In 1955 President Nasser inaugurated the Family Status Law 462, by which he intended to limit Coptic autonomy and introduce unified family status law that was based on the opinion of the majority Muslims. Prior to that, Copts had their own law which governed their family status, the latest was issued in 1938 when Egypt was still liberal – that law was drafted by Copts and applied by Coptic courts run by the Coptic Community (milli) Council. The 1955 Law took away that prerogative from Coptic courts and gave it to national personal status courts which were run mainly by Muslim judges. By that it basically limited Coptic cultural autonomy and nationalised (by which you must think Arabised and Islamised) their family status. It was bound to do that since the Nasser’s government was led by Arabs and Muslims mainly, the majority of Egyptians were Muslims, the predominant cultural concepts of marriage and family were Muslim, and the Egyptian constitution stipulated that Islam was the religion of the State and, later in 1970 and 1981, the principles of Sharia were the main source of legislation. The reader must read the excellent article by Mr Adel Guindy to understand how the 1955 Law came to interfere in (and cause damage to) the Coptic family by meddling in the internal affairs of Copts in respect of marriage, divorce, custody, adoption, and inheritance.

Since then, Copts have been trying to resist the intrusion of Islam into their family affairs. This effort was established by Pope Cyril VI and followed by Pope Shenouda III: the latter issued a Papal Decree in 1971 asking the Clerical Council for Family Affairs (CCFA) to develop a draft law that involved all Christian denominations. This law was presented to the Egyptian Government in 1980 and then in 1998 but on the two occasions it was completely ignored.

No one should be surprised, since it’s not only the Islamists (who want to establish an Islamist state) who would like to destroy and weaken the Copts but many Egyptian Muslims and Arabs who are not necessarily in the same camp with the Islamists. This is a fact that must not escape our attention. In a previous article I wrote about another law which had devastating effects on the Copts and their autonomy. In it I wrote about Nasser’s abolition of the Coptic educational autonomy:

Nasser ended the era of Coptic schools which had been inaugurated by the great, Patriarch Cyril IV (1854 – 1863): in 1958, Nasser imposed on all private schools a curriculum which included Arabic, history and geography lessons that were designed to indoctrinate and Arabise pupils. Then in 1961, he nationalised these schools altogether – henceforth, no Coptic school existed: Copts could not teach their language, history or culture at school anymore; they had to receive school instruction that glorified Arabic, Arabs and Islam all the time. The control of Coptic education is no more in their hands, but in the hands of Arabs and Muslims. And so the Copts lost their educational independence, which they retained until Nasser took it away from them.

Both the 1955 Family Status Law and the 1958/1961 Education Law had only one objective (and effect), and that is to take away Coptic autonomy and give it to the Egyptian State which is run by the majority Muslims. In this way, they represent two notorious tools for the Arabisation and Islamisation of the Copts.

The above Coptic wool tunic with tapestry weave (154 cm high 104.1 cm wide) is kept at the Metropolitan Museum, New York City. It dates from the 6^th-7^th century around the time of the Arab occupation of Egypt, and it comes from Ashmunein (Hermopolis Magna).

In the A&V (Albert and Victoria) Museum in London, one can find this beautiful pair of shoes in the Medieval and Renaissance, room 8, case 14. It dates from ca. 300-500 AD and was made in Akhmim, Egypt. One can admire the beautiful workmanship of the Copts of that period. The Museum has this to say about it this exceptionally well preserved pair of shoes:

Physical description:

Flat shoes of leather, with a high front coming up to a double lobed extension, finishing at the heel with a high tab; on the vamp an additional small disc of leather; constructional sewing in linen. Perhaps originally of purple or red, extensively embellished with gold leaf; the disc-shaped motif on the vamp encloses eight smaller circles, these are further decorated with embroidered stars, the embroidery thread possibly of silk.

Method of making:

These shoes were made by a common Coptic shoemaking technique: turning. The Copts were evidently among the first to make use of this method of assemblage (‘turned work’) in which the upper and sole are sewn together and then the shoe is turned inside out (or reversed) so that the sewing is protected by being on the inside. There is also a rand round the heel seat with an extra leather thong down the upper heel seam. The red-dyed leather is from North Africa, which was renowned for its fine tanned leather. There are similarly shaped shoes with gold leaf decoration in different patterns in the V&A collection, in various degrees of degradation.

Social context:

For Christians, death was not an end, but rather a preparation for a new birth, so they wished to present themselves in their finest clothes at the moment of the resurrection of the body. For women, their burial clothes included hair covering and shoes. Albert Gayet described in detail in 1898 the dressed body and the footwear of a female corpse: ‘Red leather shoes with gold leather appliqués edged in blue leather with embossed gilding’.

I present this lovely hooded child tunic from Coptic Egypt which is dated from 430–620 AD which is kept at the Metropolitan Museum in New York City. Its medium is weave in purple-coloured, red-brown, and undyed wool on plain-weave ground of green wool; fringes in green and red-brown along the perimeter of the hood and lower edges. Its textile dimensions (Including sleeves and hood) are height, 89.1 cm; width, 101 cm.

Most of the tunics were found in Coptic cemeteries (the provenance of this tunic is unknown); and this one is kept in its original condition when it was found. It is lovely to imagine the Coptic child wearing this beautiful hooded tunic which can form a prototype for those who would like to launch a project to produce modern Coptic costumes.

Coptic horseman. Coptic textile at Berlin Bode Museum.

When On Coptic Nationalism was launched back in 2011, we stated that Coptic nationalism works for the cultural revival of our nation. We continue to believe in that.

Coptic nationalism works for a civilian, secular democratic Egypt for all Egyptians regardless of religion, sex, colour or nationality.  This means on a practical level:

1. The establishment of a secular, civilian, democratic Egypt that is just for all. This simply means getting Political Islam out of politics in Egypt. Islamism cannot coexist with democracy, fraternity, equality and liberty in any country. Eventually, though not immediately, it also means the replacement of the military rule by a purely civilian one. This will have to wait until the Islamists are sufficiently weakened.[i]
2. The guaranteeing of the individual (civil and political) rights of the Copts within Egypt.

But these are only about individual rights. We demand more than that and here we represent an advanced form of political thinking and vision from other Coptic activists: Coptic Nationalism works and agitates not only for the individual rights of the Copts but for their collective rights too: We work for the realisation of a significant cultural autonomy and self-government for the Copts. We do not seek a regional self-government as in no governorate do we see the Copts representing a majority – we, however, demand a wide non-territorial autonomy which has been tried and found successful in civilised states and a model satisfactory to the cultural needs of minorities. The Copts must possess a large degree of religious, educational and cultural autonomy; and for this to happen, a Coptic Cultural Council must be elected exclusively and democratically by all Copts; and it must possess: 1. exclusive legislative powers over religion, education and cultural matters related to the Copts; and 2. the right to represent the interests of the Copts to the state.

It’s not going to be easy but being difficult does not mean it’s impossible; least of all, it does not mean it’s not the right thing to do. As we said: He who dares win. The Copts must not fear thinking big. Self-government and autonomy must be the primary aim of any Coptic movement if it aims at protecting our identity, culture and heritage.

[i] While in 2011 we had hoped that a civilian democracy in Egypt could be established; the last three years have taught us that Egypt is not yet ready for democracy – the two existent competing powers are Islamism and the Military.

No one can argue, despite its few problems,  that the UK is a civilised country and can compete on that matter with any other country in the world.  Just follow the conduct of the debate and the whole business around Scotland independence.  I cannot think of any other country that has dealt with territorial issues and secession in such a democratic and peaceful way as the UK has.

In my opinion the credit goes to two:
1. The maturity of the 5 million Scottish people.
2. The tolerance and democratic principles of the English people who constitute 85% of the UK population.

As you admire the Brits for their democracy, maturity and tolerance, think of how other countries treat their national minorities – for example, think of Egypt!

Pieternella Van Doorn-Harder has written a chapter titled ‘Copts: Fully Egyptian, but for a Tattoo?‘ in Nationalism and Minority Identities in Islamic Societies (Ed. Maya Shatzmiller; McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2005).

The chapter is good but I am writing here to point to one useless conclusion; the sort of thing I often find in some Western writings concerned with the conditions of the Christians in the Middle East. Van Dootn-Harder concludes the chapter by these words:

It is true that Coptic children will never stop singing the words from the popular song ‘I am a Christian,  a Christian … [Look at] the tattoo on my hand!’ but this tattoo will hinder the Copts’ full integration only as long as Egypt does not have a fully democratic system that guarantees freedom of expression and belief for all.

This is as useless statement as saying, for example, that a man in South Africa (under Apartheid) will never shed his black skin, but this will hinder his full integration only as long as South Africa does not have a fully democratic system that guarantees equality regardless of colour.

A more useful statement in respect of the Coptic child with a tattoo of the cross on his hand should be something like this: “… but this tattoo hinders his full integration and will continue to be so for as long as Political Islam and Arabism continue to rule the minds of the Muslims if Egypt.”

That would be stating the unhappy fact and pointing to the pathological causes of that situation at the same time. It’s not only useful but informative and brave.

 The brave Coptic woman, Om Marina (Mother of Marina), and her daughter, Marina

  An article from Coptic Orphans[1] by Amal Morcos (May 2012)[2]

The interrogation had been going for six hours. The questions were relentless. “Where is your daughter!?” But Om Marina would not give in. She had hid her daughter and coldly replied to the police, “Over my dead body.” Her husband had left her to convert[3] and he had sent the police to collect Marina. Egyptian law was, of course, on his side.[4]

And why did he want his daughter? Because the more family members he could list on his identification card, the more food staples he could collect. That was the worth of his daughter in his eyes.

The incredible thing about this story is that Om Marina’s home consisted of a couch in the hallway of someone else’s house. A generous donor found out about their plight and said that they would be willing to provide half the cost of an apartment if Coptic Orphans covered the rest. Soon Om Marina and her daughter moved into their own apartment in Alexandria.

“I hope my daughter becomes a lawyer to fight injustice,” says Om Marina, who can now provide her daughter with an education as well as a safe place to call home.

————–

[1] Coptic Orphans is a registered non-profit in the United States, Canada, Australia, Egypt and the United Kingdom. It’s perhaps the largest charity that provides help to the orphans in Egypt and its poor Copts. It was founded by Nermien Riad in 1988. On Coptic Nationalism encourages its readers to donate to Coptic Orphans or you can sponsor one of its orphans. If you want to donate to it, go here.

[2] We have changed the title given to the article by the writer, which is simply, “Not Without My Daughter”.

[3] Convert to Islam.

[4] If a Coptic husband or wife converts to Islam, the children must follow his move and become Muslims even if they don’t. They are forced by law to do that and they are taken away from the Christian wife or husband. In Egypt, Islam is regarded as the best religion, and so the children should follow the parent with that best religion and abandon the parent who holds the lower religion (Christianity of Judaism). The scenario of one of a married couple converting to Islam usually occurs when a conflict exists between the two and one seeks divorce.

In a previous article, I have written of a serious encroachment of Arabisation on the Coptic name of God: Ephnuti[i] (or Abnouda[ii]). As Copts got Arabised in the Middle Period of their history[iii], they abandoned Ephnouti for Allah (اللّه), the Arabic name for God. I explained the devastating effect on that on Coptic culture, and I would say, even to Coptic Christianity. The reader can consult the article for detail.

Today, I would like to point to a similar matter: the loss of the names of Jesus and Mary in Coptic. In Coptic, Jesus is                                                                                                                                  (pronounced, Isous)

and Mary is                                                                                                                                 (pronounced, Maria)

: these beautiful names have been mouthed by Copts throughout their history before Arabisation with reverence: millions upon millions of Copts found them most sweet, most comforting, most uplifting as they chanted them, whether they were gathering at homes, harvesting their fields, sailing the Nile, praying the liturgy in churches, or performing their ascetic practices at monasteries and deserts across Egypt. They were innate and intimate names to Coptic Christianity. But, with the language shift in the Coptic Middle Period, Copts abandoned Isoas and Maria to their Arabic equivalents, ‘يسوع’ (pronounce, Yasoa) and ‘مريم’ (pronounced, Mariam), respectively.

Of course Jesus and Mary are the same whatever language you use; however, it seems to me there is no good reason to change the names of the holiest of your holies as you adopt another language, in the same way you don’t change your proper name from, for example, Angaelos[iv] to Angel or Agia[v] to Saint, if you adopt the English language.

I look at it as completely bizarre as much as damaging to our culture.

—————

[i] Neo-Bohairic.

[ii] In Old Bohairic.

[iii] This period corresponds roughly to the 12^th and 13^th centuries.

[iv] Meaning ‘angel’ in Coptic.

[v] Meaning ‘Saint’ in Coptic (f.).

In a previous article, I criticised the way the name of the Monastery of Saint Anthony at the Red Sea is displayed, in Arabic (in the largest fonts), and then English, and then Coptic; and I said:

There is no excuse whatsoever for monasteries in Egypt to promote Arabic at the expense of Coptic language even if it is the great monastery of Saint Anthony.

I argued, it should the name of the sacred monastery should be displayed first in Coptic, our national language, then in the dominant language in Egypt (Arabic), then the language known to most tourists (English).  But I noted that it was not only the Monastery of Saint Anthony that comes under this criticism, as it is a defect that affects most of our churches, monasteries, schools and social activity venues.

Today, with all due respect to our sacred monasteries, I pick on two more monasteries, this time from the western desert, in Wadi Natrun:

First, the Monastery of Saint Bishoy

At least, the Monastery of Saint Anthony displays its name in Coptic besides Arabic and English, even though it relegates Coptic to the third, and last, position. The Monastery of Saint Bishoy does not use Coptic at all! Its name is displayed in Arabic and one finds lots of notices written in Arabic. The name is displayed, too, in English.

Second, the Monastery of the Holy Virgin Mary (Syrians)

Here again, we find the monastery’s name displayed in Arabic and English only. Coptic is indeed used but not to show the name of the monastery but to tell us that it belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church.

In a way, we all – yes, clergy and laity – assist in the process of Arabisation of the Copts and the final demise of our beautiful Coptic language. Saint Samuel of Kalamoun (Qalamoun) would be ashamed of us all!

Is it really difficult that we, particularly the clergy, pay a special attention to this matter, and work to revive our Coptic language and resist Arabisation that has invaded our sacred space even in the remote deserts of Egypt?

What is culture in general?

To be able to answer this title’s question, one has to be acquainted first with the definition of culture in general. What is culture? The definition of culture is often confusing when it should be clear in the mind due to its enormous importance in our social and political lives. The most misleading definition of culture is that which equate it to intellectual and artistic works that are produced by humanity in its various groups, and which are considered to be of high quality and special. This definition was first introduced in the 19^th century by the English poet Mathew Arnold (1822 – 1888) in his Culture and Anarchy (1867). According to this concept of culture, only people who produce or appreciate works of literature and art (such as novels, plays, paintings, music, and ballet) have culture, and can be described as ‘cultured’. The rest of humanity who are not part of that ‘high culture’ do not possess culture, and can be described as ‘uncultured’, and in many ways ‘philistines’. This seems to be the prevalent understanding of culture in Egypt, and it does influence the minds of many Copts: a ‘cultured’ individual is ‘مُثَقَّف’ and a ‘non-cultured’ person is ‘غَيْر مُثَقَّف’. In Egypt there is even a ministry of culture (وزارة الثقافة), by which is meant ‘high culture’.

The fact is that the concept of culture is much wider than ‘high culture’: culture, as the English anthropologist, Edward Tylor (1832 – 1917), tells us in his Primitive Culture (1870), is:

That complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.[1]

Further, culture is not limited to a certain social group: all folks have culture, and culture of their own, whether they are contributory and interested in ‘high culture’ or not, whether they are educated or illiterate, whether they are rich or poor, whether they are hunter-gatherers or settled and urbanised. You can speak of American culture, Roma culture, Greek culture, Roman culture, Jewish culture, Matis culture[2], Islamic culture, Arabic culture, Indian culture, Dinka culture, etc. Each culture is unique and special: no two cultures are similar. At this point, it is important to avoid the mistake of denying culture to any group: all groups, all peoples, all religions have culture of their own. You may disdain some parts of a certain culture but your disapproval does not negate that it is nevertheless a culture. A group does not posses a culture only when their culture is considered to be high: high or low is a judgement call but not the foundation of the definition of culture. Some Copts insist that Arabs and Muslims have no culture: this is wrong: Arabs and Muslims have culture of their own, whether we agree with it or not, whether we like it or not.

Now, we come to a part in the definition of culture that is often poorly emphasised though is most important and useful. Culture is not only a product to describe; it is a living and dynamic force that plays in the mind of peoples, consciously or subconsciously, and forms them. It was the Coptic thinker Salama Musa (1887 – 1958) who first drew my attention to this fact: culture is what makes man and his civilisation, he told us.[3] It makes man through influencing his feelings and judgements, as the American anthropologist, Clifford Geertz (1926 – 2006), says:

Culture is the framework of beliefs, expressive symbols, and values in terms of which individuals define their feelings and make their judgements.

The specific feelings and judgements defined by a certain culture lead to particular behaviours and actions by society, and these in turn determine what kind of society is created and what kind of civilisation is established. This creative and dynamic function of culture has been described by the Dutch social psychologist, Geert Hofstede (b. 1928) as the software of the mind that controls one’s patterns of thinking, feelings, and potential behaviour and acting:

[Culture] is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.

It is worth here mentioning that all folks have unique civilisations as they have unique cultures – no two cultures will produce the same civilisation, although they may both share similar characteristics. I define civilisation here as simply the condition of a particular human society, as displayed in its social, political and cultural complexity, and includes its arts, literature, sciences, laws, architecture, institutions, etc. Again, I emphasise here the error of denying the term ‘civilisation’ to certain peoples, such as Arabs and Muslims, based on our disdain to certain parts of their civilisation. If a social group has a unique culture, then that culture will certainly produce a definite type of civilisation for that group.

Culture is not inherited but is a learned quality that is transmitted from one generation to the other, and is obtained either consciously (creating values) or unconsciously (creating basic assumptions that are taken for granted).

What is Coptic culture then?

Coptic culture can be defined as: the unique complex whole that makes the Copts the way they are and determines their way of life and civilisation.

That complex whole includes the Copts’ distinctive type of Christianity, national roots, unique history, knowledge, heritage, values, morals, social and political philosophies, worldview, language, literature, art, music, folklore, feasts, heroes (martyrs, saints, clergy, national leaders, etc.) traditions, customs, and habits. And that complex whole makes us by programming our minds individually and collectively, and determining the way we think, feel, believe, judge, behave, act, and live.

The threat on Coptic culture

Cultures naturally evolve; nothing is static. Further, cultures are not necessarily antagonistic – many share common values and can live together in peace if the necessary social, economic and political conditions exist. What creates conflicts between cultures is when one tries to dominate and assimilate the other, first by contaminating [the word here is used only in a mechanical way] the culture that is in a weaker power dynamic relationship and then by total assimilation.

We have seen such an example in our own case: since the Arabs invaded Egypt in the seventh century, and controlled all political and economic power, we have witnessed a continuous onslaught on our culture, manifested in three processes:

• Islamisation (الأسلمة), by which I mean the phenomenon and process whereby an Egyptian/Coptic Christian converts to Islam; and stops looking at himself, or herself, as belonging to the Coptic Christian Faith, Church and nation.
• Arabisation (التعريب), by which I mean the process and phenomenon by which Egyptians/Copts stopped talking in their own Egyptian/Coptic language, and adopted Arabic as their main daily language. It is thus a process of language shift from Coptic to Arabic.
•  Islamic assimilation (or Islamic culturalisation) (التذويب الإسلامي), by which I mean the process and phenomenon by which Copts, as individuals or collectively, consciously or subconsciously, abandoned their traditions, customs, behaviours, etc. – or in one word their culture – and acquired parts of Islamic culture to which influence they have been exposed. One has seen this in different expressions at different junctures of our history, such as divorce, polygamy, weakness in our family structure and values, adoption, inheritance laws, etc.

No culture is immune to change; however, no culture would like to be forced to change. This applies to the Copts as it applies to other cultures, including Islamic and Arabic culture. Nations naturally resist cultural contamination and final assimilation since all peoples love their cultural values and would like to protect the way they live.

I have made an effort above to warn the Copts of denying that Arabs and Muslims possess culture and civilisation of their own. They must avoid that by avoiding valorising Arab and Muslim cultures. However much we disdain certain aspects of their culture and civilisation that does not negate their existence. Further, it must be understood that not all their culture or civilisation is bad even when we apply our own standards to them. This puts us on a solid ground of reason and morality. But all that said, we must not forget that our culture and civilisation are different in many ways; that we must resist Islamisation, Arabisation, and cultural Islamisation, and protect our unique and good culture which we love and which we would like it to determine our way of living.

The threat on Coptic culture is real, old and continuing. All manifestations of such a threat must be resisted, and whatever contamination in our culture has occurred must be reversed.

__________________________________________

[1] Edward Tylor, Primitive Culture (New York, J. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1871); Volume 1, page 1.

[2] Matis is a small indigenous tribe in Brazil that practises hunting and agriculture, and was first contacted by the outside world in the 1970s.

[3] I think this he explains in his About Life and Culture (1930), which was later revised and renamed in 1956: Culture and Life.

I would like to introduce two coined words into Coptic national debate: Shlilists and Shlolists, and one can drive from them further words to describe the ideology behind each group, Shlilism and Shlolism.

Shlil in Coptic (ϣⲗⲓⲗ) means ‘to pray’, while shlol (ϣⲗⲟⲗ) means ‘nation’ [In contrast, laos (ⲗⲁⲟⲥ) means ‘people’]. There is another word in Coptic reserved for a nation, which is ethnos (ⲉⲑⲛⲟⲥ), but it is Greek in origin while shlol seems to be purely Egyptian.

Who are the Shlilists?

I define them as those Copts who think of themselves as ekklesia (ⲉⲕⲕⲗⲏⲥⲓⲁ – Church) only; as Christians, who are sojourners of the world and true citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven only. They do not see the Copts as a cultural nation; and other aspects of Coptic culture, such as language, literature, arts, and music, do not interest them except in as far as they serve religion. In fact, they do not see any problem in the Copts and Coptic Church being completely Arabised. Their main focus is the Church and their main interest is their religious freedom: if they are allowed to worship in freedom not withstanding how they are treated otherwise they are satisfied; their only weapon in the face of injustice is prayer and the invoking of the saints and martyrs to intervene, sometimes in a violent manner. They do not entertain the prospect of any active resistance against their oppressors – martyrdom is the only thing they could offer.

Who are the Shlolists?

The Shlolists think of themselves as primarily a cultural nation: their Christianity is dear to them and Christ takes the centre point in their history. They believe the Copts are an ekklesia but a nation in a cultural sense too: religion is not the only important matter to them but other aspects of their cultural life are essential, such as the Coptic language, history, literature, arts, music, etc. They cannot think of losing their language, for example, without losing something very intimate and essential in their identity. They do not work only to protect and promote the propagation of Christianity but Coptic culture as a whole. They are not only interested in religious freedom but in all of their civil rights and their cultural collective rights too. They may die as martyrs but they may fight injustice through active non-violent resistance.

The above is only an attempt at descriptive definition.

I would like to stress two points:

1. That the attempt to distinguish between two is not meant to pass a judgement on any but to make the debate more intelligible. Both represent honest people; and each must respect the other, even as they try to argue for their position and convert the other to their point of view.
2. There is an overlap between Shlilism and Shlolism and they merge with each other at many points.

Coptic is studied for different reasons. Westernern scholars study Coptic because they are by large interested in Egyptology and Classic Antiquity; and for this reason they show more interest in learning the Sahidic dialect than Bohairic.

Copts learn Coptic for two reasons:
1. Many learn it for religious reasons – they want to understand the Coptic liturgy and hymns. The content of their curriculum is religious mainly. For this, they learn Bohairic as is known in its new form, Neo-Bohairic which was developed in the 1850s.
2. Some learn it because it’s a core element in Coptic identity – they want to talk and write in it to describe the world and life around us and to express our feelings and thoughts, religious and secular. Their interest is not limited to the sacred and religious.  This group is divided into those who use Old-Bohairic and those who take Neo-Bihairic as the form to revive.

Coptic Nationalism subscribes to the second group – Coptic must be revived as a national language capable of describing modern life.

http://hyperglot.me/post/2988268373/coptic-wanted-dead-or-alive

http://cambridgelibrarycollection.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/coptic-%E2%80%93-living-or-dead/

Wael Saad, a Copt as you may have noticed, has developed an advanced Coptic writing system, called Coptic Notes, for the iPhone and iPad. It is currently supported by iOS7 only; not iOS8, but he is working on seeding an update to support iOS8 and support for iPhone 6/6+ and iPad Air. He has contacted me to make his good work known to a wider readership, and I do that with pleasure – Coptic nationalists and Coptologists should use the new media to advance the learning of Coptic; and Wael has done an excellent job on that front. He wrote: “I thought you might be interested to know that one way to help revive the Coptic language is to increase its presence in the digital world. This is why I developed ‘Coptic Notes’ a powerful iOS mobile app for the iPhone and iPad to help communicate with Coptic online; it’s not perfect yet but close.”

To access Coptic Notes click on it. Please, visit Wael Saad’s facebook for support and update on how you find the programme!

In a previous article, I argued that the Coptic language is not dead. It’s hurting that several lazy scholars have written about the language shift from Coptic to Arabic in medieval Egypt and described Coptic as a dead language. But I am glad that at least one of the eminent scholars in Coptology agrees with my position: Jason Zaborowski,[1] Associate Professor at Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois, US. I gather his opinion from his excellent article From Coptic to Arabic in Medieval Egypt which was published in Medieval Encounters, in 2008.[2]

Zaborowski’s opinion is that Coptic is neither dead nor lost: he uses the term “Coptic disuse” or “Coptic desuetude” instead to describe what happened in Egypt in the Middle Ages which ended by the Copts using Arabic instead of Coptic.

Zaborowski starts by saying:

I use the phrase “disuse of Coptic” as a shorthand for discussing the phenomenon whereby Coptic speakers replaced Coptic with Arabic in their literary productions and especially in their everyday speech, it is not accurate to label Coptic language ‘dead’ while it is currently at least mouthed daily in the Coptic Church’s liturgy.

He supports his argument by the reluctance of the famous English linguist, Andrew Dalby, in his Language in Danger: the Loss of Linguistic Diversity and the Threat to Our Future[3] “to speak of languages as ‘dying,’ since the loss of language is ‘defined in such different ways’ and it is only ‘[o]ccasionally [that] it may be linked with … the violent death of all current speakers.’”

Andrew Dalby, Zaborowski says, “refers to [the change] as ‘language loss’ in the process of being replaced by another language: ‘More often the last speakers of any language have switched to another which meets their current needs, and occasionally… a little of their former language may be incorporated in their new one.’ According to Dalby, ‘we are all losers’ in that process of language replacement.”

Zaborowski uses Dalby’s to support his opinion on the inaccuracy of saying Coptic is dead, and goes even further to dismiss that it’s lost:

I would argue further that, as long as there are extant textual representations of a language and enthusiasts of those writings, a language is not altogether dead, nor is it lost. Thus, I employ ‘disuse’ to express the neglect of Coptic-language skills, which went hand in hand with an increasing ‘use’ of Arabic by Egyptian Christians in the course of maintaining and producing their culture.

I return to repeat my previous assertion:

It is unfair to place a language with a known alphabet, vocabulary, phonology and syntax that has disappeared from daily-life use on the same footing with a language that has also disappeared but has had none of these… To describe Coptic as dead, and placing it on the same footing with really dead languages that have not been recorded and have no extant literature, grammars and dictionaries, and workable phonology, is not just inaccurate but very dangerous, for it implies that Coptic cannot be revived.

__________________________

[1] Zaborowski’s scholarship work includes:

• The Coptic Martyrdom of John of Phanijoit: Assimilation and Conversion to Islam in Thirteenth-Century Egypt (Brill, 2005)
• “Coptic Christianity,” in Wiley-Blackwell Companion to African Religions, ed. Elias K. Bongmba (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)
• “Arab Christian Physicians as Interreligious Mediators: Abū Shākir as a Model Christian Expert,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 22, 2 (April 2011)
• “From Coptic to Arabic in Medieval Egypt,” Medieval Encounters 14 (2008)
• “Shenoute’s Sermon The Lord Thundered: An Introduction and Translation,” Oriens Christianus 90 (2006) with Janet A. Timbie.
• “The Coptic Martyrdom of John of Phanijoit: Assimilation and Restoration from Salah al-Din to the Writing of the Martyrdom: 1169-1211 (565-607 A.H.),” in Actes du huitième Congrès international d’études coptes: Paris, 28 juin – 3 juillet 2004 2 (Peeters, 2007).
• “Egyptian Christians Implicating Chalcedonians in the Arab Takeover of Egypt: The Arabic Apocalypse of Samuel of Qalamun,” Oriens Christianus (2003).

[2] Jason R. Zaborowski, From Coptic to Arabic in Medieval Egypt, Medieval Encounters 14 (2008): 17 n. 5.

[3] Andrew Dalby, Language in Danger: the Loss of Linguistic Diversity and the Threat to Our Future (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), x. xi.

Martyrdom of Saint Maurice by Gustave Courtois (1852-1923)

Martyrdom in Christianity has specific meaning that is based on Christ. He told his followers:

And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved…He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.[i] For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.[ii]

This Christians understood from early age, and Copts, specifically, took it very seriously: When Christians are threatened with death over Christ, they must not be cowed or try to save their lives: they must be courageous and chose death over life – those who deny Christ will lose Eternal Life; those who stick to Christ and defy their persecutors will find Life. Courage has always been at the forefront of all Christian virtues for no virtue stands without it.

This understanding of Christ’s uncompromising words led to the phenomenon of martyrdom of Christianity. Thousands upon thousands of Christians gave their lives for Christ throughout the ages – they could have renounced Christ and gained their temporal lives but they preferred rather to die for Christ. You can think of the famous Christian martyrs you may remember: St. George, St. Theodore, St. Menas, St. Catherine, etc., all to emphasise to you the above: martyrdom is an act of courageous choice of death over life – a choice taken consciously when one knows that by simply recanting Christ one would save his or her life.

The Christian would be martyr knows that his encounter with his or her persecutor is a contest that requires courage and defiance: it’s a contest between Christ’s faithful and the powers of evil; and in dying for Christ one is not a looser but a winner. [iii]This celebratory concept is best demonstrated by the story of Menas, brother of the Coptic Patriarch, Benjamin I (662-662), who was murdered by the forces of Heraclius (610-641),[iv] the Byzantine Emperor:

And Heraclius seized the blessed Mennas, brother of the Father Benjamin, the patriarch, and brought great trials upon him, and caused lighted torches to be held to his sides until the fat of his body oozed forth and flowed upon the ground, and knocked out his teeth because he confessed the faith; and finally commanded that a sack should be filled with sand, and the holy Mennas placed within it, and drowned in the sea. For Heraclius the misbeliever had charged them, saying: “If any one of them says that the council of Chalcedon is true, let him go; but drown in the sea those that say it is erroneous and false.” Therefore they did as the prince bade them, and cast Mennas into the sea. For they took the sack, and conveyed him to a distance of seven bowshots from the land, and said to him: “Say that the council of Chalcedon is good and not otherwise, and we will release thee.” But Mennas would not do so. And they did this with him three times; and when he refused they drowned him. Thus they were unable to vanquish this champion, Mennas, but he conquered them by his Christian patience.[v]

The whole concept of martyrdom in Christianity is diametrically different from that in Islam. In Islam, a martyr (shahid)[vi] is one who have died fulfilling a religious commandment, especially those dying fighting in jihad war (the military expansion of Islam).[vii] The concept of martyrdom in Islam is elastic enough to include those who die protecting their property or in any accident, such as when a property collapses on top of its Muslim inhabitants.[viii] It is this elastic concept of martyrdom that is adopted by the Muslims of Egypt: anyone who dies in a car accident, or violent incident, or in war, is considered a martyr, and hailed as “shahid”.

It’s clear that the concepts of martyrdom in Christianity and Islam cannot meet. In the former, only those who die at the hands of violent oppressors rather than deny Christ are considered martyrs; in Islam, martyrdom is an act of violence and the chance death as one kills and maims others. Even in the other forms of martyrdom in Islam, such as dying in modern wars for country (actually, this is not strictly Islamic but Muslims of Egypt took it so[ix]), Christianity differs: one may consider those who die, e.g., for Egypt, in its various wars, as victims or heroes, but not martyrs. This applies to both Coptic and Muslim soldiers, who die in Egypt’s wars, whether against foreign countries, such as Israel in 1973 and the Islamic terrorists in Sinai.

The Christian concept of martyrdom is unique and must not be confused with Islamic concepts. Sadly, we have seen this being eroded recently: We have seen even prominent Coptic bishops hail Egyptian soldiers killed in Sinai by Islamic terrorists as martyrs.[x] We all regard those who die against Islamic terrorists as heroes – this is dignifying enough and sufficient. All civilised nations call their fallen in wars, victims or heroes. For Coptic bishops to describe them as martyrs is, to say the least, irresponsible, as it blurs the difference between dying for Christ and dying for any other reason. They themselves may not experience the damaging effect of confusing the two concepts of martyrdom, but the simple men and women in our nation, who are not as educated as they are, will certainly lose the distinction between the two.

The encroachment of Islam on our Christian Coptic culture is subtle, and is often allowed in by us. We have seen in the past examples of Islamic acculturalisation of the Copts, such as male and female circumcision.[xi] We must not assume that the trend has ended – Islamic acculturalisation of the Copts is steady and is often aided by the least likely, by the clergy. You can consider the contamination[xii] of our Christian concept of martyrdom as the latest. It must be resisted.

——————————————————————-

[i] Matthew 10:21, 22, 39 (KJV).

[ii] Luke 9:24 (KJV).

[iii] For the defiance of Coptic martyrs who saw themselves in a contest, see: Four Martyrdoms From The Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices, by E. A. E. Reymond and J. W. B. Barnes (Oxford, 1998).

[iv] The persecutor was then Cyrus, Heraclius’ governor and patriarch of Alexandria, who was in a mission to destroy the followers of Dioscorus I (444-458), Coptic Patriarch at Chalcedon (451 AD).

[v] Severus of Al’Ashmunein (Hermopolis), History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic church of Alexandria  (1904) Part 2: Peter I – Benjamin I (661 AD). Patrologia Orientalis; pp. 491-492.

[vi] Literally, witness.

[vii] See: Qur’an, Sura 3: 169 – 170; Sura 9: 111; Surah 22: 58.

[viii] See, e.g., Sahih al-Bukhari, 3:43:660.

[ix] Islam admits no patriotism – it knows only Islam and dying for it, not for a patrie.

[x] I am not going to name these bishops but I can reassure you that what I say is right.

[xi] For more, go here, and here, and here.

[xii] I use the word ‘contamination’ here in a mechanical sense.

Archangel Michael Conquering the Devil, Coptic icon from 7th century, Athens Byzantine Museum

I would like to introduce to my readers this Coptic icon from the 17^th century, Archangel Michael, from the Athens Byzantine Museum. It is simply beautiful. In its style it is different from that of modern iconography.

Réne Basset (1848-1924)

I have spoken about the Coptic Synaxarium in different places (search under Coptic Synaxarium). Here, I just would like to put up links to the Coptic Synaxarium, extant in Arabic, to ease research. It was published, with a French translation, by Réne Basset (1848-1924), the famous French Orientalist, in Patrologia Orientalis (P.O.), from 1907 to 1923, under the title Synaxaire Arabe-Jacobite. Five volumes of P.O., tomes 1, 3, 11, 16, and 17, included the 13 Coptic months.

P.O. Tome 1 (1907): Mois de Tout et de Babeh

P.O. Tome 3 (1909): Mois de Hatour et de Kihak

P.O. Tome 11 (1915): Mois de Toubeh et d’Amchir

P.O. Tome 16 (1922): Les mois de Baramhat, Barmoudah et Bacans

P.O. Tome 17 (1923): Les mois de Baounah, Abib, Mésoré et jours complémentaires