The Greek and Eastern Churches/Part 1/Division 2/Chapter 1
DIVISION II
THE MOHAMMEDAN PERIOD
CHAPTER I
THE RISE AND SPREAD OF MOHAMMEDANISM
Our familiar Western division of Church History into three periods—the Patristic, the Mediæval, and the Modern—does not rightly apply to the Eastern half of Christendom. There were no Middle Ages in the Oriental Churches, for the simple reason that there was no Renaissance or Reformation to inaugurate a third period from which those ages could be sharply divided—no terminus ad quem. Nevertheless, other events roughly mark off a corresponding block of time. In the West the chief cause of the immense change that broke the classic traditions of the past and introduced mediævalism was the Teutonic flood of colonisation, before which half the Roman Empire crumbled away, and which ultimately issued in the shaping of the nations of Europe. About the same time the tempest of Mohammedanism arose in Arabia to sweep over some of the fairest provinces of the Eastern branch of the empire, tearing them off limb by limb, and leaving only a truncated torso to represent the dominion of the Cæsars.
This happened in the seventh century, just after the last of the Latin Fathers, Gregory, had laid the foundations of mediæval theology. But the two invasions—the Teutonic in the West and the Arabian in the East—were very different in character. They agreed in one lamentable feature. In both cases a more barbarous race came to wreck and destroy an ancient civilisation. They also agreed in one redeeming characteristic. Each, appearing as the besom of destruction, was really an instrument of judgment on an age already perishing in its own corruption. While the Germans brought physical and moral health from their remote forests to the effete city-life of Italy, the Arabs came with the simplicity of the desert to castigate the effeminacy of Oriental luxury—until in a very short time they themselves fell victims to the same fatal narcotic. But there was this radical difference between the two immigrations. The Goths were Christians, and as they settled down among the conquered peoples, intermingling with them, if the unfortunate accident of their Arianism had not stood in the way they would have fraternised from the first with the churches of their adopted land. But the Arabs appeared as missionaries of a new religion, who held themselves aloof from the peoples they subdued in proud scorn—except in the one significant fact, that they wedded the wives and daughters of their victims. Liberal and lenient at first towards all who submitted to their yoke, they soon made it apparent that Jews and especially Christians were only allowed to practise the rites of their faiths under sufferance, and that with increasingly galling restrictions. From the seventh century onwards right down to our own day the chief factor of Church politics in the East has been its relation to Mohammedanism.
Mohammed was born at the city of Mecca in the year 570; but he was brought up in the tents of the Bedouins, from whom he learnt simple manners and among whom he maintained a primitive purity of life. He was forty years of age before he was conscious of the first impulse to his mission. Then the great thought of One God, Creator and Ruler of All, dawned upon his mind as a revelation. Mohammedanism has been traced to Jewish and Christian sources combined with Arabian traditions. There can be no doubt that both the rival Monotheistic faiths indirectly affected the prophet. We meet with references to them in the Koran; and Bible characters and Hebrew legends have had a considerable part in its composition. But while we may recognise these materials as fuel for the sacrifice, we cannot discover in them the fire. It was the personality of Mohammed, his vision of truth gained through deep brooding and struggling of soul, that constituted him the founder of Islam. There can be no question of his sincerity at the beginning of his career, nor of the purity of his original motives; it is equally clear that he deteriorated in his later days, became at least a self -deceiver, fell into self-indulgent vices, and justified them with supposed visions and voices from heaven. The burden of his message was a stern protest against the prevalent idolatry of Arabia, and his enunciation of the unity, the spirituality, the supremacy of God as at once almighty and most merciful. The Mussulman cry—"Allah Akbar!—God is Great!"—is the root principle of Mohammedanism. The sublime truth burst on the desert like a revelation. Undoubtedly it introduced a purer faith than the gross heathenism that it supplanted.
This clear, vigorous new teaching braced the minds of its adherents with belief in an inflexible fixture of events which was not mere fatalism, as is commonly asserted, but the idea of a personal purpose in the dominant will of the merciful Allah. Further, with this creed was conjoined the doctrine of the equality of all male believers, involving the duty of brotherly-kindness. Then the prohibition of wine was one sign that Mohammed aimed at moral vigour and simplicity of life. On the other hand, the most fatal defect of Mohammedanism is its permission of polygamy and concubinage, which together with the veil involves the degradation of woman and her separation from the duties and interests of the world. This, as Sir William Muir points out, is more hurtful to men than to women. Lastly, under the rule of Islam, slavery also is sanctioned and largely practised.
The tolerance of the early caliphs has been frequently applauded. But in its essential nature the Mussulman faith is dogmatic and intolerant. The Koran, which its founder claimed to have received by dictation from heaven, is to be taken as infallible. Thus thought is paralysed and all religions but that of Islam are treated with contempt. As a consequence, cruelty to the unbeliever and especially the apostate—that is to say, the convert to Christianity — has been frequently permitted, and that with ruthless fanaticism.
Mohammed must have had real faith in his message to bear him through the early period of discouragement when his converts were but few. At that time they could only be won by persuasion in face of popular disfavour, and at length it was necessary for the prophet to escape from Mecca, a hunted fugitive. The Hegira—the flight to Medina—took place in the year 622, which afterwards became the starting-point of the Mohammedan era.
In the second stage of his enterprise Mohammed sanctioned the sword for the rooting out of idolatry and the spread of the faith. By thus following up preaching with force, he had secured most of Arabia at the time of his death (a.d. 632). But there is no proof that he had ever contemplated crossing the borders of his own land. With Mohammed Islam was the religion of the Arab.
While the death of the prophet produced consternation among his followers, it was the occasion of insurrection on the part of the conquered tribes of the desert. The crisis was acute; but among the "companions" were men equal to its demands. When Omar was passionately haranguing the people who crowded the mosque at Medina, the calm Abu Bekr put him aside with the memorable words: "Whoso worshippeth Mohammed let him know that Mohammed is dead; but whoso worshippeth God, let him know that God liveth and dieth not." Abu Bekr, then sixty years of age, was elected first caliph—i.e. successor to the prophet. He had a heavy task before him in the subjugation of the apostate tribes, but the work was triumphantly accomplished by his great general Khalid. In the conduct of this war and the behaviour of its leader we may discover the secret of the success of Islam and its marvellous career during the next few years. Everywhere the terms were submission or the sword. While idolatry was to be rooted out completely, for Jews and Christians submission might take the form of tribute. But all Arabs who accepted Islam were at once enrolled in the army and endowed with its privileges. Under the early caliphs there was very little for the civil administrators to do beyond collecting and distributing tribute and booty. These caliphs were anxious to prevent their people building houses or engaging in agriculture lest the settled life should chill their martial ardour. Thus all Islam was an armed camp, and the chief service of religion was to fight for it. In the conduct of war all who resisted were slaughtered, and their property, their wives, and their daughters confiscated. One-fifth of the booty was reserved for the treasury, but immediately distributed among the faithful after the small expenses of administration were paid; the remaining four-fifths were divided in equal proportions among the men who had engaged in the fight. The same was done with the women captives. It was accounted a scandal that Khalid once married the wife of an opposing leader on the battlefield, and the caliph rebuked him for his indecent haste. Nevertheless he retained his post and acted very similarly another time. If an Arab fell while fighting for Islam, he was to expect two bright-eyed damsels to descend from heaven, wipe the dust and sweat from his face, and carry him away to a voluptuous paradise. Thus the reward of fighting was in any case a harem—if the warrior survived, a harem on earth; if he died, a harem in paradise. This was the precise opposite of the Christian ideal preached by the priests and professed by the monks. Celibacy with chastisement of the flesh was the stern Church conception of the saint; gross sensuality in multiple marriage was held out as the bait for the Mohammedan warrior. A more sharp antithesis between two ideals of life was never conceived.
Nevertheless this is only one side of the shield. We should do deep injustice to Islam and at the same time flatter Christendom hypocritically if we refused to sternly face the other side. The Mohammedan sincerely believed that he was an instrument in the hand of Allah; he was sure that it was Allah's will for the infidel to be smitten down on refusing submission, and for the faith of the prophet to be maintained and spread at the point of the sword. Thus he was fired with the zeal of the missionary. 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. At the same time the morals 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 starts.
Although after the death of the prophet Islam had first to fight for its very existence, and although it was only by desperate courage and energy that the revolting tribes were reduced to sullen submission, Mohammedanism had this singular power that it could cast a spell over its reluctant converts and convert them into fervent disciples. Moreover, when it spread beyond the borders of Arabia a new inducement was added to encourage loyalty. The Arabs became an aristocratic order with distinctive privileges, and although the equal brotherhood of all believers was preached in the Koran it was never practised as between the army from Arabia and the Syrians, Persians, Copts, in other countries. Apparently Mohammed had not contemplated its extension to alien races. Therefore the brotherhood of Islam was really the union of the Bedouin of the desert in equality of privilege and community of mutual service. The rule that required all the children of the faithful, whether from wives or concubines, to be brought up as Mohammedans with the full status of their fathers, led to the rapid growth of the army of Islam and its continual infusion with the renewing vigour of fresh blood. So this conquering host poured out spreading death and terror, always gathering spoil, and often exacting tribute.
When it looked beyond the borders of Arabia Mohammedanism found itself confronted by two great empires—Persia in the East and Rome in the North and West. United these two powers could easily have nipped the new terror in the bud. Even separately under normal circumstances either of them should have been more than a match for it. But at this most momentous juncture their century long enmity, which had sometimes slumbered for generations, had broken out into deadly feud.
A few years before the appearance of the new and totally unexpected danger, Chosroes the king of Persia had effected a successful invasion of the Roman Empire, first penetrating to Palestine and seizing Jerusalem. That city of unparalleled misfortunes was then given up to outrage and plundering, during which time thousands of monks, nuns, and priests were slaughtered. Fire followed pillage. The church of the Holy Sepulchre and other churches were partially or wholly wrecked. From Palestine the victor advanced to Egypt, and seized Alexandria amid similar scenes of slaughter and outrage (a.d. 618).
At length Sergius the patriarch of Constantinople roused the Emperor Heraclius to a tremendous effort for the recovery of his lost territory and Jerusalem in particular. The tide now turned. Victory after victory attended the Byzantine arms. A great point was made of the fact that the Cross in its reliquary was recovered and restored to the altar at the Holy Sepulchre. Thus this was in a way a war for religion, a crusade of the Eastern Empire. But no sooner was the great feat of his life achieved than Heraclius began to live at ease, till he sank into enervating self-indulgence among the lavish luxuries of life at Constantinople.
The Roman emperor's success in the Persian war led him to underrate the new danger already looming on the southern horizon. Besides, when the conflict with Islam began in deadly earnest the imperial troops were divided among themselves, half-hearted, and so reluctant to fight —if we may credit the Arab chronicler—that in some cases they were dragged forward chained together. Such an army had little chance against the hardy desert veterans, dashing into battle aflame with fanaticism. Modern science has armed the civilised nations with weapons that are practically irresistible by barbarous races. But before the invention of gunpowder, civilisation and barbarism were more on a level in military resources.
Chaldæa and Southern Syria were in close touch with Arabia, and naturally these were the first districts to be overrun by the advancing tide. At Hira the Arabs came upon a monastery outside the city walls, and the defenceless monks, exposed to the full fury of their attack, and seeing no alternative to submission, acted as intermediaries and arranged terms of surrender between the invaders and the besieged inhabitants (a.d. 633). The Christians in this city retained their faith and were found to be true to it several centuries later, in spite of their subjection to a Mohammedan government.
It was in Syria that the Arabs came into contact with the Roman Empire. At first the forces of the invaders were paralysed by the confusion and jealousies of separate commands. Then Abu Bekr fetched the great General Khalid from Mesopotamia to put fresh vigour into the attack. Under his leadership a terrible battle was fought close to the Yermuk, one of the eastern tributaries of the Jordan, which resulted in a rout of the Romans (1st of September, a.d. 634). The Arab chronicler states that the beaten imperial troops were "toppled over the bank even as a wall is toppled over," and adds that over 100,000 men were lost in the chasm. The Byzantine chroniclers are discreetly silent with reference to these disasters of the empire. But after making every allowance for the Oriental habit of exaggeration, we can see that the defeat must have been complete. This astonishing event struck terror into the court at Constantinople. For a time it paralysed the opposition of the empire to the daring invasion of one of the fairest of its provinces. What was thus lost was never again permanently recovered.
The same year Abu Bekr died. He had lived in extreme simplicity—a marked contrast to the luxury and splendour of the courts of the emperor and the great king. When the treasury at Medina was opened only a single gold piece fell out of the bags. Although much wealth was now pouring in from tribute, "all shared alike, recent convert and veteran, male and female, bond and free." Abu Bekr was succeeded by his friend and counsellor, the passionate, energetic Omar, now mellowed with age, who as the second caliph proved at least an equally capable ruler. Thus to its other advantages over the corrupt and decrepit empire Islam added consummate ability in its early leaders.
The next year (a.d. 635) Damascus was stormed, but the city capitulated just in time to save the lives of its inhabitants. Half of the property of the place was seized, and, in addition to the taxes raised under the empire, a tribute of one piece of gold was imposed on every male adult who did not embrace Islam, and a measure of corn was taken from every field. This became the model for the treatment of Christians elsewhere. The churches were equally distributed between Christians and Mohammedans. The great cathedral of St. John the Baptist was at first divided in two, one half serving for each religion; and so it remained for eighty years, after which time the Christians were ejected and it became wholly a mosque. But down to our day—even in spite of a recent fire—the visitor can read over its chief entrance the Psalmist's magnificent words—
"Thy Kingdom, Christ, is an everlasting Kingdom;
And Thy Dominion is from Generation to Generation."[1]
The next step was to carry the war with Persia to a conclusion. This was now prosecuted with the utmost vigour till the capital Medain fell into the hands of the invaders. On account of the unhealthiness of its site for men accustomed to the pure air of the desert, they removed the centre of government to two new places which rapidly grew into the important cities of Kufa and Bussorah.
Meanwhile the movement in Syria was advancing. Heraclius retired to Roha (Edessa), and the Arabs under Khalid defeated the Byzantine forces at Chalcis, and then advanced on Aleppo, which they seized. A battle was fought in the woods near Antioch, and this too went against the Greeks, who were driven back to the city, which was then invested. It soon capitulated. Thus the great, rich capital of Syria, the centre of Christianity in the province, fell into the hands of the Mohammedans. The Bedouin Christians of Syria, who had never been very fervent in their faith, for the most part went over to Islam; but the inhabitants of the cities remained true. These people were treated with moderation; their churches were not taken from them, and public Christian worship was permitted. Heraclius now retreated to Constantinople, admitting sadly that the valuable province of Syria was lost to the empire.
Palestine was next invaded by armies under Amr' and Shorahbil. At Jerusalem the patriarch Sophronius, as the representative of the people, sued for peace. Omar attached 80 much importance to the possession of the sacred city that he travelled to Jabia—the first journey of a caliph out of Arabia—and there met a deputation from the patriarch, with whom he arranged terms of capitulation (a.d. 636). Then he went up to Jerusalem and received Sophronius and the citizens in a kindly manner, imposing a light tribute and permitting the continued possession and use of all the churches and shrines by the Christians. This event is of great importance in view of subsequent history. 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 infidel, it will be well to recollect that the city had been transferred to the Mohammedans without any resistance by the action of the Christian patriarch. Thus Sophronius carried out under new circumstances the same policy that Jeremiah had urged in vain upon his infatuated contemporaries when an earlier invasion from the East was coming up with a force that made resistance hopeless. Much happened between the peaceful surrender of the city in the seventh century to the courteous and reasonable Omar and the wrongs and sufferings that provoked the Crusades five hundred years later. The so-called Ordinance of Omar attributes to the great caliph a number of humiliating exactions for which he was not responsible and which represent the accretions of succeeding years of despotism. When the caliphate was established at Damascus and Bagdad, the simple requirement of tribute was not deemed enough to stamp the inferiority of the Christians. They were to become marked men and women by wearing yellow stripes in their dress; they were forbidden to ride on horseback; if riding an ass or a mule it must be with wooden stirrups and saddle knobs; their graves were to be level with the ground; their children were prohibited the instruction of Moslem masters; no high office was to be entrusted to them; no new churches were to be erected; no cross was to remain outside a church; no bells were to be rung; no processions were to be permitted at Easter or any festal occasion; the Mohammedans were to be allowed free access to the holy sites. Worse was done apart from any ordinances; but these recognised rules were sufficient to set a badge of inferiority on the Christians and restrain the demonstration of their religion. Perhaps, however, when we consider the intolerance practised between the several parties in the Church one against another, often amounting to serious persecution and sometimes breaking out into bloodshed, we may still respect and honour the comparative liberality and patience of their Mohammedan masters.
Arabia, however, presents an exception to this policy of comparative tolerance. This was par excellence the land of Islam. Mohammed had said, "In Arabia there shall be no faith but the faith of Islam." Accordingly an ancient body of Christians in the province of Najran was driven into exile. Some settled in Syria, others near Kufa, both parties, it will be observed, still under the Mohammedan government.
In the year 340 Amr' invaded Egypt. Approaching the country in a south-westerly direction, he first subdued Upper Egypt and thence descended on Alexandria. During the siege Heraclius died; the Greek naval troops took to their ships and fled; and the weakened garrison found it necessary to capitulate. This saved the city from destruction; its Christian inhabitants like the Copts elsewhere were treated leniently and merely put under tribute. Nevertheless, here was another limb torn from the Roman Empire in the East. First Syria, next Egypt, two of the most important provinces, had fallen into the hands of the Arabs. The two great patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria now came under the yoke of the Mohammedan government.
The case of Egypt is peculiarly important for the glaring proofs it affords of the suicidal policy of the Church and State in preparing for the final collapse of the power of both in this province. Chosroes had done great mischief in his invasion; but this came and went, while the oppression of the imperial government was almost more intolerable, because it was continuous. As Monophysites the Copts were disowned by the Church and persecuted by the State. In comparison with the Byzantine intolerance the yoke of the Mohammedan government seemed easy. To these ill-treated Copts the invader came as a deliverer. It was the policy of the Arabs to favour the schismatics and heretics among the Christians in order to weaken the empire's power of resistance. These people have been accused of directly aiding the infidels. While it cannot be denied that in some cases they did so, the wholesale charges brought against them by their opponents go beyond verifiable facts. All down the course of history we have to be on our guard against the libels perpetrated against heretics by the narrow-minded, passionate champions of orthodoxy. But for the purposes of an invader mere passivity and non-resistance would be almost as serviceable as direct assistance. There was no question of patriotism. From time immemorial the Egyptians had lived under tyrannical masters, and certainly they had little reason to cultivate a sentiment of loyalty to the Greek despot at Constantinople who lent his forces to aid the Church of the empire in punishing them for what they regarded as their higher loyalty—their loyalty to Christ and truth.
Thus it came about that the Nestorians in Syria and the Jacobites in Egypt—both out of favour with the Greek government, because out of communion with the Greek Church—found rest and protection under the ægis of Islam. This fact needs to be grasped in all its wide-reaching significance if we would account for the success of the Mohammedan movement. But even at first the rest was often disturbed and the protection accompanied by irksome conditions, and it was not long before the mild sway of the early caliphs was followed by the harsh and cruel tyranny of their degenerate successors. Meanwhile the mischief was done. The empire had lost its provinces; the Church was divided and insuperable barriers were raised against reunion.
Further, when we consider that, while theological rancour ruled among the clergy, relic and image worship was the most popular form of religion among the laity, we can understand how the Mohammedan gained ground by presenting to the world what on the face of it was a purer faith. The wonder is that most of the Christians remained true to their religion. No doubt there was much genuine piety among the people of which history—chiefly concerned with the quarrels of the clergy—does not condescend to take account. That was the saving salt. We come across pleasing instances of friendships between liberal-minded caliphs and Christian scholars. Mohammedanism had its lessons to teach Christendom. Lastly, the iconoclastic controversy, which became the next disturbing movement in Eastern Christendom, can be traced in a measure to the influence of Islam. It was Mohammed's war against idols carried over into the Church.
- ↑ Η ΒΑϹΙΛΕΙΑ· ϹΟΥ ΧΕ ΒΑϹΙΛΕΙΑ· ΠΑΝΤΩΝ· ΤΩΝ ΑΙΟΝΩΝ· ΚΑΙ· Η· ΔΕϹΠΟΤΕΙΑ· ϹΟΥ· ΕΝ· ΠΑϹΗ· ΓΕΝΕΑΙ· ΚΑΙ ΓΕΝΕΑΙ.