The various Christian attitudes towards Islam were influenced by the diverse social and political elements with which Christians had to deal. As we mentioned previously, the religious minorities welcomed the change that came with Islam, whereas the Melkites, who connected their fate with the Byzantine Empire, received the new changes with fear and trembling.

In each case, the Eastern Christians in general realized that Islam became a reality and Muslims were there to stay, so they had to find a way of living in the new setting brought by Islam.

Regardless of the way that the Eastern Christians followed in dealing with Muslims, they could establish good relations with Muslims and achieve many successes in understanding the situation under which they lived and acclimating themselves to coexisting with their new neighbors.       

Side by side with the Eastern Christians’ attitudes towards Islam, the Byzantine attitudes were of great importance in affecting Eastern Christian-Muslim relations. Byzantine-Muslim relations affected the Eastern Christian-Islamic relations because of the religious connections between Byzantium and the Eastern Christians. Unfortunately, the beginnings of Byzantine-Islamic relations were not peaceful. The Byzantine perception of Islam was influenced by bloody martial confrontations between the Roman Empire and the Arabic-Islamic state.[1] Furthermore, the Byzantines did not have any direct interactive relations with Muslims, and that deprived them of a living experience of Islam. The Byzantine’s knowledge of Islam was limited to what war required, to some diplomatic communications in order to conclude a truce, or to facilitate the work of trading and the transportations of pilgrims.

These aggressive relations between Byzantium and Islam were also expressed in very harsh and severe writings against Islam. These writings reflected the painful feelings of Byzantium towards the Islamic conquest and the defeats Byzantium suffered at the hands of Muslims armies. An example of the very painful feelings of Byzantium can be found in many writings of the Byzantine apologists. Explaining what caused the Islamic victory, St. Maximus attributed it to the Christians’ sins. In Alexandria he wrote a letter to Peter the Illustrious: “For we have not conducted ourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ… we have all acted like wild beasts towards one another, ignorant of God’s love for humans, and the mystery of the sufferings of the God who became flesh for our sake”.[2]  Then, he exhorted Peter and all Christians to remain in their Orthodoxy and if necessary to suffer death for their faith.

Nicetas of Byzantium was one of the most distinguished Byzantine scholar-philosophers in the middle of the ninth century. He composed many polemical works against Islam in an attempt to offer a systematic refutation of Muslim beliefs as expressed in Qur’an. In his work ‘Refutation of the Book Forged by Muhammad the Arab’, Nicetas presented a detailed analysis and critique of Qur’an.

It clearly appears that Nicetas was familiar with the work of Theodore Abu Qurra and his way of interpreting Qur’an. Unlike Abu Qurra, Nicetas was not restricted by the Muslim environment, rules and regulations; also he was not interested in entering into a mutually productive dialogue with Byzantium’s enemies.[3]

As a matter of fact, Nicetas was little personal contact with Muslims, and this affected his works negatively. Interpreting Qur’an, he did not take into consideration the Islamic interpretations; also he used the more systematic controversial interpretations and treated the Qur’anic texts from the classical Byzantine theological perspective.[4] That led him to deep misunderstanding of the real concept of Islam, which was reflected in his writings. For instance, he translated the word SAMAD[5] in Qur’an as “ made of solid, hammer-beaten metal.” It is very clear that his translation was based upon previous Greek translations of Qur’an.[6] Comparing Nicetas’ translation of the word “SAMAD” as “made of solid, hammer-beaten metal” with the original Arabic text that means “Eternal, Absolute”, and noticing the absolute contradiction between the two texts, we realize that the Byzantine apologies were against Islam as they knew it and not as it defined itself. Nevertheless, Nicetas’ apologies were directed towards the Islamic rejection of the Divinity of Christ and of His crucifixion. The apology, soon, would be turned into an attack against the person of Muhammad and into a refutation of Qur’an. Regarding the prophecy of Muhammad, Nicetas tried to refute it by concentrating on two matters. First, by proving that it does not fulfill the specifications of the prophecy in the Christian perspective. Second, by reviewing the history of Muhammad’s life and examining his meeting with the Arian Monk Bahira, giving much importance to the influence of that meeting in the teachings of Muhammad.  Regarding Qur’an, he attempted to refute it by proving its matchlessness with the Christian Scriptures.[7]  

In reality, these severe writings against Islam did not change the reality of the Islamic existence as a fait accompli. Nor did these writings helped in stopping the Islamic conquest and the shedding of bloods that occurred in time of war. On the contrary, they just created a state of confrontation between Islam and Byzantium, in which both sides engaged in political and military force as well as intellectual and theological polemics against each other. Meyendorff explained the reasons behind the hostile relations between the two empires:

Both religions claimed to have a universal mission, and both empires world supremacy.  By the very conception of its religion, Islam was unable to draw a distinction between the "political" and “spiritual,” but neither did Byzantium ever want to distinguish between the universality of the Gospel and the imperial universality of Christian Rome.  This made the mutual understanding difficult and led both sides to consider that holy war was, after all, the normal stat of relations between the two Empires.[8]

A reasonable justification of the holy war could be found in the religion of Islam: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors” (Surah 2:190), “And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers” (Surah 2:193). In the same manner, Byzantium found its justification of engagement in war against Islam simply in the person of the Emperor. The Emperor believed that the political unity had to be reflected in the religious unity, therefore he attempted to preserve the empire’s religion and defend it by what was considered as a holy war.     

Therefore, we can highlight two important reasons that led to such explosive relations between Byzantium and Islam. First of all, in dealing with Islam, the Byzantine scholars had the disadvantage of dealing with materials they were not familiar with, and they did not experience a personal contact with those to whom it related. Second, we must not turn attention from the reality that the political situation between Byzantium and the Muslim state was of great importance in the growth of enmity and retaliatory feelings between them. 

 In reality, the military confrontations and the hassle religious controversial apologetics were not always characteristics of Byzantine-Muslim relations. We must admit that in Byzantium there were some flexible and friendly attitudes towards Islam. These attitudes were mostly common between the spiritual and the monastic figures, who preferred reconciliatory and peaceful relations to struggle, separation and enmity.

In the year 913, the Patriarch Nicholas of Constantinople wrote a letter to the Caliph Al-Muqtadir (908-932). Describing the aggravated relations between Christains and Muslims, the Patriarch Nicholas did not attack Islam; rather he asked the Caliph to interfere in solving the problem, reminding him of his father’s good manners and praiseworthy pious character.

Before approaching the other Byzantine writers and theologians that dealt with Islam, it is worth mentioning the controversy concerning the “formula of abjuration” and its influence on the history of the Byzantine polemical tradition. Traditionally, the “formula of abjuration” is attributed to the “civil servant and historian Nicetas Chonitates[9] (ca. 1155-1215); the text in reality derives from the ninth or possibly even the eighth century”.[10] The author of the formula is not known. The formula contains two parts. The first part consists of a brief statement of affirmation of the Orthodox dogmas, while the second part consists of a series of twenty-two anathemas against Muslim beliefs. Each part had to be recited by the initiate following the priest’s prompting. After the formula recitation, a series of prayers was to be read to close the ceremony. The ceremony took a place in the baptistery of the church in the presence of faithful Christians and the converts who wanted to become Christians.[11] This formula is considered as one of the severest Byzantine reactions against Islam. “ It takes an unusually severe attitude in condemning whatever a Muslim believes, including the whole of what he believes about God and about Christ”.[12]

The controversy over the formula started with the Emperor Comnenus (1143-1180). In February of 1180, the Emperor Manuel recommended to removal of the last anathema (No. 22) from the “formula of abjuration.” The anathema (No. 22) was directed against the “God of Muhammad”: “And before all, I anathematize the God of Muhammad, about whom he [Muhammad] says, He is God alone, God made of solid, hammer-beaten metal; He begets not and is not begotten, nor is there like unto Him any one”.[13]

Before discussing Manuel’s argument and motivations behind his recommendation to expunge this anathema from the “formula of abjuration”, it is important to lay out some important points concerning this anathema.

We have to take into consideration that this anathema was based on the translation of the Qur’anic verse that describes God as “made of solid, hammer-beaten metal.” (Surah 112:2) The description “made of solid, hammer-beaten metal” is clearly referred to an idolater god. The original Arabic Qur’anic text does not mean: “made of solid, hammer-beaten metal” but it means: “Eternal, Absolute”. The Islamic religion itself anathematized idols and warned people against worshipping them, “And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the path say: enjoy (your brief power) but verily ye are making straightway for Hell.” (Surah 14:30) “For ye do worship idols besides Allah, and ye invent falsehood. The things that ye worship besides Allah have no power to give you sustenance…” (Surah 29:17) Based on what we mentioned, we may conclude that Islam was introduced as a religion of pagans, in which Muslims worship a material god, who was described in their Qur’an itself as “hammer-beaten metal.” Moreover, it was very natural for Byzantium to anathematize an idol; even Islam did so. Therefore, the misunderstanding of the real concept of Islam and the misleading translation of Qur’an produced an ignorant anathema, by which another god was anathematized, an idol, but not the real God of Islam, which is the God of Byzantium too and of all. These notes were very important to determine the real settings that produced the anathema at hand and to clarify its intentions.  

Back to Manuel’s recommendation to expunge this anathema from the “Formula of Abjuration.” It is worth mentioning that the general successes of the Byzantine army during Manuel’s reign (1143-1180) gave a chance to Manuel to direct his missionaries towards both Turkish Muslims and former Christians converted to Islam. In the last year of his reign, Manuel proposed to remove the final anathema of the “formula of abjuration”, which was directed against the God of Muhammad (as described “hammer-beaten metal”) from all of the imperial and the church books, starting with the codex of the Great Church of Hagia Sophia. First, the patriarchal synod of Constantinople refused Manuel’s proposal. The Patriarch Theodosius Boradiotes (1179-1183) and his synod explained to the emperor that it was not the Christian God who was being anathematized but the “hammer-beaten metal” god.[14] Manuel did not give up. He put his proposal in a formal written form. Manuel’s decree was sent to the patriarch to be read before the Church, publicly. Theodosius the Patriarch’s stubborn refusal to accept the emperor’s proposal remained without change, and he rejected the proposal again. Despite his sickness, Manuel wrote a second shorter tome and gathered the church hierarchy as well as “all those who were honored because of their learning”.[15] The gathering was held in the imperial palace. When the assemblage arrived the emperor was too sick to receive them. Instead he sent one of his undersecretaries to receive them and to deliver to them the documents that Manuel wrote to be read in the gathering. Nevertheless, Manuel did not attend the first gathering because of his sickness. In the first gathering, the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, Eustathius, who was known as an imperial supporter, tried to explain Manuel’s perspective. In his speech, Eustathius struck the bishops by reporting an opposite opinion to what Manuel’s opinion was. The bishops were struck by his misunderstanding of Manuel’s position on the issue that he was supposed to be representing. Nicetas the historian, reporting the speech of Eustathius, wrote that he[16] “was filled with indignation by what was read and could not suffer the true God to be called ‘olosfuroV’, the fabrication of a demonical mind, and said: my brains would be in my feet and I would be wholly unworthy of this garb, pointing to the mantle covering his shoulders, were I to regard as true God the pederast who was as brutish as a camel and master and teacher of every abominable act”.[17]

Of course, Manuel wanted to make the most of Eustathius’ slip to convince the bishops of his view. Nicetas reported that:

Manuel, perturbed by the report of what had been said, gave an artful defense of his position, commending forbearance as never before.  He counted himself among the most Orthodox of Christians and asserted that he came from most holy parents, while shunning the censorious and the scoffers.  He urgently appealed that a judgment be made between him and the archbishop of Thessalonica, for he said that if he should be absolved of believing in a god who is a pederast and of distorting the faith, then a just punishment should be imposed upon him who belched out blasphemies against the anointed of the Lord.  However, should he be condemned as glorifying another god than Him whom Christians worship, then he would learn the truth and be deeply grateful to the one who should convert him from error and initiate him into the truth.[18]

It clearly appears that, giving the example of the Metropolitan Eustathius’ slip, Manuel tried here to enfeeble the opposition’s position by intimating the possibility of punishment for whoever might oppose him. At the time, Patriarch Theodosius, drawing on his past relationship with Manuel and using all of his charm, mediated into the Emperor to forgive Eustathius. Manuel agreed to forgive Eustathius, so he could gain more support for his proposal.

After several weeks of discussion, the bishops accepted Manuel’s proposal and agreed to remove the final anathema from the “formula of abjuration.”  The historian Nicetas Choniates (ca. 1155-1215), describing the account of the last session, said: “After a long delay, they [the bishops] barely agreed to remove the anathema of Muhammad’s god from the catechetical books and to write in the anathema of Muhammad and of all his teachings. Having proclaimed and confirmed this doctrine, the many synods and assemblies came to an end”.[19]

What is important to determine is: What were Manuel’s motivations behind his claim to remove the anathema? What were the results of expunging the anathema from the “formula of abjuration,” both immediate and long-term? And finally, what importance may be attached to this action for Christian-Muslim dialogue and relations at the time.  

In reality, there were many motivations behind Manuel’s action towards expunging the last anathema from the “formula of abjuration.” One may first think of the general military successes that Manuel achieved and his missionary work towards Muslims and non-Christians in general. In this concern, we notice that Manuel was convinced that this anathema could be an obstacle to the Muslims’ conversion to Christianity. In other words, he believed that it was dishonorable to make the converts “blaspheme God in any manner.” Nicetas said: “Manuel proposed the anathematization be expunged from all the catechetical books beginning with the codex of the Great Church. The reason was…[that Manuel] contended that it was scandalous that the Muslims when being converted to our God-fearing faith, should be made to blaspheme God in any manner.”[20] Moreover, many knowledgeable Muslims, converts and not, had long objected to the mistranslation of the word SAMAD[21] as “made of solid, hammer-beaten metal.” Consequently, Manuel believed that expunging the anathema would make conversation with such people easier and more convincing. In reality Manuel himself was convinced that by keeping this anathema even Christians themselves would be blaspheming God. What was important in Manuel’s action was that he considered the God of Muhammad as the true God who should be glorified instead of blasphemed. Therefore, when Manuel identified the God of Muhammad with the God of Christians, he was convinced that neither one should be anathematized.

Before the expunging of the final anathema from the “formula of abjuration,” Islam had for centuries been regarded by Byzantine theologians as a Christian heresy. After Manuel’s success in expunging the final anathema, Byzantium accepted Islam as a religion that believed in the same God that Christians believe in. Of course, as a result of the expunging of the anathema, the offensive translation of SAMAD[22] was deleted, and what is more important, the common monotheism of Islam and Christianity was recognized.

As a matter of fact, expunging the anathema did not only affect the Byzantine perspective of Islam but also created a new era of possible Byzantine-Islamic tolerance, in which both sides would share the belief in a common God, a common monotheism and a common humanity. This major change in the Byzantine perspective toward Islam affected the latter Byzantine social, theological and intellectual treatment of Islam and vice versa.

Consequently, in the 13^th century and latter on, we find more peaceful Christian-Islamic writings. In the 14^th century Gregory Palamas (d. 1359) would be a great example of such irenic constructive Byzantine writers, who dealt with Islam as a monotheistic religion that has a role in the divine plan. In his treatment to Islam, Gregory Palamas tried to maintain peaceful mutual Christian-Islamic relations. Therefore, he mentioned the positive aspects of what Islam did say about Christ and Christianity. Moreover, we find in his writings some indications of the Islamic role in the divine plan. And finally, he stressed on that the monotheistic nature of Islam, its struggle against paganism and its ethics were signs of the divine presence[23].

 

Tags: gospel, christians, apologetics, death, byzantine, worship