One of the significant events in the history of the world, which still baffles historians and the other students of the growth of human civilisation, is the rapid spread of Islam in its early history, without any historical parallel, before or after. Within a century after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islam, which was still confined more or less to the Arabian Peninsula at his death, established an empire that stretched from the distant Spain to the boarders of China. As Islam advanced, kingdom after kingdom collapsed and became part of the nascent, but strong Muslim Empire. At another level, countless number of communities also embraced Islam. Obviously historians and philosophers needed an explanation to unlock this phenomenal advancement of religion, both at religious and political levels, whose original bearers were disorganised Bedouins and small town people of Arabia, who were until the emergence of Islam at each other’s throats. However, unfortunately, an influential approach to scholarship called Orientalism, that still shapes the Western approach to Islam and Muslims, explains this in terms of Islam’s violent subjugation of the conquered people.
To put in the classical Orientalist parlance, Islam offered only two choices, either the sword or conversion to non-Muslims, and the Orientalists, looking retrospectively from this binary worldview, one of the verses of the Quran, which talks about a specific historical context existed in the light of the complicated situation between the Arab pagans and early Muslim, described it as the verse of the sword.
However, nothing is far from the truth than this portrayal of Islam as a violent religion that carried on converting people by force. The question, however, remains: how and when and why did such hateful vision of Islam emerge and how is that it still persists in many circles? In fact, the Western non-Muslim scholars have themselves documented the historical prejudices against Islam and discussed the reasons for the origins of such prejudices.
At the core of this hostile vision lies the prejudice generated in the Western mind during the Crusades. The peaceful and gradual spread of Muslim faith is amply demonstrated by the history of the Christian communities of Middle East and North Africa, and all the tales about the forced conversions and the persecutions of the religious minorities by the Muslim power could be referred back to the period immediately before the Crusades, a time when the distorted images of Islam and Muslim gained currency in the medieval West, obviously due to political and religious reasons., and in fact, these constructions, for centuries, contributed and still contribute to the distortion of Islamic history among the Europeans.
In fact, as Professor R.W. Southern proves in his classic study Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (1962), the distorted image of Islam and its Prophet were both introduced and expanded in the Western Europe roughly at the beginning of the Crusades. In fact, at the beginning, the medieval Church authorities needed the double justifications to preserve the supposed unity of Christian community under the authority of the Pope, and the misleading interpretation of the Islamic doctrine and history, and thus Islam became the Other or the perceived real enemy.
About this issue Norman Daniel, in Islam and the West, writes: “Every Christian reference to lands that had once been Christian, and particularly the Holy Land, must be understood to have been made on the assumption that these were not lost provinces that belonged by right to the Latin Church. Christians were still thought to be or have been a single nation which by the rise of Islam had been robbed of a third of its provinces”1.
Pope Urban II, in the Discourse of Clermont, made an attempt to morally justify the necessity of the First Crusade, actually, he used the concept of the supposed unity of Christendom, when he said: “Dearest brethren, I, Urban, invested by the permission of God with the papal tiara and spiritual ruler over the whole world, have come here in this great crisis to you, servants of God, as a messenger of divine admonition”2; “You must hasten to carry aid to your brethren dwelling in the East, who need your help, which they often have asked.”3 . The distorted image of Islam and its Prophet were both introduced and expanded in the Western Europe roughly at the beginning of the Crusades.
Though the most of the medieval prejudices against many other religious and ethnic communities seems to have really disappeared in the Western public space, and the studies of foreign cultures appear to have become objective and balanced, when it comes to Islam the old prejudices still persist. In fact, Orientalist discourse, especially after Edward Said’s influential criticism in his Orientalism, though seems to have nearly discredited, still plays a crucial role in perpetuating the demeaning portrayal of Islam and its history, has given it a new phase in the form of the Islamophobia, which is currently increasingly visible in many Western countries in spite of their multi religious and multicultural public space.
T.W. Arnold and the Refined Scholarship on Islam
However, in spite of the overwhelming Orientalist discourse of power and projections that perpetuates the reductionist views of Islam and its history, there is another story of a refined and objective scholarship on Islam, championed by some of the eminent Western historians of Islam like Norman Daniel, Professor R. W Southern in the 1960s, and at present, Professor Richard Bulliet of Columbia University, etc. However, Prof. T. W Arnold can be considered as one of the pioneers in this field of refined approach to Islam as he produced some of finest and objective works on Islam almost a century ago.
These works and thoughts of independent and objective scholars like Arnold and Normal Daniel are supremely important in the current Western space, an extreme form of both popular and academic Orientalism is gaining currency in the form of a virulent form of Islamophobia that is oriented towards dehumanising Islam, its people and civilisation. It is within this background, that Prof Arnold’s The Preaching of Islam, that contains an objective reflection on one of the most important aspects of Islam’s relationship with outside world, that is, the spread of its message among the people of the world, from early the centuries of its history, to many countries across the continents of Asia, Africa and Europe, is presented here as a way of offering to the public a fine examples for non-partisan scholarship.
Born in London in 1864, and trained in philosophy, Arabic and Persian, Arnold went on to become one of the most insightful and sympathetic Western scholars of Islam in the last decade of the Ninetieth and early twentieth centuries. Arriving in India, while still in his 20s, Arnold accepted a professorship in philosophy at the famous MAO College in Alighar, where he worked from 1888 to 1898, teaching philosophy, befriending and benefiting from Muslim scholars of Alighar like Shibli Nomani and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Another important phase of Arnold academic life unfolded in Lahore where he worked as the principal of the Government College in Lahore, apart from teaching philosophy, from 1898 to1904.
It was in Lahore that Arnold met, taught and philosophically mentored Iqbal, who was then studying philosophy, Arabic and English there and later he went on to become the most famous philosopher of South Asia. And, a few years later when Iqbal went to Europe for his higher studies, Arnold continued to guide of him. The relationship between Arnold and Iqbal was rooted in mutual respect and appreciation, or in other words, it was a meeting between two insightful scholars representing the world of Islam and the West, ultimately beneficial to both worlds.
Even after leaving the British India, Arnold continued his engagement with the East, working closely with Indian students in the UK. He also produced some other important works on Islam and the Arab Muslim world. Some of them are The Caliphate (Oxford, 1924; reprinted in London, 1965); The Encyclopedia of Islam, as its first English editor; The Legacy of Islam (Oxford, 1931, edited with A. Guillaume); and finally with R. A. Nicholson, he edited the Volume of Oriental Studies Presented to Edward G. Browne (Cambridge, 1922).
As it is known from the preface of its first edition in 1896, it was in Alighar that Arnold completed The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith (London, 1896, republished in 1913 and 1935). Apart from the two brief notes that he wrote to thank those who supported academically and emotionally to complete the work, Arnold seems to have not discussed the reason for producing such a book, an almost a defence of Islam and Muslim history. However, the book speaks for it self in the sense it was written as a powerful and academically authentic treatise mounting a well-grounded attack on the centuries old unfavourable projections of Islam. Apart from his intellectual honesty, a deep awareness of Islam and Muslims that he gained though his direct interactions with Muslims and many of Islam’s outstanding scholars of the time in India must have definitely contributed to the writings of the book. However, in spite of his sympathy and appreciation of Islam and the Muslim culture, his book is highly objective, and his opinions and conclusions are based on solid historical proves rooted in Christian, Jewish and Muslim historical sources in different languages like Latin, Arabic, German, English, French, etc.
In the two comparatively small introductory chapters that look at the Quranic concept of religious propagation, along with presenting the Prophet as the first model presenter or caller to Islam, Arnold, while stressing the fact that though Islam can be considered a missionary religion or the one that is interested in actively propagating its message, makes it clear that there is no place for compulsion or forceful conversion in Islam, as clearly underlined by the Quran and the life examples of the Prophet. After clarifying this theoretical position of Islam Arnold examines the history of the peaceful spread of Islam in the territories of the Middle East, North Africa, Spain and the Far East, China, India, etc.
Arnold’s discourse is mainly developed on two different levels. First, the facts are presented in the form of the historical, social and political situations of the countries conquered by Muslims, after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and within the time span of the early centuries of the Muslim expansion to those conquered lands. Second, Arnold tries to reconstruct the history of the diffusion of the Muslim faith in these regions, examining the social, cultural, and theological reasons for Islam’s spread.
One of Arnold’s key arguments here is that that the military conquest and the conversion of the population to Islam are two different historical facts that must be kept distinct, since they happened in different times and under different modalities and conditions. In other words, though the military conquest of non-Muslim lands definitely brought their citizens in contact with Islam and Muslims, conversions to Islam in those early centuries had nothing to do with the conquest in its real sense.
Even though the Muslim conquest of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain had been very fast, occurred from within the early decades after the death of the Prophet to a century, the conversion of the population, living in those territories, has been a long and gradual process, which involved seldom the political power, but was undertaken by peaceful missionaries, in an almost complete autonomy, away from the influence of the political power.
Syria and Palestine: Muslims and the Byzantium people
Actually, long before the Muslim conquest of the territories of the Middle East and North Africa, the unity of the Christian community has been put in danger by the several sects which, after the Council of Calcedonia in 451 A.D., became independent churches with separate clergy, places of worship and administration.
An historian described the situation of the Christian community of that period as follows: “The Christians of Syria, Palestine and Egypt were sadly divided when Islam rose. The Christological heresies of two centuries had filled every rank of society with division and embitterment. Religious oppression and the civil despotism of Constantinople reaped the same reward on the same day, and whole nations laboriously won for Christ were for centuries lost to religion and culture4 .”
After the 451 A.D. the Christian community of the Middle East and North Africa was divided into different churches: the Orthodox Church, the Nestorian Church and the Monophysite Church. The Nestorian Church5 , after the conversion of Nu’man, king of Hira, in the sixth century, was the spiritual ruler of all the territories of the kingdom. The Arab population that embraced Christianity was administrated by the Nestorian clergy and was using Syriac as liturgical language. Later, the missionary effort of the Nestorian church pushed on towards south as far as Wadi l-Qura, located at North-East of Medina, however, the city of Najran, in Arabia, was mainly Monophysite.
The Monophysite Church6 , after the pastoral work of Ya’qub of Tella, controlled a vast area which included Syria, Egypt and Asia Minor. Also, some Christian communities in Persia were Monophysite, since among the centres of Monophysite influence there were the monasteries of Mar Mattai, Tur ‘Abdin, on the Upper Euphrates and Qun-Neshre, near Edessa.
As a deeper historical analysis proves, in several cases the Christian communities of the Middle East and North Africa welcomed the Muslim army, since they hoped to be freed from the political and religious oppression of the Byzantine power. The Muslim government, in fact, always granted to the different Christian churches that came under its domain freedom of belief and security for the clergy and the places of worship and at the same time prevented them from persecuting each other.
The life of the Christian communities of the Middle East and North Africa was in a condition of perpetual insecurity and precariousness. In 614 A.D. Chosroes, with his Persian army, invaded Aleppo, Antioch, Damascus and Jerusalem. At that time the general condition of the Christian Church was marked by decadence and mourning. The historians argue that around 90.000 people died and the places of worship were completely destroyed. Syria went under an intensive raid and the majority of the population was taken into captivity. In Jerusalem, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was heavily damaged and other places of worship were completely destroyed. Several monks and priests were massacred by the invaders7 .
The situation didn’t improve under the oppressive religious policy of the Emperor Heraclius, who tried in vain to resolve the differences between the Christian churches with the Monothelite heresy, which provoked only an embitterment of the religious controversies between the different churches and increased the episodes of mutual persecution. Besides, the condition of part of the Middle East under the Byzantine Empire was very difficult to bear also for other reasons.
For example, the population of Syria under the Byzantine rule not only had to endure several persecutions by the Orthodox Church, but also was oppressed by the fiscal system, which paralysed every attempt to improve their already miserable living conditions. For all these reasons the population preferred to remain passive, when the Muslim army invaded their territory, hoping that their situation could improve under the Arab domination, which appeared to be more tolerant and less oppressive. After the Muslim conquest, in fact, the Syrian Christians could enjoy full political and religious freedom, which was unthinkable under the Byzantine rule.
Besides, there are several historical documents that prove that the Arab invasion and successive conquest were seen by the people of the Middle East as an opportunity of getting back again their lost political and religious freedom.
In the Twelfth century the Patriarch Jacobite of Antioch, Michael the Elder, wrote: “This is why the God of vengeance, who alone is all-powerful, and changes the empire of mortals as He wills, giving it to whomsoever He wills, and uplifting the humble-beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, through out their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity, brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans”8 .
For example, the inhabitants of Edessa closed the doors of the town in front of the army of the Emperor Heraclius, and said to the Muslims that they preferred their just government to the unjust one of the Greeks. In 637 A.D. also Damascus signed an agreement with the Arabs, and immediately after other towns like Arethusa and Hieropolis followed the example.
There are also some historical documents relating to the behaviour of some Arab Christians at the time of the Muslim conquest of the territories of Middle East. It seems that, among the other causes of Muslim success, there was also a fatalistic attitude from the clergy and some members of the Christian communities. For examples it has been related that Cedrenus said: “While the Church was vexed by kings and godless priests, there rose up Amelik of the desert to chastise us for our sins”9.
A historian comments as follows the attitude of these Christian Arabs towards the Muslim army: “Many of these Christian Arabs fought to the last for the empire and the cross; others were not proof against the contagion of race and while some threw off a faith which sat loosely upon them at best, some also observed cautious neutrality, till they could safely range their forces on the winning side. Still the ties of race told largely in favour of the Muslims. One more general remark might be interesting may be pardoned. Among the causes of Muslim success must be mentioned the strange despondency which seized the Christians. (…) Luke the traitor of Aleppo was taught by a priest that the Saracens were destined to conquer the country. Basil, the traitor of Tyre, who owed his defection to the teaching of the monk Bahirah, had himself preached the gospel of Islam through the empire10.”
The condition of the Christian Churches at the time of the Muslim invasion was very far from being characterized by unity and harmony and most probably also the continuous disputes among the different churches and the behaviour of the clergy created in the most sincere members of the Christian communities a feeling of dissatisfaction and doubt, which lead some of them to embrace Islam.
Among the Arab tribes, who converted from Christianity to Islam, it is worth to mention: the Banu Ghassan, the Banu Tayy and the Banu Namir. In 14 A.H, when the Persian army was defeated by the Arabs, several Bedouins tribes, who were Christian before, converted to Islam, after having supported the Muslim military efforts. For example, during the Battle of the Bridge (13 A.H.), the head of the Christian Bedouin tribe of Banu Tayy helped Muthannah, the Muslim general11. To the Banu Tayy, soon after, joined the Banu Namir, who lived on the borders of the Byzantine Empire. And both the tribes decided to convert to Islam.
But, there are also cases of other tribes who, even when they helped Muslims in several battles, decided to keep their faith, as happened, for example, with the Banu Taghlib. Arnold notes that the good relations between Bedouins of both Muslim and Christian faith were based not only on the awareness of the same ethnic identity but also on the with the Byzantine Empire12.
However, there are several examples of Bedouin tribes who, under the religious tolerance of Muslims, had the possibility to keep their faith along the centuries after the Arab conquest of the territories inhabited by them. For example, Layard, quoted also by Arnold13, reports the existence of a settlement of Christian Arabs near Kerak, on the Black Sea. Besides, according to the Monks of Mount Sinai, in 1700 there were still several families of Bedouin Christians, who didn’t convert to Islam. In the village of Quratayn, near Palmyra, the population equally distributed between Christians and Muslims, living in peace and harmony. Also the Banu Gjiassan, who converted to Christianity at the end of the fourth century, in the 1800, still were keeping their Christian faith14.
Christians under the Muslim rule were allowed to keep the ownership of their places of worships, and in several cases also had the chance to build new ones. For example, after the conquest of Damascus, the cathedral of Saint James was shared between Christians and Muslims, and for 80 years, it has been the place of worship of the believers of both the religions.
After the conquest of Antioch, the majority of the Bedouin tribes embraced Islam, but the inhabitants of the towns preferred to keep their Christian faith. Even in this case the churches were neither confiscated nor destroyed, while the Christian worship was completely allowed. The inhabitants of Hira, conquered by the Arab army on 633 A.D., also decided to remain Christians and enjoyed for several centuries the protection of the Muslim government15 .
All these historical facts prove that the image of the Muslim army committed to a holy war against the infidels, to whom only the choice was between the conversion and the death has to be interpreted as totally false. In reality, this was the behaviour which characterized the Crusaders and their armies, according to what Pope Urban II said in the discourse of Clermont: “Wherefore I exhort with earnest prayer to hasten to exterminate this vile race from the lands of your brethren and to aid the Christians in time16 .”
“Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war and that frequently you perish by mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let war cease, and let all the dissentions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road of the Holy Sepulchre, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to your selves17 ”.
The concept of the Holy War appears very clear in the following words of the Pope: “Most beloved brethren, today manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there I am in the midst of them. Unless the Lord God had been present in your minds, all of you would not have uttered the same cry. For, although the cry was one, therefore I say to you that God, who implanted this in your breast, has drawn it forth from you. Let this then be your battle-cry in combat, because this world is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this on cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: “God wills it! God wills it!”18 .
When for the first time Muslim army entered in Jerusalem, victorious, all the churches and monasteries were left untouched and the Christian population didn’t suffer any pillage or acts of violence by the Muslim soldiers. In fact the Muslim army in all its military campaign was following the orders given by Abu Bakr, the first Muslim ruler who succeeded the Prophet, when they started the campaign of Syria, it was also entirely based on the Sunna of the Prophet: “Be just; break not your plighted faith; mutilate none; slay neither children, old men nor women; injure not the date palm nor burn it with fire, nor cut down any fruit-bearing tree; slay neither flocks nor herds nor camels, except for food; perchance you may come across men who have retired into monasteries leave them and their work in peace; you may eat of the food that the people of the land will bring you in their vessels, making mention thereon of the name of God; and you will come across people with shaven crowns, touch them only with the flat of the sword. Go forward now in the name of God and may He protect you in battle and pestilence19.”
The Patriarch of Jerusalem, following the example of other cities of the Middle East already conquered, signed an agreement with the Muslims. The pact between Umar al-Khattab, Amir al-Muminin, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem granted to the Christians of different confessions personal security, free possession of their goods, of their places of worship and their religious symbols. Besides, according to the conditions of the agreement, the places of worship would never be destroyed or changed in private houses. Besides, the Caliph, when the Patriarch invited him to offer his prayers in the Church of the Resurrection, refused saying that, if he accepted his invitation, Muslims could have unjustly claimed that place of worship for themselves.
The text of the agreement between Amir al-Muminin and the Patriarch of Jerusalem runs as follows:“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the security which Umar, the servant of God, the commander of the faithful, grants to the people of Ilya. He grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for all their lives, their possessions, their churches and their crosses, and for all that concerns their religion. Their churches shall not be changed into dwelling places, nor destroyed, neither shall they nor their appartenances be in any way diminished, nor the crosses of the inhabitants nor anything of their possessions, nor shall any restriction be placed upon them in the matter of their faith, nor shall any one of them be harmed20”.
Umar al-Khattab also granted to the Jews the right to come back to Jerusalem. In fact, since then they started to create some small settled communities not only in Palestine but also in Iraq. A historian talks about the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders instead wrote: “When we come to the time of the Crusaders and observe the fanatical fury they exhibited while rescuing the holy sites from the hands of the infidels it will be well to recollect that the city had been transferred to the Muslims without any resistance by the action of the Christian patriarch”21.
In fact, the Church of Resurrection, almost entirely ruined by the Persian army in 614, and rebuilt by Modestus in 629, at the time of Muslim conquest and later remained completely untouched. Mukaddasi, who wrote one century before the first Crusade22, describes its beauty as follows: “So enchantingly fair and so renewed for its splendour as almost to rival in beauty the Dome of the Rock and the Great Mosque at Damascus”23 .
Other places of Christian worship in Jerusalem that remained untouched during the Muslim domination, as demonstrated by historical records, are: The Church of the Tomb of the Virgin, the Church of Peter Noster, the Church of the Ascension, and the Church of the Jacobites and the Church of Sion .
A modern historian describes the Muslim tolerance towards the Christian c and the Jewish communities, after the conquest of the Middle-East territories: “Under these circumstances we can only admire the comparative tolerance of the early Caliphs and their readiness to protect Jews and Christians on the simple condition of the payment of tribute. Now look at the state of the Christian world at this crisis. The church was torn with internal factions. The strength of its best minds was given to the discussion of the most difficult points of dogma. On account of heresy in regard to these remote abstractions whole provinces were driven by persecution to disaffection., and at the same time the mortals of the Empire were abominably corrupt. The saintly ideal of the monks- not always realised by its own professors- left the mass of the people, who frankly confessed that they could not attain to it, all the more ready to abandon any strenuous endeavours after virtue. City life was sinking into the slough of luxurious self-indulgence; and the government was feeble and only spasmodically energetic by fits and starts24.”
Another misunderstood aspect of the Muslim domination is the Jizya, the tax paid by Christians and Jews under the Muslim rule. The payment of Jizya has been often interpreted as a form of punishment, in case of the conquest people refusing to convert to Islam. But, in reality, it is only a tax paid in exchange for the military protection25 against enemies. But in case the Muslim army would be unable to grant this protection, the conquered people were actually free from the payment of this tax. For example, the Arab general Abu Ubaydah, when he knew that Heraclius was ready to attack with his army, wrote to the conquered towns that the Muslim government’s willingness to give back to them the amount of the Jizya, since he was not sure to be able to grant them the promised military protection .
But in several cases the Bedouin tribes, even when preferred to keep their Christian faith, were exempted from the payment of the Jizya, since they decided to give military support to the Muslims. The tribe of Jarajimah, for example, who lived near Antioch, promised to fight with the Muslims under the condition to be exempted from the payment of the Jizya. These kinds of examples were very frequent and can be also found in the later centuries of Islamic empire. For example, under the Ottoman Empire, the inhabitants of Magaris, a community of Albanian Christians26, were exempted from the payment of Jizya because they were supplying a body of armed men to guard the passes of Mount Citaeron and Mount Geranea, which lead to the isthmus of Corinthus. Instead the Christian of Hydra didn’t pay taxes to the Ottoman government, because they supplied a body of 250 armed men to the Turkish Navy27. Also the Miriadi, a community of Catholics, who lived near Scutari, were exempted in change of their help in case of military effort28.
Besides, the Jizya was not paid by all the inhabitants of the conquered territories, but only by men who were able to work and with the economic responsibility to maintain their families. Women, children, old people, sick and poor people, and the monk were exempted from the payment. And, the poor, the old and the sick, belonging respectively to the Muslim, Christian and Jewish community, in case of inability to work, were also maintained directly by the State. Another aspect of the Jizya is that it was always less than compulsory tax called Zakat, paid by all Muslim citizen’s of the state having certain amount of wealth. And the Zakat money was used for the welfare programs of the state, beneficial to both Muslim and non-Muslims. However, Jizya was never a religious obligation, and it basically stemmed from in lieu of the protection that the Islamic state offered to its non-Muslim citizens, while exempting them from the military service obligatory upon all able-bodied Muslim mail citizens.
Several archaeological proofs clearly demonstrated that in all the ter ritories of the Muslim Empire new places of Christian worship were built not only during the reign of the Four Rightly-guided Caliphs, but also of their successors29 . During the Caliphate of Mu’awiyah (661-680 A.D.), Christians have been allowed to rebuild the Great Church of Edessa30 , and during the Caliphate of Abd al-Malik (685-705 A.D.), in the same town, a new church was built, apart from other two in Egypt, respectively in Fustad and Halwan31. In 711 A.D. the Caliph Walid gave the permission to build a Jacobite Church in Antioch, and during the successive caliphate, Khalid al-Kasri, the governor of Iraq, built a church in Baghdad for his mother, a devoted Christian32. At the same time in Egypt the famous church of Abu Sirjah was built in the fortress of Old Cairo33. During the reign of Al-Mahdi (775-785 A.D.), in Baghdad a Church was built for the people taken prisoner during the military campaign in Byzantine territory34.
During the caliphate of Harun ar-Rashid (786-809 A.D.), the Samalu, a population which submitted to the rule of the Caliph in change of military protection, was allowed to build a church in Baghdad35. During the Caliphate of al-Ma’mun (813-833 A.D.) a Church was built in al-Muqattani, a hill in the surroundings of Cairo36. At this time, several other churches were built in Burah by a rich member of the Christian community, named Bukam37. Also the Nestorian patriarch Timotheus, who died in 820 A.D., had been granted the permission to build a Church in Takrit and a monastery in Baghdad38. Around the tenth century the famous Coptic church of Abu Sayfayn was built in Fustad39 . During the reign of az-Zahir (1020-1035 A.D.) and al-Mustabi (1170-1180 A.D.) built new churches both in Egypt and in Jiddah40.
Egypt : Muslims, the Copts, etc.
The situation in Egypt was similar to that one of the territories of the Middle-East. Years of heavy taxation and religious persecution weakened in the Copts any feeling of loyalty towards the Byzantine power and this was the reason why, at the time of the Muslim invasion, they reacted like the Nestorian Christians of Syria, hoping to be finally free from the oppressive Greek rule. For example, after becoming the governor of Alexandria, Nicetas reorganized the civil and military services, but excluded completely the native Egyptians who, deprived of political power, were reduced to the condition of servants of a foreign ruling class41.
The history of Egypt from the kingdom of Heraclius to the Arab conquests had been written mainly by ecclesiastical authors and this was the reason why the condition of both the Coptic and Melkite communities were widely described. At that particular historical time every religious community was organized independently of other community settled in the same territory, and the idea of a nation or national identity was completely unknown at that epoch. The social and administrative divisions between the two communities of Coptics and Melkites increased after the Council of Chalcedony (451 A.D.), when the two churches started to be organized by two different administrations and two patriarchs42.
The relations between the two communities were quite difficult condition, and at the time of the Persian invasion only in Alexandria there were around 600 monasteries, which were totally destroyed and the monks occupied them killed43. According to Euthichius, an Egyptian historian, all the peripheries of the districts of Alexandria were raided or destroyed by fire . In all over the country there were only ruins and the population that survived the raids of the Persians, died later due to the severe famine that followed the invasion of the enemy. Most probably the Coptic community and the clergy were the ones who suffered much because of the invasion. In fact, some of the enemies of the community told the Persians where the clergy was hidden and the invaders, hoping to find rich spoils, killed all the priests and the monks44.
The biographer of the life of Saint Anba Shanudah describes the invasion of the Persian army in the form of prophecy as follows:“The Persians shall come down into Egypt and shall make great slaughter. They shall plunder the goods of the Egyptians and shall sell their children for gold- so fierce is their oppression and their iniquity. Great calamities shall they cause to Egypt: for they shall take the holy vessels from the churches and drink wine before the altar without fear, and shall they dishonour women before their husbands. The evil and the suffering shall be very great. And of the remnant one-third shall perish in distress and affliction. Then after a while the Persians shall leave Egypt45.”
But, when the Persians withdraw from Egypt, it became again a province of the Byzantine Empire, the Coptic Church went under a severe persecution from Cyrus, patriarch of the Melkite Church. When Cyrus arrived in Alexandria, in 631 A.D., Benjamin the Coptic Patriarch left the city secretly46 . But before leaving, he gathered several representatives of the Coptic community and some high prelates, spurring them to remain faithful to their creed, even if they had to face martyrdom47 . The behaviour of Benjamin proved that the coming of Cyrus was interpreted as a threat to the Coptic community. At this time the Patriarch also wrote an encyclical exhorting the bishops to search for the shelters on the mountains and in the deserts until the divine wrath would have cooled down48.
The persecution against the Coptic Church lasted for ten years, during the Patriarchate of Cyrus and started one or two months after the synod of Alexandria, dated on 631 soon after Cyrus’s coming to Egypt. A passage from Severus informs us the following:“These were years during which Heraclius and Al-Mukaukas were ruling over Egypt and through the severity of the persecution and the oppression and the chastisements which Heraclius inflicted on the Orthodox, in order to force them to adopt the faith of Chalcedony, an innumerable multitude were led astray- some by tortures, some by promise of honours, some by persuasion and guilt49.”
An historian, speaking about this page of the history of severe religious persecution in Egypt, writes: “Here we have a brief interlude between one non-Christian invasion and another- between the pagan Persian and the Muslim Arab invasion. During this short interval a Christian power is ruling in Egypt. Yet it proves to be a time of misery for the national church. The dominant party of Christians spends it in brutally persecuting their fellow-Christians50”.
The condition of the Coptic Church and the Egyptian population at the time of Muslim invasion was quite distressful. Beyond the beautiful city of Alexandria, there was a wide and desolate country, where poverty, ignorance and squalor reigned. Even when Egypt filled the empire with high quality agricultural products, the population was oppressed by the fiscal system and was unable to ameliorate the living condition and defeat the poverty, in which the majority of Egyptian lived.
After ten years of persecution, all the churches inside Alexandria, which partly belonged to the Coptic Church, came under the control of the Melkite Church. The number of the members of the Coptic Church diminished after the severe persecution and several episodes of apostasy, which compromised the unity of the religious community of the native Egyptians. The Monophysite creed was kept alive only by some small communities dwelling on the mountains and in the remote monasteries in the desert51 .
On 6 of April 641 A.D., a day before the Muslim victory, the Roman generals killed all the Copts detained in the prisons. John of Nikiou describes as the fury of the Romans: “Those enemies of Christ, who have defiled the Church by an unclean faith and who have wrought apostasies and deeds of violence such as neither pagan nor barbarian hath wrought. They have despised Christ and his servants, and we have not found such evil-doers even among the worshippers of false idols52 ”.
After the Muslim conquest the condition of the Coptic Church improved: new churches were built, Patriarchs were free to visit the monasteries scattered all over the country, and also the relation with the Melkite church became more peaceful, since the Muslim power didn’t let the two churches to persecute each other.
The treaty of Alexandria, signed the 8 November of 641, set that Christian churches were free to profess their creed and keep their own places of worship53.
Amr, the Muslim general, speaking in the Mosque, reminded the Muslims of the respect due to the Copts, as follow: “O you congregation, the twins are hanging in the sky and Sirius is still covered, the heavens have begun their early course, the sky is clear and there is no plague; the food is not diminished, the pasture is good. Milk abounds from kids and lamps, and the shepherd must watch well over his flock. Therefore go forth with the blessing of God to your cultivated land, and enjoy its benefits- milk and flock and herds and game. Feed your horses and fatten them, guard them and better them, for they are your defence against the enemy and through them you gain booty and wealth and take good care of your neighbours the Copts. Omar, the Commander of the faithful, told me that he heard the Apostle of God say: God will open Egypt to you after my death. So take good care of the Copts in that country, for they are your kinsmen and under your protection. Cast down your eyes therefore and keep your hands off them”54.
The Coptic Patriarch Benjamin, who had been forced to leave Alexandria and hide during the ten years of persecution, was free again to come back and to oversee the care of his community. Also, 70.000 monks from the monastery of Wadyn Natrum went to meet Amr ibn Al-As, and most probably after this episode, Amr granted the Patriarch the permission to come back with the following words: “In whatsoever place Benjamin, the patriarch of the Egyptian Christians, is living, to that place we grant protection and security, and peace from God. Wherefore let the Patriarch come hither in security and tranquillity, to administer the affairs of his church and to govern his nation55”.
Severus reported the words attributed to Benjamin after he was back again among his community: “I was in my city of Alexandria and found a time of peace and safety after the troubles and persecutions caused by the heretics56 ”. The Copts are described also as “rejoicing like young calves when their bond is loosened and they are set free to suck their mother’s milk57 ”.
Soon after the Coptic community not only started again their normal pastoral activities but also could repair and rebuild the churches and the monasteries, which fell into ruin in the seventh century, among them also the monasteries of Wadi’n Natrun. The patriarch also was able to consecrate the church of San Macarius. On that occasion Basil, the then bishop of Nikiou, said: “Give thanks to the Lord who had made the patriarch worthy to see that glorious desert once more, and those holy fathers and brethren and the proclamation of the orthodox faith, who had saved him from the heretics and had delivered his soul from the great and cruel dragon which drowse him away and had granted him to behold his children once more around him58.”
The condition of the Coptic Church was quite flourishing and peaceful for several years. After his election, the Patriarch John Semnudaeus, in three years, rebuilt the Church of Saint Mark59 . Unfortunately, during the Patriarchate of Isaac (686 A.D.), the governor of Egypt, Abd el-Aziz, started the persecution against Christians, mainly for political reasons. In fact, Isaac was suspected of a secret correspondence with Nubia during the conflict between Ethiopia and Nubia60. But, even when this had been a difficult time for the Coptic Church, the patriarch was not only in the condition of rebuilding the Church of San Marcus, called traditionally Kamseia, but also of building a new one in Holwan, the place where the Patriarch and the governor met for the first time61.
The building of new churches went on also under the following Patriarchs. In fact, in 700 AD, during the Patriarchate of Simon, in Holwan two new churches were built under the direction of Gregory, bishop of Kis62. After the death of Patriarch Simon, the Coptic Church went under a difficult time and the Patriarchal seat remained vacant for three years, even if we don’t know the reasons why. The succession to the Patriarchate became regular again in 703, when Alexander, a monk of Nitria63, was elected.
But, when in 705 A.D. the Caliph Abd el-Malik put as governor of Egypt his son Abdullah, the situation of the Coptic church was for two years a very difficult one, even when there had been no problem in the Patriarchal succession64. However, between 726 and 728 A.D., Egypt was struck by pestilence, famine and the invasion of 30.000 Bedouin warriors who spoiled churches and monasteries, among them that one of S. Mary, near Tanis65. After the death of Theodor the Patriarchate remained vacant for five years, most probably due to the internal dissent about the appointment of a successor.
After the election of Chail I (743 AD), the Christians communities, both Melkite and Coptic, shared the political trouble, which accompanied the end of the Caliphate of Ummaidies66. In fact, the tyranny of the Government of Abd el-Melik and the internal troubles of the Caliphate pushed the Egyptian population towards the rebellion. The first region who led the insurrection has been Thebais, Osiout and Lycopolis. Both the Patriarchs, the Melkite and the Coptic, joined the rebels. But, when Marwan, after Abd el-Malik, defeated also the rebels, both the Patriarchs were taken prisoners. The Muslim power, however, didn’t show any sign of revenge towards them, since after some time both of them were set free. Cosma I paid for his own liberation a certain amount of money, while Chail I got released after he mediated with the rebels67.
With the Abassid Caliphate and the government of Abdullah, the condition of the Copts improved68, as a proof that the past problems involved political issues and not religious ones. However, the Coptic Church was in trouble due to some internal conflicts. But this situation didn’t prevent John VI to restore two churches- the Church of S. Michael and the Church of the Penitence- after his election69 (776 A.D.). Besides, during the time of pestilence and famine, the Patriarch has been able to help daily people in need. After the death of John VI and the election of Eustachius (801), the Church of the monastery of Alkosairi was restored70.
Between 819 and 837 at the head of the Coptic Church saw the succession of three Patriarchs until Joseph, the Abbot of San Macarius71, was elected . During his Patriarchate, the emir of Egypt issued an edict according to which the Copts were not allowed to summon their patriarch72. Joseph, even when he had problems with some of the bishops, was free to establish several Episcopal seats in some remote dioceses, once administrated by the Melkite church73.
Some years later, respectively in 852 and 859, during the Patriarch of Cosma II, Christians had been subjected to several limitations in their personal freedom, even then it was not possible to speak about a persecution, if with this word we meant the intention of using force to convert people to Islam. At the same time, it cannot be denied that Christians were in troubles, due mainly to the restriction about their employments and careers74 . But, during the patriarchate of Chenouda I the Copts took back several places of worships, before confiscated, thank to two riches Christians, who travelled to Baghdad at the court of the Caliph Mustasim, in order to support the Coptic cause75. In 881, during the Patriarchate of Chail III was built in the town of Denusmair the Church of S. Ptolemeus76.
After the patriarchate of Chail III, the condition of the Coptic Church started decay due to some reasons, however, these did not seem to involve directly the Muslim power and episodes of religious intolerance. In fact, one of the plagues, which already affected other Christians churches both in the East and in the West, was simony, which corrupted also the Coptic churches since the Patriarchate of Gabriel I, in 913 A.D., and involved respectively several Patriarchs as, for example, Philoptheus (981 AD) and Chenouda II (1032 A.D.).
Those had been very difficult years for all the Egyptians and all the Copts in particulars. Egypt was struck by two severe famines77, respectively in 972-979 and 1045. Between these two natural calamities Egyptians had to endure a cruel form of persecution during the reign of Hakim. A historian describes Hakim’s persecution, which was reserved not only to Christians, as follows:“The persecution became daily more severe. Orders were issued for the destruction of all the churches. Christians were forbidden to change their residence from a place to another. Zachariah still remained in prison. He was threatened, on the one hand, with being burnt alive and promised, on the other, dignity and promotion. But the one and the other proving ineffectual, he was at length restored to liberty, and, retiring into the desert of San Macarius, remained there for some years78.
The general condition of the Coptic churches was also a very difficult one:“It was the folly and wickedness of the Jacobites which arousing the fury of this tyrant, involved both themselves and the Catholics not only in the Egypt but of Syria, in one general persecution. The venality and ambition of their bishops are allowed by their own historians: and these were but ill restrained by Zacharias, a man of weak mind, and al though desirous of seldom permitted, to enjoy peace. The more turbulent of his suffragans controlled his actions, and under the name of the patriarch actually governed the diocese. The most scandalous disorder prevailed everywhere. There were instances of a bishop who by extortion or falsehood had amassed the sum of 20000 pounds, the disposition of which formed the great care of his death bed; of another prelate, who threw down an altar, which had been consecrated in his diocese by the bishop of another see; of a priest, who reserving to his own use the wine intended for the Holy Eucharist employed water, scantly tinged with it, for the service of the altar, and of others who refused, on account of the labour, to celebrate the Eucharist daily79 .”
However, before being murdered, Hakim not only allowed Christians, who converted to Islam due to his persecution, to go back to their Christian faith, but also permitted to the Christians communities to rebuild their places of worship, which were fallen in ruin80 .
It is quite surprising that, after years of severe persecutions and natural calamities, during the patriarchate of Abdel el-Messiah (1049), only in Alexandria the Patriarch consecrated six churches: S. John Evangelist, S. Mercurius, S. Raphael, S. Mennas, S. George and S. Mark81 .
Ten years later (1059) Egypt was again overwhelmed by an earthquake and a pestilence82 . Only in Ramla around 25.000 died because of the earthquake and in Tanis, once a town with many thousand inhabitants, only one hundred escaped from the fury of the pestilence. Even in this critical situation, the Coptic Church remained strong. In fact in 1078, when Cyril became the Patriarch and the Vizir was called by the bishops to exam his behaviour, in the Synod of Misra there were 52 bishops83 - a number which show the strength the Coptic church still had, more than 400 years after the Muslim domination.
An historian reports how the Vizir behaved at the end of the Synod:
“He had not read the collections of canons which they had put in his hands, nor did he mean to read them. His duty was plain and so was theirs. He could do nothing else but exhort them to unity and peace, as worshippers of the same God, as professor of the same religion. He had heard complaints of the inordinate love of money exhibited by some of them before him. He cautioned them against avarice. The proper use a bishop should make of money was neither to pamper his appetite nor to minister to his luxuries, but, as Christ himself, had commanded, to give alms to the poor. The canons which they had brought forward were doubles good, but it was better to practise than quote them. The lives of some to whom he spoke far below the mark which they prescribed charity, good faith and brotherly kindness, were virtues which he could not to strongly recommend, nor they too strenuously follow84 .”
Between 1092 and 1146 the Coptic Church was also upset by episodes of simony and the dispute about Eucharist and the Confession85 . The dispute about the Confession is important because it shows the real situation of the clergy of the Coptic Church and the decadence of the pastoral care: “The ignorant priests were not fit to be trusted with the machinery of the confessional. Some of them were men of no character. Discerning bishops might well discourage confession to such men, because they saw that it was safer for simple souls to confess to the shocking censer, which, if it could not give ghostly advice, was at least free from any corrupting influence86”.
After the death of the Patriarch John I, in 1216, the pastoral seat remained vacant for almost twenty years and during this period the life of the Coptic church was characterized by such a confusion that in several churches the priests didn’t celebrate the Sunday of the Palms, one week before Easter.
When in 1235 Cyril III was elected Patriarch, most of the bishoprics were vacant and the people without any pastoral care87. During Cyril’s Patriarchate, when the Coptic Church was weakened by the continuous disputes between the Patriarch and the bishops, a noted even was the conversion of the bishop of Sendala to Islam. During the last period of his office, the Patriarch decided to reside in the monastery of Elcheman, but after his death in 1243 the pastoral seat remained vacant for other eight years.
After the 1251, year of the election of Athanasius III Patriarch, the condition of the Coptic Church got worse but mainly for reasons which didn’t seem to involve directly any Muslim inference. In fact, even was the conversion of the bishop of Sendala to Islam. During the last period of his office, the Patriarch decided to reside in the monastery of Elcheman, but after his death in 1243 the pastoral seat remained vacant for other eight years.
After the 1251, year of the election of Athanasius III Patriarch, the condition of the Coptic Church got worse but mainly for reasons which didn’t seem to involve directly any Muslim inference. In fact, even when at the beginning of the 14 century started a new form of persecution against Christians was due mainly for political and social issue. For example, the capital penalty for having committed adultery with a Muslim woman most probably was based on the fact that several Christians were keeping Muslim women as concubines. However, even when during this time Christians were subject to several restrictions in their lives as for examples the ban to wear Muslim garments, to use bells in the religious office, or to be employed in the public office, it is not possible to speak of a religious persecution. Also the ban from public offices was most of the time only temporary, since was renovated in every period of political disorder. At this stage seems that was only applied to the new converts, most probably to avoid the conversion for worldly reasons88 .
However, during this period, are recorded many conversion to Islam89. For examples, only in the town of Kelious 450 people converted in just one day. The same happened in other parts of Egypt and Thebais. This is the reason why several churches were changed in mosques, since in some districts of Egypt Christian population was slowly decreasing while the Muslim one was instead increasing progressively90 .
The Melkite Church, even when was enjoying the same freedom of the Coptic Church, after the Muslim conquest of Egypt, went under a period of decadence, which reduced gradually its influence in all the territory. In 643 A.D. the Patriarch Peter III, after his election, didn’t reside in Egypt but preferred to move to Constantinople91. Most probably after his transfer the bonds with the community gradually slowed down and may be this is the reason why, after the death of Peter III, the Patriarchal seat remained vacant for 70 years92.
But, even without a Patriarch it seemed that the Melkite Church was able to organize herself, since at this time a Church was built in Holwan, named the Church of the Two Grooms of the Chamber93. The permission to build this place of worship was given by the governor of Egypt, Abdel Aziz, to two wealthy Christians who were employed by the Muslim government. Then, in 691, they were also able to send a representative to Constantinople to participate in the Council94 organized by the Emperor Justinian.
In 727, when Cosma I was elected Patriarch of the Melkite Church95 , the situation of the community was very problematic. Several communities, scattered in Thebais, Ethiopia and Nubia, almost abandon Christianity due to the lack of pastoral care, the reduced number of the clergy and the places of worship. However, at this time Cosma I was in the position to travel to Damascus, where he was received with the honours due to his position by the Caliph Hisham, who later wrote to the Amir of Egypt ordering to give back to the Patriarch the churches confiscated from the Melkite community. Cosma I, returned from Damascus, took back the possession of several churches, among them also the Church of Caesarea and the Church of Angelium, even if they didn’t belong rightly to the Melkite Church.
It seems that the situation of the Melkite church at this time was quite steady, even when the numbers of the people, who belonged to the community, decreased gradually. We know in fact the name of all the patriarchs who succeeded one after the other since the 805, year of the death of Cosma I and the election of Christopher, and 1059.
Later the history of the Melkite Church became vaguer and we know that it was marked by a gradual decadence. In fact after the 1195 the Church of Constantinople started having a direct influence in the election of the Patriarch. Mark II was a member of the Church of Constantinople and in the 14 century two Patriarchs, Athanasius and Gregory II, choose to live after their election in Constantinople96 . The decadence of the Melkite Church was due to several reasons. First of all, the members of the Melkite Church were mainly foreigners, who had settled in Egypt, as representatives of imperial power. The national church of Egypt was the Coptic one, whose community was more numerous and closely has been related to the country and its history, precisely because of this, its history has been vividly recorded.
As the historical facts clearly demonstrate, the situation of Middle East and North Africa at the time of the Muslim conquest and during the Muslim domination was characterized by a religious freedom and respect for minorities unthinkable under the Byzantine rule. In Egypt, for example, both the Coptic Church and the Melkite one have got the possibility to prosper and enjoy full freedom under Muslim rule. Historical reports actually demonstrate that Coptic Church, even in period of political troubles, was free from any persecution due to religious reason and for a long time could enjoy the full freedom as it was proved by the existence of several places of worship built by several patriarchs under the Muslim power.
Spain: Christians and Jews Amongst Muslims: the Golden Age of Religious Tolerance
The history of Muslims in Spain is sadly different, since after the Reconquista of the territories governed by Muslims for almost seven centuries, all the members who belonged to the Muslim community were forcefully pushed to choose between conversion or exile. In Spain actually the Islamic civilization had been able to create a climate of full religious freedom and cooperation between different communities, which doesn’t have any other good example in human history.
In 711 the Muslims introduced Islam in Spain and in 1502 an edict, signed by Ferdinand and Isabella, prohibited the profession of Islamic faith in their reign. During almost eight centuries, which elapsed between these two dates, unfolded the events which marked the Muslim presence in Spain.
Rome had ruled Spain for around 600 years, since 200 A.D., but after the invasion of the barbarian tribes from Northern Europe, Spain fell under the rule of Goths. However, even when the Goths were Christian Arian, the majority of the rural population was still pagan and had a very superficial knowledge of the Christian faith .
An historian, speaking about the religious feeling of the Goths, wrote:
“The Goths remained devout indeed, but they regarded their acts of religion chiefly as reparation for their vices, they compounded for exceptionally bad sins by an added amount of repentance, and then they sinned again without compunction. They were quite as corrupt and immoral as the Roman nobles who had preceded them, and their style of Christianity did not lead endeavour to improve the condition of their subjects. The serfs were in an even more pitiable state than before. Not only were they tied to the land or master, but they could not marry without his consent and, if slaves of neighbouring estates intermarry, their children were distributed between the owners of the several properties. The middle classes bore, as in Roman times, the burden of taxation, and were consequently bankrupt and ruined. The land was still in the hands of few and the large estates were indifferently cultivated by crowd of miserable slaves, whose dreary lives were brightened by no hope of improvement or dream of release before death. The very clergy, who preached about the brotherhood of Christians, now that they had become rich and owned great estates, joined the traditional policy and treated their slaves and serfs as badly as any Roman noble97. ”
During the Goth’s domination every kind of relation with the Greek and Latin cultural heritage was completely lost and the population was living under a deep decadence from the economic and cultural point of view.
Even when the knowledge of Christianity was very superficial, at the time of the Muslim conquest, in Spain, the population professed exclusively the Christian faith. In fact, during the sixth council of Toledo, it was settled that all the kings had to swear that they would not permit in their kingdom the profession of any other faith different from the Catholic one. The clergy was able to interfere in the political life of the country and the council of bishops and other high prelates of the Church had got the power of ratifying the election of the King or of deposing him, if his policy was against the decrees set by the ecclesiastical authority. In this open climate of religious intolerance the condition of the Jewish community- very numerous during both the roman and gothic domination- became somewhat dramatic . Jews were suffering from severe forms of persecution and they started living under an economical and political condition completely disadvantage. When Catholicism became the official religion of Spain, the condition of the Jewish community, that until then lived in tranquillity in Spanish territory, started to get worse day by day.
Professor Prescott, in a passage from his “Ferdinand and Isabella”, wrote:“Under the Visigothic empire the Jews multiplied exceedingly in the country, and were permitted to acquire considerable power and wealth. But no sooner had their Arian masters embraced the orthodox faith, than they began to testify their zeal by pouring on the Jews the most pitiless storm of persecution. One of their laws alone condemned the whole race to slavery and Montesquieu remarks, without much exaggerating, that to the Gothic code may be traced all the maxim of the modern inquisition98. ”
Laws concerning the promulgation and ratification of statutes against Jewish wickedness, and for the general extirpation of Jewish errors. That the Jews may not celebrate the Passover according to their usage, that the Jews may not contract marriage according to their own customs, that the Jews may not practise the Abrahamitic rite, that the Jews bring no actions against Christians, that the Jews be not permitted to bear witness against Christians99.
These anti-Semitic laws remained idle during the kingdom of Recaredo but, when Sisebuto, successor of Recaredo, became the king, he made an alliance with Heracles in order to persecute the Jewish population of their territories. Besides, a law passed according to which the members of Jewish community had a year time to convert to Christianity and be baptized. In case of refuse, their properties would be confiscated and they would be compelled to leave as soon as possible the country100 .
During the fourth council of Toledo (633 A.D.), it was decided that the children of the Jews, who converted to Christianity, had to be taken away from their family in order to be educated in a Catholic environment. During the sixth council of Toledo it was settled that every monarch, at the moment of his coronation had to swear to apply himself for the application of all the laws against Jewish community.
During the successive councils, the situation of the Jews got even worse, until during the 12 council (681 A.D.) it was settled that the punishment for the lack of observance of Catholic religious festivity was 100 stripes, the arrest and the seizure of the properties. Besides, if a child would be circumcised, the father was punishable by mutilation and the mother by the cut of the nose. The penalty for the protection given to a member of the Jewish community was also the confiscation of the property. Besides no Jew could be appointed to a role which involved the exercise of any form of authority on the members of the Christian population101.
On the contrary, during the Muslim domination the Christian and Jews communities enjoined the following rights: free profession of their faith, independence in legal matter related with their community, which didn’t involve the rights of the Muslims, right to built new churches, monasteries and temples. Besides, after the Muslim conquest, both the Christian and the Jew communities didn’t suffer any seizure of their property. On the contrary, the fiscal oppression, which at the time of Goth’s rule has been almost unbearable and has been the cause of the lack of improvement of the economical condition of the middle class, was reduced considerably102.
A careful examination of the work entitled Espana Sagrata demonstrates that, after the Muslim conquest, the life of the Christian community and the clergy of the Catholic Church proceeded almost without any interruption103. In fact, we know the names of the bishops of the town of Cordova between 850 and 988104. Only in Cordova there were twelve churches: six inside the city-walls and six outside, in the surroundings105. It is also available a list of 13 bishops of Seville, who held the bishop seat until the middle of the 12 century106. Besides, between 713 and 1077 in Toledo, eleven bishops, succeeded at the apostolic seat , seven in Coimbra, and nine in Viseu107.
In the middle of eight century the Church of the Crow was built in order to collect the relics of Saint Vincent. The passage from the historian Idris, who wrote in the middle of the 12 century, proved the condition of prosperity and prestige enjoined by the Catholic clergy: “The church is served by priests and monks. It possessed extensive lands and considerable revenues, the greater part of which come from estates left to it in different parts of the Algarbe. With these they attend to the needs of the church, of its ministers, of all those attached to it in any capacity, and of the strangers who come to visit it108 ”.
The place of worship, which would became the Mosque of Cordova, was a Christian basilica, built on the ruins of the temple of Janus109 . When Abd ar-Rahman, after the conquest of Cordova, offered to the Christian community a good amount to buy the basilica but the clergy refused to sell it, Muslims didn’t employ violence to achieve their purpose, but simply, as happened also before in Syria, the basilica was divided in two parts, one dedicated to the Christian worship and the other to the Muslim one. When, after the increase of the number of the Muslim population of Cordova, the whole basilica was changed in a Mosque, and the Christians received the permission to rebuilt the church before dedicated to S. Faustus, S. Januarius and S. Marcellus.
The proof of the religious tolerance enjoyed by Christian under the Muslim rule was visible in the nature of the relations between Muslims and Catholics in eminently religious questions. When Sancho the Fat sent ambassadors to Cordova to ask the relics of Saint Pelayo, they were received with all the courtesy and their request was promptly granted. A proof of Sancho’s faith in Abd ar-Rahman III is that, even before to receive an answer about the relics of the saint, he started to build in Leon a monastery to collect and keep them110.
When in 1063 A.D. Ferdinand I of Castilia sent two bishops in Seville to ask to al-Motadid the return of the relics of Saint Justa, the king answered that he didn’t know the place where they were buried but, if they were able to discover it, they were free to take them111.
Also, Al-Mansur showed a great respect for the place, traditionally considered as the sepulchre of Saint James. For this reason, he placed around the funeral monument some soldiers in order to avoid any form of desecration. Al-Makkari related also that, when Muslims entered in Santiago, they find an old man sitting near the grave of Saint James, and Al-Mansur ordered the soldiers to leave the old monk free to perform his prayers112 .
When, between 995 and 996, Garcia, son of Sancho, was made prisoner, gravely wounded, he was cured by Muslim doctors with all the care, though died few days later. Al-Mansur ordered to wrap his body in a costly piece of cloth and to deposit it in a beautifully carved coffin. Then, when some nobles came to take back Garcia’s body, Al-Mansur gave it to them and refused all the gifts brought by them113.
When in 997 Abd al-Malik, son of Al-Mansur, wrote to his father that his army had conquered the city of Fez, Al-Mansur, as a proof of his gratitude towards God for such a victory, not only distributed riches gifts among the poor and paid their debts, but left free also 15.000 Christian prisoners114. In 1214, during the dominion of al-Mohade, considered as characterized by a certain amount of intolerance, the Church of Saint Lucas Mayor was built between Seville and Niebla115.
Under the Muslim domination the Christian population was mainly subject to the poll-tax and, they could avoid paying the taxes, if they were too poor or sick, simply remaining in their house on the day of the payment.
During the time of Muslim rule, Spain developed also economically and the population both of the rural places and the towns increased thanks to the development of agriculture and trade. A contemporary historian wrote: “It must not be supposed that the Moors, like the barbarian hordes who preceded them, brought desolation and tyranny in their wake. On the contrary, never was Andalusia so mildly, justly and wisely governed as by the Arabs conquerors. Under the moors, on the other hand, the people were on the whole contended and far better pleased than they had been when their sovereigns belonged to the same religion as that which they nominally professed116 ”.
About a century after the conquest by the army of Abd ar-Rahman, Cordova, once an old town of the province of Gothic Spain, became a modern commercial town in full expansion, with new buildings built everywhere for the cultural and economic activities of its multicultural social tissue.
The beauty and the splendour of Cordova, described by Arab historians, as follows: “Cordova is the bride of Andalusia. To her belong all the beauty and the ornaments that delight the eye or dazzle the sight. Her long life of sultans form her crown of glory, her necklace is strung with the pearls which her poets have gathered from the ocean of language; her dress is of the banners of learning, well knit together by her men of science, and the masters of every art and industry are the hem of her garments117 ”; “Cordova is a fortified town, surrounded by massive and lofty stone walls, and has very fine streets. (…) The inhabitants are famous for their courteous and polished manners, their superior intelligence, their exquisite taste and magnificence in their meals, dress and horses. There thou wouldst see doctors shining with all sorts of learning, lords of (?) distinguished by their virtues and generosity, warrior renowned for their expeditions into the country of the infidels and officers experienced in all kinds of welfare. To Cordova came from all parts of the world students eager to cultivate poetry, to study the sciences, or to be instructed in divinity or law; so that it became the meeting place of the eminent in all matters, the abode of the learned, and the place of resort for the studious. Its interior was always filled with the eminent and the noble of all countries, its literary men and soldiers were continually vying with each other the gain renown (?), and its predicts never ceased to be the arena of the distinguished, the race course of readers, the halting-place of the noble, and the repository of the true and virtuous. Cordova was to Andalusia what the head is to the body, or what the breast is to the lion118. ”
But, despite the improvement of the condition of the country, some Christian theologitians interpreted the Muslim domination as a punishment for the sins of the Church . In a document, written in Latin, back to 745 A.D., we can note: “Sicut aliis gentibus hispanicae et provinciae et burgimdionum populis contigit, quae sic a deo recedentes fornicatae sunt, donec index omnipotens valium criminum ultrices poenas per ignorantiam legis dei et per saracenos venire et scevre permisit”119.
“Et probare nostro vitio inlatum flagellum. Nostra haec, frates, nostra desidia peperit mala, nostra impuritas, nostra levitas, nostra morum obscoenitas…nostra tradidit nos Dominus qui iustitiam diligit, et cuius vultus sequitatem decernit, ipsi bestiae conrodendos120 ” .
“Peccatis ad haec devoluti sumus, ut paganorum subiaceamus ditioni (…). Tantum hoc unum relictum est solatii, quod in tantae calamitatis malo le gibus nos propriis uti non prohibent, qui quos diligentes Christianitatis viderint observatores, colunt et amplectuntur, simul ipsorum convictu delectantur. Pro tempore igitur hoc videmur121.”
The Christian population of Spain, fascinated by the Muslim civilization which seemed to be superior and more cosmopolitan, started to assume Arab habits, including the use of Arabic language and the style of Arabian garments . The study of the Arab language gradually replaced that one of the Latin.
About the gradual and slow decadence of the use of Latin language, Alvarus wrote: “My co-religionists gladly read the history and the romances of the Arabs, they study the writings of the Moslem theologians and philosophers, not to confute them, but to learn to write correct and elegant Arabic. Where is a layman to be found today who still reads the Latin commentary on the sacred writings? Who among them is there who (can write) studies on the Gospels, the prophets and the apostles? The Christians have forgotten their own speech and among a thousand of them none can write a correct Latin letter to a friend122. ”
The abandoning of the study of Latin was followed also by that one of the works of the Fathers of the Church, written in this language. In a letter written by Pope Adrian I to the bishops of Spain is fully described the attitude of the Christians: “(…..) id est, quod multi dicentes se catholicos esse, communem vitam generentes cum Judaeis et non baptizatis paganis, tam in escis quamqe in potu et in diversis enoribus nihil pollui se inquiunt: et illud quod inhibitum est, ut nulli liceat iugum ducere cum infidelibus, ipsi enim filias suas cum alio benedicent (…)”123.
“Compositionem verborum, et preces omnium eius membrorum quotidie pro eo eleganti facondia, et venusto confectas eloquio, nos hodie per eorum volumina et oculis legimus et plerumque miramur”124.
The Christians, who studied Arabic language and followed a life-style very similar to the Arabian one, were commonly called Mozarabs (want to be Arabs). However, in this open climate of religious and cultural tolerance, there have been also some episodes of religious fanaticism, instigated by that part of the clergy, who openly disapproved of the attitude of some high prelates of the Catholic Church, who assumed a conciliatory approach towards the Muslim power and were very often guests at the court of the Caliph. This religious fanaticism, cultivated mainly by young people destined to the cloistral life, reached its peak between 850 and 860 A.D .
During these ten years many young people and some priests and monks tried to find the voluntary martyrdom, which Muslim authorities tried to prevent, until the Christians bishops were compelled to condemn formally the fanatics. In fact in 852 A.D. the high dignitaries of the Catholic Church gathered in a Council in order to discuss the best way to repress these acts of fanaticism.
An historian, while discussing about these episodes of voluntary martyrdom, wrote:“The very tolerance of the Moors only exasperated such fervent souls. They preferred to be persecuted, like the saints of old; they longed to be martyrs and they were indignant with the Moslems, because they would not “persecute them for righteousness’ sake and ensure them the kingdom of heaven (…..). What happened was, in truth, nothing but the manifestation of the ascetic or monastic form of Christianity among the subject population. Indeed there was no rational way of getting martyred, since Christians were allowed free exercise of their religious rites, might preach and teach, they could not find a legal ground for being persecuted unless they left the paths of the Gospel and set aside the great lesson of Christ. (….) <<… voluntary to transgress a law which carries with it capital punishment is not martyrdom but suicide, and the pity we cannot help feeling for the martyrs of Cordova is the same that one entertains for many less exalted form of hysterical disorder”125.
The soul of the martyrs in Cordova was Eulogius, a monk who belonged to one of the most ancient and important Catholic families of the city. Eulogius, who spent his youth in ascetic practices and after becoming priest, lead a life of prayer, fasting and penitence, at a certain age started to preach the martyrdom among the young Christians of Cordova and some monks. One of his disciples was Flora- born in a mixed marriage and raised in the Christian faith secretly by her mother- who following the teachings of Eulogius, decided to go to the Qadi in order to abuse Muslim religion and the person of Prophet Muhammad. However, the Qadi didn’t condemn her to death neither put her in prison, may be noticing her abnormal behaviour, but called her brother, who was a pious Muslim, and order him to bring her back home and to teach her Islam126.
But nothing seemed to have the power to dissuade the young Flora, who meanwhile received letters from Eulogius urging her to face the martyrdom. Soon after she and her friend Mary got imprisoned and condemned to death, on the 24 November of 851. On this occasion, Eulogius, who was imprisoned, wrote a Peana celebrating what he called “a great victory for the Catholic Church127”.
However soon after, as a proof of the tolerance of Abd ar-Rahman II, Eulogius and other monks were released from the prison. But during the reign of Muhammad, son of Abd ar-Rahman, even if the government decided to put pressure on the fanatics, Eulogius was appointed as bishop of Toledo. However neither this important office was enough to dissuade him from his intention and, after an other provocation, he was condemned to death the 11 March of 859. With the death of Eulogius the fanaticism came to an end128 .
About this issue, it is important to note that the majority of the Catholic population reacted with surprise and fear to the provocation of their co-religionists. In fact many Christians, even when were influenced by Arab culture, remained faithful to their religious belief, and through the study of the Arabic language they integrated successfully into the new political and cultural environment of Spain. Even the majority of the clergy tried to stop these episodes reminding the Christian population of the tolerance and the respect shown by the Muslim authorities towards Catholic religion and their places of worship. In fact Recafred, bishop of Seville between 851 and 862, prohibited to the Christian to search for the martyrdom and ordered to arrest the priests who didn’t obey to his order. For this reason, when Abd er-Rahman appointed him as a Metropolitan of Andalusia, Recafred ordered the arrest of Eulogius129 .
Meanwhile the Muslim population increased. Immediately after the conquest of part of the peninsula by Abd ar-Rahman, the first to convert to Islam were the slaves who, under their previous master, lead a miserable existence without any hope to improve their situation, until they saw in the Muslim feeling of the brotherhood the possibility of changing their destiny . However also some members of nobility and middle class converted to Islam. The process of conversion has been gradual and without compulsion. In fact the construction of new mosque, due to the increase of Muslim population in Andalusia, happened one century after the conquest of these territories by the Muslims130 . New mosques were build by Abd ar-Rahman II in Seville and Elivia between 822 and 852 A.D.
Successively these converted, usually called Muwallad, constitute an important component of the population and in the centuries they became the majority. In 1311 among the 200.000 Muslims, who lived in Granada, only 500 were Arabs120 . But, soon after the Reconquista, the monarchs of Spain instigated by Cardinal Ximenez131 issued an edict according to which the Muslims, as happened centuries before to the Jews, were compelled to convert to Christianity or to leave the country. All the mosques of Andalusia were forcefully closed and the libraries rich of manuscript from every part of the Muslim world were burn .
The Muslims were compelled not only to receive the baptism but also to abandon their language, their traditional garments and hygienic habits, interpreted by Christian of that age as a kind of vice. Muslims of Spain were forced not only to be Christians but also to be Spaniard and to assume all the habits of Christians of Spain.
An historian wrote: “The mosques were closed, the countless manuscripts that contained the results of ages of Moorish learning were burnt by the ruthless Cardinal and the unhappy “infidels” were threatened and beaten into the gospel of peace and goodwill after the manner already approved by their Catholic majesties in respect of the no less miserable Jews132.”
Also the Jewish population received the same treatment: they were not allowed to interact with Christians, to trade and to engage in professions where they could demonstrate all their skills. They were also forced to live in some special districts of the town and to wear some special garments in order to be recognizable.
A Jewish scholar described the situation of the Jewish community respectively under Muslim rule and under the catholic one, as follows: “On that day Christianity ceased to rule within the land of Spain, and as its power sank, there dawned one more the sun of prosperity unto Israel. The Moors did not forget the valuable services of the Jews. (.) political and religious freedom and social recognition was granted to the Jew throughout the Caliphate, and from that day unto this the two oriental people have lived in peace side by side upon the occidental soil, viewing with each other in their noble efforts to restore unto Spain her original beauty and prosperity and to make her in culture and art and intelligence the mistress of Europe”133.
“The hour in which the Christian cross replaced the Muslim crescent on the turret of the Alhambra that hour when Christianity ruled again and alone, in the peninsula, marked a climax in the history of cruelties and human sufferings. That hour, though the brightest in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was most fatal for Spain, most pitiful to Europe, most unfortunate for civilization, and most calamitous of the Jews”134.
The Ottoman Empire : Muslims Amongst the Orthodox Christians and Others
Let us finally speak about the Ottoman Empire, as the last example of Muslim rule. Also in this case the territories conquered by the Ottoman Turks were suffering from social and political decadence135. Severe poverty and lack of security were the main features of the heart of the Byzantine Empire at the time of Turkish invasion of Constantinople.
Under the rule of Justinian the Eastern Roman Empire was characterized by increased economical and cultural decadence . The towns, which before employed an amount of the taxes paid by the citizen to build road and repair bridges and fortifications, were left to decadence and without any defence, becoming an easy prey for barbarian tribes living at the border of the Empire.
The inhabitants of the remote districts of the Empire, continuously subject to the invasions of Bulgars, Slavs and Hunni, who brought with them death and destruction, started to develop a deep hatred towards the Roman power. The situation in the remote districts was so desperate that some regions, once densely populated and rich, were completely left by their inhabitants after the raids of the barbarians. Besides, also a violent earthquake destroyed some of the most important and populated cities of the East. For example, Antioch was almost entirely destroyed and under the ruins died almost 50.000 people. Around 15 years after Justinian became the Emperor, a pestilence, started in Egypt, rapidly spread all over the Empire both in the East and in the West for almost 500 years. Half of the population of Constantinople died and several towns lost the majority of their inhabitants, becoming desolate villages136.
Under Justinian the social asset of the empire also changed: the middle class completely disappeared and the number of slaves and servants increased, who were mainly employed in the vast estates under the control of few families137 . During the 150 years before the reign of Leo III the situation got worse economically and socially138.
The majority of the province in the north of the Empire, due to the continuous raids, was almost deserted; the bridge and the street, almost completely ruined, made the transit of man and goods extremely difficult. Even the cultural and social life in the cities felt the effects of the general decadence. An historian, speaking about the cultural decadence of the Byzantine Empire, wrote: “In this moral despotism of the hierarchy of the church appears the great and fatal secret of the decline and final destruction of the intellectual life of the empire. This deplorable enslavement of the human mind was already complete before the time of Justinian, and its fatal effects became more and more apparent until the final extinction of the empire by the Turks139.”
In 1025, at the death of Basilio II, the destiny of the Empire was reaching its pick: the government was totally unable to administrate the territories of the provinces, the population became very poor under the excessive fiscal pressure and the general corruption infected all the tissues of the society, now reduced in poverty due to the lack of trade and other economical activities. This was the general condition of the empire at the time of the invasion of the crusaders. An historian, about the invasion of Constantinople by the crusaders, wrote: “The Latins then took Constantinople by storm under the Marchis of Monferrat. The city was sacked. Many of the priceless treasures were carried of to Europe; more were destroyed. The patriarch fled on an ass without a single attendant. The sacred vessels in the church were turned into drinking cups. Icons, even portraits of Christ, were used as gaming tables. At St. Sophia the splendid altar was broken in pieces, and a harlot, whom Nicetas calls “a minion of the furies”, seated herself on the Patriarch’s throne, and sang and danced in the church, ridiculing the Greek hymns and processions”140 ; “The thing was unpardonable. That an army, gathered together to defend the Christian against the Muslims should instead of doing so, destroyed the very state that for centuries had been the one bulwark of Christendom141”.
After days of plunders and violence against the population, the 9 May 1204 Baldwin, count of Flanders, was elected Emperor of Constantinople142. But the city was in the pick of its decadence: the fiscal pressure was unbearable, the population was reduced in poverty, and the trade and the agriculture were completely neglected. The barons were force to melt the copper of the churches’s bells in order to coin the money143.
An historian describes as follow the condition of the Byzantine Empire under Michael VII, after the end of the brief kingdom of the Crusaders: “Literary taste, political honesty, patriotic feeling, military honour, civil liberty and judicial purity, seem all to have abandoned the Greek race…Government and people were alike corrupt, and the slaves of a grovelling superstition. There was abundance of heresy and schism, but the very subjects of these barren controversies reveal the degraded condition of the church144 ”.
A Turkish Historian, who related the fall of Constantinople, wrote: “Without the fear of the law an empire is like a steed without reins. Constantine and his ancestors allowed their grandees to oppress the people. There was no more justice in their law court; no more courage in their hearts. The judges amassed treasures from the tears and blood of the innocent. The Greek soldiers were proud only of the magnificence of their dress. The citizens did not blush at being traitors. The soldiers were not ashamed to fly. At length the Lord poured out his thunder on this unworthy rulers, and raised up Muhammad, whose warriors delight in battle, and whose judges do not betray their trust145 ”.
Before the ottoman domination the situation of the Greek population was somewhat miserable. The decadence of the Byzantine Empire destroyed the social tissue of the country: the middle class disappeared and entire territories, once densely populated and highly productive, now were deserted and ruined. With the disappearance of the middle class and the increase of the slaves and servants, the empire lost also the support of that part of the society that, in case of attack or invasion, would be ready to defend their goods and land. The enormous number of servants and slaves, who were the majority of the population of the Empire, didn’t have any reason to remain faithful to the Byzantine government. For example, at the time of the siege of Constantinople by the Turks, the population amounted to 100.000 people, but only 600 take an active part in the defence of the capital of the empire146 . It must also be remembered that the ancient architectural splendour of the capital, at the time of the Turkish invasion, almost totally disappeared due to three fires that destroyed entire districts of the capital. Other parts of the city, where the buildings were still habitable, were entirely deserted due to the demographic decrease147.
An historian, speaking about the condition of the population of the Empire before the Ottoman conquest, wrote: “A corrupt aristocracy, a tyrannical and innumerable clergy, the oppression of perverted law, the exactions of a despicable government, and still more, its monopolies, its fiscality, its armies of tax and custom collectors, left the degraded people neither rights nor institutions, neither change of amelioration nor hope of redress148 ”.
After the Turkish conquest the condition of the Greek population improved considerably. Several Greeks, who before were employed as servants in the craft and agriculture, became free and paid workers. Thanks to a stable government, an impartial justice, an a just taxation, the inhabitants of the territories in the Ottoman Empire- Christians, Muslims and Jews- enjoyed also a civil and religious freedom, which they did not have in its fullness for a long time. The inhabitants of the towns, due to the improvement of trade, accumulated huge fortunes149.
At the end of the 17 century, the condition of the Christians in the Ottoman Empire improved considerably. Slaves almost completely disappeared from the provinces at the south of Danube and consequently the work of the agricultural labourers gained a new meaning and some of them became also owners of the land they worked on for several years and started to enjoy an economic independence.
The Ottoman government divided the conquered territories in several nations or millet on the base of religious belonging150. Soon after the fall of Constantinople, the territories of the empire were divided as follow:
-Rum Millet, i.e. the Orthodox church under the Patriarch of Constantinople.
-Ermeni Millet, i.e. the Monophysite Church of Armenia under their patriarch.
-Ermeni Katulik Millet, i.e. the Armenian Unitarian church.
-Yahudi Millet: i.e. the Jewish community, to which belonged the Jews who left Spain after the reconquista.
-Latin Millet, i.e. the Catholic church.
Every Patriarch in the sphere of his own Millet enjoyed the follow rights:
-Full authority on all the places of worship.
-The authority to remove from his office every priest and bishop, who proved to be unworthy of his office.
-The authority to denounce to the Ottoman government the priests who committed crimes.
-The authority to judge in matter concerning marriage and other issues related to their faith and religion.
-The authority to impose taxes in order to collect funds for activities related their religious community.
Besides every millet enjoyed the follow rights:
-The right to choose their patriarch, even when the election was subject to the approval of the sultan.
-Autonomy in questions related not only to religious matter but also to administrative and judicial matters.
-The right to have their own court of law.
The Greek-Orthodox church under the Ottoman Empire enjoyed a very advantageous position both in economical and political terms, since they could benefit both from the spiritual autonomy and the economic improvement. An historian, commenting on the book entitled Travels of Macarius, wrote: “There is no undercurrent, no indication of a hidden feeling of disaffection, of the conscious suffering of oppression and wrong towards the government of the sultans. He follows the imperial highway from Aleppo to Constantinople; notes the populous villages and plentiful comfort which he finds on the road: visits Busa and Constantinople and he is filled with admiration at their magnificent churches, large congregations, and imposing churches services. Speaks with affectionate loyalty of Muhammad IV, the reigning Sultan, pray for his long life and prosperity, and relates with grateful interest that the year before he had pitched his tent that he may observe the Easter festivities of his Greek subjects151”.
Following the travel of the Greek patriarch from Aleppo to Constantinople, it is possible to see images showing the prosperity of the church of that time and the Christian community in general. On the way the author of the book describes the populated and prosperous villages, until the Patriarch reaches the capital of the Ottoman Empire where he he attended the rites of the Eastern Churches in the magnificent churches of Constantinople.
But, even when under the Ottoman rule, the Greek Church enjoyed a period of prosperity, some historians argued that its cultural decadence carried on inexorably152. The scholarship was almost completely neglected, even when the majority of the monasteries had got huge libraries and the priests, neglecting his own duties toward the community, was eager to protect their own interests at the court of the Sultan.
Religion, almost completely dissociated from morality, became the expression of an obsessive ritual, deprived of its original meaning. The religion of the common people was based on the cult of the saints, the virgin, the icons and the relicts and assumed the features of the superstition. The secular clergy was completely unprepared to face the spiritual needs of the people, with whom the people often shared the ignorance and superstition. Very soon the Orthodox Church was divided between the ignorant and illiterate clergy, who was in charge of the education of the members of the community, and the high prelates, who were totally involved with the political power and for this reason spent most of their time in the intrigues of the Ottoman court, of which they were acting sometimes as spies.
An historian about the condition of the orthodox clergy wrote: “The Greek monastic life, as we have already seen, has been from the beginning indolent, stationary, fruitless. The Greek monks, for many centuries have lived in stupid ignorance, leaving the treasures of ancient learning stored up in their libraries unstudied and neglected; have put forth no evangelistic effort for the instruction of the people and the advancement of their faith; have had no thought or aspiration for the public good. The only virtue to which they aspired was the rigid observance of the ritual of the Church, and the fasts, austerities and penances prescribed by their monastic rule. Their only passion was the accumulation of money and the pushing of their own personal interests. The high offices of the church were prizes eagerly coveted by the wealthy Greeks and many of these, often among the most worthless of men, were continually entering the monasteries for the most selfish ends153”.
The condition of the Orthodox Church was characterized by a cultural and intellectual lethargy and by a deep ignorance. The remaining intellectual energy was mostly spent in continuous disputes against the Latin Catholic Church, which the common people were unable to understand. On the other side, most of the Christians were scandalized by the simony widely spread in all the Greek-orthodox church. A long testimony, dated on 1700, describes the situation of the Orthodox Church:“We need not at all doubt but the new Patriarch makes the best of his time. Tyranny succeeds to simony. The first thing he does is it to signify the Sultan’s order to all the archbishops and bishops of his clergy. His greatest study is to know exactly the revenues of each prelate; he imposes a tax upon them, and enjoins them very strictly by a second letter to send the sum demanded, otherwise their dioceses are adjudge to the highest bidder. The prelates being used to this trade, never spare their suffragans, these latter torment the papas. The papas flea the parishioners and hardly sprinkle the least drop of holy water, but what they are paid for before hand. If afterwards the patriarch has occasion for money, he farms out the gathering of it to the highest bidder among the Turks. He that gives most for it, goes into Greece to cite the prelates. Usually for twenty thousand crown that the clergy is taxed at, the Turk extorts two and twenty; so that he has the two thousand crowns for his pains, besides having its charge borne in every diocese. In virtue of the agreement he has made with the patriarch, he deprives and interdicts from all ecclesiastical functions, those prelates who refuse to pay their taxes154”.
There are several documents, which attested the conversion to Islam by common people and also high prelates of the Orthodox Church, as for example the Metropolitan of Rodi , who reverted to Islam in (…). In 1676, almost every day, there were in Corinth people who expressed the intention to convert to Islam. And in 1673 three priests convert to Islam. The news of the death of a monk, who converted to Islam, dated on 1679. On the occasion of the circumcision of Mustafa, son of Muhammad IV, in one week around 200 people convert to Islam. At the of the 17 century the Christians converted to Islam were one million, from all the social classes155.
The following remark, made by a writer of the 17 century, explains very well the mental attitude of the people who reverted to Islam in the territories of the Ottoman Empire: “When you mix with the Turks, in the ordinary intercourse of life and see that they pray and sing even the psalms of David; that they give alms and do other good works; that they think highly of Christ, hold the Bible in great honour, and the like, that, besides, any ass may become parish priest who plies the bassa with presents, and he will not urge Christianity on you very much. So you will come to think that they are good people and will very probably be saved; and so you will come to believe that you too may be saved, if you like wise become Turks. Here with the crucified son of God, with many other mysteries of the faith, which seem quite absurd to the unenlightened reason, easily pass out of your thoughts and imperceptibly Christianity will quite die out in you, and you will think that it is all the same whether you be Christian or Turks156”.
In the case of Albania, for example, the passage from Christianity to Islam seems to have been slow and gradual. In 1610 the Christian population was ten time more numerous than the Muslim one. Christians lived mainly in the districts of the country side, while the Muslim population dwelt in the towns. When several Christian families, after the Turkish conquest, decided to move in the neighbour countries, the remained ones, belonging to different social class, gradually converted to Islam. In 1610 several churches were transformed in mosques. This act was against the terms of the agreements at the time of the Turkish conquest, but Arnold remarks that there was a justification based on the progressive decrease of Christians and an increase of the Muslim population. Mons. Marino Bizzi, pontifical envoy, described as follow the situation of the Christian population in Antivari:“There are about 600 houses inhabited indiscriminately by Muslims and Christians-both Latin and schismatic (i.e. the orthodox Greek Church). The number of the Muslims is a little in excess of the Christians and that of the Latins in excess of the schismatics157 ”.
The condition of the clergy of the Albanian church was similar to that one of other parts of Christianity. The majority of the clergy was ignorant. Some priests, being totally illiterate, didn’t even know the meaning of the Latin words pronounced during the Eucharistic celebration. In all Albania there wasn’t any Christian school and Bizzi, deploring this condition of ignorance, considered it responsible for the decadence of the Christian faith in the country158. In 1624 in the diocese of Antivari there were only 2000 Catholics and in the middle of the century the Christian population consisted mainly of women. At the end of the century the situation got even worse: in the city remained in fact only two catholic families159.
Conclusion
The above brief historical survey, backed up by historically irrefutable sources, of Muslims’ relationship and their interactions with some of the powerful Christian sects like the Latin Catholics, Greek Orthodox, the Coptic and even minor Churches, along with Jews in countries such as Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Spain and finally the Ottoman Empire, has shown that throughout the history they were rooted in tolerance, religious freedom, cultural harmony, and even to certain extent political autonomy.
At the heart of this refined Muslim attitude is Islam’s unique approach to Christians and Jews as the People of the Scriptures. This special concept, basing its legitimacy in the Quran and the life examples of the Prophet ( peace be upon him), automatically guaranteed religious autonomy to non-Muslim Christian and Jewish citizens of the Islamic Empire. Precisely, because this concept is backed up by the divine sanction, no Muslim governments were able to breach it.
Second, even when in some cases, certain Christian sects or their leaders faced persecutions, they had more to do with the political tensions between them and the Muslim rulers, and they were never religious in nature. Third, more than anything else, it was the comparative peace that the Muslim armies brought to the conquered lands that at tracted non-Muslims to embrace Islam in the long run.
Some other factors that helped the process of gradual conversions of non-Muslims in the conquered lands to Islam were the egalitarian teachings of Islam, lack of priestly and other ecclesiastical oppression, Muslims’ educational and cultural refinements, etc.
Many Christian sects that had problem within them, apart from facing persecution at the hands of their fellow Christians welcomed the Muslims as just arbitrators in their disputes, and in many cases, Muslims acted as those guaranteed protection to such Christians their life, faith and property. Finally, forceful conversions to Islam never happened any where in the Muslim lands, however, sadly, as Muslims lost Spain, oppression and forceful conversions of both Muslims and Jews happened in there in an unprecedented way.
Arnold discusses all these and many other points, as hinted before, very objectively in the book, and indirectly reminding us all of the importance of the religious tolerance and freedom. It is to stress this important message of religious harmony, tolerance and peace that this nearly forgotten classic is now presented before the general public.
Notes on Introduction:
1-Daniel (N.), Islam and the West, 131.
2-Krey (A.C.), The First Crusade, 26-27.
3-Idem, 28-29.
4-Shahan (T.J.), Middle Ages Sketch, 127.
5-De Lacy (O.), How Greek Science passed to the Arabs, 47-64.
6-Idem, 73-90.
7-Milman (H.H.), History of Latin Christianity, 59.
8-Afsaruddin (A.), The First Muslims, 39.
9- Butler A.J., The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 152.
10- Ibidem.
11-Arnold (T.W.), The Preaching of Islam, 27.
12-Ibidem.
13-Idem, 40.
14-Arnold (T.W.), The Preaching of Islam, 40.
15-Idem, 38-39.
16-Krey (A.C.), The First Crusade, 29.
17-Idem, 31.
18-Idem, 32.
19- Arnold (T. W.), The Preaching of Islam, 42.
20-Idem, 43-44.
21- Adeney (W.F.), History of Greek Eastern Church, 170.
22- In 1010 the Church of Resurrection got destroyed by the fury of Hakim, but in 1048 was completely rebuid by the emperor Constantin Monomachus under the superintendence of the Patriarch Nicephorus.
23- La Strange (G.), Palestine under the Moors, 202.
24-Adeney (W. F.), History of Greek Eastern Church, 165.
25-Arnold (T. W.), The Preaching of Islam, 46-48.
26-Idem, 48.
27-Ibidem.
28-Idem, 48-49.
29-Idem, 50.
30-Ibidem.
31-Ibidem.
32-Ibidem.
33-Idem, 51.
34-Ibidem.
35-Ibidem.
36-Ibidem.
37-Ibidem.
38-Ibidem.
39-Ibidem.
40-Ibidem.
41-Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 42.
42-Idem, 46
43-Idem, 73-74.
44-Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 84.
45- Amélieau, Monuments pour server à l’histoire de l’Egypte chrétienne (Paris, 1888); Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 88.
46-Idem,176-177.
47-Ibidem.
48-Ibidem.
49-Quoted in Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt,, 184.
50-Adeney (W.F.), History of Greek Eastern Church, 575-576.
51-Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 251-252.
52-Idem, 274.
53-Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 320.
54-Ibn ‘Abd Al Hakam by Abu Salih, 97-100; Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 436.
55-Abu Salih, 231, Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 440.
56-Severus, p. 110, l. 5, p. 108, l. 18. Butler (A.J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 445.
57-Ibidem.
58-Severus III, 15-20, Butler (A. J.), The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 445.
59-Neale (J.M.), A history of the Holy Eastern Church, 78
60-Idem, 82.
61-Idem, 83.
62-Idem, 90.
63-Ibidem, 90.
64-Idem, 109.
65-Ibidem, 109.
66-Idem, 111.
67-Idem, 115-118.
68-Idem, 118.
69-Idem, 129.
70-Idem, 137.
71-Idem, 147.
72-Idem, 149.
73-Idem, 150-151.
74-Idem, 157.
75-Idem, 162.
76-Idem, 169.
77-Idem, 189-190.
78-Idem, 204.
79-Idem, 200-201
80-Idem, 206.
81-Idem, 220.
82-Idem, 225.
83-Idem, 227.
84-Idem, 251-262.
85-Idem, 261-266.
86-Idem, 299.
87-Idem, 305.
88-Idem, 306.
89-Idem, 327-329
90-Idem, 329.
91-Idem, 73.
92-Idem, 75.
93-Idem, 85.
94-Ibidem.
95-Idem, 108-109.
96-Idem, 273-278.
97-Lane-Poole (S.), The Moors in Spain, 7.
98- Prescott (…), Ferdinand and Isabella, I, 192.
99- Krauskopft (J.), Jewis and Moors in Spain, 94.
100-Ibidem.
101-Idem, 96.
102-Idem, 94.
103-Ibidem.
104-Idem, 95-96.
105-Lane Poole (S.), The Moors in Spain, 44.
106-Whishaw (B. e E.), Arabic Spain:sidelight on her history and art, 17.
107-Ibidem.
108-Idem, 18.
109-Ibidem.
110-Ibidem.
111-Ibidem, Idrisi, 17.
112-Whishaw (B. and E.), Arabic Spain: sidelight on her history and art,
113- Cronica General VIII, 257. Whishaw (B. and E.), Arabic Spain: sidelight on her history and art, 27.
114-Ibidem.
115-Ibidem.
116-Idem, 171.
117-Idem, 173.
118-Idem, 173-174.
119-Idem, 18.
120-St. Bonifaciae, A.D. 745, Epistola LXII, Migne, Patr. Lat. Tom. LXXXIX, 761.
121-Alvar, Indiculus Luminosus 18, 531-532.
122-John of Gorz, 122 (302).
123-Menocal (M.R.), The Ornament of the world, 66.
124-Migne, Patr. Lat. Tome XCVIII, 385.
125-Alvar, Indiculus Luminous, Migne Patr. Lat. Tom., CXXI, 29.
126-Lane Poole (S.), The Moors in Spain, 84.
127-Idem, 87.
128-Idem, 93.
129-Idem, 95.
130-Whishaw (B. e E.), Arabic Spain: sidelight on her history and art, 22.
131-Idem, 25.
132-Arnold (T.W.), The Preaching of Islam, 105.
133-Krauskopf Jos., Jews and Moors in Spain, 99
134-Idem, 173
135-Clark (E. L.), Races of European Turkey, 17-18.
136-Idem, 18.
137-Idem, 22.
138-Idem, 31
139-Idem, 48.
140- Adeney W.F., History of Greek Eastern Church, 253, Fortescue A., The Orthodox Eastern Church, 222, 227.
141-Fortescue A., The Orthodox Eastern Church, 227.
142-Clark E. L., Races of European Turkey, 64.
143-Adeney W.F., History of Greek Eastern Church, 259.
144-Clark E. L., Races of European Turkey, 67.
145-Clark E.L. Races of European Turkey,
146-Creasy (E. S.), History of the Ottoman Turks, 78.
147-Idem, 86.
148- Clark E. L., Races of European Turkey, 82.
149-Idem, 93.
150-Fortescue A., The Orthodox Eastern Church, 242.
151-Clark E. L., Races of European Turkey, 98-99.
152-Ibidem.
153-Idem, 141.
154-Turnefort (J. P.) A voyage into Levant, I, 107.
155-Arnold (T.W.), The Preaching of Islam, 121
156-Ibidem, Scheffler (J.), Turcken-shrifft: von der ursachen der turckishen ueberziehung unde der zertretung des volkes gottes (1664), 55.
157- Bizzi (M.), Relazione della visita fatta da me, Marino Bizzi, Arcivescovo d’Antivari, Albania e Servia, alla Santità di Nostro Signore Papa Paolo Quinto 1610 (Biblioteca Barberina, Rome, NLXIII, 13) fol.7 (B), fol. 38 (B).
158-Arnold (T.W.), The Preaching of Islam, 132.
159-Idem.
