"The historical geopolitics of Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans: Aspects of coexistence between Orthodox Christianity and Islam"
Ladies and Gentlemen,
1. Introduction
The lands of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkan Peninsula were for centuries a single administrative space, which Western Europeans, starting in the 19th century, referred to as the Near East. Naturally, it never occurred to any Byzantine, Arab or Ottoman to describe their geographical space in relation to its proximity to the West, as they perceived their state as the center from which all others drew their relative position. The theocentric perception of society, for both Byzantines and Arabs, rendered their states the kingdom of God on earth; the Emperor and the Caliph existed as the image of God and the successor to the angel of God respectively, and the main purpose of the state was the defence and dissemination of the one true faith as a prospect for salvation.
It was precisely this perception of the uniqueness and sacredness of the kingdom that led to the two most important schisms in the Christian and Islamic worlds. The adoption of the title of Emperor by Charlemagne and his crowning in Rome, on Christmas day, 800 AD, by Pop Leo III marked both the questioning of the legitimate Roman power of Constantinople and the beginning of the schism between East and West, which was consolidated in 1054 as a religious split that has lasted until today.
The controversy over the hegemonic and spiritual successor to the prophet Muhammad brought about the major schism in early Islam. Succession by bloodline was supported by the Shiite Muslims, followers of Muhammad's cousin Ali, while Sunni Islam wanted the prophet's father in law, Abu Bakr, to succeed him. The title of caliph needed to be passed on to a single true successor who, as Governor of the Faithful, had all Muslims under his power. The parallel claims to the title meant a schism. This is why early Greek-language literature refers to the Shiites as “Schiites”, in the belief that they got their name from the Greek word “schism”. However, the similarities are not limited to the causes of the schisms, but extend to the contact between and coexistence of the two worlds, which brought about major borrowings, on both sides, in all areas of culture.
2. Muhammad as the guarantor of Christians' security
The relationship of the teachings of Muhammad with the Judaic and Christian religions became an object of study early on by scholars and academics. However, beyond the Koranic sources there is a body of texts that indicate the Prophet's intentions with regard to the peoples of the Book – as the Christians and Jews are called – and concern mainly promissory writings and peace agreements concluded with Christian abbots, bishops and rulers.
During the tenth year of Hegira, the prophet Muhammad received a delegation of sixty Christians from the city of Najran, of Arabia Felix. The audience of those Byzantine-style Arab Christians took place in the temple of the prophet, and Muhammad allowed them to pray therein, which they did, facing east.
The Christians of Najran talked to the prophet about theological issues, including the nature of God, and he recited to them Surah 112 of the Koran, which is called The Surah of Sincerity and Absolute Faith: “Say: He, Allah, is One, Allah, the Eternal, the Absolute (of whom all creatures have need). He begets not, nor is He begotten, And there is none like unto Him.” Further discussion regarding the nature of Jesus Christ led to certain disagreements, regarding which he recited to them three verses of the Koran from the third Surah. After three days, the Christian delegation decided to conclude its mission.
Despite dogmatic disagreements, Muhammad concluded a treaty with the Christians of Najran. The prophet dictated the terms of the treaty to Abdullah Abu Bakr, who served as his scribe, and it was ratified by five of his acolytes. This treaty provided religious and administrative autonomy to non-Muslim citizens of Islamic territories.
A similar treaty was concluded the same year between Muhammad and Yuhanna or Ioannis, a Byzantine governor or, likely, bishop of the Biblical city of Aylah, in Arabia Petraea. The treaty marked the first Muslim conquest in the Anatolic Theme of the Byzantine Empire, and, in exchange for taxation, secured the right of the citizens of the city to religious freedom and guaranteed their property and their personal security: “Thou hast to accept Islam, or pay the tax, and obey God and his Messenger and the messengers of His Messenger.”
However, for the Orthodox Christianity the most important text ratified by Muhammad is the Ashtiname (Testament) to the Monastery of Saint Catherine of Sinai, the importance of which lies in the duration of its effect, which extends to our day. The Prophet Muhammad's agreement with the monks of Mount Sinai is certified by Muhammad's biographer, Al-Waqidi (748-822), and his student Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi (784-845), in the Kitab Tabaqat Al-Kubra, where it is set out, albeit in a shorter form than in the existing copies of the charter of rights, but containing all of the main articles, almost word for word.
The Testament is a very early Muslim text, given that it was written in the sixth year of Hegira; that is, in 628 by the Christian calendar. With the increasing influence of Islam in Arabia, in 626 the Prophet Muhammad sent a number of epistles to various kings and rulers around the Arabian Peninsula, stating his desire for peace and cooperation. In 628, a delegation of monks from the Monastery of Saint Catherine came to Muhammad and asked for his protection. Responding to this request, Muhammad gave, on penalty of excommunication, an “obligation”, ratified by his palm print. Official copies of the Testament are today preserved in the Monastery's Sacristy and at a number of its metochions beyond Sinai and on Mount Athos.
The account of Muhammad's journeys to Sinai and the historical background of the writing of the Ashtiname are mentioned in the first volume of the “Journal des Voyages” of the French diplomat Balthasar de Monconys (1611-1665), in which Monconys maintains that he saw the content of the Testament engraved in stone.
Below are some excerpts from the Ashtiname:
[…]Whenever monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection. […]
[…] Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells. […]
[…]No one is allowed to plunder the pilgrims, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger. […]
This selections show that the Muslim state must not damage Christian churches in any way; nor may any Muslim official involve himself in the election of Christian religious leaders. Provided the Christians are subjects of Muslim authorities and ask for those authorities' protection, they should be given the assistance of Muslims in every legal manner.
The commitment to this rule of non-assimilation was institutionalized during the Ottoman Empire in the form of the “millet system.” In accordance with this practice, each religious community was considered to be an autonomous social unit that enjoyed relative administrative and legal independence. The millets were headed by high-clerics, who were made responsible for family law, judicial matters, church assets, education, philanthropy and tax collection. This system tried to allow for peaceful coexistence within the Empire, though placing non-Muslims in a lower social position within its sovereign boundaries.
3. The Christian perception of Islam
The appearance and spread of Islam among Christian populations of the East favored mutual understanding and dialogue between the two monotheistic religions.
Familiarity among the populations did not come about all at once, but was a dynamic process with multifaceted dimensions and chronological phases. It is characteristic that in the period of the 8th century the Christian world had vague image of the emerging religion, and that is why, initially, no serious reaction was expressed on the level of religious perceptions and theological premises. To the lack of information must be added the archaic form of expression of the theological truths of the new religion, a fact that did not favor a rational classification of the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. The two civilizations, Byzantine and Arab, were still seeking the common framework for dialogue and debate, which for the time being were unattainable due to language and ethnic disparities.
These initial obstacles were overcome when Christian scholars served in the courts of the caliphates as political officials and made the first assessments of the content of the Arabs' religious convictions. The first preeminent Christian theologian to set out the principles of the new religion in a systematic manner was John of Damascus, who had a profound knowledge of Arabic. This advantage helped him to penetrate the religious writings of the Arabs and ascertain, in an initial phase, the differences between the two religions.
In fact, what he assessed as the common points between the two religions led him to believe that Islam was another version or heretical perversion of the True Faith. For this reason, on the level of history as well, he linked the Prophet Muhammad genealogically with Ismael (of the tribe of Ismael), while on the theological level he identified Islam with dynamic Monarchianism and Docetism. His polemic turns critical when it deals with the moral life and eschatological convictions of the Muslim Arabs, a tendency repeated in subsequent Christian writings.
Theodore Abū Qurrah (Avoukaras) is considered his successor in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. This scholarly polyglot monk and, later, bishop debates the teaching and other aspects of Muhammad, refuting the accusations against Christians to be found in early Islamic writings and tradition. His writing is characterized by a defensive tone and, at the same time, a polemic inclination against the new religion, as he accuses it of perversion of the Christian message and the life ideals of the Christians.
Bartholomew of Edessa is regarded as the last apologist against Islam in the first millennium. Living at the end of the 9th century, he reacts to the Koran's accusations against Christians and endeavors to belittle and debunk the historical role and prophetic calling of Muhammad. In employing this tactic, he emulates and borrows elements from the polemics of the Jews against the beliefs of Christians and the identity of Christ. He approaches the moral teachings of the Koran and Muslim perceptions regarding predestination and paradise in a particularly mordant and sarcastic manner, showing in this way the difficulties Christianity was facing from the rapid spread and consolidation of Islam and the Arabs in the wider Middle East region. Nicetas of Byzantium, a contemporary of Photius, was the first Christian writer to call on the imperial administration (Michael III and Basil I “the Macedonian”) to draw up apologist writings on Christianity's superiority to Islam, responding to analogous outlooks that were gestating in the Arab world. His example was to be followed by numerous scholarly Byzantine writers who would serve the political and religious exigencies of Byzantine Emperors, writing epistolary texts and dialogues. But from the 10th century on, the source and departure point of the dissertations would be the capital, Constantinople.
Over the next two centuries, the development of Arab culture and its connection with the Greek philosophical categories of thought and expression created fertile ground for dialogue, which contributed to Islamic theological thought's being built on the foundation of the Christian theological model and the logic of Aristotelean philosophy. To this must be added the certifiable interactions between the various forms of art and culture, proving that propinquity and coexistence within a broader political and social framework did not deter interaction and mutual understanding.
Only from this perspective is it possible to understand and appreciate the effort of Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180) to eradicate the anathemas and aphorisms against Muhammad that were included in ecclesiastical practice and worship, believing that such a move could favor of the interests of Christians in regions under Islamic rule.
However, a more systematic rapprochement between the two religions took place during the Palaiologean era, when a great Saint of the Orthodox Church, Gregory Palamas, and two emperors, (John Kantakouzenos and Manuel II Palaiologus) attempted a comparison and theological juxtaposition of Christianity and Islam. All three writers spent time in the courts of Turkish sultans and debated with Muslim theologians on all levels (Trinitarian theology-monotheism, Christology, worship, moral life, etc.). Their extant texts, mainly apologetic in nature, bear witness to the dynamic movement of the leaders of Islam to break the morale of Christians by pointing up the superiority of their own religion.
4. A Christian monastic state in a Muslim theocracy
Eight hundred years after the writing of the Prophet Muhammad's Ashtiname, the Ottoman caliphate had become consolidated on the Balkan Peninsula and the few free pockets of the old Christian Empire of the East maintained their independence as tributary or vassal states to the sultans. The monastic state of Athos, which succeeded the great Lavras of the East, had developed -with the favor of the Byzantine Emperors- into an autonomous and self-administered area of the kingdom, with special rights and exemptions.
The first Ottoman domination of Mount Athos began in 1383 and ended in 1402, when Sultan Bayezid I was crushed in Ankara by Tamerlane. The following year, his son and successor, Süleyman, signed treaties with the Byzantines, to whom he returned the Theme of Thessaloniki, which included Mount Athos. In 1424, the Ottoman forces reappeared in the region and the city of Thessaloniki was granted by the Byzantines to the Venetians, so that the latter could defend it. The same year, a delegation of monks, with the consent of despot Andronicus Palaiologus, traveled to the court of Sultan Murat II, in Adrianople, where they declared their allegiance. From that moment on, until 1912, Mouth Athos survived as a Christian monastic island in an Islamic kingdom.
In 1430, when Murat captured Thessaloniki, the Athonite monks met him again and asked to confirm the sultan firmans of privileges which his predecessors, Bayezid I and Mehmed I, had issued. The firman of Murad II confirmed the privileges of the monasteries of Mount Athos, referring in particular to the tax-allowances, which was necessary for their survival.
In brief, the effect of the Firman guaranteed the assets of the monasteries and recognized their properties on the Mount Athos peninsula. Moreover, it prohibited the entry of laymen or state officials into Athos, it allowed the free movement of goods between monasteries and their dependencies, and it granted the privilege of exemption from emergency taxes. A second sultanic Firman, issued in 1485 by Bayezid II, reconfirmed the terms of the 1430 document.
Although under Ottoman rule, Mount Athos continued to be the greatest spiritual center of the Orthodox world, which was now in large part under Ottoman control. However, significant developments took place in the internal organization of the monasteries. The reduction of the term of abbots to just one year tended to weaken the traditional system of communal living. This unusual system, which emerged early in the 15th century, had become nearly universal by the 17th century. The monasteries were now administered by a council of elder monks who were elected by the brotherhood for a term of one year. This unusual system brought major changes to the lives of the monks, allowing, as it did, for the monks to have personal estates, to organize their own meals, and to receive a wage for the work they did for the monastery. This relaxing of austerity was seen as modernization and degeneration of monastic traditions.
Nevertheless and despite the changes and the need to adapt, Mount Athos managed, in periods of prosperity and decline throughout Ottoman rule, to maintain its distinctive character and remain a place of monastic devotion and spiritual productivity. The founding of the Athonite Academy, in 1789, and the emergence through it of major figures of the Modern Greek Enlightenment, bears witness to the fact that Athos continued on its great course even in the midst of a theocratic regime of another faith, though this regime did in general terms show respect and tolerance for the unique Athonite system.
5. Epilogue
The intellectual encounter of Greeks and Arabs as a result of the transmission of the Greek culture after the expedition of Alexander the Great, was one of the most important events in the history of civilization, the consequences of which are enormous in the Islamic world, Europe and the ecumene.
In the centuries that followed, the spiritual affinity between the two peoples evolved. The Aristotelian philosophy dominated the late school of Alexandria and its influence inevitably passed in the Christian world and Islam. The Syrian study of Aristotle was formed in the school of Edessa in the fifth century, mainly regarding the works of Aristotle on logic. After all, logic became a science by Aristotle. With the Aristotelian logic was connected the (Isagoge) Introduction of Porphyry of Tyre, and with his broader philosophy, the epitome of the Syrian writer Damascius. The wider study of the Aristotelian corpus was achieved with the use of Scholia (comments) for the first time by the Syrian, Probus, and then by the Alexandrians, Ammonius and John Philoponus. It should be noted that the Arabic interpretative projects of Aristotelian philosophy were mainly Neo-Platonic, and it was the Neo-Platonic tendency that dominated the Arab philosophy and influenced the Muslim theology. This influence increased further by accepting the epitome of the plotinian Enneads as the "Theology of Aristotle" and thus as an original work of him.
Almost the same mental path followed the Christian philosophy in Byzantium, which during the 4th and 5th AD centuries dominated by the influence of Neoplatonic thought. The apophatic terminology would be considered as a key element of similarity between Neoplatonism and Christianity. The relevance of theological faith with the philosophical problematic and scientific research developed systematically, and with proof manner, a trend validation of theological positions based on the philosophical dialectic, the mathematical principles and infinitesimal elements and concepts of space and time of natural science.
Thus, the two major religions using common philosophical bases developed their theological thought. This fact together with the description of the occurrences of the history of geopolitics of religion in the wider region of the Eastern Mediterranean demonstrate the positive foundations of the current dialogue, which must be a dialogue of cultures aimed to consolidate pluralism and peaceful intercultural coexistence.
March 11, 2016