St. John Damascene: on the heresy of the Ishmaelites.
The following
passage is from Saint John’s monumental work, the Fount of Knowledge, part two
entitled Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin.
It is usually just cited as Heresies. The translator’s introduction points out
that Fount of Knowledge is one of the most “important single works produced in
the Greek patristic period,…offering as it does an extensive and lucid
synthesis of the Greek theological science of the whole period. It is the first
great Summa of theology to appear in either the East or the West.” Saint John
(+ 749) is considered one of the great Fathers of the Church, and his writings
hold a place of high honor in the Church. His critique of Islam, or “the heresy
of the Ishmaelites,” is especially relevant for our times.
There is also the superstition of
the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a
forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born
to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and
Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi,
or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent
me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning
star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means
great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great
idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has
appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New
Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101]
devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of
the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been
sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in
this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.
He says that there is one God,
creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. [102] He
says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a
servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses
and Aaron. [103] For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into
Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he
says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they
seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified,
he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself
into heaven. [104] And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into
heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’
And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did
not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have
written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen
into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say
this word.” [105] There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous
things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we
ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets
foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss. And we remark
that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of
all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all
the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ
God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise
again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we
say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with
others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence
present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to
Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too,
might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say,
‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they
reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say
to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually
sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re
spinning me dreams.)
[106]When we ask again: ‘How is
it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive
anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: “First do you show us by
witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us
just what Scriptures there are that testify about you”’—they are ashamed and
remain silent. [Then we continue:] ‘Although you may not marry a wife without
witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor
possess a beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives
and property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith
and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who
handed this down to you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone
known who testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it
while he was asleep.’
Moreover, they call us
Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with
God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder:
‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you
persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to
be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some
of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the
Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and
deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost.
And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God
and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the
spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence.
Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If,
however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and
without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with
God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has
an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a
piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you
call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’
They furthermore accuse us of
being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we
answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your
Ka’ba [107] and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had
relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when
he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that
the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the
holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, [108] and then he left the asses behind with
the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick
with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but they
still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as
you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on
it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for
venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit
of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that
Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the
present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.
As has been related, this
Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For
example, there is the book On Woman, [109] in which he plainly makes legal
provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines—as
many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put
away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself
another in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a
beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love. Once, when they were sitting
together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way, God has commanded me to take your
wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and take
my wife.’ Rather—to tell the story over from the beginning—he said to him: ‘God
has given me the command that you put away your wife.’ And he put her away.
Then several days later: ‘Now,’ he said, ‘God has commanded me to take her.’
Then, after he had taken her and committed adultery with her, he made this law:
‘Let him who will put away his wife. And if, after having put her away, he
should return to her, let another marry her. For it is not lawful to take her
unless she have been married by another. Furthermore, if a brother puts away
his wife, let his brother marry her, should he so wish.’ [110] In the same book
he gives such precepts as this: ‘Work the land which God hath given thee and
beautify it. And do this, and do it in such a manner” [111]—not to repeat all
the obscene things that he did.
Then there is the book of The
Camel of God. [112] About this camel he says that there was a camel from God
and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains,
because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says,
and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on
the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment,
because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men
were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an
offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away
with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where
did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was
there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we
say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without
mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil.
Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up.
So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke,
find out about the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did
she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did
she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk
that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers
flowing in paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your
forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried
up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so
your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not
reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is
drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the
paradise of delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have
drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by,
you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the
influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy
head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures
of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that
this might happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of
what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held
forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly
assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls
of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the
exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire, sleepless worms,
and hellish demons.’
Again, in the book of The Table,
Mohammed says that the Christ asked God for a table and that it was given Him.
For God, he says, said to Him: ‘I have given to thee and thine an incorruptible
table.’ [113]
And again, in the book of The
Heifer, [114] he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because
of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they
be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath
and not to be baptized.
And, while he ordered them to eat
some of the things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain from
others. He furthermore absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.
Endnotes
99. Cf. Gen. 16.8. Sozomen also
says that they were descended from Agar, but called themselves descendants of
Sara to hide their servile origin (Ecclesiastical History 6.38, PG 67.1412AB).
100. The Arabic kabirun means
‘great,’ whether in size or in dignity. Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of
the ‘Heavenly Aphrodite’ but says that the Arabs called her Alilat (Herodotus
1.131)
101. This may be the Nestorian
monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and
claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.
102. Koran, Sura 112.
103. Sura 19; 4.169.
104. Sura 4.156.
105. Sura 5.Il6tf.
106. The manuscripts do not have
the adage, but Lequien suggests this one from Plato.
107. The Ka’ba, called ‘The House
of God,’ is supposed to have been built by Abraham with the help of Ismael. It
occupies the most sacred spot in the Mosque of Mecca. Incorporated in its wall
is the stone here referred to, the famous Black Stone, which is obviously a
relic of the idolatry of the pre-Islam Arabs.
108. Gen. 22.6.
109. Koran, Sura 4.
110. Cf. Sura 2225ff.
111. Sura 2.223.
112. Not in the Koran.
113. Sura 5.114,115.
114. Sura 2.
Sura 91 “The Sun”: reference to
the “Camel of God”
Notes: St. John of Damascus points out
that Muhammad thought that Mary was the sister of Moses. Koran verses 3:35-45,
19:27-28, and 61:6 actually prove that Muhammad believed this and so show that
the Koran is from Muhammad, not God. These verses report, respectively, that
Jesus’ mother Mary was born to a “woman [wife] of the house of Imran” [Moses’
father was ‘Imran’ or ‘Amran’], that Mary was the sister of Aaron [Moses’
brother], and finally that Jesus said he was God’s messenger and that he was
there to confirm “whatever came before me in the Torah” [first five books of
the Bible which Moses is historically considered to have authored] and to
“announce a messenger coming after me named Ahmed” [Muhammad]. Now the Koran
and Islam teach that the Torah was originally true but was corrupted by Moses’
followers. Muslims have to reject the idea that the Koran says Muhammad
believed Moses was Jesus’ uncle, so Muslim apologists claim that “Mary being
born of a woman of the house of Imran” just means that Mary is decendent of
that house or that Mary’s father was named Imran but he wasn’t Moses’ father
and that “Mary sister of Aaron” just means that Mary was born into the priestly
line that Aaron started. The Muslim commentator’s problem really starts,
however, with the Koran passage (61:6) in which Jesus says he was sent to
“confirm the Torah.” If Muhammad thought Moses was Jesus’ uncle and didn’t know
that there were 1200 to 1300 years between them, then that explains why
Muhammad said Jesus came to “confirm the Torah” because Muhammad, the Koran,
and Islam all contradict the Torah and teach that, while the original Torah was
true, it was corrupted by Moses’ subsequent followers. Therefore if Muhammad
believed that Moses and Jesus were contemporaries (uncle and nephew) then Jesus
could confirm the Torah that Moses authored (actually Moses probably presided
over its authorship) but the Torah could still be corrupted soon after Moses.
Some Muslim commentators, who are aware of this big problem, try to separate
the Torah from the Bible by saying that “the Torah” Muhammad refers to is
really an unknown called “the Law of Moses.” Now, it is true that Jews do
sometimes call the Torah the “Law of Moses” but the Torah is still the first
five books of the Bible and nothing else. This subtrafuge really shows how
human beings can deceive themselves when they are deeply into a belief system.
It says flat out that Maryam,
mother of Jesus, is the sister of Aaron and Moses. Various interpretations are
imposed upon the text to make it say otherwise. But the writing itself is
clear. St John was for a time the highest ranking officer in the court at
Damascus. Of course he knew Islam well. This was before the many changes
introduced in the Abbasid period. It’s not surprising that a description of
this new religion at such an early stage of its development would be quite
different from the later, more fully developed religion known to us. Lastly,
Uthman was an Umayyad. The Koran does imply that Mary the mother of Jesus was
the literal sister of Moses and Aron. If the Koran wanted to imply some other
form of geneological kinship it would have used the term ‘daughter’ of Moses
not sister.
Also the term saracen is used
correctly by St John. The terms ‘Hagarene’, ‘Ishmaelites’ and ‘Saracens’ were common
references to arabs by greek-christians . He uses christian understanding of
the origin of the arabs popular in his time. Pre-Islamic Arabs did not
associate themselves as hagarenes or ishmaelites or even saracens. Saracens was
a tribe distinct from the arabs used exclusively by the romans to describe the
non-arab natives of a city called Saraka, but by the time of Ioanis Malalas the
chronicler, in the early 6th century, the term saracen applied to all arabs,
with all three terms of hagarene, ishmaelite and saracen being tied up with the
biblical story.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento