILLAH (996–1020) [Al-Hakim bi-Amr Illah] who issued an order to stop the use of Coptic not only in public places and offices but also at homes and in private circles. Those caught conversing in Coptic were liable to have their tongues cut. Consequently, the Copts were forced to screen their places of worship where religious offices were celebrated in Coptic. Nevertheless, the ruling class did not hesitate to attack these places of worship and to punish all Coptic worshipers without mercy. It is said that the establishment of mills at the entrance of churches in those days was intentionally done to drown out the sound of Coptic hymns within, as a means of deluding the government forces from without."
Appers to be a widely held belief by career Coptolgists, published in the Coptic Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Encyclopedia, whose chief editor is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya, thus this claim has support beyond just Emile Maher Ishaq. 172.91.72.116 (talk) Edited 08:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emile Maher Ishaq's Coptic Languages, Spoken also has a length bibliography, which includes translations of primary sources in various languages and which are not all readily available online. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue is that the other user wishes to base the articles on their interpretation, opinion, and on their word of primary sources against the views of multiple very reputable career Coptologist; in contravention of basic wikipedia rules. IE "Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research)" They hardly sound unbiased in my opinion as well. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you both for your replies. I've taken a bit of time to read through them and the associated sources. So far I'm not seeing any specific support for the idea of a prohibition of the Coptic language in those sources. Certainly there was persecution, but we have a specific claim in the article that I'm not sure I see support for anywhere else.

I'd support adding some attribution to the claim, ie "Emile Maher Ishaq, a coptic lignuist, claims..."

But, before we do that, and perhaps I just missed it, but the current citation doesn't seem to support that Ishaq has argued there was a prohibition either. I looked through the Coptic Encyclopedia references and the other three mentioned. What is the specific verbiage Ishaq used?

Squatch347 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Article Text:
"The Coptic language massively declined under the hands of Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, as part of his campaigns of religious persecution. He issued strict orders completely prohibiting the use of Coptic anywhere, whether in schools, public streets, and even homes, including mothers speaking to their children. Those who did not comply had their tongues cut off."
The exact quote from Ishaq is; "The excessive persecutions of the natives, notably by AL-ḤĀKIM BI-AMR ILLAH (996–1020) [Al-Hakim bi-Amr Illah] who issued an order to stop the use of Coptic not only in public places and offices but also at homes and in private circles. Those caught conversing in Coptic were liable to have their tongues cut."
It should be noted Ishaq and this quote effectively has de facto support from the chief editor of the Coptic Encyclopedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya
And that Swanson, Mark N. in his work The Coptic Papacy In Islamic Egypt 641-1517 stated, "the eight-volume Coptic Encyclopedia (1991) is undoubtedly the most important reference tool for the history and culture of the Copts during the medieval Islamic era."
I struggle to see how there is much room for debate here. Any attempt to cast this as dubious or change this would be clear Original Research and changing the Wikipedia article in favor of a random Wikipedia users opinions and word vs those of the most reputable career Coptologists there are. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, excellent, thank you. That was on page 605 rather than 606. I'm going to make a tentative edit that I think frames this appropriately in wiki voice. Squatch347 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my proposed diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coptic_language&diff=1313011304&oldid=1312839166 Squatch347 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest that the article be kept exactly as it was with only the last part; that Hakim personally walked the streets enforcing the prohibition removed since there is no source for this. Instead we can replace it with a paraphrase/plagiarism avoiding version of the following, "Such historical facts are frequently evoked in the context of contemporary Coptic worship services, and their historicity verified through oral transmission. In the Coptic Church in Miami on March 23 2009, for example, a priest mentioned in a public lecture that informants walked through small villages where houses were made of uncooked mud bricks and voices could be easily overheard; even small children were subject to arrest. Their tongues were cut the following Friday in the public square, in front of the village's mosque. As a strategy of intimidation, bags of severed tongues of Copts were left on the streets to warn those who dared use the Coptic language."
from:
https://www.proquest.com/openview/a122d769903487236f3cbc70641f96b8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750#:~:text=Their%20tongues%20were%20cut%20the,Archdeacon%20Habib%20Girgis%2C%20and%20Yanney.&text=This%20study%20acknowledges%20that%20Coptic,in%20the%20broader%20Coptic%20diaspora
which is already present in the article as reference [16] so doesn't even need to be added
Adding that this is 'According to Emile Maher Ishak' could suggest this is only according to him when this clearly has the support of his notable editor in chief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya and others and doesn't serve much purpose. "were likely to have their tongues cut off according to oral tradition", Also sounds wrong and as if it suggests the entire order against speaking Coptic is something we know only from Oral tradition when that only pertains to the specific story I quoted above from The Vision of Theophilus: Resistance Through Orality Among the Persecuted Copts. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be another reference to Coptic language being prohibited from another source in The Vision of Theophilus: Resistance Through Orality Among the Persecuted Copts.
"Churches were raided if a liturgy in Coptic was heard (Soliman 49)."
Referring to this source; Soliman, Mary. "Arab Dialectology and the Influence of Coptic on Egyptian Arabic." Thesis. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University, 2007. Print.
https://libcatalog.usc.edu/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=cdi_proquest_journals_304847783&context=PC&vid=01USC_INST:01USC&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Primo%20Central&tab=Everything&query=null,,Issued%20originally%20as%20University%20of%20California%20publications%20in%20engineering.%20vol.%201,%20no.%2013.,AND&mode=advanced&offset=50
However this source isn't available online to non-faculty/non-students and there seems to be none other available. This is an example of why Wikipedians cannot and should not say if primary sources do or do not support something an academic/authoritative secondary source says and instead claim it 'must be' from Oral traditions as the other user did; we simply do not have access to the same resources and expertise as the academics. After about 24 hours if there is no further input I will make the described changes. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a chief editor would not include this if he did not agree with it."
This is incorrect. It is WP:SYNTH to infer that an editor holds a specific position because it is included in a compilation document. Editors include things for all kinds of reasons including, like we do here, because it represents different positions on a topic. I'm not sure if that happened here or not, but regardless, we don't include those positions unless the authors wrote on them themselves or attributed the citation in their own voice rather than, as we have here, them using the cited author's voice with attributional language.
If anything, my proposal is to mimic the Coptic Encyclopedia and state the claim by Ishak in Ishak's voice.
--
On the issue of tongues being cut off, I am using Ishak's own language. He says "likely to have" rather than phrasing it as we do in the article. We should follow the expert's lead and include that turn of phrase, especially given that it is an oral tradition.
--
I disagree with both of your proposals. The article cannot remain as is for two reasons;
1) We still only have Ishak as a RS (more on this later) and our source document intentionally uses attributional language. If our source is doing that, there is little reason we should not as well.
2) We cannot get out over our skis in relation to how certain we make these events or policies seem. This is, at best, a nebulous part of history with a lack of credible primary sources. Every source we've looked at so far applies hedge and cautionary language to their assertions, there is little reason we shouldn't follow their lead.
--
Related to the additional text you reference I think we need to be extremely cautious per WP:THESIS. We are taking a big intellectual leap to go from a thesis, which may or may not have been accepted; may or may not have been peer-reviewed; may or may not assert this as evidential, then to the oral tradition being confirmatory of historical fact. I would be ok with adding it as a source to the text I suggested which also includes that it is supported by oral tradition. But we cannot use that source to make this a definitive factual statement since neither source (including the thesis you present) apply definitive language to it.
--
Finally, your third source, as you mention, isn't available. We cannot add it without it being verifiable, which seems a pretty reasonable condition. I think to add to this, we should note that it never got into the mainstream of academia if it is limited to a thesis that isn't published in a journal. There is a reason we rely on that gate keeping aspect. ProQuest is an open repository. Nothing about it being included there implies that it was reviewed or supported by those with subject matter expertise. Hence why WP:THESIS suggests we only uses theses when they are cited by other academics.
Squatch347 (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is incorrect. It is WP:SYNTH to infer that an editor holds a specific position because it is included in a compilation document."
Is this not part if the basic job description of an Editor-in-Chief even per Wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor-in-chief. It certainly seems to be explicitly stated to be so on an Indeed description of the Job; "Making final decisions about which stories, articles and photographs to publish"
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/editor-in-chief
I'm not sure why you also chose to describe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya as a mere editor instead of the Editor-in-Chief of the Coptic Encyclopedia either. There is a difference. His name even appears on the cover of every Volume of the Coptic Encyclopedia. I would think it would be quite something to say he chose to include contents he doesn't support in the work he was in chief of and whose name adorns the cover. It isn't Wiki:SYNTH I believe because I'm not combining two different sources; Coptic Languages, Spoken is PART OF the Coptic Encyclopedia and the Coptic Encyclopedia contains Coptic Languages, Spoken.
"On the issue of tongues being cut off, I am using Ishak's own language. He says "likely to have" rather than phrasing it as we do in the article."
?? No, he doesn't use that language at all. Like, or Likely, never even appear once in Coptic Languages Spoken so I'm terribly confused. I'll quote it again,
"The excessive persecutions of the natives, notably by AL-ḤĀKIM BI-AMR ILLAH (996–1020) [Al-Hakim bi-Amr Illah] who issued an order to stop the use of Coptic not only in public places and offices but also at homes and in private circles. Those caught conversing in Coptic were liable to have their tongues cut."
The word 'likely' never used. In fact the first sentence is quite definitive about the order to cease using Coptic. The second sentence describes the those caught as 'liable' to have their tongues cut. Primary definition of liable per Merriam-Webster dictionary '1. a : obligated according to law or equity" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liable
"We still only have Ishak as a RS"
As I've stated already I disagree; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya. Beyond that there is also Soliman, Mary. "Arab Dialectology and the Influence of Coptic on Egyptian Arabic." Thesis. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University, 2007. Print., and https://www.proquest.com/openview/a122d769903487236f3cbc70641f96b8/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=18750#:~:text=Their%20tongues%20were%20cut%20the,Archdeacon%20Habib%20Girgis%2C%20and%20Yanney.&text=This%20study%20acknowledges%20that%20Coptic,in%20the%20broader%20Coptic%20diaspora
"We cannot get out over our skis in relation to how certain we make these events or policies seem. Every source we've looked at so far applies hedge and cautionary language to their assertions"
You were outright wrong though when you claimed Ishaq used the language 'likely'. He was quite definitive. Vision of Theophilius was not hesitant at all, nor the quote from Mary Soliman's Dissertation present in it. I think you are getting over your skis in relation to how uncertain you are trying to make them seem when the most authoritative sources on the matter like the Coptic Encyclopedia contain this information in no uncertain terms and there are no secondary similarly authoritative sources that directly dispute this. Instead many of the sources paint a corroborating picture what with every church in Egypt being described as destroyed by Al-Maqrizi among other things and Swanson describing the Coptic story in Egypt as one of 'survival' repeatedly in his book.
"We are taking a big intellectual leap to go from a thesis"
But this isn't a single Dissertation, it should instead been seen as a 3rd Source in addition to The Vision of Theophilus: Resistance Through Orality Among the Persecuted Copts. and Coptic Languages, Spoken/The Coptic Encyclopedia. When there are multiple references to this same fact across multiple works, that there was an effective prohibition on Coptic language during Al-Hakim's reign, that makes it more strongly supported by the academic references with no sources disputing this. And while Wikipedia urges caution with Dissertations, rules still say such can be used and certainly work well when supported by something like Coptic Languages Spoken/The Coptic Encyclopedia which lack for no authority and credibility. That these sources would also cite each other and are widely cited in Academia in the case of the Coptic Encyclopedia would also strengthen their value on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:UBO.
"Finally, your third source, as you mention, isn't available. We cannot add it without it being verifiable, which seems a pretty reasonable condition."
Being inaccessible is not required to verify its existence and legitimacy per Wikipedia rules. It is clearly legitimate as it is in USCs online Library and published by the Atlantic University of Florida.
"Access to sources
Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." We as Wikipedians cannot have access to everything the professionals do. At some point we do have to take their word for it otherwise to doubt them would be Original Research. What we can do is dispute reliable secondary sources with conflicting reliable secondary sources if they exist. But that explicitly isn't what is being done here in these attempted changes and thus the issue. Attempted changes are being made with no new secondary sources at all nor any of the current ones discredited.
I haven't really changed my opinion. There is no justification to change anything except the last part about Al-Hakim personally walking the streets which is unsupported by any reference/source. Since I'm maintaining the status quo on a part of an article that has not changed in years I feel the burden of proving why it should be altered should rest on those who wish to change the status quo, this is probably particularly true in the current political/cultural context of 2025 regarding anything in the Middle East, and I simply believe that hasn't been done using Reliable Secondary Sources per Wikipedia policy. Only unsubstantiated doubt has been cast on these claims regarding Coptic Language being outlawed at some point during Al-Hakim's reign from what is, I quote from Swanson again, "undoubtedly the most important reference tool for the history and culture of the Copts during the medieval Islamic era," in regards to the Coptic Encyclopedia, that is in turn supported by at least 2 dissertations. And there may yet be more sources or references in the already given sources supporting this an amateur like me is unaware of as I've already found more as time has gone on. At any rate if this deadlock continues we will have to seek higher arbitration as it does not look like we will come to a consensus. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His name even appears on the cover of every Volume of the Coptic Encyclopedia. I would think it would be quite something to say he chose to include contents he doesn't support in the work he was in chief of and whose name adorns the cover.
It isn't a stretch at all, that is how you compose articles and encyclopedias that are meant to reflect the scholarly range of views on a topic. Wiki policy is very clear, unless he, as an author, stating the position you are attributing to him, it cannot be included.
Further, even if we delve into his motives we should note that he decided to attribute the claim to Ishak directly, leaving it in Ishak's voice rather than attributing it to the encyclopedia, a policy we have here as well.
Like, or Likely, never even appear once in Coptic Languages Spoken so I'm terribly confused.
The definition of liable in this context is: "very likely to do something" [1]
The usage in context has the words as synonyms. [2]
So he is clearly saying likely to here. If you would rather use liable I could support that, but that language is more informal and doesn't really fit wiki's manual of style.
And apologies if English isn't your first language, I recognize that is a possibility given this topic, the subtleties of tone can be complicated.
As I've stated already I disagree
Yes, and as I've already pointed out, those violate WP:THESIS given that we can't verify they were academically reviewed.
Moreover, we cannot credit them as independent sources. They are, rather, tertiary sources all quoting Ishak. See your last thesis above, page 15 where the author cites Ishak, and only Ishak, for the claim that the language was suppressed.
They cannot be taken as additional confirmation that this event happened if they are all simply quoting the same original secondary source.
Being inaccessible is not required to verify its existence and legitimacy per Wikipedia rules.
It is when the sources are tertiary sources and when they are being claimed as independent sources for support. We cannot verify that they are, in fact, independent. That rule is applied to generally accepted WP:RS secondary sources, something like the New York Times or Economist where we know it has a verification system on items it publishes, even if we can't access the specific details behind a paywall. That policy is not for things like unpublished theses where we have no knowledge of fact checking or indication that it is a reliable source per WP:NOTRS
For all we know these theses were all rejected. I'm not saying they were, but we simply don't know given that ProQuest is like ArXiv, an open submission platform.
--
I think the bottom line is that you are inferring this event was likely given the overall context of suppression by the Islamic rulers. There is no doubt that there was general suppression and isolation of the Coptic community under Islamic rule. And the article should (and I think does) reflect that. But what we are looking for is a very, very specific claim about a specific ordinance banning the usage of the language. We have, so far, one source for that. Given the dearth of sources, there is nothing odd about attributing that to him directly. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, it doesn't mean things were peachy. It simply means this is the most reputable source we have and that readers should pursue it further directly with that author.
--
I'd like to get Dubious Detector's take on this as well. So far we have two editors in agreement that the text needs to change with pretty clear wiki policy behind them and one opposed.
Squatch347 (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Squatch here. I mean, I still stand by the claim's dubiousness, but I'm willing to compromise. There is really nothing left to argue about.
The other user has been arguing from speculation about the author and what he may have done or known, or his supposed reputation or invisible primary sources the whole time.
I think it's fair to rephrase the claim and include attribution to Ishaq, in a way that doesn't imply it's an objective fact. I suggest that Squatch do the rephrasing, since you'd be the most impartial. I would love to add a mention to the Apocalypse of Samuel and the opposing view of a slow gradual shift, but that's up to Squatch as well. Dubious Detector (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki policy is very clear, unless he, as an author, stating the position you are attributing to him, it cannot be included.
But we aren't including it as a citation. You and the other user are trying to claim what Emile Maher Ishaq has in his article is not a widely held belief by career Coptologists when you have no reliable secondary sources for doing so. That it appears in the Coptic Encyclopedia, an extremely authoritative work with a distinguished Editor in Chief, and 2 dissertations allowable under Wiki Policy, is simply better proof than any you have provided that these not fairly widely held beliefs among career Coptologists. Also, as it turns out, Coptic Languages Spoken by Ishaq is also cited in several other books and works you can find Here
leaving it in Ishak's voice rather than attributing it to the encyclopedia, a policy we have here as well.
Unless you can prove this belief is held exclusively by Ishaq, which seems against logic as it appears in the Coptic Encyclopedia and Coptic Languages Spoken and several other books/works, then using such a voice would be wrong and would suggest the views are exclusive to him when we have clear reasons to believe otherwise not least The Vision of Theophilus: Resistance through orality among the persecuted Copts. (which as it turns out, is also in a book, and Mary Soliman's work cited by 6 other works in additions to the The Vision of Theophilus, sources/more on this later) In addition, according to said material, it seems like the Copts themselves widely believe these things to be true as well for whatever that may be worth.
The definition of liable in this context is: "very likely to do something"
I apologize but this borders on, if not is clearly, a bad faith argument. First off it should be noted also that you didn't use the word 'liable' in your previous response or in your suggestions for altering the article. You immediately switched it for the word 'likely' in a pretty clear attempt to reinterpret Ishaq instead of just using the word 'liable' yourself. Why even play semantics with it?
Second, on what possible basis do you assume this is a SECONDARY and NOT the PRIMARY definition of the word per every dictionary I can find in the context it is being used other than it serves your purpose? Al-Hakim clearly gave a binding 'Order' according to Ishaq regarding Coptic; such an order would have legal implications or force from the Caliph. Liable is from the Latin root meaning Obligation or Responsibility. If you cannot substantiate this strange self serving argument of yours it will be a clear example of bias or bad faith argumentation and thus everything you've said thus far suspect as well as your participation in this discussion in my opinion. Because it isn't just a one off mistake anymore but something you've persisted with in a new form after first trying and failing to claim Ishaq himself used the word 'likely'. You also called Aziz Suryal Atiya an 'editor' instead of the Editor-in-Chief. I thought these might be minor miss-steps but I also thought they could indicate agenda. Now that belief is gaining traction amidst an emerging pattern. I will have to administer a warning.
Yes, and as I've already pointed out, those violate WP:THESIS given that we can't verify they were academically reviewed.
But you're very wrong yet again. The Vision of Theophilus: Resistance through orality among the persecuted Copts is academically reviewed, you can see the signature of 6 PHDs who formed the committee on the 4th page. Did you even look before you rushed to your assumptions like you did above regarding 'likely'?
Not only that but it also features in a book as it turns out; COPTIC SOCIETY, LITERATURE AND RELIGION FROM LATE ANTIQUITY TO MODERN TIMES. Volume II, 2012, you can find it listed in the table of contents on page 8, linked below. Likewise, Soliman, Mary. "Arab Dialectology and the Influence of Coptic on Egyptian Arabic." Thesis. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University, 2007 is cited in Vision of Theophilus and in 6 other works here I feel there is a pattern here where you're saying things that are evidently untrue or stretched without basis. We can't come to a fair resolution/consensus if you aren't arguing in good faith.
https://epiphaniusmacar.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/The-Morning-Adam-Doxologies-OLA247.pdf
https://www.proquest.com/openview/a122d769903487236f3cbc70641f96b8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750#:~:text=Their%20tongues%20were%20cut%20the,Archdeacon%20Habib%20Girgis%2C%20and%20Yanney.&text=This%20study%20acknowledges%20that%20Coptic,in%20the%20broader%20Coptic%20diaspora
"Moreover, we cannot credit them as independent sources. They are, rather, tertiary sources all quoting Ishak."
And Ishaq has his own length citations so saying it is 'only from Ishaq' is also wrong. Here are Ishaq's citations. Bibliography:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Blumberg, C. G. Fundamenta linguae copticae in gratiam eorum conscripta. Leipzig, 1716. Ishak, E. M. The Phonetics and Philology of the Bohairic Dialect of Coptic, and the Survival of Coptic Words in the Colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt, and of Coptic Grammatical Constructions in Colloquial Egyptian, 2 vols. D. Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1975. Jirjis Phīlūthāwus ‘Awaḍ. Dhikrah Muṣliḥ ‘Aẓīm. Cairo, 1911. ______. Al-Lughah al-Qibṭīyyah. Cairo, 1916. Kircher, A. Prodromus Coptus sive Aegyptiacus. Rome, 1636. La Croze, M. V. de. Lexicon aegyptiaco-latinum ex veteribus illius linguae monumentis summo studio collectum et elaboratum. Oxford, 1775. ______. Lingua aegyptiaca restituta. Rome, 1643. Petraeus, T. Psalmus Primus Davidis, Coptice, Arabice et Latine. London, 1659. Quatremère, E. M. Recherches critiques et historiques sur la langue et la littérature de l’Egypte. Paris, 1808. Rūfā’īl al-Ṭūkhī. Rudimenta linguae coptae sive aegyptiacae. Rome, 1778. Scholtz, Christian. Grammatica aegyptiaca utriusque dialecti. Oxford, 1778. Sobhy, G. Kiṭāb qawā‘id al-lughah al-Miṣrīyah al-Qibṭiyah. Cairo, 1925. Vansleb, J. M. The Present State of Egypt, or, a New Relation of a Late Voyage into that Kingdom Performed in the Years 1672 and 1673. London, 1678. Walters, C. C. An Elementary Coptic Grammar. Oxford, 1972. Worrell, W. H. Coptic Texts. London, 1942. ______. A Short Account of the Copts. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1945.
Anyone who claims to have read through all of this and said it doesn't support Ishaq is doing Original Research as well. It just seems very odd to say this is 'only from him' considering his editor in chief, all these Dissertations, all of Ishaq's own given sources/bibliography, everything points in one direction. No secondary source anywhere casts doubt on this. But it sounds like you wish to. Based on what source exactly??
I think the bottom line is that you are inferring this event was likely given the overall context of suppression by the Islamic rulers.
There simply seems to be little to no reason to doubt it from any angle or perspective I can see. This becomes more evidently the case the more you read the sources as I have over the past week now. I've started to understand why Mark N. Swanson calls the story of the Copts one of 'Survival' repeatedly in his book. It is a fact that other than the first century before Islam had the confidence and identity to impress itself upon others the story of the Copts reads like one of ghettoization, impoverishment, regular pogroms, oppression, and persecution. With branding and numbering of Christians and regular demolishment of Churches and monasteries according to not only things like Mark N. Swanson's Book and The Coptic Encyclopedia but even Muslim primary sources like al-Maqrizi. I can provide no end of quotes to that end from my readings over the past week that took place over the course of centuries. In such a context the order by Al-Hakim, who was noted as perhaps the single most anti-Christian ruler and volatile character of Medieval Islamic Egypt, to stop using Coptic, in addition to his other orders like no wine for Christian rites, no Christian religious festivities, not allowed to assemble on the banks of the Nile, ordering the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and him literally throwing a Coptic Patriarch to the Lions in an arena paints a rather consistent picture overall. Al-Hakim is often also described as Nero or Caligula like figure who apparently was so eccentric he spawned the creation of the Druze religion and all this by the time he was killed/disappeared at the age of 35. IE quite the outlandish character by all accounts who was at the center of extreme persecutions that are said to have contributed to the calling of the First Crusade.
Anyway I'm going to do a Request for Comment from both Policy and History. The more opinions and eyes we get on this the better I think in order to ensure prevention of WP:FALSECON. This is going nowhere as is and DubiousDetector has no conception of proper wiki policy and is clearly biased on the matter what with his persistent pushing of the Apocalypse of Samuel which stands out as an oddity among other sources contrasting virtually all of them and reads very differently in the context of them and this is remarked upon by secondary sources like Mark N. Swanson as well as the fact its author and exact date of origin are unknown. I also must admit between the 'likely' stuff, denying the role of Aziz Suryal Atiya as Editor in Chief, and refusing to check that dissertations were academically reviewed even when such proof was on the 4th page of the Visions of Theophilus before claiming it was not academically reviewed has also dented my confidence in Squatch regarding bad faith argumentation and that fair consensus is possible and thus why I'm administering a warning on his talk page, doing RFC Policy to get an specialist with the Editor in Chief/sources aspect, and Dispute Resolution more generally which looks like may be required.
This debate has gone on for a week in total which is long enough and even as I've consistently stumbled upon more information supporting Ishaq, first finding the The Visions of Theophilus text and the Mary Soliman dissertation in it, and now that The Visions of Theophilus featuring in a book goes to show probably how much more out there is likely to exist. I'm just not interested in wasting anymore time or endless hours when I'm losing faith a fair resolution and consensus is possible and that I'm not arguing against people who are using sources to support their arguments per Wikipedia rules while I'm forced to and doing so. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC from Policy and History for Coptic Language Prohibition? discussion on the Coptic Languages talk page

[edit]

Request For Comment for the discussion Coptic Language Prohibition? on the Coptic Language talk page.

It is a VERY long 49 page discussion in full; I would start reading about half way through where the WP:3O user Squatch comes in for the sake of brevity and summary as everything said before is only either reiterated in more refined form after, dropped, or expanded upon with new sources. For max brevity you may even be able to make do with just the last reply by each of us in the discussion although I'd say the last 2 replies from each might be better. But of course read the entirety if you feel so inclined to see all the evolutions.

I definitely think Policy has something to say here, and I wasn't sure to also call on History or Language RFC but since this is dealing with the HISTORY of the language I figured that was what made sense. But arguably the more eyes on this the better to ensure prevention of WP:FALSECON.

Basically we are disagreeing on how to phrase something based on whether a claim regarding the history of the Coptic Language is exclusive to a single Coptologist or more widely held. The particular claim is the order by the Caliph Al-Hakim on the prohibition of the Coptic Language and the penalties for it. The other user wishes to rephrase it in such a way to suggest this claim is a fringe belief by a single academic. I believe should it be phrased more generally as is the status quo as it is supported by the most authoritative work on the topic and several other works with nothing opposing it in secondary sources.

At any rate this debate has gone on for a week and I'd like it resolved as it is just going in circles at this point and I've spent enough hours on it I think to warrant an escalation and I'm losing faith a resolution is possible as things stand. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFCST, please do not hold policy RfCs on article talk pages. They belong on the talk page of the policy itself, or at WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm editing it to just be a history RFC request then if that works and I'll make a request on the policy talk page as instructed to get more eyes/opinions on this. Thank you. (Nvm you already did it!) 172.91.72.116 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP: I notice you have also opened a DRN ticket related to this dispute. Per the rules of DRN, there cannot be a simultaneous discussion of the same dispute at another noticeboard, or other forms of dispute resolution, explicitly including RfCs. You need to pick which one you prefer, and close the other, preferably before either attract additional comment. Xan747 (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, so I don't make another error as I'm new, what is the correct way to close the DRN ticket? Can I just edit the notice board project page and delete the whole thing? 172.91.72.116 (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll close it on your behalf. Xan747 (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 172.91.72.116 (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and you're welcome. Xan747 (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include with attribution. The Coptic Encyclopedia seems a reliable source but the concerns about the claim appearing to originate recently from a scholar primarily working in Coptic linguistics and liturgiology without an identified source for it from the bibliography to his entry are valid. If all other mentions of the claim do indeed ultimately cite Ishak then nothing's lost by attribution. I'd also note per WP:RFCBRIEF you should briefly and neutrally state the issue in dispute in the RFC statement and then make your argument in a comment. Chaste Krassley (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi and thank you for commenting.
    "the concerns about the claim appearing to originate recently from a scholar primarily working in Coptic linguistics and liturgiology without an identified source for it from the bibliography to his entry are valid."
    Ishaq gives the following sources with my notes in () and the link if I've found it below.
    1. Blumberg, C. G. Fundamenta linguae copticae in gratiam eorum conscripta. Leipzig, 1716. (In Latin, found)
    Source Link
    2. Ishak, E. M. The Phonetics and Philology of the Bohairic Dialect of Coptic, and the Survival of Coptic Words in the Colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt, and of Coptic Grammatical Constructions in Colloquial Egyptian, 2 vols. D. Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1975. (In English, found, not here)
    Source Link
    3. Jirjis Phīlūthāwus ‘Awaḍ. Dhikrah Muṣliḥ ‘Aẓīm. Cairo, 1911. (In Arabic, pretty confident that citation is a garbled version of this, Jirjis Philuthawus ‘Awad. Dhikra Muslih ‘Azim, al-Anba Kirullus al-Rabi‘, Abi-al Islah al-Qibti. Cairo, 1911., or perhaps in another form, ‘Awwad, Jirjis Filtha’us, Dhikra muslih ‘azim, Cairo, Matba’at alTawfiq, 1911., and while I can find the same source cited in several other works it does not look like this source itself is available online or in any Library search. Maybe because it is in Arabic?)
    4.Al-Lughah al-Qibṭīyyah. Cairo, 1916. (In Arabic, appears to be a work from this author, https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cce/id/1039/, but can't find a copy, will look more later)
    5. Kircher, A. Prodromus Coptus sive Aegyptiacus. Rome, 1636. (In Latin, found)
    Source Link
    6. La Croze, M. V. de. Lexicon aegyptiaco-latinum ex veteribus illius linguae monumentis summo studio collectum et elaboratum. Oxford, 1775. (In Latin, found)
    Source Link
    7. Lingua aegyptiaca restituta. Rome, 1643. (In Latin, found)
    Source Link
    8. Petraeus, T. Psalmus Primus Davidis, Coptice, Arabice et Latine. London, 1659. (In Latin, not able to find, will look more later)
    9. Quatremère, E. M. Recherches critiques et historiques sur la langue et la littérature de l’Egypte. Paris, 1808. (In French, didn't look yet)
    10. Rūfā’īl al-Ṭūkhī. Rudimenta linguae coptae sive aegyptiacae. Rome, 1778. (In Latin, didn't look yet)
    11. Scholtz, Christian. Grammatica aegyptiaca utriusque dialecti. Oxford, 1778. Sobhy, G. Kiṭāb qawā‘id al-lughah al-Miṣrīyah al-Qibṭiyah. Cairo, 1925. (In Latin, didn't look yet)
    12. Vansleb, J. M. The Present State of Egypt, or, a New Relation of a Late Voyage into that Kingdom Performed in the Years 1672 and 1673. London, 1678. (In English, found, not here)
    Source Link
    13. Walters, C. C. An Elementary Coptic Grammar. Oxford, 1972.
    14. Worrell, W. H. Coptic Texts. London, 1942. (In English, haven't looked yet)
    A Short Account of the Copts. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1945. (In English, didn't look yet)
    I'll edit this reply later when I have time to look for sources 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, & 14 so they're all in one place.
    The issue which becomes quickly apparent is that in addition to all 13 probably not being accessible online (maybe), is that while 3 of the given sources are in English, 1 is in French, 2 are in Arabic, and the other 7/majority are all in Latin. Do we have a resident Wikipedian who is fluent in Latin? I've looked at sources 2 & 12, English ones, and it wasn't within those.
    Some other sources to keep in mind;
    1. Soliman, Mary. "Arab Dialectology and the Influence of Coptic on Egyptian Arabic." Thesis. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University, 2007. Print (this source is also cited in Vision of Theophilius for a claim along the lines of 'churches being raided if Coptic was heard', which isn't exactly something Ishaq says, and also since Ishaq is cited within Visions of Theophilius it would be odd to cite Mary Soliman if her claims also came from him? Thing is I've yet to find a free copy available online to confirm where this is sourced from, although a copy is available for $40 on proquest)
    2. The Vision of Theophilus”: Resistance through orality among the persecuted Copts, which is cited in the book COPTIC SOCIETY, LITERATURE AND RELIGION FROM LATE ANTIQUITY TO MODERN TIMES, Volume II, pp. 1063, and while it does cite Ishaq as its source, it also cites a different/specific story of the tongue cutting stuff albeit from an Oral Tradition source; but I'm not sure that makes it technically invalid. Quote from the source in question:
    "15 Such historical facts are frequently evoked in the context of contemporary Coptic worship services, and their historicity verified through oral transmission. In the Coptic Church in Miami on March 23 2009, for example, a priest mentioned in a public lecture that informants walked through small villages where houses were made of uncooked mud bricks and voices could be easily overheard; even small children were subject to arrest. Their tongues were cut the following Friday in the public square, in front of the village's mosque. As a strategy of intimidation, bags of severed tongues of Copts were left on the streets to warn those who dared use the Coptic language. In a follow-up interview given on November 27th, in Tampa, Florida, Father Kyrollos explained that this information is a part of his family's communal knowledge, having been passed on from generation to generation. He added that the Arab Muslim historian Al-Maqrizi (1364- 1442 AD) had documented many of these types of events."
    Al-Maqrizi has 6 major works and 6 minor works from what I can tell and I've yet to do a deep dive on them all outside section 9 of his History of the Copts and their Churches and skimmed bits Al-Khitat. And there are one or two more leads besides I'm still working through. Finally I still personally believe by virtue of Ishaq's article having implicit support from his esteemed Editor in chief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Suryal_Atiya as job descriptions of an Editor-in-Chief appear to always include them either choosing what is included or at a minimum requiring their approval for inclusion as well as it being their responsibility to check the veracity of what they chose/allow to include. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I did read the comment thread so I'm aware what your arguments were. Regarding Mary Soliman's work we again run into a similar issue of a historical claim seeming to originate from a linguistic work, although it's worse in this case that we can't even verify the actual text itself. And for that matter the citations of this thesis seem to be in other works regarding linguistics - there's no reason to believe it is a particularly good source for history. Regarding Atiya, he is not considered a second source for this claim because of his editorship. Were that work not edited by any historians I would err on the side of saying the claim should not be included whatsoever, but we don't know anything about the actual editorial process that Ishak's entries underwent. For what it is worth, I have just read through the chapters on Coptic history in Atiya's A History of Eastern Christianity, and I found no mention of any prohibition on speaking Coptic or cutting out of tongues by Al-Hakim, despite him talking specifically about both his tyrannical rule and the general decline of the language. Chaste Krassley (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Regarding Mary Soliman's work we again run into a similar issue of a historical claim seeming to originate from a linguistic work- And for that matter the citations of this thesis seem to be in other works regarding linguistics - there's no reason to believe it is a particularly good source for history."
    Regarding this argument brought up by both you and Dubious Detector; I feel the linguistic and historical when it comes to Copt is often inextricably linked as Copt is a Dead/Dormant language, or was before revival, and study of the language often delves into historic works and manuscripts. This is summed up in the concept of | Philology
    "but we don't know anything about the actual editorial process that Ishak's entries underwent."
    I mean clearly Aziz Suryal Atiya READ them and approved their inclusion at the very least per his title as Editor-in-Chief and his name appearing on the cover? I just find it so bizarre to claim otherwise somehow. Because otherwise it would be suggesting Atiya either didn't read everything in his Encyclopedia or didn't agree with everything in it which objectively seems like the bigger assumption to me. Also looking through the staff of the Coptic Encyclopedia it has 15 editors who worked under Chief Atiya, all of whom seem to have some accreditation, as well as 3 consultants with accreditation, and a 2 person editorial committee also with accreditations. And had a 'Managing Editor' to handle day to day and administrative work. Description of 'managing editor' upon quick search. "A managing editor is a senior professional at a media company who oversees the daily operations of the editorial department, acting as a bridge between writers and the editor-in-chief to ensure high-quality, timely, and consistent content delivery across print and digital platforms."
    Who chose to include Ishaq in this Encyclopedia if not Atiya? Did Ishaq come along himself and insert himself into the work and no one took issue even if they didn't necessarily believe or agree in what he had to say? Can you see the issue I take with this here? 172.91.72.116 (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it not give you any pause at all that Atiya's own quite extensive work contains no mention of this? Chaste Krassley (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does and it is a very fair point; immediately after posting that reply I went to try to find a copy of A History of Eastern Christianity to see what Atiya has to say about the reign of Al-Hakim myself as I'm curious and so I may make an informed comment on the matter. I've not been able to find one yet so if you have found an online copy I'd much appreciate a link.
    I just don't think Atiya not including it in his 1967 work means he didn't approve and support what Ishaq was saying when he chose to include him in his 1991 Encyclopedia which is described as Atiya's 'crown' work by | Cornelis Hulsman and "the most important reference tool for the history and culture of the Copts during the medieval Islamic era." by Mark N. Swanson in his own book. Also per WP:AGE MATTERS arguably the more recent source has more weight as well. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's available on the internet archive, here. Again, I am not saying the work being edited by Atiya or indeed the entire 15-odd person editorial team on the original publication of the Coptic Encyclopedia means nothing (if the work were not edited it would be unsuitable as a reference on this at all), but you cannot impute the claims made in a work to the editor(s) when they are clearly attributed to specific contributors. That is also not how WP:AGEMATTERS works. More recent works are not automatically better; rather when relying on older sources you should be careful that they do not represent a scholarly position which is outdated or has been moved on from. More recent scholarly works on Fatimid Egypt, Al-Hakim, or the persecution of minorities under his rule do not include the claim about language prohibition. I'll detail some of the ones I've looked through in the discussion section when I get a moment. Chaste Krassley (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am not saying the work being edited by Atiya or indeed the entire 15-odd person editorial team on the original publication of the Coptic Encyclopedia means nothing"
    Forgive me for yet I feel that is in effect what you are saying de facto. Saying this information only merits inclusion because of the editor in chief and 20 member editorial staff isn't a concession of any sort in my opinion. Because as you can find here, Ishaq has 31 other works. He is arguably a significant figure in the field of Coptology in his own right.
    So, in my mere opinion, you are effectively hand waving editor in chief Atiya and the 20 accredited individuals who assisted him as editors, consultants and editorial committee members, away.
    More recent works are not automatically better
    Surely they are when it comes to individuals. Atiya not mentioning this in his 1967 work doesn't mean he didn't learn anything in the following 20+ years and as Editor in Chief he had to have approved their work and inclusion. Keep in mind we aren't including Atiya as a citation; but rather Ishaq's inclusion in Atiya's work as a reason against believing these views are in anyway exclusive to him. Guile's Theme (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include with attribution to oral tradition. I did a deep dive last night into the sources and I think I've come to a new conclusion. I think the flow of our article generally matches what I can see as the academic consensus, that due to pressure from Arab elites, persecution, and socioeconomc factors the language died out. I agree that it is noteworthy that I can't find a single other author aside from what we see below who references this incident. For example, [3], [4], [5], [6]. I'll add my comment here just to have a brief note for anyone joining rather than forcing them to wade through the earlier text.
Proposal 1: Add attributional language. My take is that we (so far) have a single secondary source citing a historical event. I propose that we add attributional language to our entry and make a slight adjustment to our writing to match the source. I think this is warranted because of the dearth of sources and that the Coptic Encyclopedia also uses attributional language.
Proposal 2: Refine our language to match Ishaq source. Here is my proposed diff and the text below.
−
He issued strict orders completely prohibiting the use of Coptic anywhere, whether in schools, public streets, and even homes, including mothers speaking to their children. Those who did not comply had their tongues cut off. He personally walked the streets of Cairo and eavesdropped on Coptic-speaking homes to find out if any family was speaking Coptic.
+
According to Emile Maher Ishak, a noted Coptic philoligist, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah issued strict orders completely prohibiting the use of Coptic anywhere, whether in schools, public streets, and even homes, including mothers speaking to their children. Those who did not comply were likely to have their tongues cut off according to oral tradition.
−
He issued strict orders completely prohibiting the use of Coptic anywhere, whether in schools, public streets, and even homes, including mothers speaking to their children. Those who did not comply had their tongues cut off. He personally walked the streets of Cairo and eavesdropped on Coptic-speaking homes to find out if any family was speaking Coptic.
+
According to Emile Maher Ishak, a noted Coptic philoligist, Coptic oral tradition holds that Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah implemented bans on the Coptic language, with harsh punishments for non-compliance.

Squatch347 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think 'liable' in this context is referring to the penalty, even though it's a less natural interpretation of the language alone. Likely is in some senses a stronger claim, as it suggests a widespread enforcement, and none of the sources about this say anything so specific (or anything specific at all really). Chaste Krassley (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact quote from Ishak is: Th05e caught conversing in Coptic were, liable to have their tongues cut. That structure indicates that it is refering to the frequency of the event, not the legal prohibition. See here: "Both liable and apt when followed by an infinitive are used nearly interchangeably with likely."
This seems even more the case given the surrounding context referring to the various repercussions of being caught. IE you might have your tongue cut out, or you might be beaten, or your church might be burned.
I don't see how we can include this part of the article unless we reference that this isn't being described in the source as a specific prescribed punishment, which is how it is written now. If we swapped likely to liable I'm fine with that as well, they are, after all, synonyms given the infinitive "to" afterwards.
Squatch347 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell just about everyone who has participated in this discussion has agreed that persecution played a major role in the decline of Coptic. The issue I take with your edit is that reading the article as you propose is that the article then fails to properly reflect the persecution and the role it had in Coptic decline as I've read about over the last 10 days; which is something I was always concerned would be the end result of an edit such as this. If this change is made the article should also be expanded on after all this research and discussion to include the role of Jizya, forced conversions with penalty of death for converting back(even only accused, ie Tafkir), branding and numbering of monks, sustained periods of church/monastery destructions, violence/pogroms, banning celebrations of festivities/holy rites(wine), and what amounts to general prejudice in contribution to the decline of Coptic as such is talked about as being factors in many of the sources I've read over the last 10 days so that the wiki article may better reflect the majority of sources on the matter of Coptic language decline/death instead of reading like a sanitized version of them. Also to help the article reach B-class maybe by just being more detailed overall.
I would also suggest removing philologist, Ishaq has an Oxford PHD, and adding ‘According to Emile Maher Ishak and the Coptic Encyclopedia’, the Coptic encyclopedia bears mentioning if we are going to mention Ishaq as its considered the most authoritative source for medieval Coptic History per writers like Swanson. The Coptic Encyclopedia even has its own wiki article we can link to. There is even an argument to just use the Coptic Encyclopedia in the article due to its weight and name recognition; Ishaq could be the citation within the Encyclopedia in the Sources section/[]. Ishaq's work is part of the Coptic Encyclopedia. Ultimately it is the same thing; Why make readers do the extra leg work to learn Ishaq comes from such an authoritative source? Why not give them the full correct impression from the off with a connected wiki link? Failing to mention the Coptic Encyclopedia could also mispresent the influence of said article. We might as well also keep the cutting of tongue part that Ishaq mentions since we are attributing to Ishaq. I also don’t believe we’ve confirmed everything in Ishaq's article regarding this comes from Oral tradition and not one of his 14 given sources unless someone can read Latin, Arabic, and French.
I'm going to start going through the stack of links/sources I've built up and getting precise quotes and page numbers to support citations for a much expanded article that offers more insight into the how and why of the Coptic linguistic decline according to available sources that should find Wikipedian consensus. The current article is rather pitiful on that specific topic compared to the wealth of sources that have been mentioned in these discussions over the last 10 days and would be even more so after these proposed edits. Guile's Theme (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article does reflect that, though I agree there is potential to expand the details of that section given the sources we have listed here. I think we need to be careful in making connections though. The sources would need to directly connect the persecution (like the Jizya for example) with the decline in linguistic use.
If I could offer a recommendation. The page related to the persecution of the Copts has a good number of relevant sources. I found this which also connects the persecution factors to language loss through socioeconomic factors. That might be helpful for you. Squatch347 (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; still working on compiling quotes and sources. A lot of this could eventually also be applied to the Persecution of the Copts wiki page as well. Guile's Theme (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest removing philologist, Ishak has an Oxford PHD, and adding ‘According to Emile Maher Ishak and the Coptic Encyclopedia’,
I couldn't find what his PhD specifically was in. His thesis was in phonetics, which is a sub-branch of philology so I figured that was the best bet. If it was in something else (say linguistics or something) then we should change it, I just couldn't find it.
Leaving him without a classification as something I think undersells who he is and his status as an expert. To me it reads as "according to some guy" rather than "this guy who is an expert in this field..." We normally categorize the relevance of a source with attributing for that reason.
I would disagree on attributing to the Encyclopedia as well. As several editors here have noted, the Encyclopedia attributes this claim to Ishak himself, we shouldn't undo their decision in our article. Squatch347 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ishaq has a D.Phil from Oxford to be exact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy; which may itself be misleading to give as, "In the context of the Doctor of Philosophy and other similarly titled degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer to the field or academic discipline of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom"." Apparently Oxford has slightly different naming conventions for their degrees too which would add to the confusion.
"Leaving him without a classification as something I think undersells who he is"
I don't necessarily disagree, which is why I support mentioning the Coptic Encyclopedia, as Ishaq's inclusion in it is quite relevant in making Ishaq an authoritative weighty notable source. The problem with using Philologist is it isn't a formal accreditation or a term with much recognition or notability. So it doesn't really serve the purpose of correctly portraying Ishaq to any average or casual reader.
I would disagree on attributing to the Encyclopedia as well. As several editors here have noted, the Encyclopedia attributes this claim to Ishak himself, we shouldn't undo their decision in our article.
Only one of the 2 RFC commenters touched on this topic at all and not in anyway that I would say was conclusive or truly satisfactory. Stating that Ishaq's work is in the Coptic Encyclopedia doesn't undo the work of the Editors at all; it is a fact his work is a part of it. Rather I'd argue failing to mention it when it is relevant is undoing the work of what must have been Editor in Chief Atiya's decision to include Ishaq in the Encyclopedia. Else who chose to include Ishaq in said work? Certainly not himself. Guile's Theme (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
shaq has a D.Phil from Oxford to be exact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy; which may itself be misleading to give
Not to be pedantic, but I'd point out that all PhDs are Doctorates of Philosophy, both here in the US and in the UK (and to my knowledge Europe more broadly). Usually, we add in the specialty the PhD is in. IE a Doctorate of Philosophy in Archeology would be referenced as a PhD in Archeology. That specifies the relevance of the degree to the opinion given in the article and narrows down the broad category of PhD.
But I'll be honest, I don't think his PhD from Oxford is really the relevant point. There are a lot of PhDs out there and a lot of them have bizarre ideas. More relevant, imo, is that he is a noted Coptic philologist so his expertise in the history of the language is accepted broadly, and is thus DUE here.
Adding in a throw away line about him being referenced in the Coptic Encyclopedia again overly narrows his status in the field. He is known beyond just that reference and adding that hedge as if his notability is solely because he is referenced in the CE is, I think, misleading. Squatch347 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fine to say something like "Ishak, writing in the Coptic Encyclopedia". It doesn't seem necessary or more authoritative than describing him as a noted philologist instead but I don't see a problem with it. I would say I don't think we can ascribe the oral tradition to Ishak (unless I'm misremembering the entry or he says that elsewhere) but we could add that as well attributed to Guirguis.
I do think we need to address the preceding sentence in the paragraph; Guirguis describes the language massively declining as a result of the language ban with Ishak as the source, and Naiem says the same though with Antony as the source. Reading through Swanson I'm unsure if he says the language declined massively but if there's a specific passage for that citation it might be appropriate to keep that part without attribution. Chaste Krassley (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We might need to wordsmith that. Ishak is being quoted rather than writing in the CE. I'd prefer the philologist language reference, but adding the note that CE quotes him is fine.
On Page 59 of Naiem he states: "ban the use of the Coptic language in houses and public places almost killed the Coptic language and culture." I unfortunately can't see the context on page 59 since I don't have the actual book, but I think this is probably the relevant part and I think fits what is being written there. Squatch347 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ishaq is not being quoted, he is the author of Coptic Languages, Spoken. Ishaq's work park of the Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia contains his work. There is no real dividing the two. The citation in the article even points back to the Encyclopedia. So why obfuscate it? It is not technically incorrect to say Atiya and 20 person editorial team contributed to the article; because editors, certainly editors-in-chief, are 'contributors' by any description I can find. It seems bizarre that the Coptic Encyclopedia has a link and its own wiki article but you don't want to link this article when it is very relevant and is called the most authoritative work on the topic per writers like Swanson. Failing to mention the Encyclopedia could also be seen as undoing Atiya's decision to include Ishaq in his highly regarding Encyclopedic work. Guile's Theme (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I missed that, his by line is after the bibliography rather than before, so I assumed it was written by the editors. Good catch.
So we should then say something akin to Ishak, writing in (or for) the Coptic Encyclopedia... Squatch347 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's being quoted; as Guile's Theme said he is the author of that entry (and several others). It's possible his work may be reproduced in the Encyclopedia here from elsewhere but I haven't seen that and in any case I think it would still be fine to describe the claim as written in the Coptic Encyclopedia.
Regarding Naiem, that seems to be the quote Alaexis pulled below, cited to Fr Al-Antony. The sources on the supposedly massive decline of the language under Al-Hakim aren't just the same as of the language ban, but they also specifically attribute it to the ban. That's true of Ishak, Guirguis and Naiem here. The other sources I've looked at don't say anything about Arabisation specifically under Al-Hakim, including Swanson after looking at his in a bit more detail. This is probably in large part because, as Brett remarks in The Fatimids and Egypt (pp.63), there just isn't good contemporary evidence for the decline of the spoken language, other than what could be inferred from the shift to Arabic as the primary written language, which he describes as 'well advanced' by the tenth, before Al-Hakim, and 'certainly complete' by the thirteenth. Chaste Krassley (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the shift to Arabic: Why did Coptic fail where Aramaic succeeded?: Linguistic developments in Egypt and the Near East after the Arab conquest is worth reading. M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a well supported timeline or narrative summary of the switch from Coptic to Arabic isn't hard to form based on all these sources. I'm up to 8 pages of quotes now, I've been forced to slow down considerably because the Coptic Encyclopedia archive.org source doesn't copy/paste properly so everything from those 3 volumes I'm being forced to transcribe by hand which is a royal pain. But picking through all the quotes thus far does seem to build a fairly consistent and coherent picture; summary of collected quotes ordered somewhat chronologically below.
Also notably there does seem to be 2 things that are confusing and can easily be conflated here; 1) the differences between Coptic as primary spoken language, one used day to day/fluency/passively but not primary, written Coptic, and spoken Coptic Liturgy/Rites used in Church services, by the 1600 to 1800, by and large, it seems only the last was still extant really, and the former to various extents revived by later endeavors. 2) Copt and Christians is used interchangeably and conflated with one another by the Arabs. So when sources are talking of Christian persecution they are in fact almost always talking about Coptic persecution as well in practice. The reverse is also true.
The Arab conquest did not immediately lead to demographic or linguistic change; the Arabs conquerors even forbade Muslims from settling in Egypt initially in order to keep their army mobile and near the early caliphate center of power in Mecca. Conversion was also not a policy pursued by the earliest Muslim rulers of Egypt as they preferred to keep the province as a source of tax revenue generated from the Jizya on the Christian inhabitants; as well as to make use of the administrative abilities and knowledge of their new subjects with which they were yet unfamiliar. (summary I made from sources I've collected, obviously would need to be sourced properly)
A history of Eastern Christianity, Aziz Suryal Atiya
P. 35
The Arabs called Egypt ‘dar al-Qibt’, home of the Copts, and since the original natives of the land were Christians, the words Coptic and Christian became interchangeable in the Arab mind.
P.7 from Swanson’s book.
Covenant of Umar 634-644; put requirements on the cops including, requirement of permission of Muslim ruler to build/repair churches, lodging of Christians in Churches, and a few others. In addition to Jizya taxes were also demanded from the patriarch, “John was arrested and fined 100,000 dinars, although that sum was eventually reduced to 10,000 dinars, which the Coptic notables of Alexandria undertook to pay—establishing a pattern that would often be repeated. (between 685–705 per the governor at the time)
Arab made official language of government in/around 705.
p. 19 Swanson’s book
The caliph Hisham (724–743) is judged to be a “God-fearing man according to the method of Islam,”42 but his chief tax official (sahib al-kharaj) ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Habhab (c. 724–734) raised taxes and made use of forced labor in such manner as to set off the first Coptic tax revolt in the eastern Delta in 725.
Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, p.350
“The recorded and anti-Arab revolts that were a reaction against the hardening of the Arabic policy from the second part of the 7th century began to occur as early as the close of that century, first in the eastern part of the Deltaa and later extending to the whole Delta as well as Upper Egypt. (goes on to talk more about rebellions, appear to have already been in progress by the time of Marwan I (684-685) and continued until the period of caliph Al-Ma’mun(813-833)”
History of the Copts, al-Maqrizi, p.80
“"in his days the strife took place between El-Amin(809-813) and El-Mamum(813-833), during which the Christian Alexandria were plundered, and their houses burnt in great numbers. The monasteries in Wadi-Habib were also burnt down, and only a very small company of monks remained there."”
P. 351, The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2
The temporary success of this rebellion did not achieve any amelioration of the conditions that had made the Bashmurites revolt. Some of them were deported to Iraq; others were sent to Syria and were sold as slaves in Damascus. The army destroyed and burned the entire area to wipe out all possibility of further revolt. Thus ended the last revolt of the Copts in Egypt. (around 832 AD)
Coptic culture and conversion in medieval Cairo, 1293–1524 A.D., el-Leithy. 2005., p. iii
“While conversion protected lives and jobs, it did not guarantee immunity: many converts fell prey to the hostile suspicions of their new co-religionists, provoking further regulation and Muslim anxieties of influence. Conversion rendered Copts socially marginal, but concomitantly culturally” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guile's Theme (talk • contribs) 10:16, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, p. 618
They professed Islam yet were not widely accepted as true believers. How many of them were actually backsliders is difficult to assess. Most did retain some ties with their religious past and many continued to interact with Coptic social groups. This contact was the subject of wide discussion and was viewed as a sign of indifferent allegiance to the true faith. (IE pressure to stop associating with Copts and thus speaking Coptic after conversion, other quotes/sources that say this as well)
The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, P.939
Like the Egyptian Jewry the Copts had assumed the status of the Dhimmis (protected people). which permitted autonomy within their religious law, but which left them vulnerable to the whims of a Muslim ruler or the resentment of a disgruntled, perhaps even hysterical mobs representing Fustat/Cairo’s underclass. And even if not physically threatened Dhimmi communities not infrequently labored under various discriminatory legal provision applied specifically to them in regarding dress, the construction or repair of houses of worship, the vocations they could practice, the animals they could ride, and the public observance of religious rites or festivities. It is in this context, as a minority community living in a thoroughly Muslim society, that we must understand the Islamization of the Copts under three successive dynasties
Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium II, p. 990
Use of Arabic in Egyptian churches became necessary due to pressure from Moslem rulers, and due to the fact that by the 18th and 19th century most Copts spoke Arabic as their first language.
p. 33, Swanson's book
When in 816 the Andalusians went on a murderous rampage in the city, the Church of the Savior (the Soter) and many other buildings were destroyed by fire, and the patriarch with two disciples was obliged to flee. They eventually settled in the Delta town of Nabaruh, the hometown of a pious Coptic official who negotiated with the regional strongman for their safe sojourn there.44 At about the same time that blood and fire were defiling the city of the patriarch, Beduin were plundering Scetis (or “the Wadi Habib”), demolishing churches and cells and killing, scattering, or enslaving the monks.45 The horror of this event is magnified in John’s account by his reverence for Scetis, to which he regularly gives names such as the “Paradise of God,” the “Garden of Eden,” the “Holy of Holies,” or the “Holy Jerusalem.”46 If Patriarch Mark had been presented at the beginning of his biography as an efficient administrator and builder, at its end we are left with a portrait of a figure like Jeremiah, an exile who gives voice to his people’s lament over the destruction wrought in the “holy temples” (of Alexandria)
The patriarch’s words are full of biblical echoes, especially of Israel’s laments over Jerusalem as well as of her prophets’ oracles against the nations.50 The patriarch himself had become an exile. This is a turning point in the story of the patriarchs of Alexandria. Their connection with their city, while not completely severed, would never be quite the same.
p. 33. On the Road to Heaven: Taxation Conversions, and the Coptic-Muslim Socioeconomic Gap in Medieval Egypt, Mohamed Saleh
Two early persecution waves took place in 847–861 and 996–1021, but the third wave in 1250–1517 was the largest and the most violent. Although persecution may indeed explain part of the decline in Copts’ population share (especially between 1200 and 1500), it does not fully explain the findings. (goes on to talk about tax being the other factor, marriage is also mentioned by other sources)
P. 163, A history of Eastern Christianity, Aziz Suryal Atiya
It was also in that century that Patriarch Christodoulos (1047-77), who moved the seat of the patriarchate from Alexandria to Cairo, also ruled that the official language of the Church should be Bohairic.
p. 35 Swanson’s book
It is indicative of the times that, once Ahmad ibn Tulun had restored order (and opened a new chapter in the history of Egypt), Patriarch Shenoute(859-880), who earlier had undertaken public works projects in Alexandria and Mareotis, now built a wall around the Church of St. Macarius—creating the fortress-like monastery with which we are familiar today.
Greek, Coptic and the 'language of the Hijra’: the rise and decline of the Coptic language in late antique and medieval Egypt, P.404 (.p 4 in the pdf)
until the Fatimid period(ie post 909), when Egyptian Christians may have begun to use Arabic even within their own communities, Arabization left only scant traces in a few types of Coptic texts.
The Transition from Coptic to Arabic, Samuel Rubenson
“The translation and organization in Arabic of this collection, essential for the later theological tradition, shows that by the eleventh century Arabic had become the language, even for the theology of the Church. Both in order to strengthen the faithful and to debate with other Christians, Arabic had become the only viable médium."
P.101 Swanson’s book
Indeed, the “early Mamluk period” (1250–1382) is remembered as a grievous one for the Coptic Christian community.33 On at least four occasions (1293, 1301, 1321, and 1354) the authorities decreed that senior non-Muslim civil servants either convert to Islam or be removed from office, and took measures to enforce the ghiyar or sumptuary laws of the so-called “Covenant of ‘Umar,”34 including (perhaps most noticeably) the requirement that Christian men wear a blue turban.35 In 1301 some churches were destroyed, the rest were closed, and the spring Feast of the Martyr (at which the martyr’s finger, kept as a relic in a church in Shubra, was cast into the Nile)36 was suppressed. In 1321 major anti-Christian rioting led to the destruction of sixty churches throughout Egypt. The tribulations of 1354, mentioned already, included the destruction of the Church of the Martyr in Shubra; its famous relic was solemnly burned.37 During this period many Copts converted to Islam: it was becoming clear to them that it was in the Muslim community that opportunities of social and career advancement lay, both for themselves and for their children.
The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, p. 619
Since the legal profession was a fundamental component of the ‘ulma’ class and its most authoritative element, the absence of Muslim Copts from its ranks underscores their marginal status. (even converted Copts were under extreme suspicion and not really ‘full’ muslims in some sense)
p.102 Swanson’s book
“scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya agitated and wrote enormous treatises against all that he saw as un-Islamic, including Christians playing influential roles in Egyptian society.42 In addition, Copts in the financial bureaucracy often prospered, and a few converted Copts exercised—at least until their almost inevitable downfall—great authority and amassed huge fortunes. Converted or not, they became targets of anti-Coptic resentment. Crowded living conditions and mixed economic opportunity in Cairo gave rise to a situation in which a mob could quickly be gathered and incited to violence; the ruling authorities, if not always themselves intolerant of their Coptic subjects, sometimes made concessions to popular anti-dhimmi sentiment in order to preserve some degree of order.”
The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, P.750
The unprecedented persecution of 'the Copts begun by Sultan al-Salih ibn Qalawun of the Bahril Mamluks resulted in the plunder of churches, the confiscation of Coptic of properties, and the destruction of monasteries; the Coptic population was massacred or forcibly converted to Islam, bringing it to the edge of extinction.
(my summary of some later accounts) By the 1600s in Vansleb's record of his journey in Egypt Coptic is a rarely spoken language and he was introduced to the 'last' Coptic speaker; but it is unclear if this is a fluent speaker or not. By 1700s Coptic bishops struggled to write in Coptic. Reports by the 1930s there are only 50+ year old passive, ie non fluent, speakers in very isolated pockets in Upper Egypt. Suggests last fluent speakers between 1600 and 1800 before any revivals. Guile's Theme (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a (very) rough outline of the decline of the Coptic Language
630 to 683; relatively peaceful and tolerant though through the covenant of Umar Islamic law and the marginalized status were already imposed and Jizya will be a major driver of conversion as Copts faced prison, enslavement or, death if they could not afford to pay or did not convert. Umar's covenant also required churches to garrison Muslim soldiers among other things. Marwan I (684-685) seems to be one of the first Caliphs associated with major persecutions/revolts of Copts.
700 to 850s; era of Coptic revolts in response to growing Muslim intolerance, persecutions, secondary status in Islamic law, settlement of Arab tribesmen, and taxation. (some places, like the Bashmuric region, appear to have resisted from the beginning of the Arab conquest) After 850 it appears the power of the Copts to revolt is in major decline or broken. As a results Copts, who until around this point had largely resisted speaking Arabic or converting, now begin to and centers of Arab power in Egypt like Fustat begin to grow at an accelerated rate but Coptic continues to be the most spoken language for around another 100 years.
910 to 1200; Fatimid era, apart from al-Hakim and a few other Caliphs/governors, from now on it becomes an increasingly grassroots/lower class initiative to push for persecution of Copts/Christians; rulers find them useful in administrative affairs and the Copts rely on their overlord's goodwill to shield them from popular anti-Coptic sentiments. This doesn't prevent things like impromptu rioting and killings of Copts with rulers occasionally giving into public sentiment. Arabic becomes the majority primary language day to day during this period, particularly sometime during the 10th and 11th centuries; and becomes the medium of the Coptic church as a result by necessity. (this happens around the time of al-Hakim; which is marked as one of the worst period of persecution the Copts ever endured with the tongue cutting stuff per Ishaq/other's we've mentioned) But at the end of this period Coptic is still spoken by a minority as a primary language and can still be written. (last 'major' literary Coptic work is from late in the 14th century likely written by Athanasius of Qus)
1250 to 1517; Mamluk era. Persecution arguably reaches its worst and most consistent here according to several sources resulting that by the mid 1600s in Vansleb's account Coptic looks to have reached a nadir in Egypt with primary/fluent speakers appearing to be extremely rare and a Coptic bishop in the 1700s struggles to compose in Coptic even though it theoretically remained the liturgical language of the Church and something they should be schooled in. Mamluk rulers were apparently more prone to giving into popular anti-Coptic sentiments than previous rulers. (with exceptions of the likes of al-Hakim and some others)
1600s onwards; begins to see study of Coptic language by Scholars writing mostly in Latin in the west and then later by a Coptic émigré community beginning around 1900. Copts in Egypt also seem to have started to revive Coptic around 1880 per cited works by Copts in Arabic attempting to reconstruct the language. /end of outline
There appears to be 3 critical periods/events for the transition from Coptic to Arabic and the death or near death of the Coptic language; the defeat of the Coptic revolts in the 8th and 9th century. Moments of sporadic but very intense persecution like under al-Hakim under the Fatimids. And then a more sustained systemic one under the Mamluks. All in the context of Islamic law, the secondary status it imposes (tax, lack of marriage rights perhaps most relevant in this case),suspicions/prejudices of non-Muslims so strong it transferred to generations of Coptic converts to Islam, which would obviously cause them to dissociate from things like the Coptic language for the sake of survival as the penalty for apostasy was death and there was little to save them from bias in an Islamic court since the 'ulma', the judicial scholars of Islamic law, were not open to even Coptic converts to Islam joining them.Guile's Theme (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this warrants a whole new talk discussion (just to keep each topic clean). I'm supportive of an expansion/rewrite given the sourcing, it would be nice to see it pitched as a proposed change with these citations. Squatch347 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on Ishak (see above), I assumed the by line would be before the bibliography, rather than after. Squatch347 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again I only mean this as a very rough draft but I figured I had enough quotes to start getting stuff out there and seeing what the feedback from you guys might be so I don't have to cast my net quite as wide when digging through sources. I'll also post the entire collection of quotes with page #s and source in the form of a google doc or something later on once I've collected more quotes and cleaned it up and figured out how to organize it. Guile's Theme (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in wikivoice as there are multiple sources which make this claim, so attributing it to Ishak wouldn't be appropriate. However none of the sources are perfect so I'm not super confident about it and would be willing to reconsider my !vote. Alaexis¿question? 18:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Include with attribution to the oral tradition. Changed my mind due the analysis of the sources performed by u:Chaste Krassley. Alaexis¿question? 12:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I did a very basic search on Google Books and bound several more books which mention the ban, for example

So it seems that there are more than one sources that claim that al-Hakim banned the Coptic language, which would justify mentioning it without attribution. Or am I missing something? Alaexis¿question? 14:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, thanks Alaexis. Do you have any quotes from those sources? I can see some snippets on google books, but I can't see the full quote and, I think more importantly, the cited source. My sense is that these are probably tertiary sources citing back to Ishaq given the date and (at least in the first reference) a direct quote from him. Squatch347 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update, the first source quote I found on page 72 (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Egypt_s_Identities_in_Conflict/sx9JDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). Citation is Chapter 3's 173 which sadly isn't available on Google Books.
Egypt's Identities in Conflict by Girgis Naiem, citing al-Antony, Wataniet al-Kanisah al-Qibtia Watarikhaha, 172. (endnote 96)
Ancient Egypt Investigated
Schneider doesn't cite his sources as it's a popular history book. Alaexis¿question? 18:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also managed to found Naiem's source here. I can confirm that it does say the same thing on p. 172, with some additional details. However the author is a certain Father al-Anthony and he doesn't cite *his* sources. Alaexis¿question? 18:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schneider is a well regarded egyptologist so I'm inclined to accept his take. It would be nice if it wasn't a popular work since it has so much less rigor, but beggars can't be choosers. Let me do a bit more work tomorrow and I'll update my proposal above.
I don't think we can take Naiem's source however. He is quoting a Coptic monk, so almost certainly the same oral tradition within the Coptic church that Fatrhr Ishak is relying on.
Squatch347 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we also clearly establish one way or the other whether the Oral Traditions of the Coptic Church and Coptic families are legitimate sources when given by legitimate secondary sources? The argument against them would obviously be a lack of neutrality. But neither the modern nor the historic persecution of the Copts appears to be in doubt; therefore you can argue the written record is liable to be biased against them or to tread lightly when complaining about their overlords. It appears just corresponding with Christians abroad was enough to get a Coptic patriarch killed for unfounded suspicions of plotting/treason and later patriarchs would often decline to mediate or respond to Christians in Ethiopia afterwards. 172.91.72.116 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the overall trend for persecution is certainly not in doubt. Nor is the fact that the language died out due to that persecution in doubt (at least as far as I can see outside of some really fringe Islamic apologist types). The only real question is how much weight to give this specific incident.
Again, if I were doing historical writing I would be very, very wary of ascribing weight to an oral tradition of this sort given their status as a persecuted minority (oral traditions tend to be post hoc rationalizations of how they got in that state). But, that isn't the role here. If a credible secondary source cites it I think we have to accept that. If the secondary source attributes it to oral tradition or offers some attribution for their source, I would suggest we follow their lead, but not make our own assessment of the credibility of the source.
Squatch347 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent most of today looking through a lot of the scholarship on Fatimid Egypt at my local university's library. I read the relevant sections of many works mostly from the last thirty years, specifically the following books:

  • Lev, Yaacov; State and Society in Fatimid Egypt (Leiden, 1991)
  • Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Era (Volumes IV-IX), (This collates works presented from 2000 to 2016 at the annual International Colloquium at the University of Leuven; most of the relevant chapters I reviewed were written by Michael Brett.)
  • Brett, Michael; The Fatimids and Egypt (Routledge, 2019) (Collection; some crossover with above)
  • Brett, Michael; The Fatimid Empire (Edinburgh University Press, 2017)
  • Assaad, Sadik A.; The Reign of Al-Hakim Bi Amr Allah (386/996-411/1021): A Political Study (Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1974)
  • Walker, Paul Ernest; The Caliph in Cairo: Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, 996-1021 (American University in Cairo Press, 2009)
  • Lapidus, Ira M., A History of Islamic Societies (Third Edition) (Cambridge University Press, 2014)
  • Atiya, Aziz S., A History of Eastern Christianity, (Methuen, 1968)
  • Lane-Poole, Stanley; A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages (Methuen, 1901)

Though these differ in analysis or perspective, they reasonably consistently describe the persecutions of Christians and Jews under Al-Hakim, things like requirements on their dress, bans on certain festivals, bans on them riding horses, the destruction of churches, removals from office etc. They also, as far as I have been able to find, include absolutely no mention of any ban on speaking Coptic, or the cutting out of tongues.

Regarding Thomas Schneider's book, I think it is notable (though no secret - it's in the name) that it is almost entirely about Ancient Egypt - that is his academic focus - as are the "101 reading suggestions for the Study of Ancient Egypt" at the back, obviously. When Schneider strays outside of his primary area of study here I think it finds him at odds with the scholarship actually focused on the history of Egypt in the Middle Ages.

I think, at least from my reading, including the claim without attribution would misrepresent the scholarly work on this subject. Chaste Krassley (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the IP user, I've succumbed and made an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guile's Theme (talk • contribs) 10:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting thing to note in regards to Ishaq's article Coptic Language, Spoken; it is also cited in 2 other books, Here and Here. Both of which seem respectable in and of themselves.
In regards to Atiya, Aziz S., A History of Eastern Christianity, (Methuen, 1968), while he doesn't mention the tongue cutting he does mention, "Except in cases of madness, as in the reign of al-Hakim, a Muslim ruler never attempted complete annihilation of his Christian subjects." The obvious implication being here that al-Hakim did attempt 'complete' annihilation of Christians IE Copts.
Another thing. Many sources talk about several spells of Churches & Monasteries being destroyed throughout Egypt; with a particularly bad one, if not the worst, during the reign of al-Hakim. One source I found, Stanley Lane-Poole: History of Egypt in the Middle Ages. London, 1901., even gives a time period for this Church demolishment as being 5 years from 1007 to 1012, encapsulating the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher by Al-Hakim in 1009.
After 10 days of reading on this topic something has started to occur to me. Doesn't a period of widespread sustained destruction of Churches not logically imply a Coptic language prohibition on some level? In such a context quotes such as "Churches were raided if a liturgy in Coptic was heard (Soliman 49)"; would be implicitly true just by virtue of the fact Churches were being destroyed en mass. It is also clear past a certain point in medieval Islamic Egypt no one but the Coptic Christians would speak Coptic; the risks of being a target of pogrom or having to pay Jizya weren't worth it otherwise.
This quote also seem notable; "But during the tenth and eleventh centuries, this changed rapidly. Within a few generations Coptic died out as a spoken language, and by the end of the twelfth century, Arabic had become the main written language of the Church." Samuel Rubenson, The Transition from Coptic to Arabic
So Coptic as a daily spoken language died out during the exact centuries that encompassed al-Hakim's reign or thereabouts. There is a notable discrepancy in that Christianity is not said to have lost its majority status in Egypt until the 13th or 14th century. The switch to Arabic, aside from the higher classes who had to learn Arabic for administrative/tax duties, for other Copts it seems to have been something of an adaptation to blend in and reduce the risk of Arab hostility during many of the impromptu grassroots pogroms committed by the Muslims while remaining Christian, not having certain rights, and paying the Jizya; I think I've read a secondary source that alluded or outright said this over the last 10 days but I'll have to find it again amid the stack I've developed.
Also from Lane-Poole's book is a disturbing bit that illustrates the depths of al-Hakims supposed madness, "The general Fadl, who had rid the caliph of this rival, reaped an ill reward for his service. had the misfortune to enter the royal presence when Hikim was busily engaged in cutting up the body of a beautiful little child whom he had just murdered with his own knife. El-Fadl could not restrain his horror, but he knew the consequences : he went straight home, made his will, and admitted the caliph’s headsmen an hour later. He had seen too much."Guile's Theme (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't a period of widespread sustained destruction of Churches not logically imply a Coptic language prohibition on some level?
No, this is WP:OR. We don't derive inferences to what happened here. We use what the secondary source tells us. Squatch347 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Churches being destroyed en mass such as it is described as them 'all' destroyed at one point and things like "Churches were raided if a liturgy in Coptic was heard (Soliman 49)" are essentially required to be true if the other is. If Churches aren't allowed then how could Coptic Liturgy, ie meant to be read/spoken in rites, services, and prayers insides Churches, be allowed? Guile's Theme (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but there is a vast world of difference between "they burned all the churches" and "they banned the use of the language." Connecting those two is just too far to bridge without a RS secondary source saying they are connected. Squatch347 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd draw a parallel with Latin. If you ordered that every catholic church was destroyed for 5 years and destroyed them all I'm not sure at what point that means you aren't just raiding any place you hear Latin. A church ultimately is just any place/building where people worship; people worship using Liturgy. For Copts that means speaking Coptic. It almost seems inescapable. I understand, it needs to be stated explicitly by a reliable secondary source. And it is in Ishaq, Schneider, and in Coptic Oral tradition relayed in the likes of the Visions of Theophilus. It is just worth noting it seems logically required as well to be true on some level. Guile's Theme (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on compiling quotes/sources; up to about 6 pages of such now and counting. There was one quote that really stood out that seemed related to the line of discussion above.
"The Arabs called Egypt ‘dar al-Qibt’, home of the Copts, and since the original natives of the land were Christians, the words Coptic and Christian became interchangeable in the Arab mind."
-Aziz Suryal Atiya, p.35, A history of Eastern Christianity, Aziz Suryal Atiya, 1967 Guile's Theme (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]