Paul Ulishney: New Evidence for Conversion to Islam in Anastasius of Sinai’s Hodegos

Paul Ulishney, "New Evidence for Conversion to Islam in Anastasius of Sinai’s Hodegos," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 78 (2024), 29-48.

 

Abstract:

Contrary to the judgment of earlier scholars, who suggested that all that could be found concerning early Islam in the writings of Anastasius of Sinai had already been discovered, this article unearths new evidence for conversion to Islam in Anastasius’s Hodegos: a list of aporiai raised by those “who now apostatize from Christianity.” I argue that these apostates should be understood as Christian converts to Islam, and that the aporiai themselves shed new light on the nature and content of the earliest Christian–Muslim disputations. In the context of other evidence for early Islamic belief in other seventh-century Christian authors, Anastasius’s aporiai distinguish themselves by offering evidence for the actual intellectual content of Christian–Muslim disputation, rather than words put into the mouths of fictional Muslim interlocutors. The unique nature of this evidence also parochializes traditional conceptions of Christian–Muslim disputation in the Middle Ages, i.e., that of the “monk in the emir’s majlis.” Instead, they offer us a likelier portrait of what Christian–Muslim disputations may have looked like in the earliest days: Greek-speaking converts to Islam engaging in aporetic questioning on the subject of the Greek Christian scriptures with members of their old faith.

Read the full article here.

  

Fr. Georges Massouh on Christians' Right to Reject Islamic Law (2013)

 Arabic original here. This is from 2013, but extremely pertinent today.


To those who do not want to congratulate Christians on their feasts

In recent days, voices have been raised reminding Muslims of the impermissibility of congratulating Christians on their feasts. We respect the freedom of those who call on their coreligionists to not be attracted toward "infidels" under the guise of congratulating Christians on their infidel feasts. Religions are a private matter for those who belong to them, and we won't give anyone lessons on the soundness or unsoundness of the rulings they make about lifestyle and behavior.

However, if the discourse of these zealots for their faith is to be fair, they must refrain from inundating us, day and night, with talk of Islam's tolerance and openness and they must refrain from citing verses from the Qur'an that talk about respect human diversity and religious differences as being God's way. As they understand it, what is the meaning of the Qur'anic verse "O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct" (Surat al-Hujrat 13)? What is the meaning of the love that the Qur'an commands to Muslims when it says, "Thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud" (Surat al-Ma'ida 82)?

In reality, Middle Eastern Christians' concern is not for respecting social niceties and the exchange of greetings between Christians and Muslim, but rather that their rights to a life of dignity with their Muslim partners in a civil state and to complete equality between all citizens of the single country be respected.

Muslim-Christian relations cannot be reduced to photo-ops that gather a sheikh or mufti with a patriarch of bishop on religious occasions, but rather they are based on mutual respect within a state in which one religious group does not impose its law on other groups under the pretext that they are a majority and others are a minority.

Even if non-Muslims do not have the right to discuss the propriety of Muslims' congratulating Christians on their feasts, they do have the natural right to refuse the imposition of Islamic law as the primary source for their country's constitution. In a discussion that took place at a panel on Muslim-Christian dialog, one of the Muslims asked me how I, as a non-Muslim, can have the right to object to "the position of non-Muslims in Islamic law" when it is, in his opinion, a purely Islamic matter. I told him that this issue concerns me too, since it talks about me, so how do you have the right to prevent me from rejecting the legal restrictions that you draw up for me? I closed by saying that those who work for the return of Islamic law as the organizing principle for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims are acting according to the logic of the ancient conquests. That is, according to domination based on the absolute sovereignty of a group that is victorious in war over a group that is occupied and not a partner in the nation.

That some of them do not congratulate Christians on their feasts does nothing to diminish Christians' divine joy that is based on the presence of the Master of the feast among them. Christmas, Epiphany, the Transfiguration, the Cross, the Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost... these are occasions for them to rejoice in Christ their Redeemer. "Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice" (Philippians 4:4). We will not beg for the courtesies of this world that are called the exchange of greetings, although we have heartfelt appreciation for those who do not heed the call to cut themselves off and so congratulate the Christians every year according to their custom. However, we will not keep silent from demanding our right to a just state based on citizenship and total equality of rights and responsibilities among individuals within the one nation.

Fr Georges Massouh: Joseph of Damascus, Imam of the Christians

Arabic original here. This essay is taken from his book Here and Now.

Joseph of Damascus, Imam of the Christians

The Holy Martyr Joseph of Damascus, whose name was Father Yusuf Muhanna al-Haddad, was a victim of the sectarian massacres that took place in Damascus on July 10, 1860. His vita, which was edited by Archimandrite Touma (Bitar) in his book Forgotten Saints in the Antiochian Heritage, states that one of his killers shouted when he saw him, "This is the imam of the Christians! If we kill him, we kill all the Christians with him!"

The killers did not know that they could not eliminate the Christians if they killed their imam. The Jews who killed Christ thought that by crucifying him they would save their nation. Their leader said, "It is better that one man should die for the people," and he was disappointed. Killing Christ did not stop Christianity from spreading to every corner of the inhabited world. If plants need water in order to grow and bear fruit, then the Church needs the blood of her martyrs in order to live, sprout, and bear fruit in the saints.

No one can accuse everyone who belongs to the killers' religion of being a partner or accomplice in the massacres Historical studies and documents prove with no room for doubt that many of the Muslims from Damascus and elsewhere, such as the Emir Abdelkader al-Jazairi, helped to save Christians fleeing from the rampaging mob and its leaders. We likewise cannot ignore the fact that some Muslims in many eras down to our present day have been victims of sectarian violence and massacres committed by Christian mobs.

For over a hundred and fifty years at the least, our countries in the Arab Middle East have been witnessed sectarian incidents, in which the extremists make history while the impact of those who call for openness, diversity and respect for the other is completely absent. In every internal crisis, the discourse of sectarian mobilization has the greatest role, which leads to the absence of the voice of reason and the domination of primitive instincts. It is well-known that reason is one of man's attributes, while man shares the instincts with other creatures that crawl upon the earth, swim in the water, and fly through the air.

The state of our country today is no different from how it has been for a long time. Those who have a say today are the extremists who do not hesitate to commit the most heinous crimes under the pretext of defending the dignity of their religion, sect or community. Nor are those who call themselves "secular" innocent of exploiting their religious affiliation in order to themselves commit sectarian massacres against those who disagree with them. All of them, without exception, resort to religious extremism, takfir, and demonization in order to tighten their grip on the country's livelihood and the necks of its people.

Joseph of Damascus is not an isolated case in the history of this region, either before or after his time. Perhaps our fate is that our innocents will pay the price of the extremists' hatred, no matter what group they belong to. Just as the killers of Joseph of Damascus were not able to eliminate his Christians, criminals will not be able to eliminate any of the country's religious groups or its diversity. But the price for remaining seems very high, as we anticipate offering other Josephs on the altar of martyrdom. Nothing will change this inevitable fate unless it is a return to the humanity within us and an end to the inhuman instincts that are empowered within some of us.

Patriarch John X visits Eastern Ghouta

Arabic original, with video, here.

Patriarch John X makes a Visit inspecting Arbin and Harasta in Eastern Ghouta

To Arbin, Patriarch John X carried his shepherd's staff to inspect what had been left by terror. He carried his staff to affirm that the Christian and the Muslim are the two lungs of this Middle East, especially in this country that is a symbol of mutual brotherhood and coexistence.

Patriarch John X and the accompanying delegation started the first stops of their inspection at the Greek Orthodox Church of Saint George, where he was greeted in the outer courtyard of the church by the imam of the Great Mosque in Arbin, Sheikh Ihsan al-Sayyid Hasan, town officials, and parishoners who came to witness the dawning of resurrection. There Patriarch John X said:

"The Church shall remain a witness to the Lord Jesus Christ. She shall remain steadfast in the living faith of her people. Strong winds will not be able to uproot her from this holy land.

We live in Syria as one family, Christians and Muslims. Nothing divides us. We will work hand in hand to rebuild stones and humans all at once. The strange, barbaric spirit of terrorism that destroyed these abodes is a spirit foreign to Syrian culture. It shall find no refuge in this loving country. Therefore we have come today to affirm before all that we are steadfastly remaining and tomorrow shall be better than yesterday.

Syria is a country of peace and coexistence. Syria has been and shall remain the homeland of mutual encounter. Our people are a loving, believing, honest people, who are committed to their faith and always come together in the truth."

In response, Sheikh Ihsan al-Sayyid Hasan thanked His Beatitude, stating that Christians and Muslims in Arbin are brothers and that dark clouds will not be able to sow the seeds of division and promising that life will return to the town, it will be reborn and that this rebirth is close by.

After that, His Beautitude inspected the Great Mosque in Arbin, which was completely destroyed with only the minaret left standing. Patriarch John X then headed to Harasta at the head of a church delegation to inspect the Church of the Prophet Elijah, which was completely destroyed. He regretted what had been done to it by the hand of terror and the language of destruction, which has nothing to do with religion or morals. His Beatitude affirmed, however, that in the end, everything will return-- churches, mosques and homes-- and that this return will be realized through the love and mutual support of the people of Harasta, both Christians and Muslims.

His Beatitude then inspected the tombs that had been defiled by the hand of terror. Patriarch John X likewise inspected the al-Zahra Mosque, observing the extent of the destruction to which it had been subjected.

Fr Georges Massouh: John the Baptist or the Prophet Yahya?

Arabic original here. All Qur'anic passages are taken from Tarif Khalidi's translation.

John the Baptist or the Prophet Yahya?

The text of the Qur'an presents three key figures who appear in the New Testament: Jesus Christ, His mother Mary, and Saint John the Baptist, who is the seal of the prophets for Christians. In what follows, we will examine the figure of John, Yahya in the Qur'an, and his degree of similarity and difference from Yahya in the Islamic tradition.

John the Baptist appears in the Qur'an several times under the name "the Prophet Yahya", which was the usual form for the name John in the Arabian Peninsula before Islam. In Surat al-An'am (83-86), the name Yahya appears in the list that mentions the names of prophets from the Old Testament, from Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David to Zakariya, Isa and Elias... The Qur'an considers all of these to be righteous prophets whom God God to spread His message, guided along the straight path,
and made the most excellent in the universe. I should point out here that this article deals only with the personality of John and not any of the others, so I will not talk about "the Prophet Isa" or, as Christians know Him, the Lord Jesus Christ. That will come in time.

The Qur'an presents the story of John's conception in three different places: in Surat Al 'Imran (83-86), Zakariya asks God to grant him a son, "It was then that Zachariah prayed to his Lord saying: 'My Lord, grant me from on high a blameless progeny. You always hear prayers.'" The angels call out to him, "God brings you glad tidings of the coming of John, confirming the truth with a word from God-- a lord among men, chaste, and a prophet from among the righteous." Most exegetical works say with regard to these two ayas that God brings Zakariya glad tidings of a child, who is Yahya, who will bring glad tidings of the coming of a word from God, which is Isa ibn Maryam. He will be a "lord among men" who "rules his nation with knowledge and virtue", someone who is chaste and "refrains from approaching women", "a good prophet who carries out God's and people's rights and is exempt from sin." It is noteworthy that in this account, when Zakariya asks his Lord to give a sign confirming John's conception, God says to him, "Your sign is that you shall not speak to people for three days, except in gestures. Remember your Lord frequently." The sign of muteness is also mentioned in the Gospel of Luke (1:18-22), not only for three days, but the entire time John was in the womb.

Surat Maryam is the sura that dedicates the largest section to discussing Yahya (ayas 2-15). Zakariya asks God to grant him "a kinsman from on high to be my heir and heir of the House of Jacob, and make him, my Lord, acceptable to You." What is meant here by inheritance is not money, but prophethood and goodness. Surat Maryam then continues, "O Zachariah, We bring you glad tidings of a son, whose name is John. Upon none before him have we bestowed this name." Here the Qur'anic account meets the account in the Gospels, which says, "So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias. His mother answered and said, 'No; he shall be called John.' But they said to her, 'There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name.^' So they made signs to his father—what he would have him called. And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying, 'His name is John.' So they all marveled" (Luke 1:59-63). The Qur'anic text adds, "'O John, take firm hold of the book.' And we granted him sound judgment when still a child." Take firm hold of the book. That is, with seriousness and interpretive effort. We granted him firm judgment when still a child, that is, We gave him the power to understand the secrets of the Torah when still a child, before reaching adulthood.


Surat Maryam continues the description of the figure of Yahya, "And tenderness, from on high, and purity. He was truly a pious man, dutiful toward his parents, and was not arrogant or disobedient." Tenderness from on high (the name John in Hebrew means "God is gracious"), he was not arrogant or disobedient, he was not proud and did not disobey his Lord. Surat Maryam finishes the discussion of Yahya by saying, "Peace be upon him the day he was born, the day he dies and the day he is resurrected, alive!" (aya 15). It is the very same aya that the very same sura attributes to Christ the Lord when he says of himself, "Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I am resurrected, alive! (aya 33). This means, according to Islamic exegesis, that God announces to Yahya and Isa that they will rise on the day of resurrection. This highlights a fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims regarding Christ's resurrection, which Christians believe has truly already taken place.

There is no doubt that the Qur'an, in comparison to the Gospels, recounts only a part of what these Gospels say about Saint John the Baptist. The Qur'an does not mention the event of Jesus' baptism in the Jordan at the hand of John, John's testimony about the Theophany, his preaching that the kingdom of heaven has drawn near, and his decapitation... In its presentation of Yahya, however, the Qur'an does not present anything that contradicts Christian tradition. It remains that the figure of John in the Qur'an is a radiant personality whom Muslims love and hold in esteem. This is what we must see and take into account in order to build and solidify bridges of love between Christians and Muslims.

Fr Georges Massouh: The Hegemony of Obscurantist Thinking

Arabic original here.

The Hegemony of Obscurantist Thinking

When religious thinkers treat various issues in their writings, they often resort to arbitrary comparisons between religions that are without scholarly or methodological value. They likewise fall into the trap of confusing modern concepts and their insistence on these concepts being rooted in their sacred texts. They do not hesitate to say that all contemporary concepts were described in their sacred texts before the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Recently I read a dossier by one of the monthly Arabic journals containing "studies" on the topic of secularism. My attention was drawn to an article by one of the "great Arab thinkers" named Hasan Hanafi, entitled "The Basis of Secularism is in the Noble Qur'an and its Roots are in the Ancient Heritage."This article was illogical, unsystematic and lacked the scholarly foundation demanded of undergraduates (and so how much more should it be required of one of the "intellectual points of reference"!).

There is a deficiency among some thinkers, which is beginning from an inappropriate starting-point. If the rubric for his thinking is "the basis of secularism is in the Qur'an..." then why does he start out with a fierce attack against Christianity as, "the obscurantist, mythological religion, the religion of sin and salvation, of surrounding rational man with a sin he did not commit, the sin of Adam, a salvation he did not work for, and faith in Christ." Does he, for example, want Christians not to believe in Christ? Is he an intellectual or a religious missionary?

On the other hand, Mr Hasan Hanafi says of Islam, "Since Islam is the last of the religions, it contains within itself all the secular values: reason, science, human rights and democratic governance." What is even more surprising is that he said, "If secularism means the centrality of man in the universe, defense of his freedom of will, and the establishment of a free, socialist, democratic society, then these goals spring forth from Islam, since man is God's vicegerent on earth."

Hasan Hanafi does not turn to philosophy, sociology and the other human sciences in order to support his opinion with evidence and logical proofs. Rather, he turns to the Qur'an as the only point of reference to defend his perspective. Hasan Hanafi permits himself to judge Christianity to be an "obscurantist, mythological" religion, while Islam is "the religion of reason." But he quickly falls into a contradiction since he resorts to obscurantist, irrational discourse in order to support his point of view. Or what should we call using Qur'anic verses in a "scholarly study" that does not treat questions of Islamic jurisprudence in worship and ethics, but rather philosophical and intellectual issues with no connection to the Qur'an.

Then we come to the non-obscurantist reality so that perhaps Hasan Hanafi might come to his senses and open his eyes to reality. Theoretical talk is nice. Indeed, it is magnificent. But the reality that refutes the theory makes theoretical discourse sterile and worthless. Where are the intellect, science, human rights and democratic governance in most of our Arab-Islamic countries? The obscurantist mentality dominates an overwhelming majority of our peoples. We are absent from the competition to produce science on the global level. "Human rights" are constantly violated. Democracy is despised by our peoples who are subservient to their rulers.

We're not going to defend Christianity against Islam and we're not going to enter into useless debates and senseless discussions. We understand secularism on the basis of "the separation of the state and religion," which is the only concept that Hanafi did not treat in his "study". The fundamental reason for this lies in confusing scholarly discourse with religious discourse. The beginning of true intellectual activity is separating scholarly discourse and religious discourse.

Fr Georges Massouh: Love is Stronger than Death

Arabic original here.

Love is Stronger than Death

He who loves God sacrifices his entire life, consecrating it to Him. He who loves God strives to constantly abide with Him. He who loves God loves life and does not seek his own death or attempt to hasten it. But he must accept death one day because man cannot live forever. Death becomes for him a transition from life to life. Life on earth becomes a passage to where there is true life. Life on earth becomes a short time in which one is prepared at every moment to face his inevitable destiny. The best preparation is repentance and love for one's neighbor, without which one cannot love God.

It is true that death entered human nature as a punishment from God because of man's fall into sin, but it still contradicts this nature that inclines toward life. So God gave man a covenant and a promise that man would live forever, if he so desired for himself. This human will, whose possessor must refine it so that it will draw closer to God's will, is what made this possible. This correspondence between the two wills, resulting from man's free will, is what makes the encounter between God and man an encounter between lovers who cannot bear to wait for each other.

In this context, we will cite the words of Simeon when he the forty-day old child Jesus in his arms, when Joseph and Mary brought Him to the temple and the Holy Spirit inspired him that he would not taste death before seeing the Lord's Messiah. Simeon said, "Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:29-30).

When Simeon saw Jesus, the Savior, the Messiah he had been promised, he became ready to depart for the next life with great joy. He who loves Jesus does not fear death. In the holy martyrs, we have the best examples of this. Their love for Him made them brave enough to face death with great steadfastness and hope. Their love for Him caused them to not betray His Gospel and His teachings. They did not abandon their principles for the sake of this fleeting life, but rather accepted to abandon this fleeting life even if it cost them their life.

The Islamic tradition also takes this approach. There is a story of the Prophet Ibrahim al-Khalil not mentioned in the Torah that is given by al-Ghazali in his Ihya Ulum al-Din in the chapter "On the Servant's Love for God" which goes as follows: 

Ibrahim (peace be upon him) said to the Angel of Death when he came to him to take his soul, "Have you seen a friend kill his friend?"

God (may He be exalted) inspired [the angel] to say, "Have you seen a lover hate his beloved?"

So Ibrahim said, "O Angel of Death, take me now."

We find a similar saying from the famous sufi Sufyan al-Thawri: "Only the doubter hates death, because in no case does the beloved hate to meet his lover."

The struggle between life and death continues and it will go on so long as this world exists. But life is stronger than death because love is stronger than it. Let us love man and sacrifice ourselves for his sake because whether we are believers, atheists or agnostics, in this way, knowing or unknowing, we are loving God.

Fr Georges Massouh: Eid al-Adha and the Cross

Arabic original here.

Eid al-Adha and the Cross

Eid al-Adha contains numerous symbols that our peoples continue to live. When Ibrahim al-Khalil intended to sacrifice his son-- Isaac for Jews and Christians and Ismail for Muslims-- God stayed his hand and substituted a ram for the sacrificial son. God redeemed the boy, making the point through this religious event that people should no longer make human sacrifices and that they should substitute animal sacrifices for them. Then Christ came and ended animal sacrifice, offering Himself as a sacrifice once and for all for the salvation of humankind.

But bloodthirsty human sacrifices are still practiced here and there. God's intervention with Abraham was of no use because humankind did not want to learn the lesson from it. It is enough for us to observe what is going on around us in order to realize the enormity of what is happening. Sacrifices and human victims are offered on the altar of the ruler or the leader of a group who has taken the place of God for people. They are convinced that they are nothing but sheep prepared for slaughter for the sake of the ruler's life and continued preservation. It is no wonder, then, that we are witnessing a return to the barbarism of sacrifice and useless killing. Those performing the slaughter are the results of our societies overburdened with prejudice and hatred, the results of the religious backwardness that has led us away from the weightiest thing to which God has called us: mercy.

The problem lies at root in religious education that makes children into followers of a god manufactured by the lusts and hatreds of their fathers. So we can say that children have not been liberated from the perversions of their fathers, but rather have become overjoyed at being prisoners and slaves to them. The fathers feast on their thrones, fashioning from their followers the plans of butchers and suicide-bombers.

Solely with regard to Christianity, the symbolism is not limited to violent bloodshed, after having been so over the course of history. Rather, it includes every sort of spiritual, moral and verbal violence. This spiritual violence, even if it does not include bloodshed, perhaps has a result similar to murder, murder of the spirit, which Christ said is more serious than the death of the body. What can we call a spiritual son who has done away with his freedom and his intellect, handing himself over to a father who has not attained, nor will attain, perfect immunity from sin. "For no man lives and does not sin." He receives all his directions from him without discussion, as though they were the orders of Christ Himself.

If the relationships stays between the father and his son, then the situation is better than if the son wields over society and people his father's absolute authority over him. I once heard, when I was a theology student, a heated debate between two of my colleagues over whose spiritual father was better. Belonging to a spiritual father, then, becomes an affiliation with a party that promotes its president into the image of God. The father does not hesitate to sacrifice his children in order to defend himself, even at the expense of the Gospel's teachings. True spiritual fatherhood is for the father to sacrifice himself for his children even to the point of death, not for him to sacrifice his children.

The Lord said, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." The cross, for Christians, is the most sublime sacrifice [Arabic: adha], and Christ Himself is the sacrificial victim. For someone to deny himself means that he does not believe that he is indispensable and that he imitates Christ, satisfied to be crucified like his Teacher. So if someone wants to follow Christ, he must sacrifice himself in order to become another Christ.

Fr Georges Massouh: The Levantine Flavor

Arabic original here.

The Levantine Flavor

Leave aside religions, their teachings and their dogmas when you want to talk about the behavior of their adherents in history. All of them-- without regard for what their holy texts and religious traditions say-- are equal in righteousness or blameworthiness. Most of them subordinate their religious texts to the service of their greed, personal interests, and whims, to the point of making good evil and evil good.

The behavior of believers, especially in social and political matters, is not based on rules rooted in what their texts say, positively or negatively. Rather, it is based on what the interests of secular and religious leaders require. No religious or dogmatic reading of texts can claim neutrality because they are usually forced to take into consideration the inclinations and desires of rulers before issuing rulings or deciding between permissible and impermissible.

The religious reading of texts is not comprehensive. Instead it is selective and does not take into account the various aspects of interpreting any text in terms of justifications, rationales and contexts... Most who desire to support their opinions with religious text simply go to their books and their written tradition in order to select something that gives them additional proofs to support their pre-existing position and ignore what might be contrary to their opinion. So they don't look for what their religious texts are saying to them in all their aspects, but rather only look for what sates their whims and inclinations or what pleases their rulers and patrons.

Religious rulings and attitudes toward them change, even within a single denomination, with the changing of time, governments, and circumstances. The sole constant is dogma and worship. The rest is neither fixed nor essential and is subject to modification. If we take as an example the Crusades, the Latin Church considered them to be holy wars and their legitimacy with support from the Bible and the Christian religious tradition, but now it considers them to have been a historic error for which it must apologize to Muslims...

So we will state once more that Christianity is not one in historical experience, nor is Islam. For this reason we can talk about a historical experience by which Muslims and Christians from the Levant are distinct from other Muslims and Christians, due to a number of considerations:

1) The Levant witnessed the birth of Christianity and its roots go deep into the Levantine consciousness. The roots of Levantine Christianity are for the most part Arab and Aramaean (i.e., Syriac and Assyrian), while Greek culture predominated in the cities due to the Byzantine Empire's dominance at that time. This cultural diversity, alongside the presence of an Arab element and the transfer of the caliphate to Damascus under the Umayyads and a Levantine way of life differing from the predominant way of life in the Arabian Peninsula helped establish relations between Muslims and Christians that are different from relations in other countries and regions.

2) The Levant differs from the Arabian Peninsula, especially the region of Hijaz, the cradle of Islam, where the Christian presence was weak and dominated by scattered groups lacking the culture of the people of the Levant in their various denominations, alongside a predominant Jewish presence, which Islam distinguished somewhat from its view of Christians, or, in the language of Islam, the Nasara.

3) The Levant is that land that has witnessed the most important Islamic and Arab revival over the course of the centuries, since the most important translation movement, for the most part undertaken by Christians, started there and science and philosophy was transmitted from Greek, Persian and Sanskrit into Arabic, causing Muslims and Arabs to be more scientifically advanced than others. The Christian presence at that time was useful for the Islamic state and this lent a sort of Levantine flavor to relations between Muslims and Christians.

4) Over thirteen centuries of Islamic rule, Levantine Christians did not establish their own states and most of them-- particularly residents of cities-- did not fight alongside invaders, particularly the Franks, against the Islamic state. Therefore we can talk about the particularity of Christian-Muslim relations in the Levant.

These are some observations that have permitted us to say that Levantine Islam is different from other Islams, just as Antiochian (Levantine) Christianity is different from other Christianities. For this reason it is not possible to make an analogy on the basis of good or bad relations between Muslims and Christians in one specific geographic region and generalize it to all regions of the world. This is the Levant and this is its true spirit and it will not be ended.

Fr Georges Massouh: Syrian Islam and Syrian Christianity

Arabic original here.

Syrian Islam and Syrian Christianity

When dealing with questions of Muslim-Christian relations, the following observations must be taken into consideration:

1) Relations between Muslims and Christians, their flourishing and deterioration, are not necessarily based on the religious and legal rules of the Islamic and Christian religions. To put it another way, it is not possible to talk about Christian-Muslim relations solely on the basis of what religious texts say.

2) Distinctions must be made between historical experiences in various places and times. It is not possible to generalize specific events that happened in particular places and times to every place and time.

3) Historical Christianity is not one nor is historical Islam one. It is not possible to talk about Christians in general or Muslims in general as though they were a compact bloc with absolutely no diversity. Any religious has various aspects across various denominations, countries and times.

We started our article today by presenting these three observations before we attempt to correct certain objections provoked by our article "A Conspiracy against Christians?!" (an-Nahar, June 10, 2017), where we stated, "Christians will not be eliminated from their homelands so long as they do not contribute to the elimination of their existence and presence. Christians have lived under the Islamic state for thirteen centuries without leaving their country. It is not true that they all took refuge in fortified mountains for fear of being killed by Muslims, since most Christians lived in cities, mixing with Muslims and sharing a common life with them."

When we said this, we were simply presenting historical realities that continue until now. The Christian presence in Damascus, Aleppo, Homs, Tripoli, Jerusalem and other cities of the Levant has been uninterrupted from the rise of Islam until the present day. Thus there is no comparison between the historical experience in the Levant, where the Christian presence is continuous, and North Africa or Turkey, where the Christian presence has gone extinct.


It is also not possible to reduce the extinction of Christianity in North Africa or Turkey to the religious factor alone. The reductionist view is blind and distorts the facts. Among the reasons for the end of Christianity in North Africa is that the alliance between the religious authorities and the temporal authorities in Rome against the the native people of the country (the Berbers), in terms of the exploitation of lands  and preventing the natives from access to the necessities of life, particularly the exploitation of African grain for distribution to the people of Rome and starving the Africans, the imposition of an oppressive taxation system, is part of what inspired a hatred for Rome and the institution of the Church among the Africans. This is what led the Africans to adopt the new religion as it arrived in their country, since they saw in it an escape from those who were greedy for the riches of their lands (see Fr Paul Decizier, SJ The Reasons for the Disappearance of Christianity in North Africa after the Arab Conquest, Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1993, pp. 14-16 [in Arabic]).

As for Turkey, after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, the Christian presence in Asia Minor began to decline. However, Ataturkist "secularism" was no better for Christians than Ottoman Islam. Those who survived the injustice of the sultanate were defeated by hard-line Turkish nationalism with the complicity of the West, especially of France which stripped Antioch and its surroundings (the Province of Alexandretta) from Syria and gifted it to Kemalist Turkey. Here we can mention the role of France, Russia and other countries in the elimination of Armenians, Syriacs, and Greek Orthodox from the whole of Turkey, from Anatolia, Cappadocia, Cilicia and Antioch to every city and village. As for Palestine, where at the beginning of the 20th century Christians constituted around twenty percent of the population, it was Israel that put an end to them and not the caliphate that had ruled the country for thirteen centuries.

Researchers unanimously agree that the extinction of Christianity in these countries is due to numerous causes: political, religious, social, cultural and economic and it is not possible to blame this extinction on a single cause, the spread of Islam or Islamic intolerance. It is true that in some periods, the intolerance of Islamic rulers led to persecutions of Christians, but other reasons also led them to abandon the faith of their fathers and forefathers or to abandon their countries.

In closing, it is necessary to admit the fact that Syrian Islam is different from other Islams, just as Antiochian (Syrian) Christianity is different from other Christianities. Therefore, we still believe in the permanence of the Christian presence in this country and in the possibility of establishing ideal, exemplary relations between the Muslims and Christians of this country on the basis of complete citizenship and respect for equality and general freedoms. We will say once again that Christian-Muslim partnership is an inevitable fate, at least with regard to Christians if they hold fast to remaining in their country, where Muslims and Christians mix no matter what the price.

Fr Georges Massouh: Beware of Religious Nationalisms

Arabic original here.

Beware of Religious Nationalisms

Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim (d. 2012) believed that the chief task of Arab Christians lies in translating Christianity for the Arab world, a Christianity that addresses the Arab mind and Arab culture. By this he did not mean translating ancient, particularly Greek, texts into Arabic, but rather by this call he meant that "we arrive at there being a Christianity in which the one being addressed is the Arab person." In his opinion, Christianity is still intellectually closed-off and "Christians still speak to Christians, as though they were living in a bygone era." Therefore, Hazim believed that "our duty is to be able to speak to Muslims" (Ignatius IV, Mawaqif wa-Aqwal, Balamand University, 2001, p. 103). The question then for him is a question of formulating Christian discourse in clear Arabic language that reaches the mind of the Arab and also his heart.

Patriarch Hazim is a great figure of the Orthodox Church who contributed to the Church's revival during the second half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century. He played a major role in ecumenical work and the rapprochement between the churches, especially in the World Council of Churches and the Middle Eastern Council of Churches and he was open to dialogue with Muslims about fundamental issues with which people are occupied in their daily lives. For this reason, he set his sights on working for a Christianity that speaks in Arabic and is understood by Christians, Muslims, Jews and all those who live in the Arab world.

Hazim did not speak of "Arab nationalism," but he did speak of "Arab Christians" and did not attack Arab nationalism. He was not an Arab nationalist, but he was an Arab and he did not boycott Arab nationalists. The priority for him was Christ and His Church and therefore he did not believe in other ideologies that might hide Christ from others. For him, the Arabic language was a means and not an end in itself. It is a means for conveying Christ as Christians believe in Him to the hearts and minds of Muslims. The Arabic language is the vehicle of Christian evangelism in this region because it is the language shared with the majority of Muslims.

Some Christians in our country, rejecting any common denominator with non-Christians, claim that their roots are non-Arab and this is their own affair that we will not discuss here. At the same time, they claim that they have nothing to do with anything that is Arab, since they are Greek-Byzantine-Romans, Syriac-Assyrian-Chaldean-Arameans, or Phoenician Maronites, and God knows best... All of them criticize any national belonging, affirming their ecclesio-cultural choices while adopting a religious nationalism that is closed in on itself. They flee from a nationalism that brings Muslims and Christians together to a unilateralist nationalism that only unites them with members of their sect. A nationalist ideology in the face of a nationalist ideology!

In reality, this nationalism resembles nothing other than Jewish religious nationalism. About this, Patriarch Hazim said, "Those who isolate themselves, whoever they may be, internalize a sort of admission that they are 'God's own chosen people.' This is what the Jews fell into doing, but Christians may also fall into this and Muslims may fall into it as well. Therefore in this region we must a laboratory in which no one may isolate himself, lest each community come to reject the other communities and instead of being receptive to them and dialoguing with them."

The only thing that distinguishes Arab Christians from other Christians in the world is their Arabic language, which makes them responsible for conveying Christ to all who speak it. Is it possible in our country to spread the Good News of Christ in Greek, Aramaic, Armenian or any other ancient language? We are proud of our Church's history, her heritage and her ancient language, but we do not want to kill our present and our present mission in order to revive languages that make us prisoners to history.

Fr Georges Massouh: Christianity in the Cradle of Islam

Arabic original here.

Christianity in the Cradle of Islam

Muslim historians testify to the presence of Christianity in the Arabian Peninsula from its start and spread at the hands of the Apostles. Here we will only present the presence of Christianity in Mecca, the cradle of Islam. Christianity entered the Hijaz, the region that includes Mecca, Yathrib (Medina), Taif, and other cities, at the beginning of the Christian era.

Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Khaldun and others recount that the sixth of the kings of Jurham, whose reign began shortly before the appearance of Christianity, was called by a Christian name, Abd al-Masih bin Baqiya bin Jurham, which means that Christianity entered the Hijaz very shortly after the beginning of Christianity. In his Book of Songs, al-Isfahani states that under the descendants of Jurham, the Bayt al-Haram (the Kaaba) "had a storehouse, a well into which were thrown jewelry and heirlooms that were offered to it, and at that time the bishop (the imam and religious leader of the Christians) was over it."

No doubt the most important testimony to a Christian presence in Mecca shortly before Islam is what appears in the Book of Reports about Mecca of Ibn al-Walid Muhammad bin Abdallah bin Ahmad al-Azraqi, where it states that on the columns of the Kaaba there were "images of the prophets, images of the tree, images of the angels, the image of Abraham, the Friend of the Merciful, and the image of Jesus, son of Mary. Then al-Azraqi mentions that Muhammad, on the day he conquered Mecca, "ordered that all these images be whitewashed, and they were whitewashed. He placed his arms of the image of Jesus son of Mary and his mother (peace be upon them) and said, 'Erase all the images except for what is under my hands,' and he lifted his hands [to reveal] Jesus son of Mary and his mother." The image was destroyed more than sixty years after the conquest of Mecca, in the time of Abdallah ibn al-Zubayr who fought against the Umayyad Caliphate. The Umayyads laid siege to Mecca under the leadership of al-Hajjaj, who did not hesitate to bombard the city with catapults and destroy the Kaaba.

Some Muslim historians speak of part of Quraysh having become Christian. Al-Ya'qubi confirms this in his History and says, "As for those from among the Arabs who became Christians, there was part of the Quraysh, from among the descendants of Asad bin Abd al-Uzza, including Uthman bin al-Huwayrith bin Asad and Waraqa bin Nawfal bin Asad." Likewise, in Ibn Hisham's Life of the Prophet it says of Waraqa that he "converted to Christianity, read the scriptures and listened to the people of the Torah and the Gospel." It also mentions Ubayd Allah bin Jahsh bin Riab, who immigrated to Ethiopia some some of Muhammad's followers. When he arrived there, he converted to Christianity and left Islam. There is also the famous story of Abu Qays bin Sarima bin Abi Anis, who was said by Ibn al-Athir to have "become a monk in the period before Islam and to have put on sackcloth." Among evidence for Christian monuments in Mecca, there is what al-Azraqi said about the presence of "the cemetery of the Christians, on the hill at the bottom of which is Mecca, on the right going out towards Medina."

What we have presented above, especially the fact that an image of the Lord Christ and His mother remained in the Kaaba, confirms the continuation of Christian existence in the Arabian Peninsula in general and Mecca in particular for almost a century. It is certain that the prophet of Islam allowed Christians to remain in Mecca, as evidenced by the statement of Abu Yusuf in his Kitab al-Kharaj that Muhammad "levied a tax of one dinar per year on the Christians of Mecca." As for the disappearance of Christianity from the Arabian Peninsula, this is a story for another time.

*My article "Arabism as a Christian Choice" provoked many questions among its readers. Therefore I will present from time to time various aspects of Arab Christianity.

Fr Georges Massouh: Is ISIS a face of Islam?!

Arabic original here.

Is ISIS a face of Islam?!

If Muslims don't defend Islam against members of their religion who hurt it, then who will defend it? How can Muslims be pleased with crimes against humanity committed by other Muslims under the pretext that they, like themselves, testify that "there is no god but God"? How can they remain silent in the face of grievous sins committed in the name of their God?

What led me to pose these questions is a statement by a moderate Islamic authority, Sheikh Rached Ghannouchi, leader of the Tunisian Ennahda Movement and author of the book Islam and General Freedoms (Markaz Dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiyya, 1993), in which he says that one cannot declare members of ISIS to be unbelievers, adding that we cannot declare anyone who says "there is no god but God" to be an unbeliever (the statement made on October 16, 2016).

 As al-Ghannouchi opined on the sidelines of the meeting of the Ennahda Movement's consultative council, ISIS is in a "tense and angry state." He explained that "I am not searching for a justification for them. They are an image of the angry Islam that has escaped from reason and wisdom." He pointed out that "We are Sunnis. We do not declare anyone who says 'there is no god but God' to be an unbeliever, but rather we say to him, 'You are unjust, a sinner, a radical, an extremist.'"

Is it not excusing ISIS's actions to say that they result from an "angry Islam," that ISIS is one of the acceptable faces of Islam? And consequently, that what ISIS members are doing is unambiguously legitimate? If what they are doing were not Islamic, then it would be the duty of Ghannouchi and other Muslim intellectuals to condemn ISIS's actions as clearly outside of true Islam.

Ghannouchi's opinion also causes us to wonder, if not to call into question, what remains of that which distinguishes the discourse of the moderates on the one hand from the discourse of the extremists on the other? The moderate approaches his discourse to that of the extremist to the point that they almost become identical, with even more of an impact on his followers because it is coming from a major authority whose opinions guide many people, not from everyday or marginal clerics with little serious influence.



It seems that, following the "Arab Spring", we have reached the end of what religious etiquette calls Islamic moderation. The confessional sifting that is seen in some confessionally-diverse Arab countries-- among them Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Bahrein-- is pushing many confessional authorities to slide toward more radicalism, to the point of takfirism. In countries devoid of confessional diversity, things are the same. The ascendancy of radicals and Salafists that is being witnessed in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, for example, is also grist for the mill of destroying what we saw to be promising signs in that Spring, especially since the initial spark was in Tunis.
What is noteworthy is that Ghannouchi's words, in addition to being an expression of a profound crisis in Islamic thought (and particularly, the thought of the Muslim Brotherhood)-- is an expression of an intolerable duplicity. At their most recent congress (May 2016), the Ennahda Movement announced that they have adopted the model of a civil party based on democratic authority in the modern sense and the distinction (but not the separation) of their political activity and their religious activity. So which Ghannouchi should we believe?
We also know that the majority of ISIS's victims are innocent Muslims who do not support them, who also testify that "there is no god but God," so how is it possible to defend ISIS's Islam? It is unfortunate that we non-Muslims who are bound to Muslims by bonds of love and national partnership are sometimes more eager to protect the image of Islam than some Muslims.

as-Safir: The Church and Ramadan in Lattakia

Arabic original here.


The Church and Ramadan in Lattakia: 
Sharing the Loaf in this Good Country

by Bilal Salitin

Since the beginning of Ramadan, Georgette has been working with a group of women to prepare food for people who are fasting at the kitchen of the Church of Saint Barbara in the Ali Jamal neighborhood of Lattakia, which every day prepares hundreds of meals that are distributed to the needy.

The kitchen is part of a series of initiatives that have been launched in Syria with the start of the month of fasting and has been taken up by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East in cooperation with the local community in the coastal province, which has witnessed significant community activities of late.

Every day, the kitchen offers hundreds of hot meals before the time for breaking the fast, so that they will be on the tables of those fasting, both those newly-arrived in Lattakia and native residents. The meals vary daily and include rice and bulghur plates, freekeh and mansaf, alongside dates and yogurt, the favorite food during Ramadan.

The kitchen's work regimen is based on fixed principles that do not require those who are fasting to come in order to get their meal. Instead, they are brought to their homes by a group of volunteers who go around target neighborhoods, handing out cards to specific families in cooperation with local leaders and the imams of mosques. The following day, they come back with meals that are delivered and they take back the cards in order to distribute them to other families the next day, such that those who benefit change every day and the geographic area of those who receive food is widened.

The kitchen carries many messages. Its operators have given it the name "Sahn [dish]," which they follow with "from the goodness of this good country." Mike Awad, one of the volunteers in this initiative, says that "this country is rich in natural goods and human giving. We are not offering what we offer at the kitchen in our own name or in the name of the Patriarchate, but in the name of Syria and the Syrians."

Katia Khasho, who lost her son during the Syrian War, is eager to be with her colleagues in the kitchen on the anniversary of his passing, which this year falls on the third day of Ramadan, to cook food with them, pack it, and distribute it with her own hands. Khasho tells as-Safir, "The best thing I can do for the soul of my son is to volunteer to serve Syrians and to do everything in my ability for the comfort and happiness of the children of my country. This kitchen run by the Patriarchate has given me the opportunity to take on this role, with great happiness."

This initiative embraces volunteers from all religions and communities who share in efforts that are in creating in strength thanks to the local community, which offers its support. Fasting does not prevent volunteer Nour Matraji from taking part in this work, which gives her "increased capacity for patience and work."

The Patriarchate's initiative is not unique in Latttakia, as several similar initiatives and open kitchens have developed, but its particularity lies in the fact that it is an initiative from the Church, while war rages and the weight of incitement multiplies.

The priest George Hosh states that "This is our Middle Eastern culture. Today the Orthodox Church is not just for the Christians, but for all Syrians, whose pain she regards as her own pain."

Hosh adds, "What the Patriarchate is doing is part of Middle Easterners' culture of a shared life, which goes back in history to Patriarch Gregory [IV Haddad] the Damascene, who distributed bread to Muslims and Christians when Damascus was under siege from the French. He insisted on this, despite the threat of the patriarchate's stores running out of flout. His motto then was sharing the loaf between the children of the same country and the good land."

It should be mentioned that charity meals during Ramadan are considered a community tradition in which Syrians have persisted for decades. Despite the difficulty of present circumstances, civil society and religious organizations in Lattakia are offering thousands of meals to those who are fasting every day.

Fr Georges Massouh: The Incarnation is the Fruit of God's Generosity

Arabic original here.

The Incarnation is the Fruit of God's Generosity

Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is the pre-existent  Word of God and that He Himself took a body from the Virgin Mary and became perfect man without abandoning His divinity: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled" (1 John 1:1). From its founding, the Church has combated heresies and innovations that claimed that Christ did not take a real body, but rather "an appearance of a body" or "a semblance of a body."

The issue of the incarnation has occupied a distinguished place in Christian-Muslim debate (and dialogue), both ancient and modern. It is still, in the present day, at the top of the list of theological problems on which Christianity and Islam cannot find points of agreement. To say that the Word of God became incarnate as a human being and that the Word is perfect God and perfect man, is not palatable to Islamic thought, which regards the Qur'an as the pre-eternal, uncreated speech of God. Christianity, on the other hand, says that since Christ is the incarnate Word of God, the fullness of divinity dwelled in Him bodily.

When they discuss the incarnation of the Word, Arab Christian writers are in agreement that the incarnation is the fruit of divine generosity. The philosopher Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn Adi al-Suryani al-Tikriti (d. 974) says, "The most excellent of those who are generous is the one who is generous with the most excellent things in existence. The most excellent thing in existence is the being of the Creator. So it was necessary for the Creator to generously give Himself to us, and this was through His connecting to us." God, who is not only generous but the most excellent of those who are generous, must give Himself generously because that is the best thing in existence. Therefore, He generously bestowed Himself upon human nature, honoring it and raising it up to the divine presence, uniting to it when He became man.

Theodore Abu Qurrah, the 9th century Orthodox bishop of Harran, states that the first reason for the incarnation is for God to draw near to man so that man might be able to come to know God. The second reason, which is no less important, is to redeem man and save him from the devil's grip. For this reason, "God sent His Word and His Spirit to the pure virgin Mary and she bore the light of God which is of God and He appeared incarnate (...) and the Word of God came to be in the likeness of man, without sin, even as He is divine. Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit [this is a deliberate echo of an expression from the Qur'an]. He is of His essence and substance-- Creator, not creature."

Ammar al-Basri, a writer of the 9th century, believes that the incarnation is God's honoring man. He says, "God's generosity, honor, goodness and mightiness, which called Him to bring forth out of nothing, establish and create, are what finally called Him to perfect His charity through His becoming incarnate as a human from His creation. This caused for humankind by His becoming incarnate as a human the lot of His sonship and the sublimity of His lordship." Therefore, the Word has taken a body and through addressed people directly because human nature is the best place for the divine to be revealed. Ammar believes that the incarnation of the divine Word is "the most fitting to God's excellence and generosity and is a clearer expression of His generosity towards them and His honoring them than His appearance (in the Old Testament) in a house of stone, an ark of wood, a lowly bush, and a cloud."

As for Paul, the 13th century Orthodox bishop of Sidon, he regarded the incarnation as the best way that God chose in order to connect to man and to transmit the heavenly message to him. He says, "Because God is generous, it was necessary for Him to be generous with the  most sublime thing in existence. There is nothing more sublime than His Word, that is, His reason. Therefore, it was necessary that He be generous with His word, so that He would be the most generous of those who are generous. Thuis it was necessary for Him to take on a tangible being in order to show His power and generosity through it. Since among the creatures there was none nobler than man, He took on human nature from the purified Lady Mary, chosen over all the women of the world."

The Arab Christian writers criticize those who reject belief in the incarnation of the Word and regard the position of those who reject it as stemming from the miserliness with which man responds to God's generosity. In this regard, Yahya ibn Adi says, "If his connecting with us is possible, if we have in it the ultimate honor, and if He has in it the perfection of generosity, then nothing could prevent it apart from inability or miserliness. These two things are attributes of imperfection and He is greater than such things. Therefore He must connect to us." Ammar al-Basri presents the same proof when he says, "Why are do withhold from your  your Creator that He bring you to the apex of His generosity and His honor-- though it does not diminish His kingship and authority, just as it does not diminish His honor that He has offered you-- as though you want to make Him your equal in miserliness?" 

According to Christian theology, Christmas, which we are making are pilgrimage towards, is the feast of the divine incarnation. The most beautiful gift that God has honored us with is His only-begotten Son, who was born in a lowly manger for animals. Those to whom the gift was first sent rejected it, apart from a very tiny few. In the icon of the Nativity, we see a bull and a donkey surrounding the baby Jesus to warm Him. They symbolize the prophecy from the Old Testament, "The ox knows its owner and the donkey its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, My people do not consider” (Isaiah 3:1). Be generous, just as God is generous. That is the feast.

Die Welt: Islamists Threaten Christians in German Refugee Centers

German original here.


Islamists Threaten Christians in Refugee Centers

In German asylum centers, Christian refugees are exposed to assaults from fanatical Muslims who live according to Sharia. Fundamentalists are even threatening them with murder.

by Freia Peters


Said from Iran sits below a picture of Jesus on the cross around which is Persian writing. It is a quotation from the Bible: John 8:12, "I am the light of the world. He that follows Me shall not walk in darkness."

Said is a kickboxer. He crossed Turkey on foot. He never would have thought that his problems would only really begin in Germany. "In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards arrested my brother in a house church. I fled from the Iranian secret police because I thought that in Germany I could finally live my religion freely," says Said. "But at the home for asylum-seekers, I cannot openly admit that I am a Christian. If I did, I would feel threatened."

Said lives in a home for asylum-seekers in southern Brandenburg, near the border with Saxony. It is one of the so-called "jungle-homes", without any connection to a bus line. Mainly Syrian refugees live there-- mostly devout Sunni Muslims. "They wake me up before dawn during Ramadan and say that I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say that I am 'kuffar', an infidel. They spit on me." Said says that he has called the security service. They were not interested in his problems. "They are also all Muslims."

Pastor Gottfried Martens sits beside Said in the community hall of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church in Berlin-Steglitz, a stack of papers on his lap. They are his letters to the heads of various refugee centers, to the office of social security, to the Berlin State Office for Health and Social Services, which allocates the refugees to temporary shelters. The writings are cries for help, in which Martens asks them to protect members of his community or to move them to another home. "Sometimes the director of the home tries to help. Sometimes I get no answer," says Martens.

Around 600 Afghans and Iranians belong to his church. He baptized most of them himself. Almost all of them have big problems in their homes," says Martens. "Devout Muslims teach the view their that 'where we are, there rules Sharia, there rules our law.'" Christians cannot cook their food in the kitchen. Those who do not pray towards Mecca five times a day are bullied. "Above all, Christians who have converted from Islam have to suffer as a minority," says Martens. "And they ask themselves the question, 'What happens when the devout Muslim refugees leave the home? Must we as Christians in the future hide ourselves in this country?'"

The fanatics sound like the murderers of the Islamic State.

Said's story is one of many in recent weeks. In Hemer, Sauerland, Algerian asylum-seekers attacked an Eritrean and his pregnant wife. Both were wearing their baptismal crosses around their necks. One of the Algerians struck the Eritreans with a glass bottle.

A young Syrian in a preliminary refugee center in Giessen reported threats. He is concerned that among the refugees there are followers of the terrorist group the Islamic State. "They shout verses from the Qur'an. They are the words that the Islamic State shouts before they cut off people's heads. I cannot stay here. I am a Christian," he says. In Ellwangen, Baden-Wurttemburg, there was a mass brawl between Christians, Yezidis and Muslims during Ramadan.

The case of an Iraqi Christian family housed in a refugee center in Freising, Bavaria is especially dramatic. The father told a television crew from Beyerische Rundfunk about beatings and threats from Syrian Islamists. "They yelled at my wife and beat by child. They say, 'We will kill you and drink your blood.'" The family lived like prisoners in a room of the home until they were no longer able to bear it and returned to Mosul in Iraq.

However in the meantime, Christians can no longer live in Islamist Mosul. The family was displaced a third time and have moved with two small children to Erbil in Northern Iraq. "They are doing very poorly," says their lawyer, Christian Salek from Munich. "I would have liked to help them and I have written to the Ministry of the Interior, but there is no way to bring them back to Germany." Anyone who applies for asylum and then leaves the country has to sign that they will not ask to be received a second time.

The underreporting of cases is high.

"One might have been able to protect the family," says Simon Jacob of the Central Council of Eastern Christians. Stories like this no longer surprise him. "I know of very many reports of Christian refugees who are under attack. But that's just the tip of the iceberg," says Jacob. "The number of unreported cases is high. We must anticipate further conflicts that refugees bring to Germany from their homeland. Between Christians and Muslims. Between Shiites and Sunnis. Between Kurds and extremists. Between Yezidis and extremists." Jacob argues that refugees should initially be accommodated separately by religion. But this could not be a long-term solution.

Jacob calls for formulating a guiding principle for Germany, in which are anchored the fundamental values of democracy and a pluralistic society. Freedom of religion. Freedom of expression. Equality between men and women. "We need a clear statement as well as orientation for refugees, also to help them differentiate themselves from extremists," says Jacob.

"Of course, refugees bring along their own experiences of conflict, for example between Shiites and Sunnis or Christians and Muslims," says the renowned historian and researcher on migration, Klaus J. Bade. He calls for socio-political vision and future-oriented concepts for the imminent issues of integration. He also calls for an enhanced guiding principle, with which Germans and also the refugees can and must identify. "This is the price that each immigrant who wants to live in Germany must pay. Bade calls for an integration course tied to orientation help, tailored to the respective country of origin.

Christians and Yezidis are most at risk.

"Frequently the aggression comes from Afghans or Pakistanis, who are often even more Islamist than some of the Syrians and Iraqis," says Max Klingberg of the International Society for Human Rights who has been active in caring for refugees for 15 years. He believes that the violence in the refugee centers will continue to increase. "We must rid ourselves of the illusion that all those who arrive here are human rights activists. No small proportion of the current new arrivals are at least at the level of the Muslim Brotherhood in their religious intensity."

The closer people live together, the sooner religious and political conflicts break out. "Reports are being made of threats of decapitation by Sunnis against Shiites, but the hardest hit are Yezidis and Christians," says Klingberg. Among Christian converts who do not conceal their faith, the likelihood of becoming a victim of assault or bullying is about 100 percent."

The only state that is currently trying to accommodate refugees separately by origin is Thuringia. The decision was made by Prime Minister Bodo Ramelow (Left Party) after an outbreak of violence in a refugee center in Suhl last month.

Implementation is difficult. "We pay attention to conflict-sensitive housing and try to distribute people from different countries on different floors," says the Justice and Migration Minister of Thuringia, Dieter Lauinger (Green Party). "In the current crisis situation, this is only possible in a restricted way, but we want to expand it, once the influx once again arranged in an orderly way."

However, Lauinger believes that a separation according to religion is wrong: particularly intensely religious Muslims must learn to live with other religions. "It is a balancing act between providing separate accommodation to prevent conflicts and the clear requirement to tolerate other cultures and religions."

Ali Reza Rahmani from Iran wears his baptismal cross around his neck and a multicolored ribbon around his wrist. Because he no longer feels safe in the home, Pastor Martens has given him shelter in the church. "I can no longer hide the fact that I am a Christian," says Rahmani, who in the church is called by his baptismal name Elia. "As a Christian, I'm not safe in the asylum center."

The hostility toward Said and Elia are not isolated cases, says Martens. "It has long been a problem nationwide." In the church, the refugees feel safe. But this cannot be a permanent situation. Nevertheless, Martens has bought new mattresses on sale.

 

Fr Georges Massouh: "Behold the Maidservant of the Lord"

Arabic original here.

"Behold the Maidservant of the Lord"

 There is a fundamental difference between the account of the annunciation to Mary in the Gospels and the annunciation to her in the Qur'an. The holy apostle Luke closes his account of the annunciation by the angel Gabriel to Mary with her accepting to give birth to Jesus, the Lord, the "Son of the Most High". When Mary heard God's call to her, she did not hesitate for even a single moment, but rather accepted this divine calling and said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord, may it be for me as you say" (Luke 1:38). Mary's response is not forced. It springs from responsible human freedom. Mary's freedom is safeguarded even before the power of the Most High. Instead of requiring her to give birth to Christ, God respected her freedom which He Himself gave her. God waited for Mary to say yes and it was within her power to say no, but she said yes. Her begins Mary's story with holiness.

As for Surat Maryam, it does not mention the response to the angel when he brought her tidings of "a son most pure" from God. Before Mary who wondered "How can I have a son when no man has touched me nor am I an adulteress?" the angel could find nothing else to say to her but "Thus did your Lord speak: 'It is a matter easy for Me. We shall make him a wonder to mankind and a mercy from Us - a decree ordained'" (Surat Maryam 19-21). Mary's response is missing and God's response is present in force: "a decree ordained" meaning "Jesus' creation was a decree foreordained in eternity and in the knowledge of God, may He be exalted," according to one exegete.

Here lies the fundamental difference between the view of the Gospel and the view of the Qur'an toward the figure of Mary and her free will in accepting and rejecting God's words to her. Where the Qur'an is silent about Mary's response, the Gospel considers Mary's response as something that deserves being mentioned because it is a central response that expresses Mary's obedience and her acceptance, in the fullness of her will and her freedom, to carry out God's will. At the same time, Mary's response expresses God's respect for His creatures and his not compelling them to do something that they do not want to commit to doing.

Therefore, patristic tradition interprets the verse from the Bible that says "God created man in His image and likeness" (Genesis 1:26) such that what is meant by "image" is not corporeal image, but rather the freedom that distinguishes man from all the other creatures. In His exceedingly great love for humankind, God gave man His image-- that is, His freedom. The proof of God's love for man was nothing other than this supreme freedom. However, with this very freedom man chose to depart from God, who is the highest good, and fell into evil. God did not seize this freedom from humankind after their fall, despite their sins, because He remains faithful to the way in which He created them. Ever since He established the human race on earth, He has remained faithful to the freedom that He gave them.

The freedom of Adam and Eve, who symbolize every human being, brought man into perdition, because it deviated from the love that God desired there to be between humans. Freedom came to mean someone doing what he desires and what seems good to him, imagining that he can put himself in God's place. Is this not precisely the temptation that the serpent, the symbol of evil, used when it said to Eve, "On the day that you eat [from the tree] your eyes will open and you will become like gods, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5)?

Mary, the New Eve, came to return freedom to its proper path. In place of Eve who in her disobedience to God wanted to be a god, Mary said, "I am the maidservant of God" and obeyed God's word. The irony lies in the fall of the one who wanted to be a god and the elevation to heaven of the one who affirmed that she is "the maidservant of the Lord". The first eve was in paradise and fell. She was not protected by the fact that she was in paradise. Mary, however, was in the world and the fact that she was in the world did not prevent her from preserving herself from its stain. Thus we see that Mary's reply in nothing other than a direct response to Eve's answer to the serpent. For this reason, it is fundamental that Mary was free, just as Eve was free. Just as the first Eve's freedom led to her fall, the second's freedom led to life.

Mary's response, "Behold, the maidservant of the Lord, may it be for me as you say," is what made Mary's identity. Mary's response is Mary herself.

Fr Georges Massouh: Islam and Religious Minorities

Arabic original here. The immediate context of this article is Syrian rebels forcing Druze to convert to Islam and killing them in Idlib and the threat that they may do so again if they succeed in their current assault on Jabal Druze.


Islam and Religious Minorities

Contemporary Islam has proven its inability to provide effective solutions to reassure members of religious minorities living among Muslims. What was apparently successful, to a reasonable extent, was the dhimmi system of bygone eras, before the age of human rights, citizenship and equality... However, even if, in the past, the dhimmi system contributed keeping the "People of the Book" safe where they live, this does not mean it is appropriate for the present day.

Contemporary Islam has likewise proven its inability to make a real effort towards rapprochement between Islamic sects, indeed, its inability to halt the deterioration of relations between their members. It has become a trend to dig up ancient fatwas that declare some Islamic groups to be unbelievers and permit the spilling of their adherents' blood and to implement them in some places. Some people have gone to lengths that even people in the distant past did not dare approach, declaring Islamic sects to be unbelievers even though the soundness of their Islam has been commonly accepted.

It is not surprise, then, that the issue of religious minorities has come to the forefront in Syria-- and before that, in Iraq.  This country that had been a model of religious diversity has now had its doors open wide to every sort of takfirism, displacement and religious cleansing.

We cannot limit responsibility for what has been happening in Syria to extremist Islamist groups alone. These groups build their opinions and rulings on the statements and codes of jurists and muftis who are recognized within traditional, moderate Islam. Factors that seem to neutralize some of these rulings declaring certain sects to be unbelievers are only present if there is political will, in the absence of which these factors are also absent. In other words, neutralizing these rulings is not based on sound juridical rulings that abrogate or cancel what came before, but most of the time only on the will of the political ruler.

When armed groups in Syria regard those who belong to a given sect as non-Muslims-- and therefore as infidels-- and that they must abandon some of their beliefs and practices and practices and adopt Islamic rulings, they are coming up with these rulings from the content of ancient books. They are not coming up with something new or an innovation of their own making. And here we have, in the fact that members of this sec [i.e., the Druze] who insist that they are Muslim monotheists, are still forbidden from performing the hajj to Mecca a shining example of this impotence that hampers moderate Islam and permits extremists to impose their rulings in the name of Islam.

In reality, both moderate and non-moderate Islamic thought has failed to solve the dilemma of minorities. As we have said time and again and will continue to say, this is because it divides society into two parts: Muslims and non-Muslims. Islamic thought itself is responsible for exacerbating the phenomenon of minorities and for not finding ways that would allow members of minorities to be engaged in Islamic society and that would make them more committed to Muslims' issues and aspirations.

The fundamental problem for those who strive for an Islamic state-- both those who are moderate and those who are not-- lies in their lack of respect for political, social and religious diversity and in their lack of respect for the particularities of the groups that make up the national mosaic that includes all citizens.

This country will not find security and the people of this country will not find tranquility so long as Muslim thinkers will not work for a real renewal of Islamic thought based on bold re-interpretations of the foundation of the Islamic state and a recognition of the right to religious diversity in Islamic society.

Met Georges Kodr on Unity with Druze and Muslims

Arabic original here.


Metropolitan Khodr from Shoueifat: Prove that You are One with the Druze and also with the Muslims

Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon Georges Khodr presided at the divine liturgy in the Church of Saint Michael in Dhour Shoueifat to bless the building of the Mitri Jirji Murr Social House net to the church. Celebrating with him in the service was the parish priest, Fr Elias Karam and Deacon Georges Shalhoub, with a crowd of parishioners and neighbors in attendance.

After the Holy Gospel and the offering of prayers and blessings for the building project, which is funded by Dr Georges Mitri, Metropolitan Georges gave a sermon in which he said, "I, the head of the Orthodox Church in this region, say-- we are one with the Druze monotheists. You must live this, not just as religious rhetoric, daily in social life, in the relations between families, in friendship and in love."

He added: "You Christians, prove that you are one with the Druze in this region, and also with the Muslims. If you do not do this, I do not recognize you. May the Lord help us all to remain one people."

Met Georges Khodr on Sectarian Prejudice

Arabic original here.

Sectarian Prejudice

Prejudice [al-ta3assub] comes from the word 'nerve' [3asab]. That is, a movement of emotions that is only slightly governed by reason. The deep question is how you can be religious and not love the people of your religion in a special way since there is a deep, fundamental bond between you, the bond of faith. Prejudice does not come about from faith in God, if we understand it to be a kind of social solidarity that does not necessarily indicate any religious feelings that bring you together with your fellow believers or distance you from those with other beliefs. To speak philosophically, prejudice is a tribal feeling that is without content and is based on a knee-jerk solidarity with the people of your religion, whether with much or little understanding.

Prejudice is always tied to ignorance of the other's religion or the reality of what is in the other's heart. Your opinion is based on what you have heard socially about these people or that, about the habits that you attribute to the people of a religion about which you might know little because if you knew much, then you would have to esteem and respect it if you love rightly.

Most often, our knowledge of the situation shows that those who hate people of another religion or have reservations about them only know a little about them and their religion. I am completely sure that if you are a Christian and you know a lot about Islam and love what you know, your heart will embrace the Muslims around you and if you are educated, you will hold in esteem much from their religion and openly recognize the truth that is in their religion.

Then, if your heart expands for good things, you will see that in his religion there is a splendor that you would not see if your hart is shut. The time has come for us to be reconciled to the fact that religions are not pens or political parties and that if you them, you can experience their openness, especially if you love the great people of faith in them because deep down they belong to God. I will even dare to say that they come  from God.So long as you do not understand this, you are relegating God to heaven and have not seem Him on earth.

The rule, then, is for you to love people with the same love, no matter what religion they belong to. Your beliefs are for you and you heart is for everyone. Love goes out from you to every person with the same force. If you distinguish in your love between people of different religions, then you do not have religion. In its activity, reason can discriminate. If the heart is pure, it does not discriminate. If people are brought together by hearts, then they are one. Those whose hearts are not open to all types of people have no god. In your heart, you are no closer to the people of your religion. Did the Righteous Augustine not say, "Love your neighbor and do what you will"? This is because the African saint understood that the one who loves does not err.

I understand very deeply that you who are religious love the good people of your religion. This is a profound kinship because it belongs to God. However, I understand just as strongly that the great Christian loves the great Muslim and vice versa because each of them knows that the other belongs to God. With the surety of my Orthodox faith I say that Christian dogma commands me to embrace Muslims with the same love that I have for Christians and that theological conviction does not divide hearts. This is because as a Christian, if you love all people equally, you see them as one in Christ. Religions are not pens and God does not separate between their people, so if God sees them as one, why do you want them to judge each other? I did not say that the religions are one. I said that people are one because God sees them as one.

It is easy for the believer who has attained great religious culture to love all people with the same strength and to distinguish between what they say. In our Christian theology, if a non-Christian is one in behavior with the Christian, then the Lord looks upon them in the same way. According to the most precise Christian teaching, he is a Christian. There are those who have been baptized by their families with water and there are those whom the Lord has baptized by the Holy Spirit, no matter what religion they belong to. In the deepest sense, the Church is what the Lord sees and there are baptized and unbaptized in her.