Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries 0888448090, 9780888448095

Citation preview

Michael Gervers and Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi, eds.

CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries The great majority of the world's Early Christian communities fell under Muslim rule within little more than a century after the foundation of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula in A.D. 622. These include the Christian population of the whole of North Africa, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Iraq, Armenia, Persia and all but a fraction of the Iberian Peninsula. Only those who inhabited the territories on the northern side of the Mediterranean, from France to the eastern regions of Anatolia, and who were secure in the highlands of Abyssinia, were excluded. If Spain and the Mediterranean islands were returned to Christianity by the thirteenth century, the bulk of Anatolia was lost to the Seljuk Turks in the twelfth while their Ottoman successors controlled parts or all of the Balkans between the fourteenth and the early twentieth century. The Christian living under Muslim domination either emigrated, converted to Islam or remained in the religion with other members of the community. Twenty-three of the papers in this volume consider the historical circumstances which led to these three alternatives; two others look at the contrasting situation of Muslims in Spain after the Reconquista, while one analyzes the interaction of Christians, Muslims and Hindus in Kerala in southern India. Particular emphasis is given to the question of why most Christians converted or emigrated while others did not, and why islamization was far more comprehensive in some geographical areas than in others. The papers are thus grouped in their consideration of 1) the rationale and polemics of conversion, 2) the process of conversion, 3) resistance to conversion and 4) factors relating to the continuing process of conversion and continuity. Contributors to this volume include the most eminent scholars in the field from eight countries on four continents. They discuss aspects of the historical background of almost all the indigenous Christian communities living under Islam today and of many which have long since vanished. Their views on the subject are correspondingly varied, but illuminate a range of phenomena and situations which are either entirely unknown to, or often widely misconstrued by, Christians in the West. Each article is followed by a separate bibliography. The volume is indexed as a whole and supplemented by 6 maps and a gazetteer containing over 450 entries.

This page intentionally left blank

PAPERS IN MEDIAEVAL STUDIES 9

CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries

EDITED BY MICHAEL GERVERS AND

RAMZIJIBRAN BIKHAZI

PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

CANADIAN CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA Main entry under title: Conversion and Continuity (Papers in mediaeval studies, ISSN 0228-8605 ; 9) Based on a conference entitled Conversion and Continuity, held at the University of Toronto, Oct. 23-25,1986. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-88844-809-0 1. Christianity - Islamic countries - Middle Ages, 600-1500 - Congresses. 2. Christianity - Islamic countries - Modem period, 1500Congresses. 3. Christianity and other religions - Islam - History - Congresses. 4. Islam - Relations - Christianity. 5. Muslim converts from Christianity Congresses. I. Gervers, Michael, 1942II. Bikhazi, Ramzi Jibran, 1941III. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. IV. Series. BR1070.C66 1990

209.17'671

C89-090769-2

©1990 by Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 59 Queen's Park Crescent East Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C4 TYPESET BY ALAN ROSSELET, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRINTED BY UNIVERSA, WETTEREN, BELGIUM

Contents

List of Maps

viii

Preface

ix

Maps

xiii

Introduction Process and Status in Conversion and Continuity RICHARD W. BULLffiT (Columbia University)

1

Part One: The Rationale and Polemics of Conversion 1

The First Summa Theologiae in Arabic: Christian Kalam in Ninth-Century Palestine SIDNEY H. GRIFFITH (The Catholic University of America)

2

Continuity and Change in Religious Adherence: NinthCentury Baghdad WADI Z. HADDAD (Hartford Seminary)

3

15

33

The Art and Non-Art of Byzantine Polemics: Patterns of Refutation in Byzantine Anti-Islamic Literature DANIEL J. SAHAS (University of Waterloo)

55

VI

4

5

6

CONTENTS

The Context of Spanish Adoptionism: A Review JOANNE E. McWILLIAM (University of Toronto)

75

The Earliest Latin Lives of Muhammad KENNETH B. WOLF (Pomona College)

89

Fakhr al-DIn al-Razi on ayat al-jizyah and ay at al-sayf JANE DAMMEN McAULIFFE (Emory University)

103

Part Two: The Process of Conversion I

Conversion Stories in Early Islam RICHARD W. BULLIET (Columbia University)

123

8

The Age of Conversions: A Reassessment MICHAEL G. MORONY (University of California, Los Angeles) 135

9

Roots of Conflict: Aspects of Christian-Muslim Confrontation in Eleventh-Century Spain HANNA E. KASSIS (University of British Columbia)

151

10 Natives and Franks in Palestine: Perceptions and Interaction HADIA DAJANI-SHAKEEL (University of Toronto)

161

I1 The Experience of Christians under Seljuk and Ottoman Domination, Eleventh to Sixteenth Century SPEROS VRYONIS, JR. (New York University)

185

12 Armenia: A Christian Enclave in the Islamic Near East in the Middle Ages EDMOND SCHUTZ (Inner Asia Institute, Budapest)

217

13 The Christian Communities in Egypt in the Middle Ages GEORGES C. ANAWATI

(Dominican Institute of Oriental Studies, Cairo)

237

CONTENTS

Vll

14 Muslim-Christian Relations during the Reign of the Mamluk Sultan al-Mansur Qalawun (A.D. 1278 -1290) LINDA S. NORTHRUP (University of Toronto)

253

15 Coptic Converts to Islam During the Bahri Mamluk Period DONALD P. LITTLE (McGill University)

263

16 Conversion to Islam in Syria and Palestine and the Survival of Christian Communities NEHEMIA LEVTZION (The Open University of Israel)

289

17 Le Christianism maghre"bin: de la conquSte musulmane a sa disparition MOHAMED TALBI (University of Tunis)

313

Part Three: Resistance to Conversion 18 Church and Society in Asia Minor in the Late Thirteenth Century: the Case of Theoleptos of Philadelpheia ROBERT E. SINKEWICZ

(Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto)

355

19 The Survival of a Muslim Minority in the Christian Kingdom of Valencia (Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries) MARK D. MEYERSON (University of Notre Dame)

365

20 Tradition and Linguistic Assimilation Among the Spanish Moriscos During the Sixteenth Century OTTMAR HEGYI (University of Toronto)

381

21 Le soutien de l'e"glise latine aux Chretiens d'Orient durant le moyen-Sge JEAN RICHARD (University of Dijon)

389

22 Struggle for Survival: The Maronites of the Middle Ages ELIAS EL-HAYEK (Diocese of St. Maro, Montreal)

407

Vlll

CONTENTS

23 The Maronite Experiment KAMAL SALffil (American University of Beirut)

423

Part Four: The Past as Guide to the Future 24 Religious Interaction in Kerala with Special Reference to the Impact of European Medieval Christianity ROLAND E. MILLER (University of Regina)

437

25 Conversion of Eastern Orthodox Christians to the Unia in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries ROBERT M. HADDAD (Smith College)

449

26 The Islamic Context of Muslim-Christian Relations MAHMOUD M. AYOUB (Temple University)

461

Gazeteer

479

Index

525

List of Maps

1. South-Western Asia 2. Western Anatolia and the Balkans 3. Western Mediterranean: Spain and the Maghrib 4. Syria 5. Red Sea Area 6. Southern India

Preface

The present volume was conceived among the sandswept ruins of an early Christian basilica in Palmyra, in June 1982. It was a month not easily forgotten as it was then that Israel invaded Lebanon in a singlehanded attempt to increase security and impose stability for itself in a region where tension and strife have been common not only for the past few generations, but for millennia. I was acutely aware as I travelled through the Arab nations of North Africa, Egypt, the Sudan, the Middle East and through Anatolia, of the presence either of surviving Christian communities or of the decaying remains of ancient Christian monuments. In this context it became intensely clear that the Arab-Israeli confrontation, which has come to dominate Western attitudes towards Islam and Muslim society in general, had entirely clouded our vision of the Islamo-Christian confrontation which has been taking place in a much broader theatre over the past fourteen hundred years. To quote Richard Bulliet, "Most of the descendants of most of the men and women who, in the year 600 believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God now profess a belief in Allah and in Muhammad as His messenger" (below, p. 2). Clearly, if some Christians emigrated from areas which became Islamic dominions, many more stayed and either converted to Islam or became part of an ever diminishing religious minority. The process of assimilation is still going on and some other ancient Christian communities of Western Asia may eventually disappear, as their counterparts did in North Africa already in the Middle Ages. It is probably not surprising that Western Christians, whose faith is rooted in the doctrines and historical development of Roman Orthodoxy, have little more understanding today of the status of Eastern Christians under Islam than their predecessors did when they responded enthusiastically to Pope Urban II's call for the First Crusade in A.D. 1095. After all, while Byzantium progressively lost territory to Islam from the seventh to the fifteenth century, the area influenced by the Roman Church grew steadily with the medieval colonization of Western Europe. The only dependency lost by Rome to Islam was what appears never to have been more than a fragile Christian establishment in North Africa, and this was within less than eighty years after the Hegira in 622. Muslim incursions into Western Europe, like those of any newcomers who were not prepared to accept Roman Orthodoxy, were eventually repulsed. Islam, then, was never the threat to Western Christianity that it was to Eastern Christianity, and since Eastern and Western Christians were frequently at odds with each other the latter were not particularly preoccupied by what happened to the former. In a modern world where distances are covered in increasingly shorter periods of time and

x

PREFACE

communication and confrontation arc instantaneous on multiple fronts simultaneously, it would seem to be a precarious luxury to remain unconcerned and uninformed. What has been lacking above all is an historical understanding of why situations are the way they are; and more specifically in this case, of why some Eastern Christian communities have survived under Islam when so many more have disappeared, often imperceptibly, without trace. In order to redress that lacuna in our knowledge, the contributors to this volume convened for a symposium on the subject held at the University of Toronto in October 1986. At the initial planning stage of this gathering I was encouraged both by J.H. Simpson, then Director of the Centre for Religious Studies (CRS), and G. Constable of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and aided in the choice of participants by M. Wickens, J.D. McAuliffe and D. Agius. Subsequently, a symposium committee was set up under the aegis of the CRS and valuable assistance and advice was provided by R.F.G. Sweet, R.A. Taylor, J. Berthrong (United Church of Canada), R. Sinkewicz, J.R. Blackburn, M. Marmura, H. Dajani-Shakeel, T. Klubi, and M. Meyerson. P. Perron advised on sources of sponsorship. Financial support was made available through the generous cooperation of R. Beck, J. Berthrong, J.R. Blackburn, J.F. Burke, D.R. Cameron, J. Cole, E.W. Dowler, V.C. Falkenheim, J. Grant, M. Israel, A.F. Johnston, D. Klausner, I. Nicol, R.H. Painter, G.P. Richardson, P. Rutherford, D. Sinor (Indiana University), R.F.G. Sweet, R.A. Taylor, and G.R. Williams. Contributing organizations, groups, administrative offices, departments and centres include the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; the Division of Humanities of the Scarborough Campus of the University; the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs of the Province of Ontario; the United Church of Canada (Division of World Outreach); the Office of the Lieutenant-Govemor of Ontario; the University's Office of the Vice-President (Institutional Relations); University, Victoria, Trinity and Erindale Colleges; the University College Alumni Association; the Departments of Middle East and Islamic Studies, History, Classics, East Asian Studies, and Spanish and Portuguese; the Toronto School of Theology; the Centres for Medieval, Religious, and South Asian Studies; the Inner Asian and Uralic National Resource Center of Indiana University; and Rutgers University. The symposium was opened by G.E. Connell, President of the University of Toronto; chaired, in addition to speakers themselves, by R. Barringer, J. Joseph (Franklin and Marshall College), A. Jwaideh, R.F.G. Sweet, M. Wickens and N. Zacour, and served by D. Harvie. Other contributors were W.C. Smith and T. Barnes. Administrative matters were effectively dealt with by M. Salloum, while miracles of air transport were performed by V. Barcza of Columbus Travel.

PREFACE

XI

The production of this volume was similarly the result of a formidable collaborative effort among many people. Contributors' manuscripts were initially reviewed by R. Haddad and S. Vryonis. Preliminary editing of many of them was performed by H.F. Gervers. Bibliographies were emended by T. Klubi; verification of entries in Turkish was done by E. Bimbaum and those in Greek and SerboCroatian by A. Rossos, while Linda Sadaqa (American University of Beirut) and reference librarian M. McTavish resolved the remaining unknowns. M. Dornfeld (Computer Systems, Royal Ontario Museum) recommended the 'Refer' system in which they are set. Groundwork on the index was undertaken by O.L. Garba, S.A. Holmes, and N. Weiss. Research for the maps and gazetteer was assumed by T. Klubi with the assistance of V. Clements and J. Corcoran. The maps were drawn in the Cartography Office of the University of Toronto by J. Davie under the direction of G. Matthews. cOsman S.A. Isma°il of Qatar University reviewed the gazetteer. Papers in English were word-processed by B. Gover; those in French by M. Bridi. Their time was generously made available by R.P. Thompson, then Chair of Humanities and now Principal of Scarborough College, and supervised by S. Giles. P.W. Gooch offered the use of the facilities of the Centre for Religious Studies, and I. Lancashire those of the Centre for Computing in the Humanities. Help in linguistic analysis was provided by N.B. Millet, I. Ormos (Budapest) and G. Sawa. J. Cselenyi and A. Liivandi of the Textiles Department of the Royal Ontario Museum assisted in obtaining the cover illustration, and E. Habib identified the equestrian saints who appear on it. Further help came from D. Harford and T. Westbrook of the Graphics Department and C. Billy of the Printing Department of Scarborough College, and from D. Marks, M.L. Mendelzon and C.K. Govind. To all of these, profound thanks are due; and to Mahmoud Ayoub for the right idea at the right time. A special tribute is owed to two others: my co-editor, Ramzi J. Bikhazi, who maintained the highest standards of editing in English and Arabic, and who produced the final form of the gazetteer and compiled the index; and to Alan Rosselet of the Computer Centre at Scarborough College, whose expertise in handling Troff on UNIX enabled him to prepare, with infinite patience, every stage leading up to, and including, the camera-ready copy from which this book was produced.

Af.G. Toronto 21 November 1989

This page intentionally left blank

Map 1. South.

Westem Asia

MAPS

MAP 2 Westem Anatolia and Balkans

Map 3. Western Mediterranean: Spain and the Maghrib

MAPS

Map 4. Syria

Map 5. Red Sea Area

Map 6. Southern India

Introduction Process and Status in Conversion and Continuity Richard W. Bulliet

The contributors to this volume come from many different countries and religious traditions, with diverse philosophical attitudes toward the role of religion in history and historiography. Their charge was not to author a collective medieval history of the Christian communities in Islamic lands, but to contribute their personal perspectives on whatever aspect of that history commanded their professional attention. The rubric "Conversion and Continuity" only slightly constrained their choice of topic since, as the famous French aphorism has it, "the more things change, the more they remain the same." What, then, holds these contributions together? The overall topic, to be sure. The history of Christianity in the Islamic Middle East is a fascinating, but still poorly understood, subject. It is also a subject that impinges heavily upon the lives and emotions of Christians of today whose communities are rooted in the region. But is there also something in the way of a theoretical thread, a probtematique, that binds them? In a word, no. One of the strengths of this collection is that the different voices of its authors sound clearly and have not been artificially tuned to a given theory or approach. This does not mean, however, that no theoretical approach can be found that will allow them to resonate together. What follows, therefore, is not an effort to impose structure where no structure exists. It is an attempt to shape a series of questions and theoretical approaches that will allow the reader to bring at least some aspects of the papers into a common framework. It does not seek to supplant any author's own vision; it is intended only as a conceptual aqueduct to carry some of the intellectual flow from one elevated height to another. Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Gervers and Ramzi Jibran Bikhari, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 9 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990), pp. 1-12. © P.I.M.S, 1990.

2

R. W. BULLffiT

One final introductory word: The author of this essay is a specialist on the social history of Islam, not on Christianity. Hence, he must begin with some quite elementary observations. Most of the descendants of most of the men and women who, in the year 600, believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God now profess a belief in Allah and in Muhammad as His messenger. The expansion of Christianity in succeeding centuries into northern and eastern Europe, and thence into those other parts of the world that became dependent upon the European economy and culture, and of Islam into lands populated primarily by Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, and Animists, often obscures this basic fact. But a residue of legends and stereotypes redolent with hostility to Islam survives in Christian culture to the present day and attests to a medieval Christian perception of Islam as a mortal threat. Save for the bulwark presented by the Byzantine empire, and the ability of the Carolingian monarchs to resist the much attenuated force of Muslim expansion at Islam's western extremity, Christianity, as a whole, might survive today only in remnant communities analogous to those of the Zoroastrians of Iran and India. Historical accident, then, decreed a tripartite division of today's Christian world: in the Islamic lands of the Middle East, remnant communities, ever aware of a past time when they were more vigorous and numerous; in Europe and the Americas, dominant communities, to whom the threat of being eclipsed and supplanted by a rival religion seems quite unreal; and in lands where imperial ambition or missionary enterprise planted Christianity's seed, emergent communities that are still growing or still seeking the room and nourishment necessary for growth. Communities of these three different types regard their histories very differently. Emergent communities honor their founders and find in their growth from fragile roots inspiration to fight tomorrow's battles. Dominant communities can enjoy the luxury of a dispassionate, and even self-critical, historical viewpoint. The ebb and flow of contemporary religiosity or laxness in observance pales to insignificance beside the monumental efforts of many centuries past through which the faith was founded and tested, and from which it emerged triumphant and without rival. Saints and martyrs, popes, preachers, and heretics can be examined simply as historical personages because their legends are no longer needed, as they once were, for growth or survival. However, the burden of history weighs more heavily on remnant communities. What happened to their glory? How was the flock consumed? Why was the good fight lost? Who were the strong of faith? Who were the weak? Self-serving questions, perhaps, innocent of the sophistication of the most disinterested historiography, but entirely understandable. Historians who write from within the tradition of one of

PROCESS AND STATUS IN CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY

3

the old Christian communities in what is now the Islamic Middle East cannot be expected to insulate themselves entirely from the emotional impact of the data they pore over. Deserted cathedrals, abandoned monasteries, and a scattering of Christian villages in lands that were once the center of Christendom afford a bleak prospect and mutely pose questions that seem to require answers in order for the community to endure in its diminished numbers and capacity. Many ideas about the interrelationship between Christian and Muslim communities have emanated from the sensibility of such historians. Scholars from dominant Christian communities have advanced others. Muslim scholars have concentrated their efforts on detailing the Muslim attitude toward the people of the Book and defending the historic Muslim community against charges of forced conversion, persecution, and desecration. The result is that the historiography of the Christian communities of the Islamic world displays multiple personalities: sometimes defensive and apologetic, sometimes irenic and superior, and sometimes a seemingly insignificant handmaiden to the study of Islam. Offsetting this multiple personality, however, is an unspoken consensus among historians that they share a common understanding when they speak of Islam, monophysite Christianity, Nestorianism, and so forth, and that their common understanding arises from a historical reality. For example, one historian might bemoan the circumstances that led some group of Christians to forsake their faith and become Muslims in order to reduce their taxes, while another might muster evidence to indicate that taxation had little or nothing to do with the group's conversion; but they would concur in their understanding of what Christianity was and what Islam was in the episode they were debating. Unfortunately, this assumed common ground is a deceptive base from which to examine the history of the Christian communities in Islamic lands. The assumption of a "known" Christianity and a "known" Islam can distort history as badly as the split historiographical personalities engendered by the cultural tides described above. When it comes to matters affecting relations between Muslims and Christians, or conversion of Christians to Islam, both religions must be seen to vary according to time, locality, and historical circumstance. To take two obvious examples, scholarly assertions that sufis and traders played an important role in the conversion of various populations to Islam are of no value for the first century of Islam when sufism had not yet developed and trade was still mostly in non-Muslim hands. Similarly, the significance for Greek Orthodox Christians in Islamic lands of having their own patriarch clearly changed after the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453.

4

R. W. BULLDET

Ideally one might envision some historical masterpiece drawing together the several histories of the Christian communities in Islamic lands and paying homage, but not succumbing, to the many emotional and religious strands in the historiographical fabric upon which such a work would have to be based. But such an ideal work can never be written until a parallel or, better, a conjoined, work is written about the history of Islam itself. The synthesis of Islam's historical development so brilliantly adumbrated by Ignaz Goldziher, and given clearer delineation by two generations of Islamicists following him, no longer seems persuasive. It undertook to explain Islam as a system of legal, theological, philosophical, and political thought; but it never adequately described it as a living society. Ironically, the history of the Christian communities in Islamic lands can help sharpen the problems and the possibilities inherent in framing a new view of the history of Islam. The Christians did not, by and large, experience the Muslims as jurists, theologians, philosophers, and political theorists. They experienced them as a social community, specific in time and place, with whom they had to deal. Muslim regulations affecting the life-styles of the people of the Book were only secondarily uniform legal understandings derived by jurists from first principles. Primarily they were whatever was being imposed, or not being imposed, on specific Christian (and/or other non-Muslim) communities. Christians and Muslims took part in each other's holidays and visitations to shrines not according to sets of rules formulated by clerics and ulama, but according to local custom and a natural, if unpredictable, intermingling of sensibility among populations living in the same place. In thinking about how a history of the Christian communities might inform a social history of Islam, and conversely, how a more precise notion of the evolution of Islamic society might help understand the situation of the Christians in differing historical situations, it can be helpful to separate the notions of process and status. Process here is the manner in which members of one religious community leave that community and are received into another. Status refers to the perception each community has of the other in a particular time and place. It might be argued within the context of this volume that process is equivalent to conversion, and status to continuity; but process focuses upon dynamic interchange and points towards diachronic analysis, while status focuses on reciprocal perceptions at specific points in time. Since many of the papers in this volume discuss both process and status, the disaggregation of the two concepts here for analytical purposes may not adequately reflect their authors' visions, but the exercise may nevertheless be useful as a means of drawing them closer together. The process of conversion cannot be separated from evolutionary changes within the communities between which conversion is occurring.

PROCESS AND STATUS IN CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY

5

The natural tendency of historians working from a personal involvement in a religious community that has experienced an outflow of members through conversion is to attribute conversion to mundane convenience, material gain, coercive pressure, or simple-minded preference for what such historians describe as a less demanding religion. The natural tendency of historians coming to the problem from the other side of the divide is to attribute conversion to the superior truth and persuasive power of their doctrine. If the former viewpoint were correct, it would be difficult to account for the growth of any religion as a religion, unless one assumed, rather improbably, that people who changed religions opportunistically regularly developed spiritual attitudes toward their new religions sometime after conversion and raised their children in a spirit of piety that had no connection with their conversion. But the latter viewpoint presumes a high level of doctrinal interest and understanding among poorly educated lay-people that runs counter both to common sense and to specific historical knowledge. Obviously, the truth must be a mixture of both viewpoints. Some people convert for mundane reasons and some for spiritual reasons. But any speculation about the particular mix at a given point in time should be qualified by the realization that it is nearly impossible, for large convert populations, to document the actual mix of reasons. Historical evidence touching upon the reasons for conversion must be used with great caution since the converts, or whoever alleges to record their experiences (descendants, proselytizers, spiritual advisors, former spiritual advisors, etc.), usually have clear-cut reasons for slanting their tale one way or another, or making something up out of whole cloth. That historians cannot realistically hope to determine the reasons for conversion, however, does not mean that they cannot benefit from examining the process of conversion. How was the religious community that lost members through conversion affected by that loss? Did the loss change its demographic or class balance vis-a-vis the receiving community? affect the filling of religious posts? diminish wealth or property? complicate commercial or industrial matters? sap political power? Conversely, did the religious community that gained adherents through conversion benefit in these areas from the losses of the losing community? While many of the papers in this volume address the traditional question of why conversion occurred, they often, directly or indirectly, address these more answerable questions. In so doing, they help us understand how conversion, as a process, changed both Christianity and Islam. Converts always have needs, both mundane and spiritual, the fulfillment of which they seek in their new religion. Religions that are dynamic, a quality revealed best by the fact of their gaining substantial numbers of converts, respond to these needs. Roman slaves, Germanic tribes people, Latin American Indians, and today's flock of "reborn"

6

R. W. BULLET

Christians have each, in turn, presented the Christian faith with questions and called forth answers, whether in doctrinal, institutional, customary, or ritual form. Islam has similarly faced a wide variety of challenges in accepting into the umtnah Christians of various sorts, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Animists, and so on, with their locally differing social situations. And Islam has shown great flexibility and dynamism in accommodating convert communities from these many backgrounds. One common way of investigating this phenomenon has been to seek "survivals" of one religion in the religious practices of the one that supplants it in a particular land. But even leaving aside the charge sometimes made that scholars pursuing this course are maliciously intent on stripping the new religion of its originality, this approach is far too limited and selective, sometimes focusing attention upon minor or anomalous phenomena. Much more important than minutiae of doctrine or ritual is the overall character of the convert population as a community. The Christians of the Middle East were members of old, mostly settled, communities with a strong urban orientation; highly developed legal, educational, and disputational traditions; and a complex history of relations, sometimes dependent and sometimes independent, with Christian and non-Christian governments. Over time, Islam developed similar characteristics, and it would be naive to maintain that the same characteristics would have developed if the mass of early converts to Islam had come from dramatically different sorts of communities. Christians (and Jews and Zoroastrians) did not "make" Islam, but their movement into Islam established some of the crucial terms of Islam's self-realization. As Muslims and non-Muslims alike have observed, Islam was experienced differently during the lifetimes of the Prophet and his Companions than it was three centuries later when the preponderance of Muslims were descendants of Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians. The process of conversion affected Christianity in an analogous but somewhat different manner. The challenges of contraction are not the same as the challenges of growth. Instead of adapting to accommodate the social and spiritual needs of new converts, the religion that is losing members must rationalize what is occurring in a manner that will strengthen the faith of the steadfast members of the community, while at the same time coming to grips with the realities of smaller numbers, diminished power, fewer positions and position-holders, and the aura of decline or stagnation that a substantial and visible outflow of converts can create. Inevitably, these adaptations affect the communal, and sometimes even the doctrinal, character of the religion. To conclude from this, however, that Islam waxed as it grew through conversion while Christianity waned as its numbers diminished

PROCESS AND STATUS IN CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY

7

in a classic zero-sum relationship would be an oversimplification with pejorative connotations for both religions. After all, Muslims and Christians remained, in many respects, members of a single society. They shared certain traditions and social mores, and in some places even holidays and shrines. Moreover, they interacted with one another on a daily basis in shops, trades and public places. The terms of their social sharing and interaction changed pari passu with the processes sketched out above. That is to say, Christians and Muslims related to one another within their common society differently at different times. In solid-state physics, various compounds and alloys are analyzed at the molecular and atomic levels. Some substances are arrayed in regular crystalline structures; others are irregular. Depending upon such structural arrays, some transmit light or electricity, and others do not; some are stable, and others are not What characterizes this scientific approach is the focus upon understanding the properties of the actual complex substance, as opposed to purifying its separate components to discover their elemental properties. While it is certainly the case that the Christian communities of the Islamic world changed over time, and that the Islamic communities did likewise, understanding the changing terms of their day-to-day coexistence can be as enlightening as examining them in isolation. It might be proposed, in fact, that the Muslim-Christian matrix has displayed several different "states." That is, several combinations of interactions, self-images, and images of the other, in fairly stable patterns, may be discernible in various times and places. The following are some possibilities that might be tested against the historical record: State 1: Muslims are ruling. Christians (and/or other nonMuslims) are a majority in the population. The Muslim rulers stress religious differentiation in social matters to protect their minority status and foster a feeling of inferiority and obedience among their subjects. Christians stress doctrinal differentiation and counsel steadfastness in hopes that dominion will someday return to their hands. Conflict is minimal unless subjects rebel. State 2: Muslims are ruling peaceably. A large and growing part of the Muslim community is of Christian (and/or other non-Muslim) origin. Muslim rulers utilize Christians pragmatically and do not stress social differentiation. Muslim thinkers enunciate a broad spectrum of doctrinal views reflecting responses to convert pressures and the corollary desire to encourage conversion. Christian leaders split between passive accommodation and militant differentiation from Islam. Social customs become similar. State 3: Muslims ruling, but politically divided and bellicose. Community composition same as State 2. Muslim rulers and thinkers act as in State 2. Christian leaders propound doctrinal and political bases for

8

R. W. BULLffiT

resistance to Islamic dominatioa Christians responsive to encouragement from outside Christian powers. Greater social differentiation than in State 2. State 4: Muslim rule challenged by external non-Muslim force. Muslim rulers fluctuate between utilizing Christians pragmatically and scapegoating them. Muslim thinkers act as in State 2, except when involved in scapegoating. Christians vacillate between conservative desire to maintain accommodation with Muslims in political and social life, and adventurous inclination to risk making common cause with impinging force. Splits in Christian community. One might also propose States 5-8 as mirror images of States 1-4 with non-Muslims ruling and Muslims in the subject position, but medieval Christianity had a more difficult time dealing intellectually with non-Christian minorities, and Christian states rarely experienced the degree of peace and self-confidence enjoyed for several centuries by the Islamic caliphate. If process denotes the transition from one state to another, status refers to the articulations, on both the Muslim and Christian sides, of what an author explicitly or implicitly perceives the Muslim-Christian relationship to be. Ideally, it also refers to minute descriptions of dayto-day Muslim-Christian interaction, but these are difficult to find or reconstruct from surviving documentation. In terms of the solid-state physics analogy, process would be the conditions of heat, pressure, energy, and catalytic environment that accompany changes of state, while the state itself would be the description of the arrangements of molecules and atoms, and their accompanying properties. Status is particularly important for the study of the Christian communities in Islamic lands for two reasons: because it indirectly reflects, but is much more abundantly documentable than process; and because the persistence, usually in partial or distorted form, of earlier statuses enters into the perception of status at any given time. One Christian cleric might buttress the faith of a dwindling flock by explaining the disaster of Muslim rule as a trial of faith or punishment ordained by God, while another might seek to prevent conversions by classing Islam as a Christian heresy like others his flock had long been cautioned against. Both of their views could be taken as reflections of States 1 or 2 in the above typology, but they would also enter into the intellectual heritage of the communities within which they arose and be ever present, in clear texts or only in vague memory, for use in renewed episodes of polemics, apologetics, or disputation. Status and process, therefore, are closely linked. Most of the papers in this volume touch upon one more than the other, but a continual awareness of both perspectives can usefully inform the reading of all of them. A synopsis of each of the papers here would be pointless;

PROCESS AND STATUS IN CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY

9

the papers stand on their own and need no benevolent critic to package their main themes and ideas. However, some illustrations of how the theoretical perspectives outlined above can contribute an additional dimension to reading the papers might be in order. Sidney H. Griffith's paper, "The First Christian Summa Theologiae in Arabic: Christian Kalam in Ninth-Century Palestine," reveals a hitherto unknown society of Christians anxious to avoid giving offense to the Muslims they lived and worked among. They used Islamic phrases, such as la ildha ilia Allah, and avoided reference to the Trinity and to Jesus as the Son of God. Such behavior fits well the State 2 pattern described above, which is, indeed, the pattern that should have obtained given the political circumstances of ninth-century Palestine. It is interesting to note the implied acceptance by Muslims of this "unitarian" behavior. The Christians being castigated in the Summa would surely not have pursued such a course if they did not find it effective in lubricating their relations with Muslims. Is it possible in this portrayal of the status of certain Christians with respect to certain Muslims to find hints of process? Was this "unitarian" Christianity, for some, a way-station on the road to conversion? Might not a Christian who felt comfortable uttering the first half of the shahadah, and describing Jesus as the "son of Mary," find it an easy step to add Muhammad to the Biblical sequence of prophets and thus utter the second half of the Muslim profession of faith, as well? These questions may be unanswerable on the basis of available documentation; but it seems evident that if some Christians did convert to Islam by this route, they almost certainly took a good deal of their Christianity with them, modifying only those parts necessary to gain social acceptance. This final point is borne home in Donald P. Little's paper, "Coptic Converts to Islam During the Bahri Mamluk Period," and reinforced in part by Linda S. Northrup's contribution "Muslim-Christian Relations during the Reign of the Mamluk Sultan al-Mansur Qalawun (A.D. 1278-1290)." Little's description of the process of the conversion of various Coptic officials working for the Mamluk government illustrates the pressures that could be brought selectively to bear to induce conversion. However, the pro forma nature of many such conversions, as evidenced by Little's assemblage of accusations of crypto-Christianity and favoritism toward Christians and by Northrup's description of the reversion to Christianity of forced converts, illuminates the status relations of Muslims and Christians in fourteenth-century Cairo. Discreet Christianity without conversion was apparently a workable strategy for Christians in ninth-century Palestine, judging from Griffith's evidence, but five hundred years later actual converts to Islam were suspect if their behavior diverged from the norms of bom Muslims. Although Copts and Muslims were living in a mixed society, with some Copts, at least, achieving posts of significant financial and political

10

R.W.BULUET

power, social differentiation between the communities seems to have increased over earlier times. Christians are alternately accommodated and scapegoated. This suggests a State 4 situation, which would also be supportable in terms of the political history of the period. Two papers dealing with Spain vividly reflect a putative State 5, the mirror image of State 1, in which Christians gain dominion over a heavily Muslim population, and the process of transition to a further state, marked by forced conversion upon pain of exile or death, that is characteristically Christian and does not have a parallel in Islamic history. Mark D. Meyerson's "The Survival of a Muslim Minority in the Christian Kingdom of Valencia (Fifteenth-Sixteenth Centuries)" and O. Hegyi's "Tradition and Linguistic Assimilation Among the Spanish Moriscos during the Sixteenth Century" depict a Muslim community striving to avoid conflict and protect itself against further decline within a Christian monarchy bent upon segregating and disparaging its Muslim population. A comparison of the pressures exerted upon Muslim subjects by the Spanish Christian monarchs and the less well-documented pressures exerted upon conquered Christian populations by the early Muslim rulers is illuminating. It shows that parallel states can nevertheless differ in particulars depending upon which element in the compound society is dominant. The Spaniards issued edicts against such things as Moorish styles of dress, building bathhouses, and using the Arabic script. Eventually they compelled conversion to Christianity. By contrast, the early Muslims expected converts to adopt the costume, customs, and written and/or spoken language of the ruling community; but they preferred non-converts to remain visibly and behaviorally distinct. Their prohibitions - church bells, riding horses, building houses higher than those of Muslims - were designed to reinforce the superior situation of the ruling community while those of the Spaniards seem to have been aimed at assimilation from the outset. Whereas non-Muslim languages survived in the Islamic Middle East, it takes considerable philological skill to detect an Islamic variant of sixteenth-century Spanish. The reasons for these differences may be as obvious as a crusading mentality among the Spaniards, who achieved their final victory only after centuries of struggle, as compared with a correspondingly complacent attitude on the part of the Muslims, who gained their dominion in the Christian East with relative ease and rapidity. Or they may be deeply buried in the structure of the two religions during the two periods involved. But even if the reasons can never be fully ascertained, the differences themselves make it clear that no particular process is inevitable when radical shifts in the balance of power between communities occur. Knowing how the Spanish monarchs chose to treat their Muslim subjects helps us appreciate the attitudes adopted by the early Muslims in the Middle East, and vice versa.

PROCESS AND STATUS IN CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY

11

Jane Dammen McAuliffe's paper, "Fakhr al-Din al-Razi on ayat al-jizyah and ayat al-sayf" affords one final illustration of the approach being recommended here. McAuliffe outlines the logic and the subtlety of al-Razf s analysis of the two key Qur'anic verses upon which important Muslim attitudes toward Christians are based. One verse deals with the question of who should be subject to the jizyah; the other contains the well-known phrase "Let there be no compulsion in [the] religion." Exegesis of the latter verse raises the intriguing question of whether converts from paganism to Christianity should be classed with born Christians and made to pay the jizyah, or treated as bom pagans and compelled to convert to Islam. In al-Razfs treatment of this and other issues one can see reflected the conditions ascribed to States 2 and 3 in the above typology. While the alternative interpretations advanced could arise simply from an exercise in logic, it is just as likely that they at least partially reflect actual conditions in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when al-Razi and his immediate predecessors lived. Pagans, who were comparatively few in the heartlands of the Islamic Middle East, were encountered in substantial numbers as Islam spread deep into India and Turkic Central Asia after the year 1000. The theoretical possibility of a pagan preferring Christianity to Islam very likely arose as a genuine problem in Central Asia, where Nestorianism was still a vital faith. It was entirely appropriate, therefore, for a theologian living in Iran, where Islam was entirely secure, to ruminate on the options available. Systematic and sensitive reflection suited the situation and the social conditions better than sharply dogmatic declarations on issues of conversion and treatment of non-Muslims would have. These illustrations have touched upon only a few of the papers in this volume. Readers will have to discover for themselves whether the notions of process, status, and typological states illuminate or encumber their perusal of those remaining. The authors were unaware of the perspectives presented here when they wrote their papers so it would be inappropriate to regard these ideas as substitutes for the authors' own approaches. It is presumptuous of the handmaiden to dress too fine when her several mistresses are looking on. Should there have been a single theoretical framework within which the contributors were asked to compose their papers? Probably not. The history of Christianity in the Islamic Middle East is, on the one hand, too rich and complex, and, on the other, too compartmentalized by sect and period to permit anyone, at present, to see it whole, unless through partisan lenses. Distinctly separate approaches are appropriate both to the intellectual traditions that feed into current historiography and to the divided nature of the Christian communities.

12

R.W.BULLIET

The ideal history adumbrated earlier in this essay might look at the Christian experience in the Islamic Middle East as a whole and then go beyond that to look at the Christian experience in conjunction with the Islamic experience in a single society. But this should never be done at the expense of the separate historical voices of the separate communities. It should be done by scholars who can work together toward a common goal without feeling threatened in the expression of their individual voices and traditions. It was in this healthy spirit that the conference that gave rise to this volume convened. The common enterprise is only beginning. This volume is a promise awaiting future fulfillment.

Part One: The Rationale and Polemics of Conversion

This page intentionally left blank

1

The First Christian Summa Theologiae in Arabic: Christian Kaldm in Ninth-Century Palestine Sidney H. Griffith

The message of the Qur'an includes, among many other things, a profound critique of the pre-Islamic religious beliefs and practices of the Arabic speaking peoples, be they pagan, Jewish or Christian. So it should perhaps be no surprise for the historian to learn that, with the establishment of the Abbasid caliphate in the mid-eighth century, and the efflorescence of Arabic as both the language and the focus of the culture of the Islamic state, the Qur'an's critique of the doctrines of the earlier scripture people should have come ever more insistently to the attention of the intellectuals of the older religious orders. They were now faced with the task of defending their criticized doctrines, not only against a new ideological challenge, but in a vigorously new lingua sacra whose religious lexicon was inevitably to be determined by the burgeoning Islamic sciences, and not by the apologetic or polemical requirements of the older Christian, Jewish or other theological establishments.1 To meet the new challenge, the mutakallimun, or religious controversialists who were prepared to write apologetic tracts in See the intriguing, if often inscrutable observations in Wansbrough Quranic, esp. pp. 85-118. Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Gervers and Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 9 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990), pp. 15-31. © P.I.M.S, 1990.

16

S.H. GRIFFITH

Arabic,2 first appeared in the Christian communities in the eastern patriarchates in the first Abbasid century. Of their number, Theodore Abu Qurrah, Hablb b. Khidmah Abu Ra'itah, GAmmar al-Basri, and Hunayn b. Ishaq are the writers whose names and works are now the most well known.3 But by far the most ambitious single early work of Christian kaldm is the still unpublished "Summary of the Ways of Faith" (British Library, Or. ms. 4950), a ninth-century Palestinian composition which the present writer calls the Summa Theologiae Arabica, in order to call attention to the broad scope of its contents, as well as to put an accent on the fact that the work is quintessentially a product of the Arabophone church in the early Abbasid caliphate. This work is the subject of the present communication. The purpose here will be first, and very briefly, to describe the Summa Theologiae Arabica\ secondly, to survey the Summa's reflections of the presence of Islam and the influence of the religious challenges which Muslims posed for Christians in the caliphate; and thirdly to draw out the hints about the continuity of Melkite church life in the ninthcentury caliphate which the Summa affords us the opportunity to discern. THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE ARABIC A One may be brief in the description of the Summa Theologiae Arabica because after years of relative silence in the usual scholarly publications, a sudden flurry of studies devoted to this work has appeared in the eighties, relieving one of the necessity of repeating all the basic introductory details.4 Suffice it to say by way of introduction that the 2 Much has been written in the scholarly literature about the origins and the precise significance of the Arabic terms kalamlmutakallim. For a review see Niewohner, pp. 7-34. Some put an accent on Greek antecedents, e.g., Van Ess "Structure," pp. 21-5O, Van Ess "Skizze," pp. 23-60. However, it seems clear that the dialectical style of the kaldm was also at home in Syriac academic practice; see Cook, pp. 32-43. Recently F.W. Zimmerman has sketched the development of "dilemmatic" reasoning in the intellectual traditions which influenced Islamic scholarly culture, which will appear in a forthcoming issue of Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, But more proximate to present purposes, two scholars have long since shown that in the Arabic speaking world of the Muslims, kaldm also evokes the contexts of apologetics and polemics. See Gardet, pp. 258-269; Pines "Mutakallim," pp. 224-240. Christian writers in Arabic also used the term mutakallim to mean "religious controversialist," as one may see in the following quotation from the work which will be the focus of the present essay. The writer at one point refers to people whom "a mutakallim, or a reading of one of God's scriptures, compel to confess that Christ is true God." See Summa, fol. 9v-10r. Accordingly, one may meaningfully employ the Arabic terms kalam and mutakallim, even in connection with Christian writers who wrote apologies for their religious convictions as part of the Arabic scholarly life of the early Abbasid caliphate. 3 See the list of the writers and their works in Griffith "Prophet". To the list one must now add Sarnir & Nwyia. General guidance to the Christian mutakallimitn and their works may also be found in Samir "Tradition"; Haddad Trinite. 4

See Samir "Theodoras"; Samir "Note"; Samir "Qurrah"; Samir "Date"; Samir "Somme"; Haddad Trinite, pp. 59-62 et passim, Griffith "Stephen"; Griffith "Greek"; Griffith "Sectarian"; Griffith "Summa".

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

17

"Summary of the Ways of Faith," as the Summa is called in the manuscripts,5 is a long, now anonymous composition of some twentyfive chapters, written in Arabic in the ninth century by one or more Christian mutakallimun from the Melkite community. A fair statement of the tenor of the work is evident in the full title it carries in the one manuscript known to contain the entire work. This manuscript was copied, or perhaps compiled, by Stephen of al-Ramlah at the monastery of Mar Chariton in Palestine in the year A.D. 877.6 The full title reads: The summary of the ways of faith in the Trinity of the unity of God, and in the incarnation of God the Word from the pure virgin Mary.7

Appropriately enough in a work of fcaldm, the "ways of faith" mentioned in this title refer to the creedal statements (aqawll), the modes of verbal expression, in which Christians confess their faith. The Summa also includes a chapter 14 which states and then refutes what the author calls "the ways which exclude their proponents from Christianity,"8 and each one of these "ways" is characterized as an allegation (zacm) made by an adversary who somehow contradicts an important thesis or doctrinal proposition (qawl) espoused in Melkite orthodoxy. For the rest, the chapters of the Summa set out reasoned statements of the Christian articles of faith, buttressed by numerous testimonies from the scriptures. Indeed, several chapters are devoted almost exclusively to the quotation of testimonies from scripture (12 and 13), and these are the chapters which one finds copied several times in the manuscript tradition, even apart from the Summa as a whole.9 Special features of the Summa, in addition to the traditional doctrinal discussions of Trinity and Incarnation which it contains, are the chapters devoted to issues which arose in the controversies of the day as a direct result of Islamic hegemony. Among these is chapter 18, which provides tailor-made rebuttals, so to speak, against challenges to Christian doctrines which Muslims customarily posed in the course of day-to-day arguments about religion. Included in this chapter are answers to objections to Christian ideas posed by Manichaean dualists.10 Chapter 19 is devoted to proving that Christianity is the true religion of Abraham, and indeed of Adam before him. Several chapters (20-22) are devoted to setting forth the position of Jews in the Christian scheme of 5

See Summa, fol. 2r. See Griffith "Stephen"; Samir "Date"; Summa, fol. 197v. 7 Summa, fol. 2r. 8 Summa, fol. 76r. 9 See the convenient chart displaying the relationship between the chapters of the Summa and the contents of the MSS where portions of the work are known to appear in Samir "Date," p. 355. 10 The contents of chapter 18 are listed in Samir "Qurrah"; Haddad Trinitf, p. 6O, Griffith "Sectarian". 6

18

S.H. GRIFFITH

things; they explain that the gentiles have now become heirs to the promise which God had once made to the Israelites. The latter is a particularly intriguing theme because it suggests that in the increasingly Islamic cultural milieu of the first Abbasid century or so, Jews, Christians and Muslims were all interested in reviewing and revising their conflicting religious claims. It further suggests that being ahl aldhimmah and without political power, they were now impelled to advance their interests in the public domain by arguing their differences with one another in open appeals to exegetical reason, without recourse to imperial power, be it Roman or Persian, as they no longer had it11 The Summa is distinguished from other works of Christian apologetics written in Arabic during the early Abbasid era by the breadth of its scope, and by the comprehensiveness of its coverage of issues of importance to the Melkite community, including even an Arabic translation of the so-called "Apostolic Canons," along with some other canonical provisions which date from the early church synods (chapter 25). In fact, the Summa, by itself matches and surpasses the range of topics which one finds addressed in the full bibliographies of the known works of early Christian mutakallimun such as Theodore Abu Qurrah, Hablb ibn Khidmah Abu Ra'itah, and cAmmar al-Basri. Finally, a striking feature of the Summa, and the one which is the major focus of attention in the present essay, is the fact that the kaldm itself, the Arabic language of the discourse in this work of Christian apologetics, is replete with Islamic religious vocabulary, and with Arabic expressions which put the apologetic arguments in the Summa squarely within the framework of a reply to the Qur'an's rhetorical challenges to the Christians. This feature is easily seen in the work's introductory chapter, an analysis of which may best serve the purposes of the present communication. THE SUMMA AND THE LANGUAGE OF ISLAM: CHAPTER 1; THE MISE-EN-SCENE In the very first chapter of the Summa the author clarifies the sociocultural situation which prompted him to compose the work. It was not simply a matter of supplying the reader with rebuttals to the customary Islamic objections to Christian doctrines and religious practices, although the writer would indeed devote a whole chapter of the Summa to this important task, and in chapter 1 he refers the reader interested in rebuttals forward to chapter 18,12 where there are answers to some thirty-three questions which are typical of those which Muslims and 11 12

For the earliest Jewish kalam see now Stroumsa. See Summa, fol 5v.

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

19

Manichaeans addressed to Christians in the early Islamic period. But in chapter 1 the author has a more pressing concern. He makes it perfectly clear that what most concerns him is an unacceptable confessional situation which had developed in the Christian community of his own day. Specifically, the author complains that Christians of Arabic culture had been dissembling their faith, in Arabic terms calculated to deflect from themselves the reproach which the followers of the Qur'an customarily brought against the upholders of the traditional Christian doctrines. Here is a sample of the author's indictment: They hide their faith, and they divulge to them [i.e., the Muslims] what suits them .... They stray off the road which leads its people to the kingdom of heaven, in flight from testifying (tashahhud) to the doctrine of the Trinity of the unity of God and His incarnation, because of what strangers say in reproach to them .... [They are] the hypocrites (mundfiqiri) among us, marked with our mark, standing in our congregations, contradicting our faith, forfeiters of themselves (al-khasirln)t who are Christians in name only.13

In the course of chapter 1 the author of the Summa bluntly identifies the erroneous Arabic statements of doctrine which his accused "dissemblers" of their faith publicly accept. They are, as one will see, statements which for the most part echo the language of the Qur'an. The author's own apologetic method is then to defend the traditional doctrines of the Melkite community in an Arabic idiom which takes full account of the nuances of the language of both the Qur'an and the Islamic cilm al-kaldm. In other words, he intends to prove the doctrinal claims of Melkite orthodoxy in the very language of the religious culture whose social success had done most to subvert the clear statement of orthodox doctrines in the first place. Accordingly, one may best describe this accomplishment by examining the issues raised in chapter 1 more closely, and by highlighting the author's apologetic method as one proceeds. The author of the Summa accentuated the problem which Islamic society posed for Christian faith by first summoning up a Utopian vision of the "unanimity" of Christians in the profession of the Nicene creed prior to the rise of Islam. Due to God's providential guidance, the apologist argued, the Roman emperors Constantino and Theodosius had in the past arranged for the bishops of the world to gather in council to dispel errors and to teach the truth. They seized the opportunity "to make a summary of the faith in the trinity of the oneness of God, and in His incarnation, from God's scriptures, so that the people of the church, great and small, might altogether recite it." 14 This summary was the creed; 13 M

Ibid., fol. 6r-v. Ibid., fol. 4v.

20

S. H. GRIFFITH

God himself had guided its composition; Christian writers and intellectuals of the past had defended it against the opponents of the faith. But now, says the author of the Swnma, the woik of the Christian scholars of the past is of no avail in the present controversies inspired by Muslims. As he explains it: In those days there was no community (ummah) to match the people of this community, in whose midst we are. That is because of the language of the people of the past about God, I mean the materialists (al-dahriyyah) and besides them the atheists (alzandaqah) and others; in their descriptions of God their language was a horribly subtle language. The language of this community about God is a clear language (kaldm tahir), which ordinary people understand, I mean their saying, "there is no god but God!"15

One easily recognizes here the first phrase of the Islamic shahadah (Q. 37:35). But what one should be careful to notice as well is the author's open allegation that what made the Islamic challenge so formidable to Christians of his time was the clarity of the Arabic language about God. And he immediately points out that by the first phrase of the shahadah, Muslims in fact mean something much different from what Christians confess about God. By "there is no god but God" they mean a god other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to what they say, "God neither generates nor is generated [Q. 112:3]." Nor according to what they say, is the Holy Spirit anything other than a creature among creatures. So, their saying "there is no god but God" is the same as what we say in words, but it is different in meaning.16

Striking in this passage is the author's admission that Christians even employ the formula "there is no god but God." He goes on to say, When we, the assembly of Christians, say "there is no god but God" we mean a living God, comprising a living spirit which both enlivens and brings death; a mind which gives a determination to everything that it wills; and a word by which the being of everything comes about.17

Here in a nutshell the reader may observe the apologetic method of the author of the Swnma. He employs language which one recognizes as quintessentially Islamic, such as the first phrase of the shahadah. But he uses it to voice in Arabic the essence of the Christian doctrine of God. And complementary to his deployment of this stock phrase from a Muslim's confessional vocabulary for Christian purposes is his constant 15

Ibid., fol. 5r-v. Ibid., fol. 5v. " Ibid., fol. 5v. 16

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

21

repetition throughout the Swnma of another Islamic phrase which he has adapted from the Qur'an to express in Arabic the church's most distinctive creedal claim, namely the divinity of Jesus Christ. The phrase is none other than the divine epithet, "Lord of the worlds (rabb alc alamiri)" which occurs some forty-two times in the Qur'an. The author of the Summa constantly employs it in the phrase, "Christ, the Lord of the worlds (al-Maslh rabb al- alamiri)"1* In spite of his use of Islamic language, however, the author of the Summa was nevertheless no religious indifferentist. Rather, his purpose was all the more calculated to counteract the habits of those Arabic speaking Christians of his day who were accustomed to conceal the specifics of their faith behind Islamic phrases, which in the Islamic community could only be interpreted to state the opposite of the traditional Christian doctrines of trinity and incarnation. For this masquerade the author of the Swnma had only contempt. He considered it to be an unwarranted evasion of the truth, which some Arabic speaking Christians of his day practiced, in contrast to what he presented as the honest habits of Christians of other times and places. He was perfectly blunt about the situation. In his words, the evaders of the truth were a group (qawrri) in the midst of the people of this community who rule over them, a group bom among them, grown up with them, and educated in their culture (ta'addabii bi-adabihim.) They conceal their faith, and disclose to them what suits them .... This [practice] comes from their forebears, and their children have followed their example in an obliging evasion.19

Clearly the author is speaking of a group of second generation Arabophone Christians who have already become acculturated to Islamic society. He goes on to mention others of them who "inhibit the open confessor of his faith, saying to him, 'What preoccupies you, to be so distracted from your situation?'"20 For the author of the Summa, these people are either hypocrites, heedless of the truth about God, fools incapacitated by the novel, or people consumed with acquisitiveness, "in flight from testifying (tashahhud) to the trinity of the oneness of God, and the incarnation, because strangers reproach them for it."21 Furthermore, in the author's parlance, such renegade Christians are hypocrites (munafiquri) among us, marked with our mark, standing in our congregations, contradicting our faith, forfeiters of 18

E.g., ibid., fol. 4r, and passim. » Ibid., fol. 6r. 20 Ibid., fol. 6r. 21 Ibid., fol. 6r-v.

22

S. H. GRIFFITH

themselves (al-khdsiriri), who are Christians in name only. They disbelieve in their Lord and their God, Jesus Christ, the son of Mary; due to the calumny of strangers they disdain to describe for them any of their Lord's vicissitudes in the flesh.22

One may readily recognize expressions common in the Qur'an in this passage in which the author is castigating the diffidence of those Christians who in turn fear the reproach of the Qur'an. Expressions such as "hypocrites," and "forfeiters of themselves" both appear there more than twenty times, while the formula "Jesus, the Messiah, the son of Mary" is the Qur'an's clearest Christological statement (e.g., Q. 3:45). According to the author of the Summa the dissimulating Christians of his day really were devoid of faith in their hearts. They feared reproach because of their overriding concern for their own earthly prosperity. And their dissimulation, as irony would have it, put them outside the very community of Christians whose doctrines even the Qur'an attested. Although they give voice to something of the confession of Christ our Lord, they voice only that in which those who govern their affairs agree with them, and that to which they have no objection against them. But in that to which they give voice in the presence of those who utter it against them, they are at variance with the Christians characterized in their scripture [i.e., the Qur'an] by disbelief (kuff) and enmity to God in their doctrine: "They have disbelieved who say God is the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary" [Q. 5:17]; and, "They have disbelieved who say that God is one of three, and the Messiah is the son of God" [Q. 5:73],23

In this somewhat densely packed passage the author of the Summa argues that in attempting to adopt creedal phrases from the Qur'an the Arabophone Christians choose expressions which in the Qur'an are intended actually to contradict Christian doctrines. Consequently, the logic of the situation puts them in a confessional no man's land: "They are neither Christians, nor hunafd' Muslims, but they are betwixt and between, waverers (mudhabdhabiri)"24 This language in turn is meant to shame the dissimulating Christians, echoing as it does the contempt which, according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad himself expressed for "waverers" between Islam and Christianity.25 From this point in the first chapter of the Summa the author goes on to pinpoint Christology as the determining issue in interfaith relations. 22 23 24 25

Ibid., fol. 6v. Ibid., fol. 7r-v. Ibid., fol. 7v. See the ha&th reported in Hanbal Musnad, vol. 5, pp. 163-64.

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

23

He argues that once Christians have given way on this issue, the distinctiveness of their faith is eclipsed. So he paints the following scene as characteristic of the situation among the "accommodationist" Arabophone Christians, whose practices he opposes. If you ask them about Christ our Lord, they maintain that he is a messenger (rasul) like one of the messengers [al-rusul, cf. Q. 5:75]; they do not favor him in any way over them, save in the pardon he brought, and in the taking of precedence. They are not concerned to go to church, nor do they do any of the things which Christians do in their churches; in public they avow the opposite of the trinity of the oneness of God and his incarnation, they disparage the messengers (al-rusul), the fathers, and the teachers of the New Testament. They say, "What compels us to say 'Father,' 'Son,' and 'Spirit,' and to maintain that the Messiah is God? We are content with that with which the Israelites were content, God is one (Deut. 6:4)! We have no need for the 'significations (al-macam)\ nor for what human beings consider legitimate." Answer, Believer, and say, "Since you have come to this state of affairs, watch out for yourselves! The society (jamacaH) which you applaud is too smart for you, too transparent for your arguments. It is Judaism they enjoin, that with which Moses and the prophets after him were in accord - no more, no less."26

In this long passage one may discern the heart of the matter. The author of the Swnma is taking issue with Christian people who, under the influence of the preaching of the Qur'an, were willing to say that the Messiah is simply a man, one of God's messengers, an "intermediary between God and man,"27 "an owned chattel (cabd marbuby2* of God. The author of the Swnma builds his counter arguments on passages from the scriptures and the teachings of the fathers. In the first chapter alone he quotes passages from the works of John Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Gregory the Theologian. Indeed, an important point in his argument is the contention that without the teachings of the fathers and teachers of the church "no one would be guided to the treasuries of 26

Swnma, fol.. 7v-8r. The "significations," or "meanings' (al-macani) to which the author refers in this passage are the "referents," the entities or hypostases (al-aqanun), to which the scriptural names "Father," "Son," and "Spirit" must refer according to the arguments of a number of Christian mutakallimun. Cf. the brief discussion in Haddad Trinite, pp. 168-169. Correlatively, the term almcfna was also an important one in the Islamic kalian, to do with the appropriate understanding of \hesifatAllah. See Frank. 27 Summa, fol. 15v. 28 Summa, fol. 16r. The Qur'an insists that Jesus is but an cabd, a slave or chattel of God. See, e.g., Q.4:172; 19:30; 43:59. The Nestorian patriarch, Timothy I (d. 823), wrote one of the most detailed of the known Christian responses to this Islamic understanding of Christ's title "Servant." See Hurst

24

S. H. GRIFFITH

the Gospel, the Acts, or Paul, except the elite of the people."29 Whereas, for the author of the Summa the accomplishment of the fathers and teachers in regard to the message of the Bible was to have "built their own discourse (al-kalam) on it, and to have dislodged the subtle from God's discourse, to have disclosed the hidden from it, and to have clarified the ambiguous for anyone whose understanding was weak."30 One recognizes that this sentence fairly explains his own purposes in the next twenty-four chapters of the Summa Theologiae Arabica, for towards the beginning of chapter 1 he had written: None of the ways (wajh min al-wujuti) by which people may be led to belief in the Trinity of the unity of God, and His incarnation, should be neglected: an argument with any one of those in opposition to the faith; an issue in connection with which a lesson might be taught; a process of reasoning (qiyds) by which one who deploys it might be able to tell truth from falsehood; or the elucidation of what is obscure in God's scripture, in behalf of anyone whose understanding is weak.31

CONVERSION AND CONTINUITY Arabic works of Christian theology such as the Summa make it clear that during the ninth century there was a concerted effort in the Melkite community to provide for the continuity of Chalcedonian orthodoxy in the Arabic speaking caliphate. The ecclesiastical and scholarly language of this community had been principally Greek up to the middle of the eighth century, as the memory of the name of John of Damascus helps one to recall.32 But beginning with the career of Theodore Abu Qurrah (c. 750-c. 825), and extending well into the eleventh century, as the Sinai archive shows, there was an increasing need in Melkite circles for church books in Arabic.33 This requirement seems to have been more pressing for Melkites than for those communities whose principal ecclesiastical languages remained current in the caliphate, i.e., Syriac or Coptic. So, for example, among non-Chalcedonians one does indeed find Arabic works of Christian kalam dating from the ninth century but few Arabic lectionaries, hagiographies, Bibles, or translations of Christian classics were done into the newly dominant Arabic language by non-Melkites during this early period.34 The inference which readily suggests itself here is that with the disappearance of Greek as a current 29 30 31 32 33 34

5uwna.fol.18v. Summa, foL 18v. Summa, fol. 5r. See Blake, pp. 367-80. See the list of woiks in Blau, vol. 267, pp. 21-33. See Griffith "Gospel".

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

25

language among Christians in the oriental patriarchates, Melkites forthwith adopted Arabic even for ecclesiastical purposes. It is true that in Syria/Palestine Melkites also had a Syriac heritage.35 But their divorce from the Greek-speaking world of Byzantium seems to have cut off the traditional sources of the community's intellectual and liturgical vigor, prompting them not so much to a resourcement in their antique Syriac heritage, but impelling them to meet the new challenge head-on. They proposed to meet the Muslim challenge with a full statement of Christianity's religious claims in the Arabic of the Qur'an. The author of the Summa recognized that Arabic itself posed a threat to the faith of Christians. As he said, "the language of this community about God is a clear language, which ordinary people understand."36 Consequently, it is clear from the foregoing analysis of the Summa's first chapter that for Arabophone Christians the need of the day as the Orthodox teachers conceived it was to counter the Islamic shahadah with a clear Arabic testimony to "the Trinity of the unity of God, and the incarnation of God the Word from the pure virgin Mary,"37 a formula which in one form or another reappears constantly throughout the Summa Theologiae Arabica. The success of the Arabic language itself, therefore, with the Qur'an as its supreme literary and religious achievement, must have been a potent influence for the conversion to Islam of upwardly mobile Christians in the vigorously new Abbasid caliphate. Traces of this influence may be seen in the earliest Christian kalam, in the references which the authors make to the reproach which some Arabophone Christians feared from any too clear a statement of their traditional doctrines and cult practices. Theodore Abu Qurrah, for example, in argument against Christians who neglected the veneration of the holy icons because of the reproach of Muslims, said the following about Christianity's antagonists in the caliphate: Who among them, hearing the Christians say that God has a son, His equal, of His own essence, would not say these people are mad? And when anyone hears them say that God is not prior to this son born of God, will he not think them to be the most contrary of people? Their saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each one of them, is perfect God, not three gods but one God - for these people would this not be the maddest position? .... Therefore, anyone of the Christians who abhors the madness of the speech (kalam) of these people, or the veneration of the holy icons, should 35 Theodore Abu Qurrah himself says he wrote thirty treatises in Syriac. See Bacha, pp. 60-61. See also Fiey "Rum". 36 Summa, fol. 5v. See also n. 15 above. 37 Summa, fol. 2r.

26

S. H. GRIFFITH

also, because of their reproach, give up the other features of Christianity we have mentioned.38

Yet, Abu Qurrah, like the author of the Summa, wants the standard Christian doctrines to be clearly stated in Arabic, in spite of the fact that Muslims, such as the famous litterateur al-Jahiz, would claim that the radical absurdity of the doctrines appeared clearly in their Arabic expression.39 It was precisely the task of the Christian mutakallim, Abu Qurrah would argue, to state the faith clearly even in the face of the charge of absurdity from the wise men of this world, as St. Paul had predicted would be the case (1 Cor. lilS-lS).40 For Abu Qurrah, echoing yet another theme in the Qur'an (Ibrahim 14:4), it was a sign of the true religion that it must be preached to people in their own language: Had God not given His messengers whom he sent to people the power to discuss with them (yukallimuhuni) what they should understand, there could be no argument against them on resurrection day if they had called his messengers false and given no credit to their teaching (qawlahum), and did not accept what they brought. If God punished the peoples who did not accept His messengers because of a speech (kalam) they did not understand, He would depart from His own justice.41

But the fact remains, according to the testimony of the author of the Summa Theologiae Arabica, that some Christians of the ninth century sought to accommodate the Arabic expression of their faith to the diction of the Qur'an in order to avoid the reproach of Muslims and to safeguard their own social status. Their actions may have been a step in the process of the eventual conversion of many Arabophone Christian people to Islam. It is noteworthy in this connection that not only was the first Abbasid century a decisive period for the spread of Arabic in the Semitic speaking conquered territories, and for its full development as the medium of classical Islamic culture in the caliphate;42 but the second half of the century, in the judgment of one modern scholar, also saw the beginning of the first great wave of conversions to Islam in Iraq, Syria, and even in Egypt. According to Richard W. Bulliet's scheme, the years 791-888 were the years of the "early majority," when up to thirty-four percent of the population may have converted to Islam, in what Bulliet calls a "bandwagon process."43 38 39 40 41 42 43

Abu Qurra, p. 3 (Arabic). See Griffith "Theodore". See Finkel Jahiz, pp. 25-29. See Abu Qurra, p. 3. Dick, p. 64. See Poliak; Wansbrough Quranic; Wansbrough Sectarian. Bulliet Conversion.

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

27

The author of the Summa, who was determined to continue the preaching of orthodox, Chalcedonian Christianity in the lingua sacra of Islam, despised the Arabophone dissemblers of their faith, who tried to hide it behind phrases from the Qur'an. Echoing the Islamic hadith, he contemptuously called these dissemblers "neither Christians, nor hunafa' Muslims, ... but waverers."44 His frustration was shared by another Arabic speaking Christian apologist, a Nestorian. The author of the alHashimi/al-Kindi correspondence reported the reaction of the Caliph alMa'mun, when he was told that the conversion of many of the new Muslims at his court was insincere. The caliph is made to say: I certainly know that so and so, and so and so, were Christians. They became Muslims reluctantly. They are really neither Muslims nor Christians, but deceivers.... God's curse be on them all.45

Given these testimonies to Christian "waverers," "hypocrites," and "deceivers' in the Christian kaldm of early Abbasid times, one is led to wonder if such "Christian-Muslims," so to speak, may not account for some of the "Judaeo-Christians" whom Professor Shlomo Pines postulates for this later time.46 After all, even the author of the Summa says that their faith is "Judaism, ... no more, no less."47 But this is yet another issue, for another time. Suffice it now to have introduced the Summa Theologiae Arabica as an important document in the search for both continuity and conversion in early Islamic times.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AbuQurra

Theoduras Abu Qurra, bp. of Harran, Theodori Abu Kurra de cultu imaginum libellus e codice Arabico nunc primum editus tatine versus illustratus, ed. I. Arendzen, Bonn, 1897.

Bacha

C. Bacha, Les oeuvres arabes de Theodore Aboucara, eveque d'Haran, Beirut, 1904.

Blake

R.P. Blake, "La literature grecque en Palestine au Vmc siecle," Le Museon, vol. 78 (1965), pp. 367-80.

*• Summa, fol. 7v. See n. 24 and 25 above. « Hashimi-Kindi,p. 112. 46 Pines "Jewish"; Pines "Islam"; Pines "Studies". 47 Summa, fol. 8r.

28

S. H. GRIFFITH

Blau

Joshua Blau, A Grammar of Christian Arabic based mainly on South-Palestinian Texts from the first millenium. Corpus scriptorum chrisu'anorum orientalium, vols. 267, 276,279, Louvain, l%6-67.

Bulliet Conversion

Richard W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

Cook

MA. Cook, "The Origins of Kalam," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 43 (1980), pp. 32-43.

Dick

Ignace Dick, "Deux ecrits in&lits de Theodore Abuqurra," Le Muston, vol. 72 (1959), pp. 54-67.

Fiey "Rum"

J.-M. Fiey, "'Rum' a 1'est de 1'Euphrate," Le Museon, vol. 90 (1977), pp. 365-420.

Finkel Jahiz

J. Finkel, ed., Three Essays of Abu cOthman cAmr ibn Bohr al-Jahiz, Cairo, 1926.

Frank

Richard M. Frank, Beings and Their Attributes: The Teaching of the Basrian School of the Muctazila in the Classical Period, Albany, N.Y., 1978.

Gardet

L. Gardet, "Quelques reflexions sur la place du cllm al-Kalam dans les sciences religieuses musulmanes," in Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A.R. Gibb, ed. G. Makdisi, Cambridge, 1965, pp. 258-269.

Griffith "Gospel"

Sidney H. Griffith, "The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century," Oriens Christianus, vol. 69 (1985), pp. 126-167.

Griffith "Greek"

Sidney H. Griffith, "Greek into Arabic: Life and Letters in the Monasteries of Palestine in the Ninth Century; the Summa Theologiae Arabica," Byzantion, vol. 56 (1986), pp. 117-138.

Griffith "Prophet"

Sidney H. Griffith, "The Prophet Muhammad, his Scripture and his Message According to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First Abbasid Century,'' in La vie du prophete Mahomet (Colloque de Strasbourg, octobre 1980), ed. T. Fahd, Paris, 1983, pp. 99-146.

Griffith "Sectarian"

Sidney H. Griffith, "A Ninth Century Summa Theologiae Arabica and the 'Sectarian Milieu'," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (forthcoming).

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

29

Griffith "Stephen"

Sidney H. Griffith, "Stephen of Ramlah and the Christian Kerygma in Arabic in Ninth-Century Palestine," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 36 (1985), pp. 23-45.

Griffith "Summa"

Sidney H. Griffith, "A Ninth Century Summa Theologlae Arabica," Orientalia Christiana Analecta, no. 226 (1986), pp. 123-41.

Griffith "Theodore"

Sidney H. Griffith, "Theodore Abu Qurrah's Arabic Tract on the Christian Practice of Venerating Images," Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 105 (1985), pp. 53-73.

HaddadTrimfc*

Rachid Haddad, La Trinite" divine chez les theologiens arabes, 750-1050, Paris, 1985.

Hanbal Musnad

Ahmad ibn Muhammed ibn Hanbal, Musnad al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, 6 vols., Cairo, 1895 (rpL Beirut, 1969; 2nd ed., Beirut, 1978).

Hashimi-Kindi

c

Abd al-Masih b. Ishaq al-Kindi and cAbd Allah b. Ismail al-Hashimi, Risalat €Abd Allah b. Ismdcil alHashimi ila cAbd al-Masih b. Ishaq al-Kindi Ycufuhu bind ila al-Islam \va Risalat cAbd al-Masih ila alHashimi Yaruddu bihd calayhi \va Yadcuhu Ila alNasraniyyah, ed. A. Tien, London, 1885.

Hurst

Thomas R. Hurst, "The Syriac Letters of Timothy I (727-823): A Study in Christian-Muslim Controversy" (diss.), The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1986.

NiewShner

F. Niewdhner, "Die Diskussion um den Kalam und die Mutakallimun in der europaischen Philosophergeschichtsschreibung," Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte, vol. 18 (1974), pp. 7-34.

Pines 'Islam"

Shlomo Pines, "Notes on Islam and on Arabic Christianity and Judaeo-Christianity," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol. 4 (1984), pp. 135-52.

Pines "Jewish"

Shlomo Pines, "The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity According to a New Source," Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, vol. 2 (1966), pp. 1-74.

Pines "MutakaUim"

Shlomo Pines, "A Note on an Early Meaning of the Term Mutakallim," Israel Oriental Studies, vol. 1 (1971), pp. 224-40.

Pines "Studies"

Shlomo Pines, "Studies in Christianity and in JudaeoChristianity Based on Arabic Sources," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol. 6 (1985), pp. 107-161.

30

S. H. GRIFFITH

Poliak

A.N. Poliak, "L'arabisation de 1'orient s&nitique," Revue des Etudes Islamiques, vol. 12 (1938), pp. 35-63.

Samir "Date"

Khalil Samir, "Date de composition de la 'somme des aspects de la foi'," Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 51 (1985), pp. 352-87.

Samir "Note"

Khalil Samir, "Note sur les citations bibliques chez Abu Qurrah," Orientalia Christiana Periodica, vol. 49 (1983), pp. 184-91.

Samir "Qurrah"

Khalil Samir, "Kitab Garni0 Wuguh al-Iman wa Mu|adalah Abi Qurrah can Salb al-Masih," AlMasarrat, vol. 70 (1984), pp. 411-27.

Samir "Somme"

Khalil Samir, "La 'somme des aspects de la foi,' oeuvre d'Abu Qurrah?," inActes du deuxieme Congres international d" etudes arabes Chretiens, ed. Khalil Samir in Orientalia Christiana Analecta, vol. 226, Rome, 1986, pp. 93-121.

Samir "Theodorus"

Khalil Samir, "Theodorus Abu Qurrah," Journal of the Iraq Academy, Syriac Corporation, vol. 7 (1983), pp. 138-60 (in Arabic).

Samir "Tradition"

Khalil Samir, "La tradition arabe chretienne et la chretiente" de Terre Sainte," in Tantur Papers on Christianity in the Holy Land, S India Oecumenica Hierosolymitana, vol. 1, ed. D.M.A. Jaeger, Jerusalem, 1981, pp. 343-432.

Samir & Nwyia

Khalil Samir and P. Nwyia, Une correspondence islamo-chretienne entre Ibn al-Munaggim, Hunayn ibn Ishaq, et Qusta ibn Luqd, Patrologia Orientalis, vol. 40 (1981), fasc. 4, pp. 525-723.

Stroumsa

Sarah Stroumsa, "Dawud ibn Marwan al-Muqammis and His clshrun Maqala" (diss.), The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

Summa

Anon., Al-Kitdb al-Jamf Wujuh al-Tman bi-Tathllth Wahdaniyyat Allah al-Kalimah min al-Tahirah alAdhra Maryam, ms., London, British Library, Or. ms. 4950.

Van Ess "Skizze"

J. Van Ess, "Disputationspraxis in der islamischen Theologie, eine vorlSufige Skizze," Revue des Etudes Islamiques, vol. 44 (1976), pp. 23-60.

FIRST CHRISTIAN SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN ARABIC

31

Van Ess "Structure"

J. Van Ess, "The Logical Structure of Islamic Theology," in Logic in Classical Islamic Culture, ed. G.E. von Grunebaum, Wiesbaden, 1970, pp. 21-50.

Wansbrough Quranic

J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, London Oriental Series, vol. 31, Oxford, 1977.

Wansbrough Sectarian

J. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, Oxford, 1978.

Zimmermann

F.W. Zimmermann, "Kalam and the Greeks," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (forthcoming).

This page intentionally left blank

2

Continuity and Change in Religious Adherence: Ninth-Century Baghdad WadiZ.Haddad

In the continuing encounter between Christians and Muslims over the last fourteen centuries, the question of conversion from one religion to the other has intrigued both scholars and religious leaders. Attempts to understand the appeal of Islam and the reasons why Christians have at certain times and in certain places individually as well as collectively converted to Islam have given us the basis for a variety of theories. Historians of the period do not appear to be interested in empirical record, restricting their references to the conversion of prominent individuals or groups. Consequently, most of these theories are apologetic or conjectural in nature depending on the reference of the author analyzing the situation, or deduced by drawing implications from the recorded historical context. The predominant explanations given by Christians and Jews writing about the conversion of members of their faith to Islam appear to suggest such factors as convenience, inducement or improved social, economic or professional status. These reporters attribute conversion specifically to fear of discrimination or even persecution; relief from the payment of the "humiliating" poll-tax or jizyah, and/or aspiration for enhancement of standing through the attainment of high office or the enjoyment perhaps of greater mobility in trade and society through membership in the ruling umtnah.1 For a balanced treatment of the subject see Dennett Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Gervers and Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 9 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990), pp. 33-53. © P.I.M.S, 1990.

34

W.Z. HADDAD

Those who believe in the self-evident and compelling truth of Christianity generally can only ascribe the rejection of the faith by the convert to Islam to the failure of the Christians themselves to live up to the faith, especially by those among them expected to set an example such as the clergy or the patriarchs of the church.2 Other scholars have grudgingly noted that certain Christian individuals may have converted because of the appeal of the fine example set by saints or pious Muslim men (such as the Imam cAli al-Rida who converted Macruf al-Karkhi).3 Still others have pointed to the importance of the doctrinal and theological challenge of Islam to Christianity, one that was taken seriously on the intellectual level by St. John of Damascus who prepared a "catechism" instructing Christians in how to respond to questions addressed to them by Muslims.4 On the popular level, there is the suspicion that the lack of the believers' knowledge of the sophisticated doctrines of the faith may lead to a blurring of the distinctiveness and subtlety of some of the issues. This is true especially in the rural areas where adherents of the different religions may not be able to distinguish among them due to the similarity of their basic tenets. This makes the transition from Christianity to Islam easy and untraumatic, especially in the presence of incentives. It is important to note that for over a century and a half after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the spread of Muslim hegemony from the Atlantic Ocean to China did not mean the spread of conversion to Islam. Muslim rulers and men of religion appear generally to have adhered to the "covenant" (dhimmaK) between Muslims and the people of the Book (Christians and Jews), established by the Prophet Muhammad and confirmed and practiced by the caliphs after him, guaranteeing security of life, property, churches and freedom of worship, in return for the payment of the jizyah, or poll-tax.6 But while this was the rule, there were a few exceptions when certain zealous caliphs, provincial governors, or local lords forced conversion through various means.7 2 See Sulayman, p. 115, where the Nestorian author, though speaking of the conditions in the following century, blames the conversion of Christians on "the laxity of people in their religion and the repugnant behavior of the clergy at the altar, in the churches and holy sanctuaries." 3 See Coke, p. 67. 4 See Arnold, pp. 83 ff. More basic is Sahas John. 5 See Menage, pp. 52-67. 6 Atiya (p. 268) asserts that "early Islam respected Christianity, and ... the Caliphs treated Christians with remarkable tolerance." This, he adds, is attested to by Assemani who quotes the Nestorian bishop of Adiabene. See Assemani, vol. 3, pt. 1, p. 131, and Tibawi. 7 See Tabari Tarikh 2, vol. 8, p. 324, vol. 9, pp. 162, 169, 171-74, 196, 207-208, 211, 278-79, 397-98, 502, and vol. 10, pp. 9,40,103; Ibn al-Jawzi Muntazam, vol. 6, p. 82; Sulayman, pp. 65,68, 73,75,78-79; Matta, pp. 71,96. Cf. Little "Coptic".

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENC

35

Over the first three centuries of Islam, conversion was neither uniform nor steady in all provinces, or even within any one province, and the total number of Muslims grew slowly. It is estimated that while in 800 only about 18% of the population in Iraq was Muslim, by 882 Muslims had come to constitute roughly 50% of the population.8 One explanation for the increased rate of conversions during this time as compared to the case under Umayyad rule may be that during the earlier period seemingly only GUmar II (717-720) was more interested in winning converts than in filling the coffers of the state with jizyah money.9 While there appear to have been no organized systematic and concerted Muslim missionary efforts in the ninth century to convert Christians, we do have extant documents from the period written by three individuals for whom this was an important issue: (1) °Abd Allah b. Ismacil al-Hashimf who wrote an epistle to °Abd al-Masih b. Ishaq al-Kindf inviting him to accept Islam,10 (2) al-Kindi's response11 and, (3) a spirited defense of Islam and the prophethood of Muhammad by the convert from Christianity, CA1I b. Rabban al-Tabari.12 These documents help shed some light on the dialogue and debate between the two communities concerning the veracity, authenticity and appeal of the Islamic faith. They provide us with some insight into the context and content of individual missionary outreach and the type of response it engendered. Al-Hashimf's epistle13 is of special interest since it purports to be written by a Muslim who claims intimate knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and contains detailed information about some Christian practices and references to Muslim debates with Christians, including the Nestorian patriarch Timothy I,14 as well as the clergy from three Christian denominations: Melkites, Jacobites and Nestorians.15 The 8

See Bulliet Conversion, pp. 80-91, but especially pp. 82, 85. Bulliet concludes (p. 82) in regard to Iraq that "Between 791 and 975, 68 percent of the conversion process is accomplished, but this is a space of nearly two centuries; in Iran the same amount of conversion took place in just a little over one century between 762 and 875." 9 Arnold, pp. 82-3. 10 Hashimi-Kindi, pp. 1-37. 11 Hashimi-Kindi, pp. 38-270. 12 AliTabaril. 13 Muir, pp. i-xviii. This is also a summary translation of the Risdlah (epistle) of al-Hashimi and al-Kindi. For further critical discussion concerning the authenticity and the date of the writing of these two epistles, see Farina & Ciaramella, and Tartar. 14 Timothy I's patriarchate lasted for forty-three years and seven months (779-823) and he was noted for his great and tactful ability in dialogue with Muslims (Malta, pp. 64-6; Sulavman, pp. 715). For one of his significant dialogues, see Timothy "Apology," and Timothy Dialogue. 15 Hashimi-Kindi, pp. 6-12.

36

W.Z. HADDAD

author presents his work as a cultured, rational effort, unlike that of the hooligans, the ignorant, and the common people who are unprincipled and use proud argumentative and oppressive language taking refuge in the power of the state.16 It provides an insight not only into some aspects of the relationship and the nature of the dialogue between the two-faith communities at the time, but also into what a Muslim of the ninth century thought were the convincing features of Islam that would most appeal to a Christian and help him decide to convert. Although undoubtedly aware that al-Kindi already had knowledge of the basic teachings of the Islamic faith, al-Hashimi felt duty bound to reiterate them in the context of a direct call in the belief that the propagation of the faith is of the essence of Islam.17 To issue a call to Islam is "an act of obedience to the Messenger of God - God's blessing and peace be upon him."18 It is, moreover, a duty towards friends and neighbors, as the Prophet is reported to have said that "the love of the neighbor is of the essence of religion and faith."19 The tone of al-Hashimf's missionary outreach, dacwah (invitation, call, summon), to al-Kindi to convert to Islam is couched in terms of endearment and respect, and expressions of grave concern for his friend whom he seeks to save from the eternal torments of hell, which has been promised by the Qur'an to the associationists among "the people of the Book" (Q. 98:5-8).20 He sees himself following the example of the Prophet, who called people with compassion, mercy, gentleness and good manners, making no distinction between believers and nonbelievers.21 The necessity of Islamic missionary outreach proceeds from the conviction that the only true religion is Islam, "Lo! religion with God is the surrender (al-isldm)" (Q. 3:19),22 and the Qur'anic affirmation that the Muslims have been selected to oversee the public adherence to the will of God on earth: You are the best community that has been brought forth to humankind. You enjoin the good and forbid evil, and you believe in God. If the people of the Book were to believe, it would have been better for them. Some of them are believers, but most of them are evil-doers. (Q. 3:110).23 16

Ibid., pp. 11-12. Ibid., p. 4. 18 Ibid. » Ibid. 20 Ibid., p. 35. 21 Ibid., p. 3. 22 Ibid., p. 5. Al-Hashimi also quotes Q. 3:85 (pp. 5-6) to reinforce his point. Qur'anic quotations throughout this chapter are based on Pickthall, with slight editing to render it in a modem idiom and to convey a more precise meaning of the Arabic text 23 Hashimi-Kindi, p. 35. 17

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

37

Thus while it is true that the Qur'an teaches that "there is no compulsion in religion" (Q. 2:256),24 and Islam allows Christians freedom of worship and gives them dhimml status, this does not guarantee them eternal felicity; that they are tolerated does not mean that their religion is accepted as true. For the Qur'an is clear that "He who seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him" (Q. 3:85) and "O believers, fear God and do not die but that you have surrendered (unto Him)" (Q. 3I102).25 Furthermore, the invitation is to be grounded in the understanding of the Qur'anic injunction: "Do not debate with the people of the Book except with better means (than mere disputation)" (Q. 29:46).26 Consequently, the debate is an attempt to prove the superiority of the basic Islamic doctrines in their simplicity and rationality. This superiority is evident in the teachings of Islam concerning the nature of God, the prophethood of Muhammad, the infallibility of the Qur'an, the superiority of the Muslim sharfah and the vindication of the truth of Islam through the victory achieved by the Muslims.

THE INVITATION The central issue of the debate is the validity of the Muslim affirmation of tawhid, the belief in, and worship of, the one God who is, in the words ofsural!2:l-4:27 unique and self-existent, who neither begets nor is begotten and who has not taken a consort or a son, and unto whom there is no equal.

This belief, al-Hashimi affirms, is the same as that of Abraham, the hanlf, the father of Arab Christians and Muslims.28 What makes Christianity unacceptable to him is the doctrine of the divinity of Christ which he refers to as "the confused doctrine of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and "the worship of the cross which brings not benefit but harm."29 Any Christian who adheres to such beliefs, including alKindl, is deemed not merely as astray in matters of faith; rather, from a Muslim perspective, he is in a state of infidelity, kufr, and therefore condemned to perpetual misery in the afterlife. Belief in the Trinity is the unforgivable sin as revealed in the Qur'an: 24

Ibid., p. 37. Ibid., pp. 5-6. 26 Ibid., p. 5. 27 Ibid., p. 12. 28 Ibid., p. 13. Here Al-Hashimi is addressing al-Kindi as a fellow Arab who, according to Arab and Muslim tradition, is a descendant of Abraham through his son Ishmael. » Ibid., p. 33. 25

38

W.Z.HADDAD

Lo! God forgives not that a partner should be ascribed unto him. He forgives [all], save that, to whom he will. Whoso ascribes partners to God, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin. (Q. 4:48)30 The confession of belief in the unity and oneness of God in its Muslim understanding is only the first step to becoming Muslim; it constitutes the first half of the shahadah (the affirmation of faith).31 To enter into the community of Islam the affirmation of tawhid, or the unicity of God, is insufficient; one must also acknowledge and testify that Muhammad b. cAbd Allah, the Hashimite, Qurayshite, and Arab Prophet, is "the seal of the prophets" - he who was sent to all humanity "with the guidance and the religion of truth, that he may cause it to prevail over all religion" (Q. 9:33). That the Prophet came with the last message of truth from God makes it imperative that Islam should supersede all other beliefs.32 Muhammad's prophethood, according to al-Hashimf, was authenticated by no less than the Christian monks who predicted his coming and informed the Prophet of the mission for which he had been chosen and the revelation with which he was to be entrusted. This they did prior to his call by God because they recognized in him the signs of the one expected in their scriptures.33 Furthermore, God Himself testified that Muhammad is His prophet. For not only was Muhammad's name emblazoned on the Throne, as part of the confession of faith, from eternity, before creation,34 but also was he given the clearest proof in the form of the infallible Qur'an (Q. 17:88),35 to which people responded with affirmation when he made his dcfwah or call to Islam. They were convinced of his sincerity and persuaded that his words were true; thus they acknowledged him to be the messenger of the Lord of the Worlds.36 The Muslim sunna (with its prescribed acts of worship), al-Hashiml affirms, is superior to that of Christianity in that it is clear, easier to practice and does not require unnecessary harsh measures. Its elements include: (a) The five daily prayers which when performed regularly will "provide gain and not loss" to the individual; the believer will be "among the winners in this life and in the hereafter." These prayers are less taxing than those practiced by monks.37 (b) The fast of the month of /VAll^

30

14JA44J.

U.J.V/L9V

|SA 14WLJ.WWVI

\JJ

J.J.J.VAI..UVO.

\1-'/

X

*

Ibid., p. 33. Al-Hashimi goes on to quote Q. 5:72-75 (p. 34). Ibid., pp. 12-13. » Ibid., p. 13. 33 Ibid., p. 8. These were the monks praised in Q. 5:82 (p. 9). 34 Ibid., pp. 14-15. 35 Ibid., p. 14. 36 Ibid., pp. 13-14. 37 Ibid., p. 15;cf.p.30. 31

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENC9

39

Ramadan, which al-Hashiml describes as being much more bearable than "the arduous and long fasts" of the Christians which "bring nothing but exhaustion to the body and torture to the soul."38 (c) The payment of the zakat, or alms, which is considered as a light tax, since it requires only one-fourth of 10% of one's income to be paid, and that only after one has possessed it for a whole year. Furthermore this tax is to help the poor of the community and the needy among one's own relatives.39 (d) The making of the pilgrimage, which is made easy by requiring it only of those who are able, physically and financially.'*0 (e) The participation in "the jihad [or striving] in the way of God, to raid the hypocrites and to fight the infidels and associationists with the sword ... until they embrace the religion of God ..." or "pay ihejizyah readily, being brought low."41 In comparison to Christianity, al-Hashimi finds that Islam has its "enlightened laws" and "good sunna." In the cases of hardship, the sunna has allowed flexibility for those who cannot carry them out "for God desires for His creatures ease, not hardship."42 God has manifested his favor, approval and confirmation of the religion of Islam by enabling the believers to be established in the provinces and has subjugated the peoples to them.43 Those who have accepted this faith have been spared their lives and possessions and have been absolved from paying the tribute orjizyah. Al-Hashimf also notes that although both Christianity and Islam acknowledge that God will raise the dead from their graves and recompense each according to his deeds, the Islamic doctrine of judgement and resurrection is superior, and the recompense for Muslims is greater.45 (This is solely for the sake of theological discussion, however, as he holds that God's rewards are limited to Muslim believers, Christians being doomed by definition.) Al-Hashimi goes into great detail (eleven out of the thirty-six pages of the document), quoting all relevant verses that describe the bliss of paradise and the horrors of hellfire. He outlines the delights awaiting the believers in the Garden, focusing on the lure of reward and the threat of punishment. He depicts 38 Ibid., p. 34; cf. pp. 15-17, 32, where, in the latter case, fasting is prescribed as an expiation for breaking an oath. » Ibid., p. 31. 40 Ibid., p. 17; cf. p. 32, where the author quotes Q. 3:97. 41 Ibid., pp. 17-18 (the reference here is based on Q. 9:29). Cf. pp. 32-3 where al-Hashimi presents the double reward of jihad: an immediate gain (share in the booty), and an ultimate gain (blessings of the afterlife). 42 Ibid., pp. 31-2. The Qur'anic verse alluded to here is Q. 2:185. 43 Ibid., p. 14. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., pp. 4,18-24,33,35.

40

W.Z. HADDAD

images of gardens with flowing rivers of "delicious white water," "milk," "wine" and "clear run honey," plenteous fruits of every kind, armlets of gold and pearl, raiment of silk, and above all the perpetual wedding of virgin maidens who have wide lovely eyes and are modest in their gaze.46 Equally graphic is the depiction of the lot of the disbelievers who will eat of the zaqqum tree in the heart of hell. Needing to drink, they will be given boiling water; above them and beneath them will be fire from the blast of which there will be no shelter. They are to dwell therein eternally, with no possibility of offering excuses; their prayers will be in vain. Al-Hashimi carefully selects those verses that identify those who will be punished. They include those who disbelieve in the revelation of God, His messengers, and scriptures; those who are selective in what they believe, accepting some of God's messengers and rejecting the others despite the fact that they have come with clear proofs; those who have killed the prophets wrongfully; those who kill the men who enjoin God's injunctions; and those who have doubted the reality of the afterlife.47 Finally, the rewards of Islam are not restricted to the hereafter, but are available here on earth. Included are the enjoyment of some of the most attractive worldly benefits, marriage to as many women as one desires. For while one is limited to four wives at any one time, one can divorce and replace a wife by a new favorite. In case one regrets a divorce he is able to remarry by means of istihldl, or the process of making lawful again (Q. 2:230). Beyond this, there is no limit to the number of concubines a person can have. All of this is done legally and without fear of committing sin or the dread of censure or shame.48 Having proven the superiority of Islam, he then invites his friend to join the faith in the assurance that Islam is The religion which, if nothing else, gives us tranquility, security and the comforting commitment of the heart to God and trust in what God Himself has guaranteed to us, namely: that He will grant us the great reward in the afterlife and will usher us into paradise to abide therein eternally; and that he will grant us victory over the oppressors ,...49

Finally, al-Hashimi maintains that God provides victory for the believers. It is the vindication of the truth of their faith. The followers of Muhammad, he testifies, have been confirmed in the validity of the 46 47 48 49

Ibid., pp. 18-24. Ibid., pp. 24-8. Ibid., pp. 31-3. Ibid., p. 33.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

41

faith through their victory in all the lands, "subduing to them the necks of the nations."50 THE CHRISTIAN'S RESPONSE °Abd al-Masih b. Ishaq al-Kindf s response to al-Hashimf s invitation to Islam is extensive.5* It appears to have a double purpose: to serve as an apologetic of Christianity, affirming the positive reasons for his constancy in the faith, and a polemic directed against Islam, delineating his reasons for rejecting al-Hashimf s invitation. Noting that al-Hashiml had asked him to be frank in his response and granted him immunity from punishment, al-Kindl answers with flippant frankness. He ascribes his own defiance and lack of fear, not to the guaranteed safety offered him by al-Hashimi, but to the superiority of Christianity and to the assurance that Christians are endowed with the moral authority to witness when brought before a tribunal to defend the faith. The believer is not to worry about what to say, since it is "the spirit of the Father" that will speak through him (Matthew 1:19-20).52 The apologetic focuses on the same issues raised by al-Hashimf. It attempts to prove that Islam is not in the prophetic tradition and therefore is not of divine origin. Affirming that Christianity is the superior religion, al-Kindl begins with a rejection of al-Hashimf s assertion of the common prophetic origin of Christianity and Islam in the religion of Abraham as hanlf. Al-Kindl argues that such a commonality does not exist since a hanlf is one who worships idols and hence it refers to the religion of Abraham prior to his being called by God. Furthermore, the religion of Abraham that was a response to God's call was never Islam, a fact attested to by the Qur'an itself, since Muhammad himself and not Abraham is considered to be the first Muslim. "Say, I [Muhammad] have been commanded to be the first to surrender [to God]; and do not be an associationist" (Q. 6:14).53 He then proceeds to the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity (which al-Hashiml had called tri-theism) as a self-evident and superior concept. Marshalling as evidence verses from the Hebrew scriptures, he demonstrates to his own satisfaction that the Trinity was clearly proclaimed from the beginning of God's disclosure of Himself in the earliest revelation. "In the beginning, God [Elohim, pi.] created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1); Elohim is the One God in three » Ibid., p. 14. 51 See Hashimi-Kindi, pp. 38-270 (al-Kindi's Risdlah), compared to Hashimi-Kindi, pp. 1-37 (al-Hashimi's Risdlah). It must be noted here that the earliest and only mention of al-Kindl and his epistle, so far as we know, is in Biruni, p. 187. 52 Hashimi-Kindi, pp. 40-41. 53 Ibid., p. 41-7.

42

W.Z. HADDAD

uqnums, or hypostases.54 Realizing that scriptural interpretation alone would not be sufficient to convince his friend, al-Kindl turns to philosophy and logic to show that one in three and three in one is the perfect and only logical way to express the divinity. To believe otherwise is to relegate God to being one of a species, or genus, or one in a series of numbers; and this, al-Kindl is confident, would be rejected by al-Hashimi himself - being a man also versed in philosophy. Thus, the Christian concept is superior, since the Islamic perception of the Oneness of God seems to fit all the categories of number.55 His defense of the Trinity is passionate. He refutes the Muslim claim that Christians believe that God had taken a consort56 and assures al-Hashimi that Islam itself unwittingly affirms the trinitarian nature of God. This he derives from the Muslim understanding of the nature of God which is defined as having eternal attributes and which al-Kindi reduces to 'life' and 'word' signifying spirit and knowledge.57 Furthermore, even Muhammad confirmed the Trinity in the Qur'an by teaching that Christ is God's "word ... and a spirit from Him" (Q. 4:171).58 The subsidiary issue of the divinity of Christ he establishes on the authority of scriptures, the Hebrew scriptures foretelling his coming and describing his role, and the Gospels testifying to his wondrous miracles.59 To prove "the superiority of Christianity" and the invalidity of Islam, al-Kindl utilized what appears to be the accumulated defensive mythology and polemical strategy that by his time had crystallized in Christian circles. Throughout the text, he carefully avoids referring to Muhammad as Prophet (designating him as "your friend") or to the Qur'an as revelation (quoting verses as Muhammad's words).60 The major reason he cites for his aversion to Islam is the person and life of Muhammad. To buttress his criticism, he uses material which purports to include minute details of history and hadith commonly known to the courtiers of the caliph including al-Hashimf. While the accuracy and authenticity of this depiction of Muhammad and of Islamic practice may be questionable, al-Kindl appears sincere in his belief that it is true. In his interpretation, Muhammad who was raised as an orphan, and who found financial security only after marrying Khadijah, is depicted as 54

Ibid., pp. 44-8,57-67. Ibid., pp. 48-52. 56 Ibid., pp. 52-4. 17 Ibid., pp. 54-7. 58 Ibid., pp. 66-7. » Ibid., pp. 80,90,93-6. 60 Ibid., pp. 47,59,65,67,102,153 passim. 55

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

43

being consumed with the desire for worldly power, shunning the spirituality expected of a prophet. Consequently, he not only coveted "kingship" over his tribe, the Quraysh, but also sought the leadership of all the Makkans. When his desires were frustrated by the proud and chauvinistic Quraysh, he utilized other means to achieve his goal.61 Al-Kindf appears to accept some role for at least one Christian monk in the validation of the prophethood of Muhammad. However, in his rendition, Islam is not confirmed as of divine origin; rather, whatever is good in Islam came from Christianity. Other beliefs were later distortions interpolated by Jewish rabbis. His version shows that it was a sheer stroke of good luck for Muhammad that brought to the vicinity of Makka a Christian monk who had been expelled from the brotherhood for unfaithfulness. Attempting to atone for his sin, this monk, Sergius, became known to Muhammad as Nestorious since he sought to spread Nestorian doctrines to the Arabs. It was he who prompted Muhammad to claim prophethood among a people who did not know the signs of a prophet. Thus Muhammad's original message was good and clear and agreed with the Gospel. Later, two Jewish rabbis, Kacb al-Ahbar and c Abd Allah b. Sallam, became jealous of the Christian doctrine being promulgated by Muhammad and feigned belief in him.62 Their scheming persisted after the death of Muhammad. Failing to convince CA1I to claim prophethood, they prevailed on him to lend them the suhuf, or folios, of his copy of the Qur'an, into which they interpolated elements against Christianity. Thus the Muslims entrusted with collecting an accurate version of the Qur'an came to disagree concerning the validity of certain portions. It finally fell upon al-Hajjjaj to reedit the current text and burn all variant readings. Thus the Qur'an is not a revelation from God but an amalgamation of Christian teachings deliberately corrupted by Jews.63 Muhammad is also rejected by al-Kindf for behavior deemed unfitting to a prophet. This includes: raiding caravans (personally participating in thirty five, looting camels and merchandise, and killing the owners); appropriating the land of two orphans from Banu al-Najjar in order to build his first mosque; sending his men to assassinate those who opposed him (a very old man who was bed-ridden, a Khaybarite Jew, named Aslr b. Daram, whose only sin was that he censured the Prophet). The latter incident is judged by al-Kindf as excessive. "Is there no lesser punishment?" he asked.64 61

Ibid., pp. 68-9. « Ibid., pp. 69-70,128-30. 63 Ibid., pp. 129-31. See also pp. 131-39 where al-Kindi discusses the history of the collection of the Qur'anic text « Ibid., pp. 70-71,77-8.

44

W.Z. HADDAD

Muhammad's claim to prophethood is also denied because it does not coordinate with Christian concepts of prophecy. For not only was his coming not foretold in the Gospels, but, as it is clear from the Christian scriptures, such a prophecy is ruled out. There is no need for a prophet after Jesus had fulfilled his mission. Furthermore, Jesus had warned his disciples of false claimants to prophecy after him for they would be but thieves and robbers.65 Other features of a prophet were lacking in Muhammad. He did not prophesy about the future nor have any of his so-called prophecies been fulfilled. Al-Kindi says "it is now over two hundred years since his death and we have not seen any prophecy come to pass."66 God did not send his angels to fight on his side as he did with Moses and Joshua and other prophets. He was even wounded in the battle of Uhud; this, God does not permit to happen to his prophets.67 He was unable to perform miracles: when Talhah b. cUbayd Allah al-Taymf lost his finger in shielding Muhammad from the blow that was being directed against him by Ibn Qamicah al-Laythi, Muhammad could not restore the finger to his protector as Christ did with the ear of the servant of the high priest. A prophet should have been able to do this.68 Muhammad's excuse for his inability to prove his prophethood by the test of miracle working is that "the folk of old denied them" (Q. 17:59). This reasoning, al-Kindl retorts, is unacceptable to people of logic. Yet al-Kindf cites the same verse to dismiss all reports of extra Qur'anic miracles that were circulating among Muslims.69 Al-Kindi points out other actions or characteristics deemed unacceptable in a prophet such as: Muhammad's fondness for women he mentions by name fifteen wives and two concubines - , his marriage to Zayd's wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh (Q. 33:37-38), and forgiving cA'ishah despite the widely known incident of her spending the night with a bedouin.70 Al-Kindi refutes al-Hashimf's claim to superior Muslim sunna by focusing on the sharfah and ahkdm (laws and statutes). He postulates that the sharfah falls under one of three categories. The first of these are divine laws which are above reason and nature, an example of which is given in the Gospels: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully 65

Ibid., p. 118. « Ibid., p. 97. « Ibid., pp. 79,114-16. * Ibid., pp. 79-80. 69 Ibid., pp. 97-8,101-103. 70 Ibid., pp. 81-5.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

45

use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 5:44-45)

Such laws are worthy of God alone. They are governed by the law of mercy and compassion and possessed by the Christians.71 The second kind are natural laws which inhere in the mind, are discerned by thought, and cannot be denied by reason. These are the laws of justice, such as "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." They are possessed by the Jews.72 The third category is "Satanic laws," which are the laws of oppression. These are opposed to both the divine law and the natural law. By raising a rhetorical question, al-Kindi implies that this is the nature of the Muslim sharfah.'3 Anticipating al-Hashimf's objection to that accusation, al-Kindi appears aware that Muslims believe that the Islamic sharfah has combined both the sharfah of justice and the sharfah of mercy. AlKindf even supplies a verse from the Qur'an which reflects the synthesis of the two dispensations, "The life for the life, and the eye for the eye.... But whoso forgoes it (in way of charity) it shall be expiation for him ..." (Q. 5:45). But al-Kindf dismisses as mere contradiction the claim of balancing the two laws or bringing them together. Besides, he claims that one is the lawful inheritance of the Christian community, the other of the Jewish community. They cannot lawfully be claimed either individually or jointly.74 The victory of Muslims over nations and their dominion over them is not considered a validation of Muhammad's prophethood, nor is it an argument or proof of God's approval of the Muslim umma. Citing the analogy of Deuteronomy 7:1-11, al-Kindi interpreted this dominion not as a sign of God's special favor or love for Muslims over the rest of humankind, but rather as a punishment for the iniquities of the conquered peoples and their abundant sins. Thus the victory is not a vindication of the truth of Islam or the veracity of Islam as of divine origin, as much as it is a warning to their victims for not living in righteousness.75

71

Ibid., pp. 120-21. Ibid., pp. 121-22. 73 Ibid., pp. 122-23. » Ibid., pp. 124-25. 75 Ibid., pp. 98-101. 72

46

W.Z. HADDAD

A CONVERT'S DEFENSE c

Ali b. Rabban al-Tabari's treatise is of special interest since it provides a different insight into ninth-century relations between Christians and Muslims. Written during the reign of al-Mutawakkil (about 855), Kitdb al-Din wa al-Dawlah is mainly an apologetic work written by a convert from Christianity to Islam.76 It is also a polemic against Christianity and other religions within the Muslim empire. While it is not written as a specific response to al-Hashimf s epistle, or al-Kindf s response, it does address some of the issues raised by both authors. Its significance lies in its arguments in defense of the faith, delineating what one Christian found appealing about Islam. The issues are explained with greater sensitivity to Christian objections to Islamic doctrines and the defense is provided, when possible, from within the Christian heritage. Al-Tabari's writing shows his awareness that during his time, Muslims did not know how to approach Christians in order to convert them. What may appear as self-evident and wonderful to a believing Muslim may actually be offensive to Christians thus soliciting a different response. Al-Tabari gives the impression that his conversion was a matter of the conviction of the mind and acceptance by the heart. He had been exposed to the same knowledge about Islam as was al-Kindl, and both had deep knowledge of Christianity, yet it was al-Tabari who found Islam's rationale and message acceptable and appealing. And, although his apologetic in Kitdb al-Din wa al-Dawlah is written shortly after his conversion, it shows acquaintance with a great deal of current polemical debate. It could possibly be the result of long discussions and disputations among learned Muslims and Christians. A closer 76 Al-Tabari, in contrast to our preceding authors, has been noted by several Muslim historians and biographers. He was first referred to as the secretary of Mazyar, the governor of Tabaristan. Subsequently he was drawn to the service of the Caliph al-Muctasim (833-861) when the latter regained control of the city. Due to the good influence of al-Muctasim, Ibn Rabban converted to Islam. Henceforth, he became a close friend and dining companion of the caliph. His "merits became known at the court" He is described as a literary man; four of his works, mostly on medicine, are listed in Ibn al-Nadim's Al-Fihrist. Ibn al-Qifti lauds him as a physician who "has excelled in the medical sciences," a man who was devoted to the study of philosophy and natural science. Furthermore, it was he from whom the famous physician al-Razi obtained much of his medical knowledge.

Al-Tabari continued to find favor at the caliphal court even when the Muctazdlite caliphs, who sponsored philosophical and rational thinking and implemented an inquisition against the traditionalists, were succeeded by al-Mutawakkil (846-861) who restored traditional theology. See AH Tabari 2, pp. v-xxi. At the same time, al-Mutawakkil introduced sumptuary laws against Christians and Jews (850-853) which included the wearing of distinctive dress, the type of animals and the manner in which they might ride; and, for Christians, the wearing of heavy wooden crosses in public (weighing four Baghdadi pounds!) and having their graves levelled with the ground. This is one wave of discrimination to which is attributed a lot of conversion, at least on the part of the masses. AlTabari, it must be noted, had already been converted, but these discriminatory laws and the indignities and oppression experienced by "the people of the Book" are nowhere reflected in his work. See Malta, p. 71, and references in footnote 7 above.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

47

examination of the book shows that he has responded to all the questions raised by al-Kindf. This is not surprising, however, because by now the Christian reasons for the rejection of Islam are well established. Addressing the objections raised by Christians against Islam, alTabari identifies them as: 1) "doubt about the validity and authenticity of the prophethood of Muhammad"; 2) "pride and arrogance" that obstructs people's willingness to abandon the beliefs they were raised on; 3) the tendency "to imitate" the religion of the forebears "and familiarity" with their tradition; and 4) "stupidity and ignorance."77 He contends that if the last three reasons could be overcome, one would be able to evaluate fairly the claim of the Prophet. Or, conversely, if one were to listen with an open mind to the claim of the Prophet, the other three reasons would disappear. Consequently, the defense of the prophethood of Muhammad in a clear and convincing way is the crucial issue.78 To establish this prophethood on Christian terms, he addresses their arguments against Muhammad which he identifies as: a) the Christians' claim that none of the prophets foretold his coming, b) their claim that the Qur'an does not make reference to any of his signs or of his prophecies, and c) Christ's affirmation that there would be no prophet after him.79 Al-Tabari's method was to utilize Christian concepts to appeal to Christians. Thus he compares Muhammad to Christ and endows both with the same characteristics of pure monotheism. He enumerates ten qualities of the Prophet which he believes are found in no one else except Christ. "By invoking God, the One, the Eternal, the Knowing and the Just, Muhammad is in agreement with all the prophets that preceded him."80 His character was marked by asceticism, purity, and veracity; he set a praiseworthy example, and his laws were just.81 He manifested clear signs such as his nocturnal journey to heaven or al-Isrd' which only God's prophets and elect produced.82 "He prophesied about unseen events that were fulfilled in his lifetime ... and after his time"83 such as the victory of the Byzantines over the Persians after being defeated by them,84 and his own ultimate victory over the Makkans and entry into the 77

AliTabaril.p. 8. Ibid. 79 Ibid., p. 17. 80 Ibid., pp. 16,21-2. 81 Ibid., pp. 16,23-8. 82 Ibid., pp. 16,29-34. 83 Ibid., pp. 16,34-6,37-44. 84 Ibid., p. 37. Al-Tabari wrongly attributes the defeat of the Persians by the Byzantines to the time after the Prophet's death. The defeat occurred during the Prophet's lifetime, in 624, when he was in Madina. 78

48

W.Z. HADDAD

Holy House.85 Other prophecies were fulfilled after his death, such as the prevailing of Islam over all religions and establishing the believers in the land.86 "The Book he received [the Qur'an] is by necessity a sign and an irrefutable proof of prophethood," on account of the prophecies it contains, its infallibility, its informing of things unseen, and the Prophet's illiteracy.87 "His victory over peoples is, by necessity, a clear and irrefutable argument."88 "His followers and advocates who transmitted reports about him are the best and most righteous of people, and could not agree together to deceive people."89 "He is," as is evident from history, "the last of the prophets." Moreover, "had he not been sent, the prophecies of the prophets, concerning him and Ishmael, would have been invalidated."90 Finally, "the prophets of old ... had prophesied about his coming long before his appearance, describing his mission, his country, his advance and the submission of nations, as well as kings to his community.91 Al-Tabarf s familiarity with, and knowledge of, the Bible enable him to point to over sixty allusions and prophecies that he claims fit only Muhammad.92 Beginning with the Books of Moses, going through the Psalms and the major prophets, and ending with the Gospels, he finds passages that he believes point to Muhammad. For Christians, who needed to have a reference in Biblical sources in order to believe in Muhammad, al-Tabari is satisfied that he has located abundant proof. But for those who may be suspicious of his interpretation he argues that such a proof is unnecessary since other Biblical characters, such as Moses, David, Isaiah and Jeremiah were not foretold in the scriptures, and at least, in the case of David, no miracle was evident as proof of his mission. While some prophets prophesied, but were not endowed with the power to perform miracles, still others worked miracles but were not given the gift of prophecy.93 Furthermore, the book of Acts (ch. 19),94 mentions the coming of prophets and apostles after Christ, consequently, al-Tabari questions the validity of the Christian rejection of the prophethood of Muhammad. 85 86

Ibid., p. 34.

Ibid., p. 16; cf. pp. 37-44. Ibid., p. 16; cf. pp. 44-50. 88 Ibid., p. 16; cf. pp. 50-54. 89 Ibid., pp. 16-17; cf. pp. 54-66. 50 Ibid., p. 17, cf. pp. 66-73. » Ibid., p. 17; cf. pp. 73-124. » Ibid., pp. 73-124. 87

» Ibid., pp. 18-19. 94

Ibid.. DO. 19-20. The Author cites Acts of the Aaostles. ch. 11 and 1Q as containino rp.fWwirp.s

to prophats after Christ: hower see Acts 11.27, 13.1.and 15:33.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

49

Al-Tabari focuses next on the Qur'an, pointing out not only its miraculous infallibility, harmony, dignity, and simplicity, but also its clear ethical teachings concerning man's individual responsibility, egalitarianism, justice and detailed care for the behavior of people, such as good manners, cleanliness and neat grooming.95 The most personal note and perhaps the key to understanding alTabari's conversion is in a concluding remark addressed to his cousins the Christians in which he says: If you reflect on these proofs of prophecy and fulfillment, you will correctly find that the reasons and causes for which we have accepted the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), are the same reasons and causes by which you had accepted Christ and Moses (peace be upon them).96

CONCLUDING REMARKS Contact between the Christian and Muslim communities by the ninth century appears to have become widespread and the Qur'anic injunction to spread the faith by inviting humanity to enter into Islam was taken seriously by Muslims in various walks of life. The attempt to convert people of the Book was not mitigated by what is usually described as Islam's acceptance of Christians and Jews as fellow believers in the one God. While this study has limited itself to three texts soliciting, accepting or rejecting conversion from Christianity to Islam, internal evidence from these writings reveals that intimate discussion concerning matters of faith were engaged in on several levels: both official with clergy as well as on the street level by youth gangs, radical groups and others of the rabble. The latter do not appear to have been loathe to intimidate Christians to convert and to threaten them by the power of the empire. Using their membership in the Muslim community and the implied support of officials in government, they did not hesitate to pressure people of other faiths into the acceptance of Islam. On the theological level, the discussions appear to have been carried out frankly and forthrightly. Al-Hashimi's epistle shows that regardless of official policy, the Islamic evangelical sentiment superseded, and at least one individual unabashedly called on his Christian friend to abandon his faith and accept Islam. Nonetheless, the openness with which the invitation to reject one faith and accept another is issued, and the passionate and sarcastic manner in which it is rejected show the high tolerance of differing opinion in the ninth century. Dialogue * Ibid., pp. 44-50; cf. pp. 21-8. * Ibid., p. 139.

50

W.Z. HADDAD

between individuals of the two-faith communities did not have to be couched in friendly, diplomatic, inoffensive language. There is no apparent effort to wrap the response in pious verbiage or to display obsequious sentiment out of respect for one another's faith. On the contrary, the Christian answer displays not only an assurance in the veracity of the faith, it also shows arrogance about its superiority and divine origin. Thus the response to Islam does not necessarily appear as a defense of Christianity against an implacable foe; rather, it reads as a haughty refutation of the prophethood of Muhammad, a denigration of his divine mission, a maligning of his character and a ridicule of his message, reducing it to an aggregate of concocted fabrications by outsiders, a diluted and distorted form of its superior Christian and Jewish origin. On another level, the vehemence of al-Kindf's response to the invitation to convert to Islam should be seen as addressed to Christians. It is in a sense an attempt to delineate and fortify the dividing lines between the two-faith communities, to highlight the distinctive differences in the hope of stemming the tide of conversion. This becomes necessary not only because al-Hashimi attempted to cloak the invitation in cordiality, but more specifically because he grounded Islam in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as the culmination of God's unfolding revelation of Himself through prophets from the beginning of creation. Thus he presents Islam itself as being validated and authenticated by the monks from within Christianity itself. This affirmation elicits the vehement response that if there was a "Christian connection," it was from one outside the pale, from a veritable heretical monk. The attack on the person and mission of Muhammad must also be seen as a consequence of the means used by al-Hashimi in propositioning conversion to Islam. His placing Muhammad in the line of Biblical prophecy appears to have acted as an instigation for rebuttal. Consequently, al-Kindi finds it necessary to condemn Muhammad's character as unfitting for a prophet. Judged by the Christian criteria of the perfect Christ, he was found wanting. Not only did he not prophesy, but his coming was not foretold in the scripture. His sensuality is deemed as not measuring up to the spiritual standards set by Christ whose words were the utterance of God. Finally, he lacked the power to demonstrate his authority because he was unable to perform miracles. Al-Kindi's depiction of Muhammad's message as of human origin is central to his attempt to specify not only the sufficiency and superiority of Christianity, but also the folly of converting to Islam. His undermining of the credibility of the messenger is an attempt to discredit the message. What is at stake for him is not the sincerity of the Prophet as much as the authority of his message. It is this genre of Christian rejection of the divine origin of Muhammad's authority which elicits

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

51

al-Tabari's response. His depiction of the role of the Prophet shows a different approach to the packaging of the missionary message. The language is contextualized in Christian idiom and values. For while alHashimf emphasized the carnal pleasures awaiting the believer in this world and the next, al-Tabari focused on the spiritual dimension. AlHashimf placed Muhammad in the line of Biblical prophets, al-Tabari presented him as Christlike, noted for his asceticism and purity, whose very message, the Qur'an, was the word of God. Prophecies about Muhammad had to be found in the scriptures. Furthermore, to al-Tabari, the proofs he cites from the Biblical text as prophesying about Muhammad's coming are crucial, not only as a justification of his own conversion as much as a proof that those who reject his perception of the truth are doing so because of ignorance, or lack of understanding.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AliTabaril

Ali b. Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, Kitab al-Dln wa alDawlah fi Ithbdt Nubuwwat al-Nabi Muhammad Solid Allahu calayhi \va Sallam, ed. A. Mingana, Cairo, 1923.

All Tabari 2

^\li b. Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, The Book of Religion and Empire, tr. A. Mingana, Manchester, 1922.

Arnold

T.W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propogation of the Muslim Faith, London, 1913 (rpt. 1935).

Assemani

J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, 3 vols. in 4, Rome, 1719-28.

Atiya

Aziz S. Atiya, A History of Eastern Christianity, London-Notre Dame, 1968.

Biruni

Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Biruni, The Chronology of Ancient Nations: an English version of the Arabic text of the Athdr-ul-Bdkiya of Albiruni, or "Vestiges of the Past", tr. C.E. Sachau, London, 1879.

Bulliet Conversion

Richard W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

Coke

Richard Coke, Baghdad: The City of Peace, London, 1927.

52

W.Z. HADDAD

Dennett

Daniel C. Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam, Cambridge, Mass., 1950.

Farina & Ciaramella

Costanza Farina and Carmela Ciaramella, "Per una edizione critica della Apologia di Al-Kindi," in Actes du premier congres international d" etudes arabes chretiennes, Orientalia Christiana Analecta, vol. 218, ed. Khalil Samir, Rome, 1982, pp. 193-206.

Hashimi-Kindi

c Abd al-Masih b. Ishaq al-Kindi and cAbd Allah b. Isma0!! al-Hashimi, Risalat cAbd Allah b. Ismafil alHashimi ila cAbd al-Masih b. Ishaq al-Kindi Yadcuhu bind ila al-Isldm wa Risalat cAbd al-Masih ila alHashimi Yaruddu bihd calayhi \va Yadcuhu ila alNasraniyyah, ed. A. Tien, London, 1885.

Ibn al-Jawzi Muntazam

°Abd al-Rahman b. cAli ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Muntazam fi Ta'rikh al-Muluk \va al-Umam, 10 vols., Hyderabad, 1357 A.H. [1938].

Little "Coptic"

Donald P. Little, "Coptic Conversion to Islam under the Bahri Mamluks, 692-755/1293-1354," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, vol. 39 (1976), pp. 552-69.

Matta

(

Amr ibn Malta, Akhbar Fatarikat Kursi al-Mashriq, ed. Henricus Gismondi, Rome, 1896.

Menage

V.L. Manage, "The Islamization of Anatolia," in Conversion to Islam, ed. Nehemia Levtzion, New York, 1979, pp. 52-67.

Muir

William Muir, The Apology ofAl Kindy, London, 1882.

Pickthall

Muhammad M. Pickthall, tr., The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an, New York, 1953.

SahasJohn

Daniel J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy of the Ishmaelites", Leiden, 1972.

Sulayman

Man b. Sulayman, Akhbar Fatarikat Kursi al-Mashriq, ed. Henricus Gismondi, Rome, 1899.

TabanTorikh2

Abu Jacfar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.), Ta'rikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, 10 vols., ed. Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Cairo, 1960-68.

Tartar

Georges Tartar, "L'authenticite des epitres d'alHaShimi et d'al-Kindi sous le Calife al-Ma'mun (813834)," in Actes du premier congres international d'etudes arabes chr&iennes, ed. Khalil Samir, Rome, 1982, pp. 207-21.

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RELIGIOUS ADHERENCE

53

Tibawi

Abdul-Latif Tibawi, "Christians under Muhammad and His First Two Caliphs," Islamic Quarterly, vol. 6 (1961), pp. 30-46.

Timothy "Apology"

Timothy I, Nestorian patriarch (A.D. 779-823), "The Apology of Timothy the Patriarch before the Caliph alMahdi," ed. and tr. A. Mingana, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 12 (1928), pp. 137-226.

Timothy Dialogue

Timotheus I, Nestorian patriarch, L'eglise et V Islam sous Timothee I (780-823): etude sur I'eglise nestorienne au temps des premiers cAbbasides, avec nouvelle Edition et traduction du dialogue entre Timothee et al-Mahdi, ed. and tr. Hans Putnam, Beirut, 1975.

This page intentionally left blank

3

The Art and Non-Art of Byzantine Polemics: Patterns of Refutation in Byzantine Anti-Islamic Literature Daniel J. Sahas INTRODUCTION Although we have not yet identified and studied fully the entire Byzantine literature on Islam, we do need to take a break in our study of this huge subject,1 take stock of, and reflect on some recurring motivations and patterns of dialogue and polemics. Such patterns, although not absolutely and rigidly adhered to, must be noted by the researcher. What is, then, the redeeming value of such an investigation? It is the recognition that Byzantine polemics were neither inconsequential of, nor irrelevant to, the Byzantine ethos itself and its tradition, nor did they arise each time in a vacuum. The Byzantines did not develop a monolithic approach to Islam; they developed, rather, a variety of attitudes, depending on regional political realities, reflective of the personal, cultural, and contextual circumstances in which each writer was found. Byzantine attitudes towards Islam were developed from the Byzantine grass-roots, rather than from the Byzantine administration. One may want to generalize, not without foundation, that Byzantine polemics were developed as a response to whatever kind of Islam was experienced - military, political, theological, practical, spiritual. The polemic literature produced, therefore, bears all the signs of a spontaneous reaction to such experiences. 1 There exist already several general surveys of Byzantine-Muslim relations: Guteibock, Vasiliev, Sdrakas, Meyendorff, Vryonis "Islam" and Khouiy, to mention only a few examples.

Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Gervers and Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 9 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990), pp. 55-73. © P.I.M.S, 1990.

56

DJ. SAHAS

One restriction in this paper is the exclusion from our consideration of narratives, chronicles and historical material. Such writings deal with Islam in the context of the development of Christian history; they do not aim at refuting Islam, although indirectly they serve to do so.2 Of similar nature are references or whole writings, contemporary to the earliest Arab invasions, which in a sermonic context describe the reaction of the Christian population to the Muslim conquests.3 Such are the sermons of Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem.4 His narratives of the conquest of the Holy Land are interesting only in the sense that they reflect the sentiments of the Christian populations about the conquests, and help to explain, to some degree, the historical and emotional background behind the writings of later Byzantine polemicists. Chronicles and chroniclers of events (and there are many of these) present a rather narrowly-focused view of Byzantine-Muslim relations. Written around the activities of some ruling institution, caliphs, emperors and sultans concentrate on the political affairs undertaken by or relevant to the history of that particular institution, and rarely note things that happened or activities that were going on elsewhere. Their standard of reference was what may be called the "official level," the level of matters that interested official circles or affected their working.5

What interested official circles the most was the outcome of warfare between the two religious communities/empires; a preoccupation which in itself gives a distorted overall picture of Byzantine-Muslim relations. In the words of Hamilton Gibb, The wars between Islam and Byzantium occupy so prominent, indeed almost exclusive a place in our history books and in the chronicles on which they draw, that the student of medieval history may be excused for taking the rubric "Arab-Byzantine Relations" as a record of little more than continual warfare.6

Indeed, history books and chronicles do report warfare relations almost exclusively. But for our subject not all history books and chronicles are primary sources, or the only sources. What does one do, for example, with the Sermon on St. Barbarus1 or with the Sermon of Gregory Decapolites? two "historical" sermons which shed little light on history 2

See, for example, Theophanes. On this topic see Kaegi, and Constantelos. 4 See Sophronius "Christmas" (A.D. 634), and Sophronius "Epiphany" (A.D. 637). 5 Gibb, p. 221. 6 Gibb, p. 221. 7 See Constantine Acropol., pp. 405-20, the story of a ninth-century Arab soldier who hides in the mountains, converts to Christianity, is killed accidentally by a hunter and becomes known as "St. Barbarus" (or a "barbarian saint"), as his name never became known. 8 Sahas "Dekapolites". 3

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

57

but do enlighten the mystical and spiritual disposition of their authors? THE SETTING OF BYZANTINE REFUTATIONS It was the military defeat of Byzantines at the hands of Arab armies that made Islam and anyone related to it an enemy of the Byzantine empire.9 It was also the progressively Persian-Shiite twist that made Islam, in the eyes of later Byzantines, look like an entity similar to Latin Christendom for which Byzantines had little respect. The geographical and cultural proximity of Byzantine Christianity to Islam must always be borne in mind when dealing with the relations between the two traditions. Among the Christians of the East10 many, and prominent ones, were Arabs. Within the general framework of Byzantine polemics we must distinguish between those who were under Muslim rule and in direct contact with Islam, and those outside Muslim rule but "dealing" with Islam across political, cultural and linguistic borders. The speech of the latter was indirect, their tone freer and often violent, their arguments largely misinformed or groundless, and the purpose of their writings mainly for internal consumption.11 One may want to mention here Nicetas of Byzantium (ca. 842-912), George Hamartolos (9th century), Arethas of Caesarea (ca. 850-after 932), Euthymios Zygabenos (1050-1120), Nicetas Choniates (ca. 1150-1213), Demetrios Cydones (ca. 1324-ca. 1400) Manuel II Palaiologus (13911425). For the majority of eastern Christians earliest Islam contained significant elements of Christian teaching, albeit heretical. Thus, the pervasive attitude of Arab-Byzantine Christians (the name Arab used here in its broad generic meaning) towards Islam was an attitude towards a phenomenon basically congenial, although strange and possibly irritating. The question of co-existence, however, was never raised in the minds of these Byzantines. What was to be defeated was Islam as a superstition, false teaching and heresy; not as a community of people, or a nation. The Muslims were, after all, Arabs as the Christians were. Islam was to be fought against as a false Christology, one of several such heresies that were still prevailing even after the doctrinal definitions of 9 The iconoclastic Council of Constantinople (A.D. 754) condemned John of Damascus for his friendly relations with the Arab Muslims as "conspirator against the empire." Mansi, vol. 13 (1767), p. 356D. See also Sahas John, pp. 3 ff. 10 On this point I would like to suggest that one needs to differentiate between the Byzantine Orthodox and the Nestorian or monophysite writings on Islam. The latter form, in several ways, a different genre of polemics; and this because of the particular theology, rather Christology, as well as political and historical realities that these writings represent On the early Nestorian and monophysite relations to Islam, see Moorhead "Earliest" and Moorhead "Response." 11 Gaudeul,pp.61-3.

58

D.J. SAHAS

the Ecumenical Councils; like iconoclasm (726-843), which was actually a movement with roots going deep into the earliest years of Islam, and extending into the period of a well-established Muslim caliphate.12 Islam was, therefore, to be fought from within and on its own ground. In the Arab-Byzantine context, Islam was to be fought with the indigenous means available, namely speech, writing, logical "suffocation" and suppression, cultural and community insulation; not war. Hence, in essence, the dialectic, hermeneutical, comparative, politico-diplomatic, theological, pastoral, hagiological-spiritual nature of the Byzantine antiIslamic literature.13 In many respects Islam developed along parallel lines of Byzantine (Orthodox) Christianity. Orthodox Christianity and Islam mirror each other in many ways.14 Not only were several significant experiences the same, but several developments were also contemporary. For example, in both cultures a theocratic role for the emperor and the caliph was developed. In both traditions a conciliary or democratic process for denning orthodoxy can be observed, on almost identical issues and order. In both traditions the process towards a theological self-understanding resulted in a triumph of orthodoxy; in the case of Byzantium culminating in the victory of the iconophiles over the iconoclasts, and in the case of Islam in the victory of the Ashcarites over the Muctazilites on the issue of the created or uncreated Qur'an. Considering the opposite stand of each religious tradition on the issues of the icons or the Qur'an, their theological stance is phenomenologically identical. It has to do with the reality of God's revelation in a way that pertains to both, the physical and the spiritual, the human and the divine; "two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" - to use, only for the sake of language, the wording of the Christological Definition of Chalcedon (451) - without asking to explain revelation by mere logic (bild kayfa). In the frame of mind revealed by these latter words one must discern a principle that permeates both Byzantine Christian and Islamic ethos, from which different answers stem on the distinct questions which each religious tradition raises. This principle of meaning in antinomy and unity in diversity, is perhaps one of the most significant points of convergence between essential Christianity and essential Islam. The recognition of and appreciation for such a principle calls for a re-examination of the development of two religious traditions in their classical stages. 12

See the introduction and the relevant literature on the subject in Sahas Icon. Meyendorff (p. 115) has already identified four categories of writings: polemic literature, canonical and liturgical texts, official letters sent by Byzantine dignitaries to their Muslim counterparts, hagiographical material. These categories, however, do not reflect the characteristic content and nature of the polemics. 14 See Vaporis, particularly Haddad "Eastern," pp. 17-32 therein. 13

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

59

Byzantine polemics, therefore, must be examined in the context of such engagement and disengagement of one tradition from the other; it is in this context that one should attempt to discern "patterns" of refutation. A WAR OF WORDS AGAINST ISLAM To repeat, the history of relations between Byzantium and Islam is, generally speaking, a history of warfare; and there is little "art" in warfare as such. What art there is could be determined in terms of timing, techniques, clarity of goals, and by any tangible result derived from it. The anti-Islamic literature is a part and a by-product of the state of war between the two theocratic communities. The Byzantine polemics constitute also a war of words. Although this broad statement is essentially correct, it is not absolutely accurate. The Umayyad period presents some unique characteristics. Arabic-speaking Syrian and North African Christians had grown tired of Greek-Byzantine hegemony and especially of taxes imposed upon them. The long protracted ByzantinePersian wars had also exhausted these populations. Islam, then, represented to Arab Christians a possibility of manifestation of Arab solidarity as an alternative to the Greek-speaking Byzantine authority. The Arab conquests were viewed introspectively as a punishment of God for the iniquities of the Christians themselves. Thus the earliest polemics were heresiological in character, aiming not so much against the Arabs as a political power, but rather against Islam as a Christian heresy. Byzantine Christians living under Muslim rule did not necessarily take the designation dhimmis as an honorary title that distinguished them from other conquered nations, not only because Byzantium was itself an empire, but mainly because it was a Christian empire. Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, contains all the theological ingredients needed for survival as a unique entity, even in a state of defeat and conquest, ingredients which allow little room for sharing in a religious pluralism, but which also make it possible! The political and military losses of the empire were not considered in effect as actual and permanent losses, but rather as temporary divine signs of divine providence for the good of the Christian community. In a religious tradition, where crucifixion and resurrection are central characteristics and beliefs, there is little room for compromise, acceptance of final defeat, and subjugation. Furthermore, for the Byzantines Islam did not represent a superior way of life, or a higher state of religion, as Islam was seeing itself, but a downgrading of civilization and a superstitious distorted faith. If anything, the designation dhimmis reminded the Christians of that which they ought to merely tolerate and eventually reject. Thence the proud and calculated polemics against Islam. To those who were not under direct Arab rule, the posture was one of open warfare, political and military. One can

60

D.J. SAHAS

imagine the indignation of Byzantine authorities, especially those living in the capital, at Christians like John of Damascus who had regular dealings with the Muslims, maintained a friendship, carried on a dialogue with them, and even served in their administration. Yet it was under Byzantine influence, particularly of the dhimmls "that the caliphate was first imperialized, a process commenced by the Umayyads, and later completed by the Abbasids who Iranized it."" The influence of the Byzantine dhimmls extended to various significant aspects of art and culture in the life of the caliphate, as well as upon the administrative, political and economic fields. Through the polemic literature, the dhimmis influenced the intellectual, theological fabric of Islam still in its infancy. Given this strong show of independent mind of the dhimmis the mosque only partially replaced the church, while the substructure remained Byzantine. One can say that Byzantium was not destroyed by the earliest conquests, but it survived in an Arabized and Islamized form, as a "neo-Byzantine empire."16 Thence the early Umayyad period is not only an example in the art of co-existence, but also a phenomenon of transformation of a society from within. A growing awareness of being a unique society, distinct from the Byzantine, prompted the later Umayyads, beginning with °Abd al-Malik (684-705), and especially the Abbasids, to ascertain their own identity as a theocratic empire. Why, then, the vehement attack against Islam? Precisely because, in the context of the Arab-Byzantine-Christian culture, the new, strange and dangerous element was Islam itself, not the Arabs.17 Thence the turning of Arab Christians not against the religion of the Arabs, but against the heresy of dubious Arabs, "the Ishmaelites," the sons of the concubine Hagar, those without the blessing of Sarah the legitimate wife 15

Viyonis "Islam," p. 211. Vryonis "Islam," p. 223. 17 The wars of the Byzantines against the Arabs is a later phenomenon. While, for example, Heraclius fought personally against the Persians, he did not do so against the Arabs. Heraclius took no real part in the fighting against the Arabs. The earliest wars of the Byzantines against Islam were left to the local Christian populations; these were mostly wars of words. One reason for Heraclius' distance from the Arabs might have been his antipathy towards the monophysites and the antiChalcedon Syrians; an antipathy that was mutual. In Edessa, for example, Heraclius was refused communion by Metropolitan Isaiah for not anathematizing the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo (Michael the Syrian, vol. 2, p. 412). In Mabboug, where the Chalcedonians predominated, Heraclius clashed with the citizens of the city over the question of the one will in Christ (ibid.). They were and- Nestorians, but adhered to the doctrine of the two wills in Christ. Heraclius pillaged the houses and the churches of those who did not profess the monothelite doctrine, and persecuted their priests and monks. Michael the Syrian sees these persecutions as one of the causes for the success of the Arab conquests (ibid. pp. 412-13). The Syrians actually supported the Arabs in their battles against Heraclius. Under these circumstances, it would have made little sense for Heraclius to have fought actively against the Arabs. 16

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

61

of Abraham. At this point one is reminded of the playful distortion of the name "Saracens" to "Sarracens" by John of Damascus and his ingeniously and perilously imaginative derogatory interpretation of its etymology.18 For the earliest Arab-Byzantine-polemicists the "Arab" ingredient represents the element of continuity, while Islam represents the element of abnormality and, thus, of conversion. It must also be borne in mind that the Byzantine attitude towards Islam was, certainly, shaped by the Muslim attitude towards Byzantium; an attitude that called for the replacement of the Roman-Christian by an Arab-Muslim empire.19 THEOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF ISLAM Byzantines in general were experienced theologians. The long history of theological debates had made them experts in dialectics. With regard to Islam most of them failed to discern the essential point and motivation of the Muslim doctrine, but others succeeded in pointing with precision to key theological differences. John of Damascus (ca. 652-749), for example, discerned more correctly than most writers the Arian rather than the Nestorian influence and character of Islamic Christology.20 and Nicholas Mysticos (901-7, 912-25) made an insightful distinction in revelation between "divine decree" in Islam and "divine presence" in Christianity.21 On the other hand Arethas of Caesarea (ca. 850-932) was unable to communicate with Islam or to notice its spiritual values and eschatological concerns. For him Islam was a crude materialistic, hedonistic way of life which would be perpetuated in the hereafter and would pollute Paradise.22 Arethas grossly misunderstood Muslim eschatology that points to the spiritualization of the human body rather 18 Christides (p. 331) has erroneously concluded that "A Byzantine explanation of the origin of Saracen which has escaped the attention of modern scholars is found in the 15th-century Byzantine author Georgios Phrantzes who asserts that the Arabs were called Sarakenoi because they were sent out by Sarah devoid of inheritance and empty-handed." Actually, seven centuries before Phrantzes, John of Damascus had already introduced this distorted name and had suggested this derogatory interpretation (Sahas John, pp. 70-1). 19 Islam became known to the Byzantines during the Arab invasions. There is no reference to Islam in Byzantine literature during the life of Muhammad and the caliphate of Abu Bakr (632-34). Islam was simply an esoteric event in Arabia that affected no one other than the Arab tribes of Arabia itself. Even the Qur'an supports this statement Only in later suras does the notion that Islam is a religion for all mankind appear; otherwise Islam is presented as an Arab proclamation of the belief in one God. With the fall of Jerusalem and the rest of Syria, the war between "the race of the Ishmaelites" and the "Romans" began (Zonaras, vol. 134, col. 1288). The goal was the conquest of Constantinople itself, the capital of the Christian Roman (Byzantine) empire. For references, see Sahas John, pp. 20-21. 20 See Sahas "Revisited," pp. 108-9. 21 Nicholas Mysticos. 22 Sahas "Arethas," p. 76.

62

D.J. SAHAS

than to the materialization of Paradise.23 The theological treatment of Islam had, of course, another dimension. Islam was not judged on the basis of general theologicalphilosophical criteria, but with Christian ideas and standards. One understands this posture if one takes into account the encompassing role of Christianity in the theocratic life of Byzantium. A Muslim had no chance of being seen as anything else but as a "non-Christian." What identified a Muslim was not Islam itself but his being a non-Christian, or actually an anti-Christian. The Christian character of polemics also prompted the Muslims to use Christian categories and arguments, which resulted at times in a Christianization of Islam and an Islamization of Christianity. I have in mind here the technique of using miracles as a "proof of prophethood for either Jesus or Muhammad.24 The Muslim response to the argument of the superiority of Jesus because of his miracles was the embellishment of the life of Muhammad with miracles to match those of Jesus. In the practical life also the office of the caliph was shaped into one of a theocratic ruler that resembled the role of a Byzantine emperor: if a caliph would not look and behave like a Byzantine emperor, no Byzantine would take his office and authority seriously. Furthermore, the iconoclastic movement on the one hand (726-843) and the Muctazilite on the other (750-848), both of them almost contemporary and hostile to anthropomorphism,25 prompted the interference of the imperial power and that of the caliph to bring about and assert orthodoxy as a criterion of religious and political loyalty. But this kind of "assimilation" was only temporary and withinthe context of the Muslim-Christian controversies. Progressively the Muslims became sophisticated in theological matters, and knowledgeable in Christian doctrines and arguments. They set themselves to imitate the style of Christian polemics and to free themselves from theological dilemmas. The situation eventually reversed itself when Muslim intellectuals, and especially those with first-hand knowledge of Christianity, took the offensive.26 The pointed character of Byzantine polemics assisted Islam in formulating its own doctrine more sharply; in the same way as the various Christian heretics contributed to the articulation of Christian orthodoxy. It has been accurately suggested that the Christological controversies, for example, provided the blue-print for 23

See Bouhdiba, pp. 72-87. Sahas "Formation." The Sirah,, which coincides chronologically with the open criticism and challenges, especially of John of Damascus and Patriarch Timothy, must be seen as an apologetic response of Islam to Christianity; see Gaudeul, p. 35. 25 Haddad "Iconoclasm," p. 288. 26 See for example cAli b. Sahl b. Rabban al-Tabari (d. 855), or 'Amr. b. Bahr al-Jahiz (d. 869). 24

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

63

the articulation of the Muslim doctrine of the Qur'an as the word of God.27 The goal of Byzantine polemicists to ridicule or to render their opponents speechless with rhetorical questions back-fired. Such questions often were not answered, not because the Muslims were rendered speechless, but rather because such questions were so obviously and blatantly polemic and sarcastic that the Muslims ignored them with jest.28 On this point one may want to suggest that the frequency, or lack of frequency, of a question or argument found in Byzantine anti-Islamic literature can be taken as an indicator of the seriousness of a controversy. ISLAM AS A CHRISTIAN HERESY The typical Christian heresiological technique had always been the exposition of a heresy vis-a-vis the Christian orthodoxy. This was done usually in the form of actual or fictitious dialogues. The same technique was used against Islam. In "dialogues" like those "between a Christian and a Saracen" by John of Damascus, Abu Qurrah, Patriarch Timothy,29 Nicetas of Byzantium, Arethas and others, the Saracen finds himself in a difficult position to defend convincingly his faith under Christian questioning. The Christian treats the Muslim as a Christian and uses his own sources, especially the Bible, as well as his Christian thinking and arguments, to judge Islam. This approach places the Muslim seemingly in a non-discriminatory, but nevertheless in a disadvantageous position, and raises the uncomfortable question of divine intention: if Muslims and Christians pray to the same God, why does He not reveal to Muslims that Jesus is, in fact, His only-begotten Son? But, precisely, because the Byzantines had no such mental difficulty in accepting Islam as a religion that believes in the same God, they treated Islam as a heresy. For the Byzantines, the Muslims knew Christ, but they consciously denied him. The key question of the Byzantines with regard to Islam was not God or his grace, but the Muslim denial of God's revelation in the person of Christ. The heretical, and possibly demonic, element in Islam is to be found not in the ignorance of Christ but in the conscious rejection of him. Thence Islam is the "anti-Christ," and Muhammad the "forerunner of the anti-Christ."30 Indirectly, by "Christianizing" Islam the Byzantines 27

Scale. See Arethas of Caesarea who asks such a direct question to "the Emir at Damascus": "But how did you venture to call the faith of the Saracens pure and immaculate...? Isn't that a faith full of filth that subjects you mostly to sexual acts with women, and to many other shameful and improper deeds?" Westerink, vol. 1, p. 234, and Sahas "Arethas," p. 73. 29 See John Disputatio (Kotter, vol. 4, pp. 427-38); John Disceptatio, cols. 1585-97; Abu Qurra Contra, cols. 1461-1596 passim; Mingana. 30 John de Haeresibus, col. 764 (Kotter, vol. 4, pp. 60-67). 28

64

D.J. SAHAS

contributed to its solidification, and to the legitimization of war against it. The disturbing factor about Islam was that Islam, in the minds of the Byzantines, was raising the question of divine providence. To them the question was made even more existential by the fact that the Byzantine empire was a Christian empire: if the God of Islam is the God of Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus, how then could this same God treat his empire so badly in the hands of the Muslims? That is why this question was met with various, ostensibly contradictory, answers. Either God has chosen the Muslims in order to punish the Christians for their iniquities, or He was showing His love to the Christians by testing their faithfulness to Him. For some Byzantines, like John of Damascus, Arethas and Gregory Palamas, the tribulations of the Christians manifested God's loyalty to them, as He was preparing them for greater achievements and glories. Notwithstanding the question as to who influenced whom in this respect, the Muslims also used this line of logic in reverse and to their own advantage to speak of the superiority of Islam and the bankruptcy of Christianity; something which shows the mutual understanding of each other, and sheds light into the intensity and bitterness of the conflict. The Muslim conquests31 and all disasters of the empire were attributed to the wrath of God. When in 1346 the dome of the Church of St. Sophia collapsed, this mishap and even the fall of Constantinople were attributed to the wrath of God.32 Thus Islam was made to be the scapegoat for political or internal calamities of the empire. DIPLOMACY AND DIALOGUE On a different level, however, some more diplomatic Byzantines tried not to reject the reality of Islam but to see it in a more positive way, as the power with which the Christian empire had to come to terms and coexist. They attempted to place Islam under the best possible light which Christians can accept. Some polemicists, for example, differentiated Muhammad himself from the Muslims and their way of life; they tended to acknowledge virtues in Muhammad, while condemning popular Muslim practices. Timothy, the Nestorian patriarch of Baghdad, in his Apology to the Caliph al-Mahdi conceded that Muhammad "walked in the path of all the prophets."33 Was this a diplomatic move, a sincere statement of conviction, or an expression of timidity on the part of 31 See the Byzantine authors writing close to the time of the conquests in Kaegi, and Constantelos; for later authors see Arethas, or Palamas in Sahas "Arethas," Sahas "Captivity," and Sahas "Gregory." 32 See Kariotoglou, p. 60, n.2. 33 Mingana, p. 197.

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

65

Timothy?34 Considering the position of those living in a Muslim environment, as well as Timothy's own criticism of Muhammad in other instances,35 such statements do not betray a timid man in Timothy. A reverse approach, noticed even today, called for a blistering attack against Muhammad and a courteous gesture of friendship towards the Muslims.36 In both instances the impossible effort was to differentiate and alienate the Muslims from Muhammad, the prophet of their faith. A good case of a "diplomat" polemicist is that of Patriarch Nicholas Mysticos (901-7, 912-25). Acting as regent of the under-aged Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Nicholas wrote in 913 to the caliph in Baghdad37 in support of the mission of St. Demetrianus of Cyprus to Baghdad, in order to free Cypriot prisoners of war after Damian's attack on the island (912). Nicholas not only does not antagonize the caliph, but in a diplomatic way he instructs him, as a ruler of a major dynasty, to prove magnanimous towards those who are weaker, meaning the Cypriots. According to Nicholas, the entire world is governed by two sovereign powers, the Saracens and the Romans. These sovereignties, then, should stand above petty frictions, and "maintain only social and brotherly relations and not, because we are different in our way of life, in our professions and in our faiths, be disposed totally in an alien way towards each other and impoverish each other of the communication through letters."38 It is difficult to envision how, under circumstances of war between the two empires and with a tradition of controversial literature produced up to that time, the two sovereignties could foster social and especially "brotherly" relations. As Nicholas himself admits, the two differ in their style of life, in their endeavors, their morals, and their religion (to sevasmati), that is, in "that which one reveres the most." For Nicholas, however, even under such circumstances, brotherly relations are possible. He calls the sovereignty of the caliph "a God-given one" (theosdotos)39 and he lectures the caliph on the meaning of justice, magnanimity and statesmanship for a theocratic ruler. In a second letter to the same caliph, Nicholas expresses again his pleasure at his friendship with him. The whole letter is a hymn to friendship. In closing Nicholas calls the caliph "the best of my friends."40 He acknowledges the politeness and good upbringing 34

Browne has criticized this kind of overture as an expression of timidity. SeeMingana,pp. 169 and 175. 36 Consider Nazir-AU, pp. 41-2. 37 Nicholas Mysticos, cols. 28-40. For Jenkins (p. 269), the superscription reading "To the most glorious and excellent amir of Crete and beloved one" is a "mere copyist's blunder." 38 Nicholas Mysticos, col. 28B. 39 Nicholas Mysticos, col. 29A. 40 Nicholas Mysticos, col. 40A. 31

66

D.J. SAHAS

(eugeneia) of the caliph, his sensitivity and his high respect for friendship. He reminds him of Patriarch Photius' respect and love for the Saracens, and especially for the caliph's father, a respect which "no-one even among those of the same faith and of the same race has shown to you."41 In Photius, Nicholas Mysticos and in Gregory Palamas one sees a tradition of the State using ecclesiastics as political envoys to the Muslims. Nicholas continues the tradition of Photius, another envoy sent by Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886-912) to the "Assyrians" (the Abbasids) to plead for a better treatment of the Christians. Both these envoys pleaded with a characteristic dignity and respect for the caliph. One may generalize by saying that the ninth and tenth century intellectual revival of Patriarch Photius had an immediate and tangible impact upon Byzantine-Muslim relations. In this respect, the violent style of Arethas' writing, a contemporary and disciple of Photius, is uncharacteristic. THE MYSTICAL APPROACH A few Byzantine writers, those especially coming from the monastic order, went beyond the externals, the conventions of time and the dictates of political expediency. Being preoccupied with religion as the human experience of the divine, they looked into Islam for signs of the human quest for the sacred, for divine revelation, and for grace. Few though these instances might be, they were nevertheless part of the Byzantine tradition in relationship to Islam. One may safely say that among the best and most constructive moments of Byzantine-Muslim relations were those in which monasticism and Sufism encountered and influenced each other.42 John of Damascus, who wrote from the monastery of Mar Sabba in the Judean desert was himself an example of a serious student of the theology of Islam to which he gave credit for its "Christian" character, albeit "heretical." The author of the Sermon on St. Barbarus presents a sensitive and receptive Muslim who becomes eventually a Christian martyr, honored as a saint. Gregory Decapolites transfers all the qualities of an ideal mystic and confessor of faith to a Muslim prince who not only becomes a martyr for the Christian faith and a saint, but who is also blessed with insights and special experiences of the divine grace, to the shame of others who professed Christianity from birth. Finally, one should mention Gregory Palamas' dialogues with the Muslim Turks and his acknowledgement and impression of Islam as a theoseveia (a profound reverence for God) in spite of his condemnation of the conduct of his Muslim captors.43 A further study of later Sufism 41 42 43

Nicholas Mysticos, col. 37A. For bibliography and some characteristic insights into Hesychasm and Sufism, see Nasr. Sahas "Captivity," p. 432; Sahas "Gregory," pp. 20-21.

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

67

and Hesychasm will reveal some common ideals and concerns of the mystics: a) the notion of a mystical path leading to God, a path that returns into and enriches the world; b) a distinction made between the spiritual and the material body, without one abrogating the other: the goal is not the extinction of the physical body, but the emphasis is rather on the spiritualized body; the center of the spiritual body is the heart, not the intellect; the intellect dwells in the heart, not in the brain; grace passes through the heart; intellect is to be distinguished from reason; c) the common emphasis on praxis and theoria, theoria meaning vision, not a mental construct; d) the preoccupation with the notion of spiritual warfare, or jihad, an unceasing holy war against the invisible powers of evil: spiritual life for monasticism, especially for Hesychasm and Sufism, is a matter of a continuous combat; e) the common focus on light: the experience of light is the tangible achievement in both spiritual traditions; sharing in the divine energies means becoming light; f) beyond light, there is darkness, or gnofos: the experience of the divine is a constant delving into the divine gnofos, which is the basis of apophatic theology; g) the end of the spiritual path which is theosis or union with God, a union which actually means extinction (fana') of one's own selfawareness and one's living in and with the divine (ana al-Haqq).44 It is this rich and profound experience that made the encounter between mystics in Christianity and Islam less problematic or polemical. Byzantines of mystical disposition saw people, history, circumstances and religious traditions in an ontological sense, beyond space, time and political conventions. Thus, although polemical at the outset, they were more pacifist in their attitudes, language and expressions - concerned primarily with the ultimate destiny of human beings. ANONYMITY Some Byzantine writings have survived which bear no author's name.45 They are few, very short, polemic in character and very unhistorical, which makes their anonymity suspicious, and, at the same time, very interesting. Were these authors writing, perhaps, from places under Islamic rule being under direct threat of personal punishment, and 44 45

See also Nasr. PG.vol. 154, pp. 1152-70 and PG, vol. 158, pp. 1077-80.

68

DJ. SAHAS

wanting to conceal their identity for reasons of security? Were they, perhaps, writing not from places under Islamic rule, but afraid of any possible broader repercussions of their writings upon the Christian population? Were these writings meant to be and remain anonymous, as a kind of underground subversive movement against Islamic rule? Anonymous writings are few in comparison to the number of writings which bear a name, fictitious or not, of a writer. This phenomenon tells us that, in general, there was no reluctance or timidity involved on the part of the Byzantines when writing against Islam. We encounter the same outspokenness in anonymous as in attributed writings. These observations lead us to the following conclusions: a) polemic writings against Islam may not have been available to Muslims directly and even if they were, Muslims might not have been able to read or use them as evidence against their authors; b) there was a certain degree of freedom of expression among Christians, which the Muslims tolerated; and c) such writings came from authors living outside the sphere of effective Muslim control.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POLEMICS Notwithstanding the nature, artistic or non-artistic style, or content of dialogue or disputation, we have no indication that any of these polemic pieces of literature achieved the goal for which they were written, if the goal of those polemic writings was to embarrass, ridicule, convince or, in the end, convert the opponent. We have no indication that any such result was accomplished. What we have are two kinds of instances: the first is the two letters of Nicholas Mysticos which contributed favorably to the release of the Cypriot captives. The second is the case found in the sermon of Gregory Decapolites where a Muslim prince is converted to Christianity, baptized and eventually becomes a Christian martyr as a result of a mystical experience in the context of worship and eucharist. In the first instance it was the meek, conciliatory tone of Nicholas' language, and possibly the open acceptance of the Islamic sovereignty actually its co-sovereignty with Christianity. In the second instance it was the mystical disposition conducive to a personal experience of the divine presence, that broke the arrogance of the Muslim prince, urging him to seek submission. One may only suggest that the real effect that Byzantine polemicists had was to establish patterns of debate and polemics which, interestingly enough, have persisted until today with little change. This phenomenon proves that the patterns themselves and the issues under debate were of a "dead-end" nature; that is why they were, and they remain, ineffective. Obviously the purpose of anti-Islamic polemics was purely academic and intellectual. Their practical purposes were to protect the Christian faith, keep the Christians within the Christian faith, and gain

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

69

converts from Islam. It was hoped that that conversion, especially of prominent Muslims, would ease and even erase the conflict of the Christian empire with the Arabs. The narrator (because obviously this is not John Cantacouzenos himself) of the preface to John Cantacouzenos' four Apologies against the Mohammedan Sect expresses his disappointment that such events as the conversion of a prominent "Achaemenide," i.e. Muslim, "was not about to ease the war of our nation."46

CONCLUSION The art of encounter and dialogue between Christians and Muslims can best be discerned in the actual life of the two religious communities in an indigenous culture. There conversions, dialogue and co-operation can be demonstrated. Arab Christians have not felt foreign in Arab-speaking countries, even after these countries were Islamized. One must not underestimate the Arab solidarity. Arab Christians have contributed immensely to the development of Christianity, its dogma and practice; I would say, of Islam as well. Bishop George Khodr of Mt. Lebanon, in an interview to AlJamhoria ("Democracy," December 6, 1985), without minimizing the danger from Islamic fanaticism, said: "Silence that springs from patience and which sanctifies the soul and makes it creative, has a far greater value than anger, escape or the rightful protest against certain Muslim fanatics."47 In the same interview, another modern Arab Christian ecclesiastic, Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch, stated: Arabism is not necessarily connected with Islam. In other words the Arab world is not a Muslim world. Of course the Arab countries are governed by Muslim leaders, but they have in their midst a percentage of Christian population of various kinds according to the country. We should not forget that the region was originally exclusively Christian. God has placed us here in order to stay. We do not feel that we exist against the will of someone. No-one can forget the 1400 years of the Muslim reality, and no-one wants to do that. We have become a minority in this region, which has clearly taken a Muslim character. What I want to emphasize is that we Christians are not strangers here and that we have been called to live with the Muslims for ever.48

I would submit that this is the same Byzantine attitude that has been expressed by the most serious and eventually influential writers on 46 47 48

PG, vol. 154, pp. 372-534 (on p. 372B). Episkepsis, no. 350 (1 Feb. 1986), p. 9. Ibid.

70

D.J. SAHAS

Islam, especially among those with a profound spiritual disposition and an existential experience of the Arab Muslim world. Why, then, should one study patterns of dialogue of the past, most of them being rather negative and ineffective? Perhaps in order to avoid making caricatures. Things which did not succeed in the past are unlikely to succeed in the present or in the future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abu Qurra Contra

Abu Qurra, Contra Haereticos, Judaeos et Saracenos varia opuscula, PG, vol. 97, cols. 1461-1596.

Bouhdiba

Abdelwahab Bouhdiba, Sexuality in Islam, London, 1985.

Browne

Laurence E. Browne, The Eclipse of Christianity in Asia from the Time of Muhammad till the Fourteenth Century, Cambridge, 1933 (rpt. New York, 1967).

Christides

V. Christides, ' "The Names Araves, Sarakenoi etc. and Their False Byzantine Etymologies," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 65 (1972), pp. 329-33.

Constantelos

D. J. Constantelos,' 'The Moslem Conquests of the Near East as Revealed in the Greek Sources of the Seventh and the Eighth Centuries," Byzantion, vol. 42(1972), pp. 325-57.

Constantine Acropol.

Constantine Acropolites, "Sermon on St. Barbaras," in Analekta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, vol. 1, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, St. Petersburg, 1881 (rpt. Brussels, 1963), pp. 405-20.

Gaudeul

Jean-Marie Gaudeul, Encounters and Clashes: Islam and Christianity in History, 2 vols., Rome, 1984.

Gibb

Hamilton A.R. Gibb, "Arab-Byzantine Relations under the Umayyad Caliphate," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 12 (1958), pp. 219-33.

Guterbock

C. Guterbock, Der Islam im Lichte der byzantinischen Polemic, Berlin, 1912.

Haddad "Eastern"

Robert M. Haddad, "Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam: An Historical Overview," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 31 (1986), pp. 17-32 (rpt. in N.M. Vaporis, ed., Orthodox Christians and Muslims, Brookline, Mass., 1986).

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

71

Haddad "Iconoclasm"

Robert M. Haddad, "Iconoclasm and Muctazila: The Politics of Anthropomorphism," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 27 (1982), pp. 287-305.

Jenkins

Romily J.H. Jenkins, "The Mission of St. Demetrianus of Cyprus to Baghdad," Annuaire de I'lnstitut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientates et Slaves, vol. 9 (1949), pp. 267-75 (rpt. in his Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and 10th Centuries, London, 1970, no. 16).

John de Haeresibus

John of Damascus, Liber de Haeresibus (101), PG, vol. 94, cols. 764-73 (also in Kotter, vol. 4, pp. 60-67).

John Disceptatio

John of Damascus, Disceptatio Christiani et Saraceni, PG, vol. 94, cols. 1585-97.

John Disputatio

John of Damascus, Disputatio Saraceni et Christiani, PG, vol. 96, cols. 1336-48 (also in Kotter, vol. 4, pp. 427-38).

Kaegi

Walter Emil Kaegi, Jr., "Initial Byzantine Reactions to the Arab Conquest," Church History, vol. 38(1969), pp. 139-49.

Kariotoglou

A.S. Kariotoglou, Eperi tou Islam kai tesptoseos autou Hellenike Chresmologike Grammateia, Athens, 1982.

Khoury

Adel-Theodore Khoury, Les theologiens byzantins et VIslam: textes et auteurs VIIe-XIIIe siecles, LouvainParis, 1969.

Kotter

P. Bonifatius Kotter, Die Schriflen des Johannes von Damaskos, 4 vols., Berlin, 1969-81.

Mansi

G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, Amplissima Collectio, 31 vols., Florence, 1759-98.

Meyendorff

John Meyendorff, "Byzantine Views of Islam," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 18 (1964), pp. 115-32.

Michael the Syrian

Michel le Syrien, Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarch Jacobite d'Antioch, 4 vols., tr. J.-B. Chabot, Paris, 1899-1910 (rpt. Brussels, 1963).

Mingana

Alphonse Mingana, "The Apology of Timothy, the Patriarch, before the Caliph Mahdi," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, vol. 12 (1928), pp. 137-298.

Moorhead "Earh'est"

John Moorhead, "The Earliest Christian Theological Response to Islam," Religion, vol. 77 (1981), pp. 26574.

et

72

D.J. SAHAS

Moorhead "Response"

John Moorhead, "The Monophysite Response to the Arab Invasions," Byzantion, vol. 51 (1981), pp. 579-91.

Nasr

Seyyed Hossein Nasr, "The Prayer of the Heart in Hesychasm and Sufism," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 31 (1986), pp. 195-203 (rpt. in N.M. Vaporis, ed., Orthodox Christians and Muslims, Brookline, Mass., 1986).

Nazir-Ali

Michael Nazir-Ali, Islam: A Christian Perspective, Philadelphia, 1983.

Nicholas Mysticos

Nicholas Mysticos, Epistolae ad ameram Cretae IIII, PG, vol. Ill, cols. 28-40.

PG

J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, 161 vols., Paris, 1857-1912.

Sahas "Arethas"

Daniel J. Sahas, "Arethas' 'Letter to the Emir at Damascus': Official or Popular Views on Islam in the 10th Century Byzantium?," The Patristic and Byzantine Review, vol. 3 (1984), pp. 69-81.

Sahas "Captivity"

Daniel J. Sahas, "Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 25 (1980), pp. 40936.

Sahas "Dekapolites"

Daniel J. Sahas, "What an Infidel Saw That a Faithful Did Not: Gregory Dekapolites (d. 842) and Islam," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 31 (1986), pp. 47-67 (rpt. in N.M. Vaporis, ed., Orthodox Christians and Muslims, Brookline, Mass., 1986).

Sahas "Formation"

Daniel J. Sahas, "The Formation of Later Islamic Doctrines as a Response to Byzantine Polemics: The Miracles of Muhammad," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 27 (1982), pp. 307-24.

Sahas "Gregory"

Daniel J. Sahas, "Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) on Islam," The Muslim World, vol. 73 (1983), pp. 1-21.

Sahas Icon

Daniel J. Sahas, Icon and Logos: Sources in EighthCentury Iconoclasm, Toronto, 1986 (rpt. 1988).

Sahas John

Daniel J. Sahas, John of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy of the Ishmaelites", Leiden, 1972.

Sahas "Revisited"

Daniel J. Sahas, "John of Damascus on Islam. Revisited," Abr-Nahrain, vol. 23 (1984-85), pp. 10418.

Sdrakas

E.D. Sdrakas, He kata tou Islam Polemike ton Byzantinon Theologon, Thessalonika, 1961.

THE ART AND NON-ART OF BYZANTINE POLEMICS

73

Scale

Morris Scale, Muslim Theology: A Study of Origins with Reference to the Church Fathers, London, 1964.

Sophronius "Christmas'

Sophronius of Jerusalem, "Christmas Sermon," Ecclesiastikos Faros, vol. 17 (1918), pp. 369-84.

Sophronius "Epiphany"

Sophronius of Jerusalem, "Ephiphany Sermon," in Analekta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, vol. 5, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, St. Petersburg, 1888 (rpt. Brussels, 1963), pp. 151-68.

Theophanes

Theophanes the Confessor, Chronographia, 2 vols., ed. C. de Boor, Leipzig, 1883-85 (rpL Rome, 1963).

Vaporis

N.M. Vaporis, ed., Orthodox Christians and Muslims, Brookline, Mass., 1986.

Vasiliev

A.A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les arabes, French edition by H. Gre"goire and M. Canard, 3 vols., Brussels, 1959.

Vryonis "Islam"

Speros Vryonis, Jr., "Byzantium and Islam, SeventhSeventeenth Century," East European Quarterly, vol. 2(1968), pp. 205-240 (rpt. in his Byzantium: Its Internal History and Relations with the Muslim World, London, 1971, no. 9).

Westerink

L.G. Westerink, Arethae Archiepiscopi Caesariensis Scripta Minora, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1968-72.

Zonaras

Joannes Zonaras, Annales, PG, vol. 134, cols. 40-1414, and vol. 135, cols. 9-326.

This page intentionally left blank

4

The Context of Spanish Adoptionism: A Review J. McWilliam

Pope Leo Ill's comment of 799 on the escape from Rome to Spain in 793 of Felix, bishop of Urgel, was that Felix had fled to "the land of the pagans whose ideas he shared." Since that time until the present the most commonly accepted opinion has been that the theological crisis of the late eighth century known as "Spanish adoptionism" - the teaching that Christ, while the "natural" Son of God as second Person of the Trinity, was as man the adopted Son - arose as the result of the church in Muslim-occupied Spain either attempting deliberately to accommodate its theology to that of Islam (and to a lesser extent of Judaism) or at very least allowing itself to be influenced by its environment. Pope Leo was repeating the charge laid a decade and a half earlier by the first critic of the Spanish doctrine of Christ, Beatus the Asturian monk. It recurs as recently as 1975 in J.F. O'Callaghan's assertion that the roots of adoptionism lay in the hope of refuting "the Muslim charge that Christians believed in three Gods; the idea that Christ was only the adopted son of God was not too far removed from the Muslim view of Christ as one of the prophets."1 This theory has not gone unchallenged; contrary opinions have been expressed since the eighth century. Elipandus (718-802), bishop of Toledo, leader and voice of the church in Asturias, maintained from the beginning that its theology represented the traditional Spanish understanding of Christ, and since his time there have been historians of theology who have supported his case.2 Others have suggested political 1

See Mansi, vol. 13, p. 1031; Solano, vol. 2, p. 852; O'Callaghan, p. 186.

2

Notably Amman 1936.

Conversion and Continuity: Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Gervers and Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi, Papers in Mediaeval Studies 9 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990), pp. 75-88. © P.I.M.S, 1990.

76

J. McWILLIAM

causes, either ecclesiastical or secular, and the debate has - if not exactly raged - at least continued.3 It appears that in the two centuries preceding the adoptionist controversy the Spanish church was not only better organized and more influential in contemporary secular society than other western churches but also considerably more articulate theologically.4 One need only look at the frequency and pronouncements of its councils to realize this superiority.5 Its causes will not be examined here, but it should be noted both that the church had several very capable scholars and administrators in this period - Leander (c.550-600), Isidore (560-636), ndefonsus (c. 607-667), Julian (d. 690) - and that it had proved itself able to carry on its activities for part of this time under theologically alien (that is, Arian) rulers and for the entire period in almost complete isolation from Rome. The picture that emerges at the beginning of the eighth century is that of an independent and proud church, capable of functioning, when necessary, virtually independently of state and papacy, with an excellent record in conquering Arianism, in touch with the contemporary theological controversies, but with a distinctive Christology, the orthodoxy of which had been its pride for centuries. This ecclesiastical confidence and independence form an important part of the context of the controversy. It is clear, nevertheless, that the Muslim conquest in 711 affected the Spanish church adversely. If the same test is applied - the frequency of councils and the sophistication of their statements — it is evident that the church of the eighth century fell away from the achievements of the preceding two hundred years. While Christianity was a protected religion in Muslim Spain and while historians are virtually unanimous in saying that there was neither proselytizing nor persecution of Christians by their Muslim conquerors (the conversion figure is given at five percent6) a certain number did flee north to the area beyond Muslim control and there were economic penalties for those who remained.7 There appears, however, to have been no incentive for doctrinal modification. In terms, therefore, of the Muslim context of Spanish adoptionism, it would seem that, on the one hand, that is theologically, the charge of Muslim influence - direct or indirect - is invalid. Elipandus and Felix (d. 818), and the church of occupied Spain which they represented with virtually no contemporary dissent were arguing (although with decreased sophistication) within their long and to this 3 4 5 6 7

See Abadal; Rivera; Schaeferdiek. See Garcia Vill. Hist., vol. 3, pp. 328-29. See Vives. See Bulliet Conversion, p. 114. See Amman 1947, p. 130.

THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH ADOPTIONISM

77

point undisputedly orthodox theological tradition. On the other hand, if the Muslim domination of two-thirds of Spain played no real part in the theological quarrel, it seems to have contributed significantly to the Prankish and (to a lesser extent) the Roman reactions to adoptionism. First, to consider briefly the arguments that adoptionism was not a Muslim-induced novelty, but grew out of the Spanish tradition: it was a tradition that was firmly Augustinian (indeed, a case could be made that Augustine's [354-430] influence survived in less diluted form in Spain than anywhere else), and fiercely loyal to the Christological definition of Chalcedon. It was this loyalty that lay behind the refusal of the Spanish church to accept the modifications to the Chalcedonian doctrine expressed in the anathemas of the second council of Constantinople in 553. With absolute consistency the acta of the Visigothic councils refer to four - and only four - ecumenical councils: Nicaea, I Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon (451).8 What did this loyalty entail theologically? There are two, as it were, litmus tests that can be used to distinguish Chalcedonian Christology from "neo-Chalcedonian" (the term later given to the Christology of II Constantinople). One is the care taken in Christological predication, that is, the discrimination between the divine and the human words and actions of Christ, and particularly the willingness, or lack of it, to ascribe suffering to the deity (theopaschism). The other is the identification of the subject of predication as (i) the man, Jesus, (ii) the second Person of the Trinity, or (iii) in one form or another, Christ (most frequently "Dominus noster Jesus Christus"). The Spanish church of the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries emerges from these tests as firmly Chalcedonian. This point deserves a certain amplification by soundings taken from the conciliar documents of the period. It should be recalled that until 587 the Visigothic kings were Arian and so the early statements of the Nicene Spanish church emphasize the consubstantiality of the three Persons of the Trinity. At the third council of Toledo in 589 the conversion of King Recared was acknowledged and celebrated, and there were consequently several statements of Nicene trinitarian theology. Nevertheless care was taken to state explicitly that the Son of God is not visible or passible secundwn divinitatem, and in the reiteration of the Chalcedonian Christology the una persona of which both natures are predicated was that of "our Lord Jesus Christ."9 8 In 769 a Lateran council had forbidden the use of any creed other than that transmitted by the six councils. The blind eye which the Spanish church turned to n Constantinople has been variously explained. Aigrain (p. 257, n. 2) suggests a failure to recognize that n Constantinople was an ecumenical council; Garcia Villado opines that the resistance may have been the result of Spain knowing of the council primarily through hostile North African sources (Garcia Vifl. Hist., p. 162). The Spanish church, on the other hand, was happy to endorse the pronouncements of the third council of Constantinople (680) against monothelitism (see Vives, pp. 445-46). ' See Vives, p. 121.

78

J. McwmjAM

In 619 at the second council of Seville the major issue was the scandal caused by a wandering Syrian bishop who denied Christ's possession (proprietatem) of two natures and who asserted that the deity is passible. Eventually, canon twelve records, the visitor, "instructed by divine grace," was brought to confess two natures and one person in the one same Jesus Christ our Lord and to acknowledge that only in His humanity were the "infirmities" of the passion and cross endured. The council then went on to assert the two natures in one subsisting person and to a list of very careful predications including the warning that suffering could be assigned to Christ only in the assumed humanity. Throughout, the one person is identified as Christ.10 The tenth council of Toledo in 656, in a discussion of Marian feasts, did talk of the birth (and death) of the incarnate Word because, it declared, that is what the feasts of Mary are about.11 They were, however, insistent on the "incarnate," and it is interesting that this council introduced the word "adoption" into its documents, making the distinction that the Mozarabic church would try so hard to impress upon Alcuin (c. 735-804) and Pope Hadrian (772-795) almost a century and a half later - that it is the second Person of the Trinity that is Son by nature, not adoption. In 684, before playing with Christological paradoxes ("the same, dying, lives; the same, living, dies; the same, impassible, suffers; the same does not submit to suffering"), the fourteenth council of Toledo again characteristically affirmed that Christ is one in singularity of person, and the paradoxes conclude with the statement that neither did the Divinity surrender to suffering nor did the humanity of Christ shirk it. The bishops went on to say that anyone who teaches that by the incarnation either the deity was diminished or the humanity exempt from human life (except in sin) should, on the basis of the four ecumenical councils, be anathematized.12 No one would argue that Elipandus, the bishop of Toledo in the last quarter of the eighth century around whom (with Felix of Urgel) the quarrel raged, ranked as highly as a theologian as his predecessors. His statements frequently appear awkward, almost ham-handed, and always hot-headed. Nevertheless, he was trying to convey the cardinal points of the traditional Spanish Christology. Thus, before the controversy began, replying to an indigenous trouble-maker, Migetius (who, in the late eighth century, was apparently propounding an extraordinarily eccentric 10

Vives, pp. 171-72. "Gratia divina edoctus;" "infirmitates passionis;" "oportet nos ... passionemque eius in sola humanitatis susceptionem manifestare." 11

Vives, p. 309. Vives, pp. 445-46. "[V]ivit moriens, ipse moritur vivens, ipse inpassibilis patiens, ipse passioni non subiacens ...." "Credamus ergo non sensibus nostris sed indubitatis conciliorum priscorum dogmatibus iam praemissis." See p. 444 where the councils are listed: Nicaea, I Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. 12

THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH ADOPTIONISM

79

theory of the Trinity), Elipandus insisted that, in affirming the incarnation of the Word, it cannot be said that this second Person of the Trinity was "made of David's seed", because this would ascribe both temporality and corporeality to God. Elipandus' understanding of the incarnation echoed the union by grace found in Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) and in many Augustinian writings, and in his explanation he distinguished between the Son of God by generation and nature and the Son of God by adoption and grace.13 The first negative reaction came from Beatus (d. c. 798) and Etherius (d. c. 800), both from northern Spain. Beatus's Christology was clearly neo-Chalcedonian and theopaschite. In his letter to Elipandus, as well as denials of adoption predicated of Christ in any way, are found statements such as "He who is Christ in the eyes of all is confessed to be the Son of God crucified," "In that body and blood seemingly a man whom God assumed, he was not believed to be what he was," and "My God suffered for me, my God was crucified for me."14 Elipandus was not slow to respond, defending his position as the traditional one and accusing Beatus of denying the humanity of Christ. In later letters to Charlemagne (742-814) and Alcuin he continued to emphasize the discrimination necessary in Christological predication, while steadfastly affirming the unity of Christ's person. He also pointed out that "adoption" was used in the Mozarabic liturgy.15 The letter of the Spanish episcopate supporting Elipandus' position appealed to the authority of earlier, non-Spanish, theologians and insisted that adoption means affiliation, that it indicates a relationship of joining, not separation. Augustine himself, the Spanish bishop pointed out, had written of "the adopted man who sought the glory of him who is uniquely bom [of God]."16 The theological merits or demerits of Spanish adoptionism are not the concern here, but rather the placing of Elipandus, Felix and their followers within the Spanish Christological tradition, completely convinced of their own orthodoxy. That this theological tradition was part of the context of the adoptionist quarrel is undeniable, but so were the political events of the period in which that tradition grew up. Until 624, it will be recalled, there was a small but persistent Byzantine presence in eastern Spain, with the church there outside the jurisdiction of Toledo (which formally became the metropolitan see in 610). It was " See Gil Muzarab., pp. 68-78. 14 Beatus: "... et Christum coram omnibus Dei Filium cracifixum confitenter" (p. 4); "... in qua came et sanguine, dum homo videtur, quern assumserat Deus, non credebatur esse, quod erat" (p. 3): "Pro me passus est Deus meus, pro me crucifixus est Deus meus" (p. 5 and passim). 15 Gil Muzarab., vol. 1, pp. 96-109. 16 Gil Muzarab., vol. 1, pp. 82-93. See Augustine, bk. 29, ch. 8.

80

J. McWILLIAM

in the Byzantine church that neo-Chalcedonian Christology had originated and its reception in the west generally was at best unenthusiastic. The refusal of the Spanish church to accept the decrees of the second council of Constantinople has been mentioned, as well as its loyalty to Chalcedon. This was not merely a formal loyalty, there were concrete theological issues which struck at the heart of traditional Spanish Christology, preeminently the attribution of suffering to God.17 That their rejection of theopaschism was conscious and specific is evidenced in the reaction of 619 to the Syrian bishop already mentioned and, in the words of Isidore, that Justinian had "adopted the acephalous [theopaschite] heresy and in a proscription of the council of Chalcedon forced all the bishops in his realm to condemn the Three Chapters."18 But the Spanish bishops were not in Justinian's realm and it is probable that even in the early seventh century they identified the new Christological teachings with alien rulers and cultures. It is interesting that the only theopaschite statement recorded in Visigothic church documents is not in conciliar Acta, but in a sermon of Leander's in 589, and Leander had spent some time in Constantinople a decade earlier endeavoring to raise money for Hermengild's revolt (580-85).19 Furthermore, Rome became to a certain degree re-Hellenized in the seventh century,20 and to the extent that the papacy identified itself with Justinian's theology, to the same extent the Spanish bishops considered themselves theologically distanced from it.21 Roman primacy was never denied, but even before the conquest of 711 there was relatively little contact between the papacy and Spain, and among the records of the few exchanges two or three bristle with barely concealed resentment of suspected interference.22 Against this background it is not surprising that when Charlemagne and Pope Hadrian joined forces ca. 780 to reform the Spanish church initially in matters of discipline, not doctrine — the intervention was not well received. To say it was at this level that the Muslim occupation of 17 The second council of Constantinople, by endorsing Cyril's twelve anathemas (see n Constantinople, anathema 13), endorsed theopaschism (see Cyril's third letter to Nestorius, anathema 12). I am not suggesting that the Spanish bishops denied the identity of Jesus Christ and the second Person of the Trinity; there are many affirmations of that identity. It was rather that by keeping Christ as the subject of predication they could more carefully distinguish what could be said of him as God and what as man. 18 Isidore, ch. 115 (col. 1054). 19 See Vives, p. 143, and Goffart. 20 See Wallace-Hadrill, p. 64. 21 Pope John n approved the formula "unus de Trinitate passus" in 533 at the request of Justinian. For a balanced discussion of the second council of Constantinople and Pope Vigilius's role in it, see Murphy & Sherwood. 22

See the response of the fifteenth council of Toledo (688) to Rome's criticism of Julian's letter, Vives, p. 452 ff.

THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH ADOPTIONISM

81

Spain became a factor in the adoptionist controversy is not to reduce it entirely to the political sphere. There were clearly theological issues involved, but those issues were inseparably tied, on the one hand, to a long and proud theological tradition suspicious of foreign imports and, on the other, to a rapidly spreading hostility in the Roman dominated Western Church to any national particularism. When an instance of such particularism appeared in an area ruled by Muslims, an area which Charlemagne had tried and failed to conquer, the lines between theology and ecclesiastical and secular politics became blurred. With the attempt of the Prankish court to intervene in the Mozarabic church and the reaction to it there appears therefore another aspect of the context of Spanish adoptionism - the mind-set of its opponents. The origins of the opposition were in England where, in the same century that the Spanish church was working out its problems in virtual independence of Rome, closer and closer ties with the papacy were being woven. One has only to think of the decision of the council of Whitby in 663 and all that followed that decision.23 If an illustration of the difference between the two churches is needed it can be found in two cases of excommunication. In 646 the Spanish king Khindasvinth (64253) asked the help of the bishops in putting down a revolt, and at the seventh council of Toledo they agreed (reluctantly) to excommunicate anyone who rebelled against the lawful king. But when in 679 a revolt arose against Aethelred, king of Mercia (675-704), Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury (669-90), asked Pope Leo II (682-83) to anathematize the rebels.24 The English attitude to Rome had been carried to the continent by the Anglo-Saxon missionaries, and by their alliances with the early Carolingians it had become part of Prankish royal policy. While papal influence on the Merovingian church had been "almost negligible",25 the Prankish synod of 747 promised Pope Zacharias (741-52) to be subject to the Roman church as long as the signatories should live, and in 750, on the conclusion of Pepin's (714-68) treaty with the papacy, the Franks followed the English synod of Qoveho (747) in adopting the Roman liturgy. Yet "the reformed church remained a territorial church, in which the secular ruler exerted the chief influence,"26 and the hold the king maintained on the church through endowment and extortion should be kept in mind.27 With the king's endorsement Boniface (680-754) 23 24 25 26 27

For the English church in this period see Levison; Stenton, chs. 4 and 5. See Vives, p. 252: Levison, p. 18. WaUace-Hadrill,P. 89. Wallace-Hadrffl,p. 90. ' Wallace-Hadrill,p. 88.

82

J. McwnjjAM

remodelled the Prankish church "after the Roman and English pattern,"28 and the decrees that in Merovingian times had become canon law as the voice of the bishops were in the Carolingian era published in the name of the king and became the law of the realm.29 The alliance of Charlemagne and Rome is so well-known that it needs little if any further argument here. But a general statement is not evidence for a hypothetical specific. What indications are there for the thesis that the Muslim occupation of a large part of Spain contributed significantly to the Prankish and Roman opposition to Spanish Christology? On the one hand, there was the threat posed to Charlemagne's expanding realm by the Muslim incursions into the southwest corner of what is modern France. Paralleling Charlemagne's interest in extending his realm, or at least his influence, was Alcuin's in enlarging Roman hegemony and reform. In the eyes of Charlemagne and Alcuin the conquest of Moorish Spain - or failing that, the establishment of ecclesiastical ascendency — would mean the further extension of that Holy Roman Empire already on the horizon. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the Spanish church had been consciously independent of both Byzantium and, in a more respectful way, of Rome. Elipandus' rejoinder to Migetius had also included the denial of the latter's assertion that Rome was the new Jerusalem, the only dwelling place of Christ, and Elipandus insisted that the words recorded in Matthew 16.18, "Thou art Peter ...." referred to the steadfastness of Peter's faith, and the promise "upon this rock ...." applied to "the universal Catholic church spread throughout the world in peace."30 Nor had the Franks earlier been considered as friends. The Visigoths had fought them for centuries and in 673 Julian, later bishop of Toledo, outraged by the help given to a revolt in Septimania by the Franks, had stormed that Gaul was the wet nurse of perfidy.31 This view was not softened by the successive invasions attempted in the next century and a quarter. It is not surprising that when the ecclesiastical force of the Prankish kingdom began to impinge on the Mozarabic church it too was resisted. It has already been indicated that the first attempt at intervention and reform was over disciplinary rather than doctrinal matters. Sometime after 780 Wilchard (d. c. 785), bishop of Sens, consecrated Egila (a Goth, to judge by his name) bishop, but without a see, giving him instead a roving commission to Romanize the Mozarabic church, 28

Wallace-Hadrill,p. 88. Wallace-Hadrill,p. 84. 30 Gil Muzarab., pp. 77-8. "Universala Ecclesia Catholica per Universum ordem terrarum in pace diffusa." 31 Julian, col. 766. 29

THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH ADOPTIONISM

83

specifically in the matters of the date of Easter, the Saturday fast and certain dietary laws.32 Once in Spain, Egila is reputed to have joined forces with Migetius (mentioned above both for his eccentric theology and his exalted view of Rome).33 Elipandus had made short work of Migetius theologically, although a letter to Fidelis (abbot of Beatus's monastery) reveals his exasperation.34 Our knowledge of Egila's mission comes from two letters of Pope Hadrian dated (probably) 784-7S5.35 What is particularly interesting in Hadrian's letters is the clear indication that the idea of the Spanish mission had not been his, although there is no reason to think he did not approve of it36 It had originated in Gaul, almost certainly with the knowledge of Alcuin and Charlemagne, soon after the former had joined the Prankish court and a few years after the defeat of the latter at Roncesvalles in August 778. Disciplinary concerns were soon submerged in theological ones. Elipandus appealed in 783 for support of his Christological views to Felix, bishop of Urgel, a city that was part of that border area constantly wrenched back and forth in those years between Prankish and Muslim rule.37 Felix's theology agreed with that of Elipandus, but Felix lay within Charlemagne's power in a way that Elipandus did not, and he was summoned to Ratisbon in 792 to answer charges of heresy. From there he was taken to Rome and escaped from Rome to southern Spain (the escape that prompted the papal remark which began this paper). In 795 Charlemagne called another council - that of Frankfurt and a brief look at the documents that emanated from it, considering not their theological content (although the whole exchange is interesting to historians of theology), but the light they shed on Charlemagne's and Alcuin's interest in the Mozarabic church, concludes this examination of the context of Spanish adoptionism. It would have been difficult for either Charlemagne or Alcuin, the principal figures, with Paulinus of Aquileia (c. 726-802), of the council, to have been favorably disposed towards Elipandus whatever his Christological views. The bishop of Toledo had a vituperative pen. In an overtly respectful, not very covertly disrespectful, letter to Charlemagne he had recalled that an earlier ruler, Constantine (d. 337), had started out well in matters of doctrine, but had ended in heresy, and, more subtly, had reminded Charlemagne that Christ's arms had been extended on the cross "for you," that he had died "for you," but that he had descended to hell "to free the elect."38 It is 32

Hadrian I Ad Egilam, cols. 333-46. It is not certain that Egila had adopted Migetius's views. * Gil Muzarab., pp. 80-81. 35 SeeBullough. 36 See Hadrian I Episcopis, col. 375. 37 See Einhard, col. 441. 38 Gil Muzarab., pp. 93-5. Elipandus: "Et ad liberandis electis ad infernum descendit" 33

84

J. McWILLIAM

small wonder that predestinarianism was added to the list of Spanish errors. Alcuin in his turn had been reminded that he who was correcting a bishop was himself not a priest, told that he was a disciple of Beatus, a new Arms (c. 250-336) leading the king astray, and that although white in name (Albinus) he was "most loathsome in blackness" (negredine teterrimus)?9 (It is worth remarking that in all these documents none of the Acta of Chalcedon, II Constantinople or II Orange [528] [on the question of predestination] is cited.) The Frankfurt documents taken together lend considerable weight to the suggestion that, while the quarrel was ostensibly and materially Christological, it was exploited in the interests of Prankish political and Roman ecclesiastical hegemony. Frankfurt produced three documents and passed on a letter of Pope Hadrian. The synodal letter, issuing from the bishops of Germany, Gaul and Aquitaine, began with the statement that Charles was presiding (the normal practice), and praised him for his piety and wisdom. It went on to refute, or more precisely to refuse to recognize, the authorities cited by the Spaniards ("their names are not known in the universal church") and commented that if "your ndefonsus" put "adoptivus" in the liturgy, "our Gregory, pontifex of the Roman See," did not. It ended by declaring the Mozarabic church in schism.40 The second document, the Libellus Sacrosyllabus, largely the work of Paulinus in the name of the bishops of northern Italy, was addressed to the "provinces of Gaul and the Spaniards." It stressed the primacy of Rome, argued against adoptionist Christology, and reminded the Spaniards that Charlemagne, "the catholic renowned and most merciful king," was so by the prayers of "the Virgin, Peter and all the saints". The document asked their prayers that "the Trinity might encircle, protect and defend [Charlemagne] so that he might always do those things which are pleasing [to God] to the end that, relying on heavenly arms, made strong by heavenly help, he might smite to the ground the enemies of the name of Christ." "Thus," the document continued, "the infinite power of almighty God subdues the barbarian nations to [Charlemagne's] power, to provide an opportunity for them to come to knowledge of the truth and acquaintance with the true and living God, their Creator."41 The division of duties, it explained, was that the king fought "for the love of Christ" against visible enemies while "we [the bishops] fight with spiritual arms against invisible enemies." "To the extent this is done the Son of God will on the appointed day recompense him for [exercising] the delegated retribution on behalf of his church." Such, of course, was the common rhetorical coin of the period, but it seems remarkably inapposite to 39 40 41

Gil Muzarab., pp. 96-109. Epist. Synodica. Paulinus, col. 165.

THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH ADOPTIONISM

85

address it to a church with a longer history - in terms of both organization and theology - than that of Charlemagne's domain. The Liber Sacrosyllabus concluded with a warning that its writers decreed that anyone who did not give true assent to the decisions of Frankfurt should be punished "by the privilege in every respect of law [belonging] to our Lord and Father, Pope Hadrian, most blessed pope of the primatial see."42 The king's letter, although by no means entirely lacking in doctrinal argumentation, was less theological. He was clearly annoyed at being lectured by Elipandus,43 and alarmed at the prospect of schism in his kingdom.44 It ended with a barely veiled threat: "Do you not see what harm you are doing to yourselves? We certainly do not dare to pray for you as we would for faithful sons of the Holy Church of God, nor can we help you, brothers, in any way in your great need. Therefore, turn again to this dual consolation and abjure this evil cunning of diabolical fraud, so that we will be able to associate with you in all charity and appropriate help."45 Hadrian's letter was less openly threatening, more specifically ecclesiastical. It was addressed to the bishops of Spain remaining loyal to the decrees of the Universal Church, and reminded the others that to cut oneself off from Rome is to be banished from the Christian religion. It contains a somewhat defensive reference to the sending of Egila by Wilchar of Sens "some time ago" and the straying of Egila himself into the deviant paths of Migetius. Hadrian appeared not to be worried that the Spanish bishops would follow Egila, but rather that other dangerous leader, Elipandus, who was teaching Nestorianism.46 The arguments against adoptionism were rehearsed, but Hadrian moved quickly into other matters of Roman disciplinary concern - the date of Easter and dietary laws. Finally, predestination was touched upon. Hadrian ended where his successor, Leo, had begun. "Although you say that you are not defiled by eating and drinking with those in error," there had been too much association with Jews and Muslims, and this association in papal eyes has clearly been the source of the trouble.47 The accumulation of accusations in the Frankfurt documents - the charges of particularism against the Spanish liturgy and against the theological authorities cited, the stress not only on Roman primacy but on conformity to Roman disciplinary customs, the insistence on 42 43 44 45 46 47

Paulinus, col. 166. Charlemagne, col. 899. Charlemagne, col. 899. Charlemagne, col. 905. Hadrian I Episcopis, col. 376. Hadrian I Episcopis, col. 384.

86

J.McWILLIAM

Charlemagne's oversight of the church even outside his own kingdom and his threat that, if they held to adoptionism, the Spaniards could expect no "appropriate" help from him - make it difficult, if not impossible, to doubt that the Muslim context of Spanish adoptionism was political rather than doctrinal.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abadal

R. de Abadal, La batalla del adopcianismo en la disentegracion de la Iglesia visigoda, Barcelona, 1939.

Aigrain

R. Aigrain, "L'Espagne chr&ienne," in Gregoire le Grand. Les etats barbares et la conquete arabe (590757), Histoire de 1'Eglise, vol. 5, ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin, Paris, 1938, pp. 231-76.

Amman 1936

E. Amman, "L'adoptionisme espagnol du VET siecle," Revue des Sciences Religieuses, vol. 16 (1936), pp. 281-317.

Amman 1947

E. Amman, "L'adoptionisme espagnol," in L'epoque carolingienne, Histoire de 1'Eglise, vol. 6, ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin, Paris, 1947, pp. 129-52.

Augustine

Augustine, bishop of Hippo, ' 'In lohannis Evangelium tractatus CXXTV," in Corpus Christianorum, series latina, vol. 36, ed. R. Willems, Turnholti, 1954.

Beatus

Beatus, Adversus Elipandum, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, ed. B. Lfifstedt, vol. 59,1984.

Bulliet Conversion

Richard W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

Bullough

D. Bullough, "The dating of Codex Carolinus 95, 96, 97, Wilchar, and the beginnings of the Archbishopric of Sens," Deutsches Archiv fur Erforschung des Mittelalters, vol. 18 (1962), pp. 223-230.

Charlemagne

Charlemagne, Ad Elipandum et ceteros episcopos Hispaniae, PL, vol. 98, cols. 899-904.

Einhard

Einhard, Annales Laurissenses et Eginhardi, PL, vol. 104, cols. 367-508.

Elipandus

Elipandus, Ad Carolum Magnum, Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorum, ed. J. Gil, vol. 1, 1973, pp. 93-5 (also in PL, vol. 96, cols. 867-69).

THE CONTEXT OF SPANISH ADOPTIONISM

87

Epist. Synodica

Epistola Synodica ad Praesules Hispaniae Missa, PL, vol. 98, cols. 1331-46.

Garcia Vill. Hist.

Z. Garcia Villada, Historia Eclesiastica de Espana, 3 vols., 1929-36.

Gil Mu.za.rab.

J. Gil, ed., Corpus Scriptorum Muzarabicorwn, 2 vols., Madrid, 1973.

Goffart

W.A. Goffart, "Byzantine policy in the West under Tiberius and Maurice: The Pretenders Hermengild and Gundovald," Traditio, vol. 13 (1957), pp. 73-118.

Hadrian I Ad Egilam

Hadrian I, pope, Ad Egilam, PL, vol. 98, cols. 333-46.

Hadrian I Episcopis

Hadrian I, pope, Epistola Adriani papae episcopis per universam Spaniam commorantibus directa, PL, vol. 98, cols. 373-86.

Isidore

Isidorus, bishop of Seville, Chronicon, PL, vol. 83, cols. 1019-58.

Julian

Julianus, bishop of Toledo, Historia Rebellionis Pauli adversus Wambam Gothorum Regem, PL, vol. 96, cols. 763-808.

Levison

W. Levison, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century, Oxford, 1946.

Mansi

G.D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, Amplissima Collectio, 31 vols., Florence, 1759-98.

Murphy & Sherwood

F.X. Murphy and P. Sherwood, Constantinople II et Constantinople III, Paris, 1974.

O'Callaghan

J.F. O'Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain, Ithaca, 1975.

Paulinus

Paulinus, patriarch of Aquileia, Liber sacrosyllabus contra Elipandum, PL, vol. 99, cols. 151-82.

PL

J.P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, 221 vols., Paris, 1844-90.

Rivera

J.F. Rivera, "Doctrina trinitaria en al ambiente heterodoxo del primer siglo mozarabe," Revista Espanola de Teologia, vol. 4 (1944), pp. 193-210.

Schaeferdiek

K. Schaeferdiek, "Der adoptianische Streit im Rahmen der spanischen Kirchengeschichte," Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 80 (1969), pp. 291-311; vol. 81 (1970), pp. 1-16.

Solano

J. Solano, "El Concilio de Calcedonea y la controversia adopcionista del siglo VTJI en Espana," in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 2, ed. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, W,-W"»K,,,,> 1Oon,fol. 286v. » Safadi/*>rt,fol.285v. 25 Safadi A'yan, fol. 277r; Nuwayri 2, fol. 20r; Mufaddal, p. 24; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 355r. 23

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLA

271

Nazir al-dawdwin/supeTvisor of financial bureaux (Appendix, nos. 4, 12, 20,21.) Nazir al-dawlah/assistant vizier (Appendix, nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17,20,21,22,23.) Nazir al-nuzzdr/chief fsupervisor of finances (Appendix, nos. 4, 12, 18, 20,21'.) Nazir al-buyut /supervisor of royal residences (Appendix, nos. 4,20,29.) Nazir al-istabl/supervisoT of the royal stable (Appendix, no. 23.) Nazir al-suhbah/pTovincial supervisor (Appendix, nos. 4,12,18.) Nazir al-khizdnah/supervisoT of the treasury (Appendix, no. 29.) Nazir Dimashq/supervisor of Damascus (Appendix, nos. 12,21.) Nazir al-Mamlakah al-Safadiyyah/supervisor of the Kingdom of Safad (Appendix, no. 12.) Nazir al-Mamlakah al-Tarabulsiyyah/supervisor of the Kingdom of Tripoli (Appendix, no. 18.) Nazir al-mdristdn al-sultani/supervisor of the royal hospital (Appendix, no. 13.) Nazir Jarni0 Ibn Tulun/supervisor of the Mosque of Ibn Tulun (Appendix, no. 13.) Nazir al-Jamic al-Umawi/supervisor of the Umayyad Mosque (Appendix.no. 21.) Mushir al-dawlah/advisor to the vizierate (Appendix, nos. 1, 6.) Mushlr al-mamlakah/zdvisoT to the kingdom (Appendix, no. 25.) Mustawfi al-dawlah/vizierate accountant (Appendix, nos. 6, 11, 16, 20, 23, 27,29.) Mustawfi al-nazarfmspQction accountant (Appendix, no. 6.) Mustawfi al-suhbah/provincial accountant (Appendix, nos. 3, 11, 17, 29.) Mustawfi al-khass/pn\y purse accountant (Appendix, no. 14.) Mustawfi al-awqaf/pious endowments accountant (Appendix, no. 35.) Mustawfi al-Wajh al-Qibli/Upper Egypt accountant (Appendix, nos. 8, 17.) Kdtib nd'ib al-saltanah/cleik to the viceroy (Appendix, no. 28.) Katib al-khizanah/tteasury clerk (Appendix, no. 21.) Kdtib niydbat al-wildyah/c\erk of the provincial govemorate (Appendix, no. 13.) Kdtib al-buyut al-sultdniyyah/cl&k of royal residences (Appendix, no. 13.)

272

D. P. LITTLE

All these offices are in addition to the clerkships and accountancies under Mamluk amirs, held by almost all of the Musalimah at early stages of their careers. If we can assume that the forty converts were only the most prominent and highest ranking Coptic Muslims and that many others served under them in the bureaucracy but were not famous enough to draw the attention of historians, allegations regarding the large numbers of Musalimah employed may well be true. Further credence is lent to the charge by recurrent purges instigated by various sultans to rid the bureaucracies of Copts and Coptic Muslims.26 2a. Were the Musalimah influential? Certainly there is ample evidence that individuals like al-Nashw and Karim al-DIn al-Kabfr enjoyed enormous prestige and inspired great respect and fear as keepers of the privy purse during the reign of al-Nasir Muhammad. When, for example, Karim al-DIn and another Muslimdni official, Fakhr al-DIn, supervisor of army revenues (Appendix, no. 36) rode out from the citadel, they were always accompanied by a large retinue ofmamluks and amirs. According to al-Safadl, military escorts for civilians were not customary.27 Other historians claim that "Nothing was done in the government in Cairo without Karim al-DIn's approval, whether employing a scribe or paying a viceroy's stipend,"28 and that the sultan "delegated to him complete disposal of property, appointments, buying and selling, marriage, manumission of slaves, etc., publicly delegating to Karim al-DIn his own jurisdiction over all these functions."29 Karim alDIn was so well known, moreover, and regarded as so important in the state that Cairo was decorated in his honor when he recovered from a bout of sickness and could appear in public.30 On the other hand, the arrest of al-Nashw and his failure to survive the sultan's torture occasioned public rejoicing in Cairo. Shops were closed and candy effigies of al-Nashw and his family were paraded about by dancers and subjected to indignities.31 Al-Nashw, like Karim al-DIn, rose high in the state: "He attained what no other Copt attained in the Turkish [Bahri] dynasty, surpassing everyone else in favor with the sultan, and was served by all the bureaucrats!"32 Another Muslimanl, Jamal al-Kufat (Appendix, no. 1), gained so much power as ndzir al-khdss, ndzir aljuyush and ndzir al-dawlah that he was able to demand military rank as 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

For these see Little "Coptic". SafadiA'yon.fol. 276r. Suqa'i, p. 194. Nuwayri 2, fol. 23r. Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 241. Ayni/^,2911C/34,fol. 163v. Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2,505-06; cf. Shuja'i, p. 91.

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLAM

273 273

amir of a hundred. In this capacity he wore a uniform, played polo, and was addressed by a military title. All of this was unprecedented, of course, for a civilian.33 As ndzir al-nuzzar, Karim al-DIn al-Saghir (Appendix, no. 12) was able "to scorn the great amirs of state, including commanders of a thousand!"34 In contrast, the Vizier Ghibriyal (Appendix, no. 21) was of great service to some of the most influential amirs of Sultan al-Nasir Muhammad's reign, "supervising their financial affairs and engaging in commerce on their behalf."35 When Fakhr al-Dm (Appendix, no. 36) died, al-Nasir cursed him because of his strict control over state expenditures: "For fifteen years he wouldn't let me do anything I wanted!"36 In al-Safadl's view, Fakhr al-Dm's influence extended to all affairs of state: the army, finances, appointments and dismissals.37 Even though the sultan dismissed him from office, he had to reappoint him because no one else was so knowledgeable about army finances.38 Ahmad, known as Taj al-Riyasah (Appendix, no. 6), steadfastly avoided appointment to the vizierate; nevertheless, he served as advisor (mushlr al-dawlah) to the Sultan Baybars II al-Jashanklr (ruled 708-09/1309) and in this capacity reviewed all state documents before they received the sultan's signature.39 2b. If, then, we grant that individual Musdlimah did wield considerable influence, did they exercise it in favor of their former coreligionists? It would certainly be strange if they did not from time to time, since there is evidence that they maintained their ties with Copts, family ties in particular.40 At least one convert, it is true, renounced his Christian associations entirely. Fakhr al-Dm, supervisor of army revenues (Appendix, no. 36), did not permit any Christians to enter his house and refused even to meet with them.41 But such behavior was obviously exceptional; otherwise, historians would not have mentioned it. We know that family members of several other Musdlimah remained Christian. Al-Nashw's mother retained her religion to the end; his brother, al-Mukhlis (Appendix, no. 37), and a brother-in-law, Waliy alDawlah (Appendix, no. 40) converted much later than al-Nashw, under duress.42 The father and paternal uncle of the clerk al-Muhadhdhab (Appendix, no. 38) were still Christians when the latter died.43 Ibn Hajar 33

Safadi A'yon, fol. 19r. Nuwayri2,fol.28r. » SafadiA'yo«,fol.242v. 36 SafadiA'yo«,fol. 516r. 37 Safadi A';ya/i, fol. 516v. 38 Dawadari,p. 712. 39 Safadi A'yon, fol. 140v; Dawadari, p. 125; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 705. 40 Perlmann "Notes," p. 858. « Safadi A'yon, fol. 516r; Safadi Wafi, vol. 4, p. 335; Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 4, p. 255. 42 Safadi A'yon, fol. 187v; Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, pp. 200-01. 34

274 274

D. P. LITTLE

records that "it is said that some of the daughters of the Wazfr Shams alDm Ghibriyal (Appendix, no. 21) did not become Muslims."44 The same is true of some female members of the two brothers known as Ibn alMakanis - one (Appendix, no. 25) a vizier, and the other (Appendix, no. 23), an assistant vizier: "Their wives and daughters retained their Christianity, and the men made light of the Book of God, His religion, and His messenger."45 But concrete evidence that Muslimdni officials followed a pro-Copt policy is hard to come by. Al-Nuwayri's charge that Taqiy al-Dm al-Ahwal (Appendix, no. 10) manipulated the collection of communal taxes in favor of the Copts has already been mentioned.46 Most of the other data on bureaucrats' favoritism towards Copts involves Karim al-Dm al-Kablr (Appendix, no. 13); these data are not consistent. Given his high standing with the sultan and his influence in the state, it is not surprising that Karim al-Dm was called upon to intervene in times of crisis. Thus, in 717/1317 when a group of Coptic scribes complained about their alleged mistreatment by the Hanafi chief judge of Cairo, Karim al-Dfn is said to have been instrumental in having this important dignitary dismissed from office.47 In the following year he again intervened on behalf of Christian complainants and persuaded the sultan to destroy a prayer niche which Muslims had installed in an illegally restored church in order to convert it into a mosque.48 But his role in the riots of 721/1321 was ambiguous. In this year Muslims ran amuck in Cairo as a result of fires set to mosques by Christian monks. Accused of protecting the monks, Karim al-DIn consulted with the Coptic patriarch of Cairo; the latter washed his hands of the affair, claiming that the monks were madmen and should be left to their fate. Possibly out of fear for his own safety, Karim al-DIn also tried to dissociate himself from the monks and went so far as to seek clemency for the Muslims who had attacked him.49 Nevertheless, since Karim alDm was above all pragmatic, he could advise the sultan that to punish the Copts by immediately dismissing them from government office would be counterproductive to the state: "If those Christians attending to royal interests were dismissed before the end of the year, affairs would be disrupted and come to a halt." Karim al-Dm requested that they continue in office for the remainder of the year and be dismissed after submitting the annual accounts. The sultan agreed.50 43

Dawadari, p. 396. IbnHajar2,vol.2,p. 368. 45 Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 344. 46 See above p. 264. 47 Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, 173. 48 Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, 182. « Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 224-25; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 336v. x Nuwayri 3, vol. 31, p. 8. 44

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLAM

275

As the above quotation from al-Nuwayri indicates, the Copts' reputation for administrative, especially accounting, efficiency was certainly an important reason for employing so many of them in the Mamluk bureaucracy.51 But those Copts who reached the top positions did so either through long service at lower posts or through nepotism, or a combination of both. The example of Karim al-DIn al-Kablr is instructive in this respect. He began his career during the reign of Qalawun as the prote"g6 of his maternal uncle, Taj al-Riyasah b. Sacld al-Dawlah (Appendix, no. 6), who worked at this time in Upper Egypt as clerk (katib) of the Mamluk Amir Baha' al-DIn Qaraqush, the Mutawalli (military governor) of Qus. There Taj al-Riyasah employed his nephew as katib al-mastabah (clerk of the bench) and katib niydbat al-wildyah (clerk of the provincial govemorate.) At this time and for several years thereafter both Taj al-Riyasah and Akram (as Karim al-DIn was known then) were Copts. Still under the influence of his uncle, Karim al-DIn passed into the service of Mamluk officers such as Sayf al-DIn Jawurshl al-Husaml, Sayf al-DIn Qujqara, Amir Majlis (master of audiences), and others.52 In 695/1295, he was appointed mustawfi al-buyut (accountant of the royal residences), and in this capacity accompanied the Sultan Kitbugha (694-96/1295-97) on a trip to Syria. Taj al-Riyasah was in charge of supervising state accounts, as mustawfi al-nazar.53 Both men apparently converted to Islam during the reign of Sultan Baybars II alJashanklr (708-09/1309), who was well known for his anti-Copt measures. Under this sultan, Taj al-Riyasah became ndzir al-dawlah (assistant vizier), while Karim al-DIn, still subservient to his uncle, became supervisor of the sultan's financial affairs (ndzir al-diwdn).54 When Taj al-Riyasah died in 709/1309, Karim al-DIn succeeded him as ndzir al-dawlah and accompanied Baybars II al-Jashankir in flight when the latter was deposed as sultan. Newly restored to the sultanate, alNasir Muhammad arrested Karim al-DIn and put him in the custody of the Amir Jamal al-DIn Aqush al-Ashrafi as that Mamluk's accountant (mustawfi). This position Karim al-DIn used to curry favor with other royal Mamluks, who commended him to the sultan because of his knowledge of the financial holdings of Baybars II al-Jashankir. The sultan appointed Karim al-DIn as ndzir al-khdss fi al-Wajh al-Qibll (keeper of the privy purse in Upper Egypt), Upper Egypt being the previous appanage of Baybars, so that he could restore Baybars' fortune to the state. Further to consolidate his position, he appointed the sultan's agent of the royal privy purse (wakil al-khdss al-sharif al-sultdni), Ibn c Ubadah, as his own financial agent (wakil) and cultivated royal 51 52 53 54

Cf. Richards, pp. 376-77. Nuwayri 2, fol. 21r; Mufaddal, p. 25. Suqa'i, p. 193. Suqa'i, p. 194.

276 276

D. P. LITTLE

Mamluks with gifts. Karim al-DIn was so successful in these various enterprises that al-Nasir Muhammad put him in charge of his son's finances and, when Ibn cUbadah died, appointed Karim al-DIn in his place as nazir al-khass.55 Thus, by 710/1310, Karim al-DIn, through skill, experience, and family connections had succeeded in attaining one of the highest civilian positions in the Mamluk state. His career is not untypical of the Musalimah in this respect. But nepotism was much more pervasive among the Copts and Musalimah in the bureaucracy than has been so far indicated. In fact, many of the forty Musalimah in our sample had relatives who also held offices in the state. We have seen that Taj al-Riyasah (Appendix, no. 6) was instrumental in hiring and advancing his sister's son, Karim al-DIn al-Kabir.56 Taj al-Riyasah was also related to Taqiy al-DIn al-Ahwal (Appendix, no. 10), whom al-Nuwayri accused of favoring Copts.57 Karim al-DIn al-Kabir, in turn, was assisted as nazir al-khass by his son, c Alam al-DIn, and had his nephew, Karim al-DIn al-Saghir (Appendix, no. 12) promoted to the posts of nazir al-nuzzar (chief supervisor) and mustawfl al-suhbah (provincial accountant.)5^ The vizier Amln al-Mulk (Appendix, no. 18) was trained by his uncle, al-Sadid al-Maciz, a famous accountant in the service of sultans Baybars I (658-76/1260-78) and Qalawun (678-89/1280-90).59 Amln al-DIn's in-law, the QadI Shams alDIn b. Qarawlnah, was a provincial accountant.60 Moreover, two of Amln al-DIn's sons, the QadI Taj al-DIn Ahmad (Appendix, no. 7) and the QadI Karim al-DIn held important bureaucratic posts.61 Two other brothers, both known as Ibn al-Makanis (Appendix, nos. 23 and 25), sons of a clerk in the financial bureaux, served in the vizierate.62 Al-Nashw (Appendix, no. 26) began his career in the service of his father, who was a clerk in the employment of a prominent Mamluk amir, Baktamur alHajib. In this form of apprenticeship al-Nashw acted on occasion as his father's deputy.63 Later when al-Nashw became keeper of the privy purse, he appointed his brother, Rizq Allah (Appendix, no. 14) as an accountant in the royal treasury; Rizq Allah, in turn, acted as deputy to al-Nashw when the latter was absent from Cairo.64 Another brother, alMukhlis, and a brother-in-law, Waliy al-Dawlah (Appendix, no. 40) also 55

Nuwayri 2, fol. 21v; Mufaddal, p. 25. * Dawadari,p. 286. 57 See above, pp. 264,274. » Nuwayri 2, fol. 27v. » Safadi A'yon, 237v; Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, p. 357. M Nuwayri 2, fol. 27v. 61 Safadi A'yan, fol. 238r. 62 Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, p. 438; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 344. 0 Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 505. 64 Safadi A'yan, fol. 187v.

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLAM

277 277

held office as accountants and advised al-Nashw on his financial policies.65 Jamal al-Kufat (Appendix, no. 1) who gained power and fame in three high positions, was first appointed to office as mustawfl aldawlah (vizierate accountant) by his uncle, al-Nashw.66 The vizier and inspector of armies, Shams al-DIn Musa (Appendix, no. 39) was the son of the QadI Taj al-DIn Ishaq, nazir al-khdss (Appendix, no. 9); two other sons, the QadI GAlam al-Din Ibrahim, and the QadI Sacd al-DIn Majid (Appendix, no. 32) became nazir al-dawlah (assistant vizier) and nazir al-khdss of Damascus respectively.67 Ibn Zunbur (Appendix, no. 17), who, it will be recalled held three of the highest offices of the state, was promoted by his equally influential nephew, Fakhr al-DIn (Appendix, no. 36), inspector of army revenues.68 When Fakhr al-DIn died, al-Nasir Muhammad confirmed one of the latter's sons, Shihab al-DIn Ahmad, and a grandson, Shams al-DIn Muhammad, in the position they had held in the bureau of army finances under Fakhr al-DIn.69 According to the historian Ibn al-Dawadari, this action was typical of al-Nasir Muhammad: "He was as solicitous and kind to them as their father had been, if not more so! Such was the custom of his bountiful charity to all the orphans of his mamluks and functionaries of his state, unprecedented for any other king!"70 Quite apart from the question of this particular sultan's concern for the progeny of his officers and civil servants, it should be observed that nepotism under the Mamluks was not a principle peculiar to the Copts and Coptic Muslims. We know that it was equally operative for positions reserved for Muslims; judgeships, for example, and headships of the chancery.71 In the absence of institutionalized training for professional bureaucrats, it was natural that an informal apprenticeship system developed. It was equally natural for fathers to recruit their sons, (or for uncles to hire their nephews) as apprentices in order to strengthen their own individual positions in the bureaucracy and to broaden the influence of the family. 3. How were Coptic functionaries induced to convert to Islam? Often the historians do not say, and when they do, circumstances varied. There are several instances of force, and others of pressure. In 692/1293, during the short reign of al-Ashraf Khalil (689-693/1290-1294), an incident occurred in which a Copt publicly abused and humiliated a 65

Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 473. « Safadi A'yon, fol. 19r. 67 Safadi A'yon, fol. 78v-79r; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 331. * Safadi A'yon, fol. 516r. 89 Dawadari, p. 362. 70 Dawadari, p. 362. 71 Escovitz "Scribes," pp. 49-50; Escovitz "Patterns," pp. 166-67; Escovitz "Qadi," pp. 81-82.

278

D0.P.LITTLE

Muslim. The resultant hue and cry caused the sultan to take action against Copts employed by mamluks and the state. He offered them the choice of conversion, with continued employment, or death. Moreover, some of his Mamluk officers considered burning Coptic clerics alive, but cooler counsels prevailed. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that "many" chose the more attractive option and converted to Islam, including Amm al-Mulk (Appendix, no. 18) and Ibrahim b. Lufaytah (Appendix, no. 4), both of whom later became prominent in the vizierate.72 Another instructive incident of forced conversion is recorded by the historian al-cAynI (d. 855/1451) in his annal for 732/1331-32. It too shows that acceptance of Islam was sometimes required as a prerequisite for advancement in the bureaucracy, even though conversion had to be effected through violence: The sultan sent for all the financial clerks (diwanis) and inspected them. He summoned the Amir Baktamur al-Saqi and told him: 'Al-Muhadhdhab [Appendix, no. 38], the clerk of Karim al-Din, should take charge of your financial bureau (d'twari) but after being converted to Islam, since he is a Christian. Moreover, al-Nashw [Appendix, no. 26] must be asked to convert and appointed keeper of the privy purse.' The sultan designated an additional number of clerks for Islam, but they demurred. Then he made a sign to [the Amir] Ibn Hilal al-Dawlah, who berated them, bared their heads, cut their girdles, dressed them in robes of honor, and made them pronounce the Muslim profession of faith. Although their tongues pronounced it, their hearts remained Christian as before. Al-Nashw was installed as keeper of the privy purse; Musa ibn al-Taj Ishaq [Appendix, no. 39] as supervisor of army revenues to replace the late Fakhr al-Din [Appendix, no. 36]; and al-Muhadhdhab as chief clerk (mubastdr) of the dlwan of Baktamur... ,73

It is interesting that this graphic description of conversion was preserved in only one chronicle. Al-cAynf obviously borrowed the account from an earlier source which other historians chose to ignore. Nevertheless, there is corroboration for the substance of the incident in other chronicles. Ibn al-Dawadari states explicitly that the sultan forced al-Muhadhdhab to convert "by the sword (istaslamahu mawlana al-Sultdn min tahta alsayf)"14 And al-Maqrizf confirms that al-Nashw "was forced to profess Islam (ukriha hatta azhara al-isldtri)"15 There is evidence that four other Copts converted as a result of physical force or the threat thereof. Taj al-Riyasah (Appendix, no. 6) 72 73 74 7J

Ayni/^, 2912/4, fol. 160r. Aynilqd, 2912/4, fols. 396v-397r. Dawadari, vol. 9, p. 395. Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 505.

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLAM

2 279

was beaten by an amir until he agreed to accept Islam.76 Karim al-DIn al-Kablr (Appendix, no. 13), was converted in middle age "at the hand of" a Mamluk amir, who "kept at him until he had driven him from Christianity to Islam (qdmafl amrihi ild an akhrajahu min din alNasrdniyyah ild al-Isldm)"11 Rizq Allah (Appendix, no. 14), alNashw's brother, was forced to convert by al-Nasir Muhammad in person. As deputy to al-Nashw, Rizq Allah had access to the sultan when al-Nashw was absent from Cairo. On one occasion, a Friday before prayers, the sultan invited him to accept Islam but Rizq Allah declined, whereupon the sultan began to slap him. He finally submitted when the sultan threatened him with a sword.78 But al-Nasir Muhammad could, on occasion, ignore conversion when it suited his purposes. When another of al-Nashw's brothers, al-Mukhlis, pronounced the formula of conversion in order to escape the torture which was being inflicted upon him as a means of extorting money from him, the sultan refused to accept this stratagem: "What is it to me whether this dirty slave converts or not?" the sultan is reported to have asked. "Force him to produce my money!"79 Al-Sana, "one of the leading scribes in Egypt," converted when, after the fires set in Cairo by monks, he was beaten in the street by a Muslim mob.80 Besides physical violence, other, less overt, forms of pressure were used to induce Coptic functionaries to convert. In 701/1302 the promulgation of the Covenant of GUmar, whereby non-Muslims were to be dismissed from public office and were required to wear distinctive clothing, resulted in the conversion of Faraj Allah (Appendix, no. 30) and his brother; according to al-Safadi they objected in particular to the necessity of wearing clothes that would publicly identify them as nonMuslims.81 Curiously, this incident is also cited by some historians as the cause of the conversion of Amm al-Mulk (Appendix, no. 18), even though, as we saw above, he was supposed to have converted in 692/1293! In any event, Amm al-Mulk and the equally important bureaucrat Shams al-DIn Ghibriyal (Appendix, no. 21) are said to have gone into hiding for a month in 701/1301 in order to avoid Baybars II al-Jashankir's campaign to convert Coptic functionaries. Only when "They grew tired of this" did they emerge from hiding and become Muslims.82 Although we do not know what pressures were exerted on 76

Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 28. Ayni/?4 2912/4, fol. 354v. 78 Safadi A'yan, fol. 187v. " Ayni Iqd, 2911/C34, fol. 159v. 80 Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 227,253. 81 Safadi A'yon, fol. 384v. But Faraj Allah may not have been a Copt originally, as he seems to have been a Syrian. 82 Safadi A'yan, fol. 237v, 242r; Dawadari, p. 51; Mufaddal, p. 166. 77

280

D. P. LITTLE

Fakhr al-Din (Appendix, no. 36), they must have been heavy, since he contemplated suicide for a few days before succumbing.83 It is interesting, even strange, that some of these forced converts were themselves instrumental in converting others. Al-Nashw, notorious for cynicism and opportunism, probably drew on both when he required his nephew, Jamal al-Kufat (Appendix, no. 1), to convert before employing him as an accountant84 Yet what of Rizq Allah (Appendix, no. 14) who had to be converted by physical abuse, including the threat of a brandished sword but who, according to al-Safadf, had sympathy for Islam, which he concealed out of respect for his mother? Long before his conversion, Rizq Allah secretly gave alms to Muslims, sent clothing to Makka and Madina, and arranged for recitations of the Qur'an at alAzhar. He is also alleged to have covertly urged his Christian grooms and black slaves to adopt Islam. For this contrast between his desire to convert others and his resistance to renouncing Christianity for himself I can offer no explanation. It would be tempting to attribute this contrast to flawed, anecdotal, historical sources were it not for the fact that the same historian, al-Safadi, records both aspects of Rizq Allah's attitude toward conversion without question or concern.85 4. Finally, the question of sincerity. Obviously this is a difficult question to answer satisfactorily. For our purposes we can only adopt the behavior of converts as an indicator and infer that if they made a deliberate attempt to conduct themselves as Muslims, their conversion must have been sincere in the absence of contrary evidence. As might be expected, the scale provided by this criterion is wide. Certainly the Qadi al-Nashw (Appendix, no. 26) never made any attempt to convince anyone that he was a practicing Muslim, and when he died in prison, it was discovered that he had never been circumcised, though he was responsible for the castration of some of his Turkish and black slaves! Moreover, four thousand jars of wine were found in his home as well as quantities of pork, along with a gold cross and a jewelled hand of the Virgin Mary. He was buried in the Jewish cemetery!86 Al-cAynI expresses the prevailing view of Muslim historians when he states that al-Nashw "was one of the worst Christians and most wicked of Copts. He entered Islam outwardly, with infidelity in his heart."87 Karim al-Din al-Saghir's Islam was also suspect, and he, like al-Nashw, was universally hated for his cruelty and evil deeds. It is not surprising, then, that during a period when he was in prison a group of qadls declared him 83 84 85 86 87

Safadi A'yon, fol. 516r; Safadi Waft, vol. 4, p. 235. Safadi A'yon, fol. 19r; Safadi Wafi, vol. 4, p. 180. Safadi A'yon, fol. 187v. Ayni Iqd, 2911/C 34, fols. 157r-158r; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 481,486. Ayni Iqd, 2911/C 34, fol. 140 b.

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLAM

2 281

to be an infidel. Nevertheless, after his release he held two more government appointments, one in Safad and another in Damascus, before he was finally exiled to Aswan, where he drowned in dubious circumstances. 8 At the other end of the scale is the Qadi Fakhr al-DIn (Appendix, no. 36). As we have seen, he was such a devout Christian that he threatened to kill himself rather than convert However, once he had taken the plunge, he became more Muslim than those born and bred in Islam. So devoted was he to his new faith that he made the pilgrimage to Makka more than once, gave generous alms regularly, and financed the construction of many religious edifices, including mosques, fountains, a school, and a hospital.89 While such commendable deeds earned him the reputation of being an outstanding Muslim, even he was not without his detractors, one of whom denied him, after his death, the formula invoking God's blessings on Muslims.90 Although Shams al-DIn Ghibriyal (Appendix, no. 21) was not quite so resolute a Muslim as Fakhr al-DIn, Ghibriyal, too, took Islam seriously. During the nights of Ramadan he sponsored recitations of the Sahih of al-Bukhari, and at °Id al-Fitr and the Birthday of the Prophet he held celebrations to which all the notables of Cairo were invited. He built a mosque in Damascus, a hospital in al-Rhbah, and an ablution fountain at Karak Nuh, in Lebanon.91 Nevertheless, in spite of these demonstrations of piety, Ibn Hajar claims that Ghibriyal retained a love for Christians and that some of his daughters may not have converted to Islam.92 He died under house arrest, after being dismissed from office for misuse of royal funds.93 That lavish expenditures on Muslim public works were not accepted at face value as proof of loyalty to Islam is also illustrated by the activities of Karim al-Din al-Kabir (Appendix, no. 13). He too was extraordinarily generous in financing pious construction, including three mosques in Egypt and Syria and a sufi convent in Cairo in addition to wells and roads. He was equally generous in distributing alms, giving away 10,000 dirhams every time he entered the royal hospital in Cairo, where he served as supervisor of pious endowments.94 The sultan had enough confidence in Karim al-DIn's sincerity as a Muslim to take him on a pilgrimage to Makka and to entrust him with hanging the Egyptian « Safadi A>«, fol. 95v. » Safadi A'yon, fol. 516r; Safadi Wafi, vol. 4, p. 235; Dawadari, p. 388. 90 Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 361. » Safadi 4'yon, foL 243r. » Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, p. 368. 93 Safadi A'yon, fol. 242v. * Safadi A'yon, fol. 276r; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 355v.

282 282

D. P. LITTLE

draperies on the Kacbah itself.95 None of this, however, was enough to convince the Muslim masses of Cairo that he did not protect and favor the Copts, so that in times of communal strife, Karim al-Din was denounced and attacked with stones.96 He died in disgrace in Qus, either by his own hand or by assassination.97 Other prominent Musalimah were likewise suspected for insincere conversion. The Qadi Taj al-Din Ishaq (Appendix, no. 9), supervisor of the privy purse, was "claimed by the sultan and the amirs to have remained a Christian and changed nothing" when he became a Muslim.98 °Abd al-Rahman b. al-Makanis (Appendix, no. 23) is alleged "because of the deep-rootedness of his ancestors in Christianity to have made light of Islam and joked about it."99 Ibn Zunbur (Appendix, no. 17), holder of three major offices concurrently, was declared after his death an apostate on the grounds that crosses were found in his house, that he had kissed the threshold of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and worshiped there, that he gave alms to Christians but not to Muslims.100 Ibn Zunbur died in exile, after being arrested and tortured for misappropriation of funds.101 Undoubtedly, part of the Muslims' distrust of the Musalimah lay in the Coptic-Muslim bureaucrats' power, influence, and wealth. Since, as we have seen, they held many high offices in the financial bureaux of the state and of individual Mamluks, it is not surprising that the Mamluks and the populace at large were convinced that the Musalimah used these offices to line their own pockets. Hence the frequent arrests, torture, and confiscations inflicted upon them, which often proved the suspicion to be well founded.102 Further seeds of doubt were sown by the tense 95

Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 195-97. Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 224. 97 Nuwayri 1, fol. 20r-v. 98 Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 395v. 99 Taghribirdi Manhal 2, fol. 434r. 100 Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 882-83. 101 Safadi A'yan, fols. 236v-37r; Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 3, p. 345. 102 E.g., Jamil al-Kufat (Appendix, no. 1) paid 100,000 dinars to secure his freedom in 743/1342-43 (Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 627). Forty thousand dinars were confiscated from Karim alDin al-Saghir (Appendix, no. 12) when he was arrested in 723/1323, and more on other occasions (Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 244.) Karim al-Din al-Kabir's (Appendix, no. 13) holdings were vast Upon his arrest in the same year, one house alone in Cairo was sold for 13,000 dinars; 50,000 dinars were found in Alexandria as well as goods worth 500,000 dinars; in Damascus, 25,000 dinars were found and 1,600,000 dirhams. Much more emerged later (Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 244). Ibn Zunbur (Appendix, no. 17) also had great wealth, including 2,700 kilograms of gold and silver plate; eleven bushels of pearls, 6,000 gold girdles, 6,000 brocade covers, 100 black slaves, 60 eunuchs, etc. (Safadi A'yan, fol. 237r). On one occasion when Amin al-Mulk (Appendix, no. 18) was dismissed from the vizierate and arrested, his possessions were sold for 300,000 dirhams, though his cash was not found (Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 125). These are only a few representative examples. 96

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLAM

283

circumstances in which the Copts converted. While religious conviction and loyalty seem to have developed in some of the converts, Muslims found it hard to believe that these two qualities arose automatically upon the pronouncement of a profession of faith elicited by force or pressure. In any event, whether or not the converted bureaucrats were loyal to Islam, and no matter how much they spent to demonstrate their devotion to the new faith in tangible forms, their status in Bahri-Mamluk society remained unstable and their motives, suspect, partly because they controlled the resources of the state and partly because, more often than not, they were reluctant converts.

APPENDIX 1.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

Ibrahim, the Qadi Jamal al-DIn Jamal al-Kufat, mushir al-dawlah, nazir al-khass wa al-jaysh (d. 745/1344). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, p. 82; Safadi A'yan, fol. 19r-v; Safadi Waft, vol. 4, pp. 180-82; Shuja'i, p. 275; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 675-76. Ibrahim b. cAbd Allah al-Qibti, the Wazir Shams al-DIn, known as Katib Arlan (d. 789/1387). Ibn Hajar 2,'vol. 1, p. 34; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 569. Taghribirdi Manhal 3, p. 5; Taghribirdi Manhall,vol. l,p. 57. Ibrahim b. Qarawinah, the Wazir cAlam al-Din (d. 771/1370). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, pp. 54-55; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 186. Ibrahim b. al Qadi Makin al-DIn cAbd Allah b. Lufaytah, the Qadi Majd al-Din, nazir al-dawlah (d. 731/1331). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, p. 55; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 340. Ibrahim b. Abi al-Wahsh b. Abi al-Hulayqah, cAlam al-Din b. alRashid, ra'is al-atibbd' (d. 708/1308-9). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, p. 77; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 50. Ahmad b. Abi al-Faraj Barakat al-Fariqam, Taj al-Din b. Sharaf al-Din, Taj al-Riyasah, mushir al-dawlah (d. 709/1309-10). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, p. 248; Safadi A'yan, fol. 140v; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 85-86; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 274r-v. Amad b. Amin al-Mulk cAbd Allah b. al-Ghannam al-Qibti alMisri, the Qadi Taj al-DIn, nazir al-jaysh wa al-khass (d. 755/1354). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, p. 201; Safadi A'yan, fols. 32r-33r; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 15; Taghribirdi Nujum, vol. 10, p. 301. Ahmad b. al-Mufaddal b. Fadl Allah al-Misri 1-QibtI, the Qadi Qutb al-DIn, mustawfi awqaf Dimashq (d. 724/1324). Ibn Hajar 2, voL 1, p. 339; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 357r. Ishaq b. al-Qammat, the Qadi Taj al-Din cAbd al-Wahhab, nazir al-khass (d. 731/1331). Ibn'Hajar 2, vol. 3, pp. 145-46; Safadi A'yan, fol. 78v; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 395v.

284

D. P. LITTLE

10. Ascad b. Amm al-Mulk, Taqiy al-Din al-Ahwal, Katib Burlughi, mustawfi al-hdshiyyah (d. 716/1316). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, p. 383. 11. Al-Ascad Harbah, mustawfi al-suhba (d. 754/1353). Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 906. 12. Akram b. Khatlrah al-Qibti, the Qadi Karim al-Dfn al-Saghir, nazir al-dawlah (d. 726/1326). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 1, pp. 428-29; Nuwayri 1, fols. 27v-28v; Safadi A'yan, fol. 95r-v; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 271; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 373r. 13. Akram b. Hibat Allah al-Qibti, the Qadi Karim al-Dfn al-Kabir, nazir al-khass (d. 724/1324). Ibn Hajar 2,' vol. 1, pp. 429-31; vol. 3, pp. 15-18; Nuwayri 1, fols. 21r-26v; Safadi A'yan, fols. 275r-77v; Suqa'i, pp. 193-94; Mufaddal, pp. 24-25; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 259; Ayni Iqd, fols. 354r-56v. 14. Rizq Allah b. Fadl Allah, Majd al-Din b. al-Taj, mustawfi al-khass (d. 740/1340). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, pp. 200-201; Safadi A'yan, fol. 187v; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 506. 15. Al-Sana b. Sitt Bahjah, al-kdtib (d. 723/1324). Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 252-53. 16. Shakir b. Rishah al-Qibti, the Wazir Taj al-Din, nazir al-khass (d. 760/1359). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, p. 284. c 17. Abd Allah b. Ahmad al-Qibti al-Misri, the Wazir cAlam al-Dfn ibn Zunbur, nazir al-jaysh wa al-khass (d. 755/1354-55). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, p. 345; Safadi A'yan, fols. 236r-37r; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 881-83. 18. cAbd Allah b. Taj al-Riyasah, the Wazir Amin al-Mulk (d. 741/1340). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, pp. 357-58; Safadi A'yan, fols. 237v-38r. c 19. Abd Allah b. Raqiq al-Aslami, Jamal al-Din al-Katib (d. 783/1381). Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 462. c 20. Abd Allah b. Sacd al-Dawlah Ibrahim al-Ascad al-Qibti, the Wazir Muwaffaq al-Din (d. 755/1354). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, pp. 366-67; vol. 5, p. 174; Safadi A'yan, fol. 241r. c 21. Abd Allah b. Sanica al-Qibti, the Wazir Shams al-Din Ghibriyal (d. 734/1334). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, pp. 367-68; Safadi A'yan, fols. 242r-43v. c 22. Abd al-Rahman al-Tawil al-Qibti al-Aslamf, the Qadi al-Taj, nazir al-dawlah (d. 711/1312). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, p. 50;'Safadi A'yan, fol. 140v; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 114; Ayni Iqd, 2912/4, fol. 295r. c 23. Abd al-Rahman b. cAbd al-Razzaq b. Ibrahim, called Ibn alMakanis, al-Qibti al-Misri, Fakhr al-Din, nazir al-dawlah (d. 794/1392). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, pp. 438-39; Taghribirdi Manhal 3, p. 196; Taghribirdi Manhal 2, fol. 434r.

COPTIC CONVERTS TO ISLAM

24. 25.

26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

35. 36. 37.

285

°Abd al-Karim b. al-Ruwayhib, the Wazir Karim al-E)in al-Qibtl al-Misri (d. 784/1382). Taghribirdi Manhal 3, p. 213; Taghribirdi Manhal 2, fol. 469v. c Abd al-Karim b. cAbd al-Razzaq, the Wazir Karim al-Din al-Qibti al-Misri, called Ibn Makanis, nazir al-khdss (d. 803/1401). Taghribirdi Manhal 3, p. 212; Taghribirdi Manhal 2, fols. 466v67r. c Abd al-Wahhab b. Taj Fadl AUah al-Nashw al-Katib, the Qadi Sharaf al-Din, nazir al-khdss (d. 740/1332). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 3, pp. 42-44; Safadi A'yan, fols. 285v-87r; Shuja'i, p. 91; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, pp. 505-06; Ayni Iqd, 2911/C34, fols. 144r-65v. Al-°Alam b. Fakhr al-Dawlah, mustawfl al-dawlah. Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 2, p. 334. Ghibriyal, known as al-Ascad al-Nasrani, katib nd'ib al-saltanah (d. 713/1313). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 3, p. 297; Maqrizi Suluk, vol.' 2, p. 125. Fakhr b. cAbd AUah al-Qibti, al-Sacid, nazir al-khdss (d. 7537/1352). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 3, p. 310. Faraj Allah b. cAlam al-Sucada' b. Amin al-DIn b. al-cAssal alQibti, sahib al-diwdn (d. 737/1337). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 2, p. 311; Safadi A'yan, fol. 383v. Fadl AUah b. al-Ramlf, the Wazir Taj al-Din. (d. c. 780/1379). Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 329. Majid b. al-Taj Abl Ishaq cAbd al-Wahhab al-Qibti, nazir al-khdss of Damascus (d. 775/1374). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 3, p. 261; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 229. Majid b. Qarawinah, the Wazir Fakhr al-Din al-Qibti al-Aslami, nazir al-khdss (d. 768/1367). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 3, p. 361; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3', pp. 147-48. Majid b. Taj al-Din Musa b. Abi Shakir al-Qibti al-Misri, the Wazir Fakhr al-Din, nazir al-khdss (d. 776/1375). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 3, p. 24; Maqrizi Suluk, vol. 3, p. 247; Taghribirdi Manhal 3, p. 192; Taghribirdi Manhal 2, fol. 436 a-b. Muhammad b. Fadl AUah b. Abi Nasr b. Abi al-Rida al-Qibti, Sadid al-Din, known as Ibn Katib al-Marj al-Sa°idi (d. c. 740/1340). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 4, pp. 253; Safadi A'yan, fol. 517 b. Muhammad b. Fadl AUah b. Khariif, the Qadi Fakhr al-Din, nazir al-juyush (d. 732/1332). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 4, pp. 255-56; Safadi A'yan, fol. 517v; Safadi Wafi, vol. 4, pp. 335-37. Al-Mukhlis (d. 740/1339). Ayni Iqd, 2911/C34, fols. 159v-162r.

286

D. P. LITTLE

38.

Al-Muhadhdhab, Katib al-Amlr Baktamur al-Saql (d. 735/133435). Dawadari, pp. 394-96; Mufaddal, p. 60. 39. Musa b. Ishaq, called °Abd al-Wahhab, b. cAbd al-Karim al-Misri al-Qibti, tlie Wazir Shams al-Dfn b. Taj al-Din al-Katib (d. 771/1370). Ibn Hajar 2, vol. 5, pp. 144-45. 40. Wall al-Dawlah b. al-Khatir, Abu al-Faraj (d. 742/1340). Safadi A'yan, fol. 383r-v; MaqriziSuluk, vol. 2, p. 616.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abd al-Hadi

Muhammad b. Ahmad ibn *Abd al-Hadi, Al-cUqud alDurriyyah nun Mandqib Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, ed. M.H. al-Fiqqi, Cairo, 1938.

Aynilqd

Badr al-Din al-'Ayni, clqd al-Jumdn fi Ta'rlkh Ahl alZaman, 3 vols., mss., Istanbul, Ahmet HI 2911/C34 and 2912/4.

Bosworth "Christian"

C.E. Bosworth, "Christian and Jewish Religious Dignitaries in Mamluk Egypt and Syria," International Journal of the Middle East Studies Association, vol. 3 (1972), pp. 59-74, 199-216.

Dawadari

Abu Bakr b. 'Abd Allah ibn al-Dawadari, Kanz alDurar wa Jam? al-Ghurar, part 9, ed. H.R. Roemer, Cairo, 1960.

Escovitz "Patterns"

J.H. Escovitz, "Patterns of Appointment to the Chief Judgeships of Cairo during the Bahri Mamluk Period," Arabica, vol. 30 (1983), pp. 147-68.

Escovitz Qadi

J.H. Escovitz, The Office of Qddl al-Qudat in Cairo under the Bahrl Mamluks, Berhn, 1984.

Escovitz "Scribes"

J.H. Escovitz, "Vocational Patterns of the Scribes of the Mamluk Chancery," Arabica, vol. 23 (1976), pp. 42-62.

Ibn Hajar 1

Ahmad b. 'AH ibn Hajar al-