Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Responses to Islam
By Stefano Nikolaou
[The author received his M.A. in Theology from the Australian Catholic University in
2007. The following paper was an independent research project counting towards the
MA degree and receiving high recognition.]
1
2
Introduction
The interaction between the Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine
Empire and Islam began with the initial Muslim invasion of the eastern
provinces in the seventh century and lasted until the final destruction
of the Byzantine Empire with the capture of Constantinople in 1453.
The initial meeting was on the battlefield as the Caliphate swept away
the eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire. As the Islamic military
impetus petered out the two civilizations began a long period of
mutual distrust interspaced with periods of war and a grudging status
quo. Millions of Orthodox Christians were living under Islamic rule.
These Christians were the first to provide accurate information on
Islam. As the Byzantine Empire disintegrated, the citizens and
theologians within the empire began to take note of Islam more and
more. There was an increase in awareness in all sections of society.
The final years of Byzantium witnessed the most accurate and
extensive writings on Islam as the Byzantines attempted to challenge
Islam on the intellectual level.
Despite the long history between the two civilizations little has been
done in analysing the literary response to Islam by the Byzantines.
Some of the specifically polemical works have been studied but little
else. In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the
relationship between Islam and Byzantium the spectrum of Byzantine
literature needs to be surveyed and analysed. Few Muslims chose to
live in Byzantine lands. Many Byzantines would never have seen a real
life Muslim. Their encounters would usually have consisted of contacts
to travelling merchants or otherwise military encounters. However, the
frontier was more fluid for Orthodox Christians. A number of writings
by Christians under Islamic rule found their way to Byzantine territory
and were utilised by native theologians and authors.
3
themselves translated and transported to the Byzantine Empire where
they shaped opinion.
4
It was in the nature of polemics to be as accurate as possible since
otherwise they would be worthless for the reader. Polemics were
expected to have some practical value. They were not merely some
rhetorical writing exercise. Thus, it was not likely to be purposely
deceptive or inaccurate. A number of the authors had intimate
knowledge of Islam while others had to rely on oral information.
Despite the language barrier, there was an attempt of accessing
Islamic sources such as the Quran, hadiths and oral traditions. Some
authors were certainly biased and prejudiced towards Islam. They had
the staunch belief that Christianity was the superior religion. Islam was
false in their opinion and they were tempted to make it look even
worse. In the mindset of a Byzantine, it was impossible to be objective
as it is the goal of modern authors. The polemicists did not pretend to
hide their religious affiliations. Where the opportunity arose, they were
happy to attribute the worst possible motives to Muhammad, the early
caliphs and Islamic clerics. Polemics were also concerned with topics
that were under dispute rather than give a complete and balanced
presentation of the rival religious system. The existence of Adam,
Abraham or Moses was never a point of dispute, as both sides had no
doubts as to their existence.
5
Authors generally represented the higher echelons of society. Literacy,
a skill not achieved by the majority of the population, was an absolute
necessity for the polemists. Illiterate or semi-literate peasants or
merchants could act as informants to authors but they rarely appear in
their own right. Byzantine authors needed to be part of the classically
educated elite to be able to write a work that would be widely
disseminated and continued to be copied.
6
Issues in Dispute: The Life of
Muhammad and Islamic
Theology
Muhammad’s biography
7
2. Marrying an older widow
8
4. The origins of Muhammad’s revelation
The Byzantines found it hard to accept the claim that Muhammad had
received any type of authentic revelation from God. There were a
number of reasons for this. Firstly, the fact that Muhammad’s
revelation contradicted core Christian doctrines made the Byzantine
doubt anything he had to say. Secondly, Muhammad’s life was in
sharp contrast to the ascetic model of the traditional holy man. That
Muhammad had multiple wives, had people assassinated and indulged
in a sensual life was enough for rejection. This led to two theories of
the source of Muhammad’s revelation. The first suggested that
Muhammad pretended to have revelations to hide his epilepsy. The
second was direct satanic revelation. Often there was a combination of
the two. The Byzantine could not accept the phenomenal growth of
Islam was solely due to human activity.
The Quran states that Muhammad did not need to work any miracles
other than the revelation of the Quran itself (Q. 6:125, 29:50). The
Quran claims itself that it is unable to be reproduced (Q. 17:88).
Christian polemicists contrasted the miracles of Jesus and the Old
Testament prophets like Moses to the lack of Muhammad’s miracles.
Muslims soon began to manufacture miracles to counter Christian
charges. The hadiths are full of miracles that are clearly created as
polemical counters to charges by Christians and Jews.
Tabari and Waqidi tell the now infamous story of the ‘Satanic Verses’.
The story owes its origins to impeccable Islamic sources but Christians
were more than happy to use it for their own polemical purposes. The
term was not coined until the 1850s, when William Muir used it in his
biography of Muhammad.[10] This story is a source of great
embarrassment to Muslims but it served to justify to Byzantine
polemicists that Muhammad was satanically inspired. The great
success of Islam would have caused the Byzantines to naturally look
for some explanation in religious terms. Initially the punishment by
God was satisfactory but later a more sinister reasoning was needed.
In the religious mind of the Byzantines a Satanic explanation seemed
reasonable, even rational.
9
The actual incident was that while Muhammad was in Mecca he tried to
persuade the Meccans to accept Islam. They were not receptive to him
and made life difficult for him and his followers, and so Muhammad’s
desire to see his people accept him and Islam remained unfulfilled.
This was until Muhammad recited the following verse. ‘Have you
thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the
exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved.’[11]
Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in
Mecca and were venerated in the Kaaba. Previously Muhammad had
spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now Muhammad
accepted the idols and recited that their ‘intercession is approved’. The
Islamic explanation as to why Muhammad accepted the idols is that
Satan put these words on Muhammad's lips. ‘Satan ... put upon his
(Muhammad's) tongue “these are the exalted Gharaniq whose
intercession is approved”’. [12]
10
no authority touching them.’ (Quran 53:19-23) This final form of the
verse is what is now in the modern Quran.
7. Polygamy
8. Marrying Zeynab
9. Marrying Aisha
11
Muhammad married the six-year old daughter of his close companion
Abu Bakr. He waited until Aisha was nine years old before he
consummated the marriage. At the time, Muhammad was over fifty
years of age. Armstrong cites a variant tradition that Aisha reached
puberty before she had sex with Muhammad[16] in an effort to save
his reputation but the sources are clear. Both the hadiths collected by
Bukhari and Muslim cite the age of nine as the age at which Aisha
consummated her marriage to Muhammad. Marriages for pre-
pubescent girls were not uncommon in the ancient world but
polemicists found this further evidence of Muhammad’s insincerity.
That a spokesman from God lusted after a little girl was obviously
impossible, especially in the Byzantine world where abstinence and
asceticism were signs of spirituality and were highly valued.
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of
Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him
heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In
the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done
and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O
`Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil
consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads
about her", so `Umayr went back to his people. Now there was a great
commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint
[daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to
them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of
Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was
the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that
those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept
12
Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and
`Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan
was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw
the power of Islam.
When the fight at the trench and the affair of the B. Qurayza were
over, the matter of Sallam b. Abu'l-Huqayq known as Abu Rafi` came
up in connexion with those who had collected the mixed tribes
together against the apostle. Now Aus had killed Ka`b b. al-Ashraf
before Uhud because of his enmity towards the apostle and because
he instigated men against him, so Khazraj asked and obtained the
apostle's permission to kill Sallam who was in Khaybar. Muhammad b.
Muslim b. Shihab al-Zuhri from `Abdullah b. Ka`b b. Malik told me:
One of the things which God did for His apostle was that these two
tribes of the Ansar, Aus and Khazraj, competed the one with the other
like two stallions: if Aus did anything to the apostle's advantage
Khazraj would say, "They shall not have this superiority over us in the
apostle's eyes and in Islam" and they would not rest until they could
do something similar. If Khazraj did anything Aus would say the same.
When Aus had killed Ka'b for his enmity towards the apostle, Khazraj
used these words and asked themselves what man was as hostile to
the apostle as Ka'b? And then they remembered Sallam, who was in
Khaybar and asked and obtained the apostle's permission to kill him.
13
shrieked one of our number would lift his sword against her; then he
would remember the apostle's ban on killing women and withdraw his
hand; but for that we would have made an end of her that night. When
we had smitten him with our swords `Abdullah b. Unays bore down
with his sword into his belly until it went right through him, as he was
saying Qatni, qatni, i.e. it's enough. We went out. Now `Abdullah
b.`Atik had poor sight, and fell from the ladder and sprained his arm
severely, so we carried him until we brought him to one of their water
channels and went into it. The people lit lamps and went in search of
us in all directions until, despairing of finding us, they returned to their
master and gathered round him as he was dying. We asked each other
how we could know that the enemy of God was dead, and one of us
volunteered to go and see; so off he went and mingled with the
people. He said, "I found his wife and some Jews gathered round him.
She had a lamp in her hand and was peering into his face and saying
to them 'By God, I certainly heard the voice of `Abdullah b.`Atik. Then
I decided I must be wrong and thought, "How can Ibn`Atik be in this
country?"' Then she turned towards him, looking into his face, and
said, 'By the God of the Jews he is dead!' Never have I heard sweeter
words than those." Then he came to us and told us the news, and we
picked up our companion and took him to the apostle and told him
that we had killed God's enemy. We disputed before him as to who
had killed him, each of us laying claim to the deed. The apostle
demanded to see our swords and when he looked at them he said, "It
is the sword of `Abdullah b. Unays that killed him; I can see traces of
food on it".[18]
1. Polygamy
The Quran allows Muslims to have up to four wives. The exact verses
state ‘And if you fear that you cannot do justice to orphans, marry
such women as seem good to you, two, or three, or four; but if you
14
fear that you will not do justice, then marry only one or what your
right hand possesses. This is more proper that you may not do
injustice’ (Q. 4:3). Armstrong sees polygamy as a practical problem
due to the number of Muslims who had died at Uhud[19] rather than
the continuation of the existing Arab practice. Even in classical times
only a small percentage of Muslims married more than one woman but
the potential was there for any Muslim to marry more than one wife if
the economic circumstances were right.
2. Prohibition of Pork
3. Prohibition of Alcohol
Byzantines were well aware that Muslims rejected the use of all
alcohol. The verses supposedly manifested themselves when Umar
approached Muhammad about a drunken Muslim. The Quran states ‘O
you who believe, intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to)
stones set up and (divining by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the
devils work; so shun it that you may succeed. The devil desires only to
create enmity and hatred among you by means of intoxicants and
games of chance, and to keep you back from remembrance of Allah
and from prayer. Will you then keep back?’ (Q. 5:90-91) The
Byzantines were aware of this prohibition as a practical custom rather
then from knowledge of the Quran. Byzantines were always willing to
point out Muslim inconsistency in following this. Despite the prohibition
on alcohol, many Muslim leaders were openly drinking wine in their
courts in direct violation of the Quran. Wine was an integral part of
Byzantine liturgical life. Not only was wine allowed, but also it was a
necessity for communion. It was not prohibited in the Old Testament
either. Thus, the Byzantines could not attribute this prohibition to God.
4. Qibla
15
Originally, Muslims were directed to pray towards the direction of
Jerusalem but Muhammad’s frustration at not being recognised as a
prophet by the Jews of Medina caused a Quranic revelation (Q. 2:138)
that changed the direction to Mecca. The direction of prayer towards
Mecca was a public practice that non-Muslims would have found
curious. A devout Muslim would have gone to great lengths to find the
correct orientation for prayer. Orthodox Christians traditionally
orientated their prayers to the East so the Islamic practice was
different and distinct from theirs. From this practice Christians would
have gained some awareness of the existence of Mecca and its
importance for Muslims.
5. Fasting
6. Ritual Cleaning
16
7. Sexual Exploitation
The Quran states, ‘Allah has bought from the believers their lives and
their wealth in return for paradise; they fight in the ways of Allah, kill
and get killed. This is a true promise from Him… and who fulfils His
promise better than Allah? Rejoice then at the bargain you have made
with Him; for that is the great triumph.’ (Q. 9:111) The Islamic armies
of the seventh century dislodged the eastern provinces of the
Byzantine Empire. From that point, the Islamic threat loomed large for
Byzantines. During the eighth and ninth centuries the armies of the
caliphate made annual raids into Byzantine territory. The religiously
inspired ghazi warriors were a common sight in the frontier regions. It
was only natural that the Byzantines came to associate Islam with
violence because of this. This would have been in stark contrast to
Orthodox view of warfare. The Byzantines never created the concept of
‘crusade’ as developed in the west. For the Byzantines, war was a
necessary evil for the survival of the state. It was not sanctioned by
Jesus, the Apostles or the Church Fathers. The average layman for
cleric would have been unaware of the Quranic verses encouraging
jihad but would have presumed that Islam encouraged the practise of
raiding. The difference between the peacefulness of Jesus and the
violence of Muhammad could not have been greater in the mind of a
Byzantine Christian. They could not see that the same God could
sanction Muhammad’s aggression after the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
9. Iconoclasm
17
10. The Hajj and the Kaaba/Black Stone
Muslims claim that the Kaaba was a shrine built by Abraham and that
the pilgrimage to Mecca is an important element of Islam. The Quran
states ‘Verily! The first house (of worship) appointed for mankind was
that at Mecca, a blessed place, a guidance to the peoples’ (Q. 3:96).
Byzantine authors did not believe this for a minute. They stated that
these practices originated in Arabian paganism. The Arab veneration of
stones was well known to Greek authors. Even a modern critic of Islam
(and ex-Muslim) like Ibn Warraq can claim in all confidence that these
practices were derived from paganism.[21] The Byzantine accusations
do not seem to be as ludicrous as it may appear at first.
Christology
There are three verses in two suras that directly attack the Christian
understanding of a Triune God. ‘They are ‘Believe therefore in God and
His Apostles, and say not, “three.”’ (Q. 4:169), ‘They misbelieve who
say, “Verily God is a third of three.” … the Messiah, the son of Mary, is
only a prophet, … and his mother was a confessor, they both ate food’
(Q. 5:77) and ‘And when God shall say, “O Jesus son of Mary hast
thou said unto mankind, ‘Take me and my mother as two Gods besides
God?’” (Q. 5:116).[23]
3. Status of Mary
The Quranic affirmation (Q. 19:16-21; 3:37-45) of the Virgin Birth was
well known to Christians. Also known was the claim that Mary was the
daughter of Amran and the sister of Moses and Aaron. For Christians it
18
was clear that Muhammad had confused Miriam, the sister of Moses,
with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
The Quran claims that Jesus was not crucified[24]: ‘Yet they slew him
not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness’ (Q.
4:155-56). This was one of the most widespread Islamic beliefs that
Christianity had to confront. This was a fundamental difference as it
could not be reconciled with the New Testament accounts of the
crucifixion. Either the Quran or New Testament had to be mistaken.
Quran
The Quran was not compiled until after Muhammad had died. Bukhari
has a tradition that the Caliph Abu Bakr tasked Zayd ibn Thabit to
collect the Quran at the instigation of Umar because numerous Quran
reciters had died at the battle of Yamamah in 633.[25] The collection
remained in the hands of Hafsa, daughter of Abu Bakr until the reign
of Uthman when it was used as the official codex. Rival versions were
ordered to be burnt. Later more changes were made under Hajjaj,
Umayyad Governor of Iraq, in which versions of the Quran and other
early Islamic literature were destroyed.[26] Despite the Muslim
insistence on the divine origin and immutability of the Quran, the
Byzantines were well aware of its worldly origins. Often they used this
information to counter the Muslim polemic against the Christian
Scriptures.
19
The Quran makes a number of ambiguous statements about the Torah
and the Gospels. Some seem positive like ‘He has verily revealed to
you this Book, in truth and confirmation of the Books revealed before,
as indeed He had revealed the Torah and Gospel’ (Quran 3:3). Initially
it seems that early Muslims understood that Christians and Jews
misunderstood their own Scriptures but the text was sound. However,
Muslims quickly learned that Muhammad was not foretold in the
Scriptures and that episodes in both the Old and New Testaments
contradicted Islam. Then the claim was made that Jews and Christians
had corrupted their Scriptures. The extent of the corruption was often
a cause of dispute among Muslims but it was claimed by most Muslim
theologians that it had occurred to some extent. The fact that the main
proof text of each religion, the Bible and the Quran, was not accepted
completely by each side caused this to be a singularly important point
in any religious dispute as they were scripturally based religions.[27]
Byzantine Christians constantly defended the truth of the Gospels
while simultaneously disparaging the Quran, while Muslims asserted
the truthfulness of the Quran against the Bible. Since proof texting
was difficult and generally pointless Christians began to use
Aristotelian logic in their arguments against Islam. As the Quran
became more accessible Christian theologians used Quranic verses
that seemed to support Christian positions. Similarly, Muslims used
logic and Bible verses that supported Islam. The supposed prophesies
in the Bible relating to the advent of Muhammad are the best
examples.
3. Proof Texts
The Quran implies that the Bible predicted the coming of Muhammad
and that Christians and Jews had either deleted or misunderstood
these prophecies. The result was a constant dispute over the meaning
of certain key verses. For example, in Ibn Ishaq’s biography he quotes
the Paraclete verse from John’s Gospel (John 15:23 ff) as a prophecy
for Muhammad.[28] This verse remained a constant source of conflict
between Christians and Muslims for the duration of the Byzantine
Empire.[29]
The Quran has versions of stories that do not tally with accounts in the
Bible. For example the Quran has a character named Haman (Suras
20
28:38, 29: 39-40, 40:28)[30] as the minister of Pharaoh under Moses.
Muhammad seems to have confused the minister of the Persian King in
Esther 3:1 with an unnamed minister to the Pharaoh mentioned in
Exodus 7:11 under the terms ‘wise men and magicians’. The Quran
presumes the Pharaoh had a chief minister at the time of Moses even
though this is not mentioned in the Exodus account.
5. Depictions of Paradise
Politics
1. The Caliphs
As both political and religious leaders, the caliphs were open to attack
for their behaviour as rulers of an empire. They were often portrayed
as sensuous, greedy and violent by Byzantine polemicists. The violent
deaths of three of the first four caliphs was noted by Byzantine
historians and the frequency of the fratricidal Muslim conflicts was also
known. The martyrdom of Husayn and the massacre of the Alids (or
proto-Shi’ites) at Karbala was also common knowledge. Even the
21
massacre of the Umayyad family at the hands of the Abbasids did not
go unnoticed.
2. Allegations of Polytheism
3. Allegations of Idolatry
4. Religious Divisions
22
Byzantine Sources
Nikephoros was born in Constantinople around 750 A.D. and went into
exile to Nicaea with his father due to the latter’s veneration of icons
under the iconoclastic emperor Constantine V. After the restoration of
icons, Nikephoros served as a secretary to the Empress Irene and her
son, the Emperor Constantine VI. However, he went into voluntary
monastic retirement when Irene seized the throne and deposed
Constantine. At the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in 787, Nikephoros
participated as a monk by reading a Greek translation of a papal
23
letter. In 802, Nikephoros returned to Constantinople as director of
the largest poorhouse in the city. After the death of Patriarch Tarasios
in 806, the new emperor, Nikephoros I, appointed him patriarch. As
Patriarch of Constantinople, Nikephoros I supported icon veneration,
and continued to hold the position of patriarch until 815, when the
emperor died. The new iconoclastic emperor, Leo, forced Nikephoros
to resign and go into exile and appointed a more compliant candidate
in his place. Nikephoros spent his remaining years writing a number of
anti-iconoclastic works and died around 828.[32]
The brevity of the Short History did not allow Nikephoros the
opportunity for an excursus on the Arabs, their religion, or an
elaboration on their motives for attacking the Byzantine Empire that a
full history might have provided. The Short History is a compendium of
events with little room for comment by the author but his selection of
incidents is informative. As head of the Byzantine church Nikephoros
would probably have had an awareness of Islam as a religion or at
least had access to those who had detailed knowledge on the topic but
there is little indication of this in his history.[35] Either Nikephoros was
unaware of Islam’s monotheistic claims, or he simply did not believe.
24
where the Saracens ‘… began to appear’ (Breviarium 18)[36] but does
not ascribe the place any religious significance. When recounting the
negotiations surrounding the surrender of Alexandria he explicitly calls
the leader of the Muslims in Egypt Amr (Ambros) a ‘pagan,[37] an
enemy of God and an opponent of the Christians.’ (Breviarium 26)[38]
The comment implies that other Saracens are equally pagan if their
leader is so designated. Even as a young bureaucrat, Nikephoros
would have heard of the monotheism of the Saracens but he chooses
to ignore or deny this. Nikephoros never mentions the names of
Muhammad, the name Muslim or the Quran.
In his account the Arabs are portrayed in the same way as the other
barbarian tribes swarming around the empire in the 7th and 8th
centuries, like the Avars. The barbarity of the Saracens is illustrated by
the brief but irrelevant anecdote on the early Arab conquest of
Palestine where they capture a Roman general named Sergius and put
him to death by sewing him up in a camel skin. (Breviarium 20)[41]
The story is unlikely but illustrates the oriental barbarity of the Arabs.
Nikephoros might as well have been referring to the pre-Islamic Arabs
rather than a new religious phenomenon. It is plain that he sees the
Arabs as cruel and violent and that Christians are their specific targets.
There is a curious episode where Kyros, Patriarch of Alexandria, makes
an agreement with Ambros to pay him tribute. He requests the
emperor to send him a daughter for Ambros to marry in the hope of
him becoming a Christian. The emperor refuses the request and the
negotiations come to nothing. (Breviarium 23)[42] The episode might
25
or might not be historical but the sequence plays out like the
negotiations between the Byzantines and any other barbarian tribe.
This suggests that Nikephorus did not see the Arabs as distinctive from
other non-Christian groups that were attacking the empire.
In this year died Muhammad, the leader and false prophet of the
Saracens, after appointing his kinsman Abu Bakr to his chieftainship.
26
At the same time his repute spread abroad and everyone was
frightened. At the beginning of his advent the misguided Jews thought
he was the Messiah who is awaited by them, so that some of their
leaders joined him and accepted his religion while forsaking that of
Moses, who saw God. Those who did so were ten in number, and they
remained with him until his murder. But when they saw him eating
camel meat, they realised that he was not the one they thought him to
be, and were at a loss what to do; being afraid to abjure his religion,
those wretched men taught him illicit things directed against us,
Christians, and remained with him.
Now, she had a certain monk living there, a friend of hers (who had
been exiled for his depraved doctrine), and she related everything to
him, including the angel’s name. Wishing to satisfy her, he said to her,
‘He has spoken the truth, for this is the angel who is sent to all the
prophets.’ When she had heard the words of the false monk she was
the first to believe in Muhammad and proclaim to other women of her
tribe that he was a prophet. Thus, the report spread from women to
27
men, and first to Abu Bakr, whom he left as his successor. This heresy
prevailed in the region of Ethribos, in the last resort by war: at first
secretly, for ten years, and by war another ten, and openly nine.
28
Unfortunately Peter recovered his illness and was executed.
Theophanes’ account of the incident is as follows:
This evidence indicates that there must have been a great divide
between what Christians were thinking privately and the public
discourse they gave to their Muslim overlords. It was only the fear of
death that prevented Christians from openly expressing their opinions.
The polemics written within the bounds of the Caliphate are much
milder than those in Byzantine territory. The difference is not so much
as a difference between Syriac and Greek writers but rather what they
could get away with. Greek writers are much more willing to criticize
Muhammad in the most abusive terms than their Syriac counterparts
because they lived safely in the territory of the Byzantine Empire.
29
to their idols’[49] is obviously from an Islamic perspective, describing
the celebration of a Christian feast day.
The History of the Reigns of the Emperors covers the reigns of Leo V,
Michael II, Theophilus, Michael III and Basil I (the years 813-886) in
four books. The history continues the Chronicle of Theophanes the
Confessor but does not retain its annalistic structure.[56] It is strongly
pro-Macedonian in its views. Basil I had murdered Emperor Michael III
and assumed the throne. Genesios disparages the memory of Michael
in favour of Basil I, whose dynasty was still reigning in the mid tenth
30
century. Some modern commentators have even seen the history as
the ‘official’ history of the birth of the Macedonian Dynasty.
31
Testament. The Byzantines are obviously the Jews (the ones favoured
by God) thus bringing a distinctly religious symbolism to the defeat.
The final military defeat was the fall of Syracuse. Genesios repeats a
report given to a Byzantine general named Adrianos with the report
that the city was ‘filled by the Christian blood spilt there.’ (On the
Reigns IV.33)[60] Adrianos had been confined to the Peloponnesian
port of Hierax due to bad weather with a large fleet assigned to relieve
Syracuse from the Arab siege. After the news was confirmed Adrianos
returned to Constantinople and sought asylum in a church begging for
forgiveness.
Constantine was the son of the emperor Leo VI and his fourth wife,
Zoë Karbonopsina. He was born in 905 but was excluded from power
for nearly forty years by a succession of regents who took control of
government after Leo died in 912 and Constantine was in his infancy.
The admiral Romanos I held government for twenty years but was
deposed by his sons, who in turn were deposed by the supporters of
the legitimate dynasty. Constantine assumed power in his own right in
945 and continued until his death in 959. He fought a number of
moderately unsuccessful wars against Muslim powers including a failed
attempt to recapture Crete in 949 and campaigns over the Euphrates
between 952-958.[61]
32
Administrando Imperio. The work is based on earlier sources and
covers the range of the empire’s enemies. The section on Islam
depends heavily on the chronicle of Theophanes but also includes
some independent information. The document was meant only for the
highest ranks of the civil administration and was meant to be a
practical guide in diplomacy.[62] As a result the information needed to
be as accurate as possible so ambassadors could familiarise
themselves with the political situation.
The blasphemous and obscene Mahomet, whom the Saracens claim for
their prophet, traces his genealogy from the most widespread race of
Ishmael, son of Abraham. For Nizaros, the descendant of Ishmael, is
proclaimed the father of them all. Now he begat two sons, Moundaros
and Rabias, and Moundaros begat Kousaros and Kaisos and Themimes
and Asandos and various others whose names are unknown, who were
allotted the Madianite desert and reared their flocks, dwelling in tents.
And there are others further off in the interior who are not of the same
tribe, but of Iektan, the so-called Homerites, that is, Amanites. And
the story is published abroad thus. This Mahomet, being destitute and
an orphan, thought fit to hire himself out to a certain wealthy woman,
his relative, Chadiga by name[63], to tend her camels and to trade for
her in Egypt among the foreigners and in Palestine. Thereafter by little
and little he grew more and more free in converse and ingratiated
himself with the woman, who was a widow, and took her to wife. Now,
during his visits to Palestine and intercourse with Jews and Christians
he used to follow up certain of their doctrines and interpretations of
scripture. But as he had the disease the epilepsy, his wife, a noble and
wealthy lady, was greatly cast down at being united to this man, who
was not only destitute but an epileptic into the bargain, and so he
deceived her by alleging: ‘I behold a dreadful vision of an angel called
Gabriel, and being unable to endure his sight, I faint and fall’; and he
was believed by a certain Arian, who pretended to be a monk, testified
falsely in his support for love and gain. The woman being in this
manner imposed on and proclaiming to other women of her tribe that
33
he was a prophet, the lying fraud reached also the ears of a head-man
whose name was Boubachar (Abu Bakr). Well, the woman died and left
her husband behind to succeed her and to be heir of her estate, and
he became a notable and very wealthy man, and his wicked imposture
and heresy took hold on the district of Ethribos (Yathrib). And the
crazy and deluded fellow taught those who believed on him, that he
who slays an enemy or is slain by an enemy enters into paradise, and
all the rest of his nonsense. And they pray, moreover, to the star of
Aphrodite, which they call Koubar, and in their supplication cry out:
‘Alla wa Koubar’, that is, ‘God and Aphrodite’. For they call God ‘Alla’,
and ‘wa’ they use as the conjunction ‘and’, and they call the star
‘Koubar’, and so they say ‘Alla wa Koubar.’ (De Administrando Imperio
14)[64]
34
Administrando Imperio 17-20) There is a difference from the
traditional numbering of caliphs as Constantine counts Muhammad as
the first chief of the Arabs. This implies that he views Muhammad in
political, not religious, terms. Ali is not included in Constantine’s
succession list but goes to Muawiya with the statement ‘This Muawiya
also made an expedition against Constantinople … and after the death
of Uthman was fifth chief of the Arabs for twenty-four years.’[65] Later
Constantine gives a brief account of the civil war between Muawiya
and Ali. The account of the civil war follows the usual Muslim outline,
even the story of the arbitration at Siffin but gets mixed up as
Constantine thinks Ali’s sons died in the civil war soon after their
father’s death (De Administrando Imperio 21). The disputed reign of
Ali is probably not counted, as it was never accepted in Syria where
Muawiya was ruling as governor in Damascus. In his account of
Muawiya Constantine seems to have used an anti-Umayyad source as
he says that the Umayyad arbitrator at Siffin ‘was devout only in
appearance, but in all else deceitful and arrogant and surpassing all
men in mischief.’[66]
35
John Kaminiates work gives an account of the siege and capture of
Thessalonike in 904 by Arabs. He recounts the suffering of the
population as the city was sacked and the helpless citizens were
enslaved and taken into captivity. He claims to have been an
eyewitness to the events he describes. Numerous detailed references
point to the authenticity of the text despite some modern doubt.[69]
36
overcrowding … on top of which there were the pitiful cries of infants
unable to bear the full rigour of hardships whose intensity merely
hastened their untimely death.’ (Kaminiates, Capture 67)[73] At a
stop at Patmos there was a multitude of deaths due to lice,
contaminated water and spoiled food. In all Kaminiates states that
22,000 Christians were enslaved, most of them young. (Kaminiates,
Capture 73)[74]
Kaminiates saves his worst condemnation for Leo of Tripoli, the Muslim
admiral in charge of the raid. Kaminiates is fully aware that Leo was a
convert to Islam from Christianity so it clear that he knows Islam as a
rival religious system. However, he neglects to explain that Leo was
captured as a child and enslaved, only to be subsequently converted
and freed by a patron. He seems to omit this information so Leo
cannot be excused on account of his young age. That Kaminiates views
Islam negatively is clear from his reference to Islam as ‘impiety’. He
especially disapproves of Leo’s mercilessness and brutality. The link
between Islam and violence is clear; either Leo was violent due to the
influence of Islam or Islam was unable to moderate Leo’s savagery. It
is worth quoting John Kaminiates exact words ‘He [Leo of Tripoli] was
a sinister and thoroughly evil person, who flaunted a style of
behaviour singularly appropriate to the wild animal after which he was
named and for whose ferocious ways and ungovernable temper he was
more than a match. Assuredly, you yourself also know the man by
reputation, a reputation which celebrates his wickedness with the
claim that he outshone all previous paragons of impiety by descending
to such depths of madness as to gaze insatiably upon the spilling of
human blood and to love nothing better than the slaughter of
Christians. He too was once a Christian, was reborn in the saving
grace of baptism and taught the precepts of religion. But when he was
taken prisoner by the barbarians, he embraced their impiety in
exchange for true piety of the faith and there is no way in which he
more eagerly seeks to ingratiate himself with them than by making his
deeds conform to his name and by taking a particular pride in flaunting
the actions of a felon and a brigand.’ (Kaminiates, Capture 24)[75]
Kaminiates sees Leo’s savagery not as an exception but the rule. Leo
merely outdoes his fellow Muslims in violence.
37
Leo was born in Kaloe in Asia Minor sometime around 950 and was
educated at Constantinople, where he became a palace deacon. His
History indicates that he accompanied the emperor Basil II on his
Bulgarian campaign in 986.[76] Leo was one of the few ordained
ecclesiastics to engage in historiography. The recent translators of
Leo’s History note his pro-church stance when in conflict with imperial
policy. He may have become a bishop later in his career.
38
mentions the destruction of churches. He makes mention of the
murder of Christopher, Patriarch of Antioch, who had been killed by
Muslims in the city before its capture by the Byzantines. The religious
aspect of the incident is stressed by Leo the Deacon. He calls
Christopher ‘an apostolic and divinely inspired man’ and the ‘crime of
reverence for Christ the Saviour’ being his only trespass. (Leo the
Deacon, History VI.6)[79] Christopher is portrayed as blameless.
There were perhaps political overtones to Christopher’s murder but,
for Leo the Deacon, it is clearly a martyrdom.
The other reference is to Anemas, the son of the last Muslim Emir of
Crete. Leo identifies him and singles him out for his bravery in combat.
It seems that he became an imperial bodyguard. In the first instance
Anemas killed the second-in-command of the Russians, who was a
renowned warrior (Leo the Deacon, History XI.6); the other mentions
his death after killing many Russians with the concluding remark ‘a
man surpassed by no one his age in brave feats in battle.’ (Leo the
Deacon, History IX.8)[81] It is reasonable to assume that Anemas
retained his Muslim religion in imperial service. The tenth century
Byzantine armies had a reputation for ethnic diversity. The lack of a
Christian name, which a convert would have to assume on baptism,
would be conclusive in demonstrating Anemas’s religious affiliation.
The praise that Leo gives Anemas is thus more remarkable.
Leo makes two references to Muhammad; the first during the siege of
Chandax in Crete and the second during the Syrian campaign of
Nikephorus Phocas. Both references are in passing and offer no
substantial biographical information on Muhammad. Leo comments
39
that the Cretan Arabs were very superstitious, in Leo’s own words they
were ‘…addicted to divination, ribaldry and wrongful belief…’ (Leo the
Deacon, History II.6).[82] Leo attributes this by name to the influence
of Muhammad. The ‘wrongful belief’ indicates Islamic rejection of the
incarnation, Trinity and crucifixion while the ‘ribaldry’ must refer to the
Muslim sexual exploitation of women in the form of polygamy and
concubinage. The other reference is to a diplomatic gift by Nikephorus
Phocas to the Fatimid Caliph of a sword that was supposedly once
owned by Muhammad. Byzantine armies had captured the sword on
the Syrian campaign. When referring to Muhammad, Leo cannot help
but give Muhammad the epitaph ‘most accursed and impious’ (Leo the
Deacon, History V.1).[83] It is unclear what Leo knew of Muhammad’s
biography but the reference to the sword suggests that he was aware
of Muhammad’s military campaigns. In typical Byzantine fashion, this
aspect of Muhammad’s career would have repulsed Leo.
40
As a courtier and secular scholar for most of his life, Islam was far
removed from Psellos’s thoughts. He demonstrates no specific
knowledge of Islam in his Chronographia but on the other hand he
does not make any outlandishly ignorant comment either. The exact
state of his knowledge is unclear. Psellos was author of a number of
theological works as a layman, so the expectation is that he was
knowledgeable about religion to some degree. Psellos recounts with
seeming disapproval the Syrian campaign of the emperor Romanus III.
He emphasises the unprovoked nature of the war in an effort for the
emperor to gain fame. ‘For these reasons, although no real pretext for
war existed, he made an unprovoked assault on the Saracens…The
leading generals tried to dissuade him from this offensive – they were
not a little fearful of the outcome…’ (Psellos, Chronographia III.8).[84]
This text suggests that Psellos was quite happy to coexist with Muslims
as long as they were not aggressive towards the empire. However,
later Psellos demonstrates his patriotism when he states he refused to
write a humble letter to the ruler of Egypt and instead wrote that: ‘I
conveyed exactly the opposite impression by subtle allusion: what I
wrote had one meaning for Constantine [the reigning emperor] and
another for the Sultan. I had sly digs at the latter and hurt his dignity
without being too overt (Psellos, Chronographia VI.190).[85] This
reference does not strictly indicate religious sensitively but just good
old-fashioned Byzantine cultural superiority.
41
The Alexiad was written after 1148, more than twenty years after
Alexios’ death. The history covers the forty years of Alexios’ reign,
from 1081 to 1118, in fifteen books. As the title suggests the history’s
focus was Alexios and is laudatory towards him. Anna was well
informed on the events she describes but occasionally her biases get
the better of her.
42
non-monotheistic religion because of their denial of the divinity of
Christ.
Anna has a low opinion of Turkish morality and the corollary of this is
Islamic ethics. In keeping with Byzantine historiography Anna sees the
Turks as arrogant. Her exact words are ‘…for the Turks are an arrogant
people, with their heads in the clouds’ (Anna Comnena, Alexiad
XV.6).[89] On receiving a letter from a Turkish sultan asking for a
marriage alliance Alexius responded with laughter ‘at the Turk’s
presumption, muttering, “The devil must have put that into his head”’
(Anna Comnena, Alexiad VI.12).[90]
43
John Kinnamos was a minor bureaucrat in the service of Emperor
Manuel Komnenos. He was born before 1143 and died some time after
1185. Little else is known about him. His broad education is implied by
his imperial service. He appears briefly in the contemporary History of
Niketas Chionates in an episode where Kinnamos and Euthymius,
Metropolitan of Neai Patrai, argue a point of theology in the emperor’s
tent and are threatened by him.[92] This incident took place under the
Emperor Andronikos Angelus.
His history covers the years 1118-76 in seven brief books, the reigns
of John and Manuel Komnenos, but breaks off at the end before the
account of the battle of Myrokephalion and the end of Manuel’s reign.
Kinnamos is highly disposed towards Manuel but his account is
generally reliable and sober. The history only survives in a single
manuscript. Niketas Chionates used it in his own historical work
without acknowledgement. All this suggests that the work only
enjoyed a limited circulation.
His accounts of the numerous battles between the Byzantines and the
Turks are very conventual, similar to the battles between the
Byzantines and the Hungarians that were occurring at the same time.
In places where a remark would be expected Kinnamos remains
reluctant to give his own judgement. Kinnamos attributes the
aggressiveness of the Turks to purely materialistic motives rather than
44
religious. ‘For the barbarians suffer in no respect so much as in loss of
money and goods’ (Deeds IV.23).[94] He either is unaware of the
Islamic idea of Jihad or thinks that the religious motives are secondary
to simple greed. Kinnamos is aware that Egypt was once part of the
Byzantine Empire and explains that it was detached ‘when Asia was
severely afflicted and the Arabic people prevailed for the moment, it
too was taken and fell under the sway of the Easterners.’ (Deeds VI.9)
[95]
This Dorylaion was once as great a city as any in Asia and worthy of
much note. A gentle breeze blows over the land, and plains extend
around it, extremely smooth and exhibiting an extraordinary beauty,
so rich and fertile that they yield abundant grass and produce splendid
grain. A river, fair to see and sweet to taste, sends its course through
the midst. Such a multitude of fish swims in it that, while fished in
abundance by people there, there is no lack. Splendid dwellings had
been erected there by a former Caesar of the Melissenoi, and there
were populous villages and natural springs and porticoes and baths;
whatever brings pleasure to men, the place used to offer in
45
abundance. But the Turks, when their assault against the Romans
reached its peak, threw down the city to its foundations and rendered
it entirely bereft of inhabitants; everything vanished, even to the
barest trace of its former splendour. Such was this city. (Deeds
VII.2)[97]
46
Niketas Choniates – Roman History
47
seems to explain Eustathios of Thessaloniki’s statement that ‘My brains
would be in my feet and I would be unworthy of this garb were I to
regard as true God the pederast who was as brutish as a camel and
master and teacher of every abominable act as God’ (Niketas
Choniates, Roman History VII.216).[104] Magoulias mistakenly claims
that Eustathios is equating Muhammad with God (‘an inexcusable
mistake’)[105] but it is highly unlikely that after five centuries of
polemics the well-informed Eustathios would make such a simplistic
mistake.
48
VII Paleologus). The office of Grand Logothete, or chancellor, was
bestowed upon him in 1244.
The Turks were a constant threat to the eastern frontier of the Nicaean
successor state. According to Ruth Macrides, the translator of
Akropolites into English, he displays the traditional negative view of
Islam.[110] Typical comments include mentioning that the Turcoman
nomads enjoy plundering Roman (Byzantine) territory (George
Akropolites, History 65).[111] There are two interesting incidents that
Akropolites relates in his history: the first concerns the baptism of a
49
Seljek sultan, while the second the defeat of the Turks by the Tatars
(Mongols). He recounts how an exiled sultan was adopted and baptised
by Alexis III (George Akropolites, History 8).[112] The other is a brief
account of the Turkish defeat, where he gives a character sketch of the
sultan Iathatines. He states; ‘When, as we said, the army of the
Muslims was destroyed by the Tatars, a sultan, whose name was
Iathatines, ruled them, a son of the sultan Azatines, a bad leader who
was born of a good one. For he [Iathatines] took pleasure in drinking
and licentiousness, in strange and unnatural sexual intercourse, and
always in the company of creatures who no longer knew reason or
indeed anything of human nature.’ (George Akropolites, History
41)[113] Akropolites goes on to praise Azatines as a better ruler and
military leader because he was ‘kindly disposed towards the emperor’
despite still being prone to ‘licentiousness’ as well. The criteria for
praise that Akropolites uses is the extent that the Muslim Turks are
pro-Roman[114] or not. Those who are pro-Roman are better people
than those who are not.
50
grandfather Andronikos II. He usurped the throne in 1347 and laid
down his power in 1354 and became a monk by the name of Joasaph.
During the civil wars John married his daughter Theodora to Umar,
ruler of Smyrna and used Ottoman troops as allies. Thus, he was well-
informed due to his personal relations as well as his own personal
reading.
The four books of history by John Kantakuzenos cover the years 1320
to 1356. The work is basically a political memoir where Kantakuzenos
uses the history to justify his own actions but he always refers to
himself in the third person. In the dedicatory letter John Kantakuzenos
uses the pseudonym Christodoulos.[118]
51
of punishment, and what was most to be mourned, they turned quite a
number from their faith in Christ and persuaded them to adopt their
religion.’[121] In his account of Lazarus, Patriarch of Jerusalem,
Muslims are portrayed in a negative light but these are the Mamluks of
Egypt rather than the Anatolian Turks. Earlier in his history Lazarus is
praised by the author for rejecting union with the Latins and is
persecuted unjustly by a renegade monk who invents false charges.
On his return to the Holy Land Lazarus is apprehended and first
flattered and then tortured to force him to renounce his faith.
Kantakuzenos continues ‘…when their flattery offered no hope – for he
[Lazarus] was ready rather to endure anything for his faith in Christ
and invoke the hands of the executioners and preferred to suffer
skinning and racking, saying “Nothing that exists will be able to turn
me from my faith in Christ” – the barbarians abandoned conversion
and rejected flattery as useless and then turned to their usual and
customary savagery.’[122]
52
When the Turks heard that the plague had wiped out the men of
Cyprus, and the king was in France, all the Turks together fitted out
twelve galleys and appointed a captain named Mahomet Reis, and
came to Cyprus and landed at Pentayia and raided many people: and
he carried them off prisoners and went away (to Turkey). And when
the prince heard of it, he sent men on foot and men at arms and
knights to Lefkosia, and they went to Pentayia and found that the
Turks had gone (Leontios Makhairas, Chronicle 137). [126]
The Cypriots are weakened by plague and unprepared. The Turks take
advantage of this weakness and attack the island, carrying off
innocent civilians as their booty. They are the quintessential enemy
because they show no mercy and take advantage of the helpless,
those peasants least able to defend themselves. When the king’s
forces arrive, it is too late. The cowardly Turks are unwilling to risk a
stand-up fight. This account and others demonstrate that Makhairas
had no love for the Turks and simply regarded them as enemies.
53
The mother has no doubt that the Muslims will do her son harm, even
if he is on a pilgrimage.
And the (numerous) Saracen slaves who had been baptised and were
at Lefkosia, they were forcibly prevented (from leaving the town on
pain of death, for fear they should turn and) join the Saracens. And
this was a foolish thing to be doing, for there were many baptised
Saracens who (as soon as they heard of the king’s defeat,) ran away
(from fear) and hid themselves in the mountains, that they might not
be caught by the Saracens. And among these were George of Damat,
who made powdered sugar and syrup, being a sugar-boiler; also
Theotoki, the king’s builder, and Nicholas the son of the bathman,
Michael the tax-gatherer, the Syrian freedman, Paul the bishop’s slave,
the slave of the Makhaira monastery, and the slave called Stavrias of
the monastery of Megalos Stavros, and many others who chose rather
to die than fall into the hands of the Saracens. But, since God chooses
to deprive the officers and the councillors of wisdom, they did
everything perversely; thus too they dealt with the lives of the poor
folk, to wit the poor envoy and the poor baptised Saracens as well.
(Leontios Makhairas, Chronicle 677).[130]
Makhairas clearly has sympathy with these converts. The list indicates
that many were personally known to him. To judge by the names
54
many were probably Orthodox Christians. Makhairas sees the
authorities as misguided and foolish for viewing all Saracens are
treacherous and fickle. Despite their Arab or Turkish background
Makhairas sees them as noble converts who would rather die than
renounce their faith.
55
Doukas – Turko-Byzantine History
The first name and date of birth of Doukas is unclear. The author’s
grandfather, a supporter of John Kantakuzenos, fled to the sultan of
Smyrna in 1345 and befriended his son Isa (Doukas, History
V.5).[135] Doukas was probably born at the start of the 15th century
and, if he was the eldest son, probably had the same name as his
grandfather, Michael. Doukas spent his life in the service of the
Genoese, firstly in Nea Phokaia and later on Lesbos. He spoke Turkish
and Italian, a rarity for Byzantine historians. He saw that the
Byzantine Empire was in terminal decline so was an advocate of
church union for purely pragmatic reasons and considered the
Orthodox to be schismatics.
Despite the fact that Doukas lived in close proximity to the Turks he
has little good to say about them. Time and again, Doukas makes
scathing remarks about the sultans. The history is a litany to the
atrocities committed by the Ottoman sultans. In only a few places
does Doukas directly link the horrors of the Ottoman conquests with
the religion of the Turks. In discussing Bayazid he makes a connection
between the sultans as Muslims and as persecutors. ‘Bayazid was
acclaimed ruler of the Turks. He was a feared man, participated in
deeds of war, a persecutor of Christians as no other around him, and
in the religion of the Arabs a most ardent disciple of Muhammad,
whose unlawful commandments were observed to the utmost, never
sleeping, spending his nights contriving intrigues and machinations
against the rational flock of Christ’ (Doukas, History III.4). [136]
Doukas makes some positive comments regarding the sultan Murad
but, it seems, in spite of Murad being a Turk (and a Muslim). Doukas
gives a series of especially harsh epithets on Mehmed II including ‘the
truly flesh-wearing demon’ (Doukas, History XXXIII.12), ‘Antichrist’
(Doukas, History XXXIV.5), ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ (Doukas, History
XXXVI.1), and ‘impious tyrant and implacable enemy and murderer of
our nation’ (Doukas, History XLII.14). Other crimes that Doukas
56
exposes include the fratricide that normally occurred when a reigning
sultan died and has Mehmed murder his eight-month old half-brother
(Doukas, History XXXIII.10). The homosexual lust of Mehmed is
depicted in the account of the grand duke, Lukas Notaras, execution. A
drunk Mehmed demands the youthful son of Notaras to sate his
pleasures and sends a servant to fetch the boy. Notaras refuses and
goes nobly to his death along with his son and son-in-law (Doukas,
History XL.5-7).
57
There are a number of incidents that are specifically anti-Christian.
These include the torture of the archbishop of Philadelphia in an
attempt to force him to renounce his faith (Doukas, History XXII.7),
the forced conversion of Michael Pylles, a corrupt and despicable Greek
scribe in the service of the Turks (Doukas, History XXVIII.3) and the
burning of icons to roast meat by ignorant Turkish soldiers after the
sack of Constantinople (Doukas, History XLII.1).
58
Ertoghrul, who was followed by Othman, after whom this dynasty was
named; the third was Orhan, the fourth was Murad, the fifth was
Bayazid, the sixth was Mehmed, and the seventh was Murad. Mehmed
was the eighth sultan, who enslaved us and expelled us from
Constantinople.’ (Chronicle I)[144] Interestingly Sphrantzes makes the
comment that Mehmed enslaved the Greeks, a very negative
comment.
59
Michael Kritovoulos – History of Mehmed the Conqueror
60
Kritovoulos depicts Mehmed as weeping (Kritovoulos, History
I.256).[156] Kritovoulos even excuses Mehmed of some of the crimes
perpetuated by him. Lucas Notaras, the Mega Dux of Constantinople,
is executed in an unfair manner. It is clear that Kritovoulos admires
Notaras as he calls him a ‘hero’ in the face of death (Kritovoulos,
History I.285-287).[157] Later Kritovoulos explains that Mehmed had
ordered Notaras’ death due to false information by treacherous
informants. Similarly, Kritovoulos fails to mention the execution of
David Comnenus, the defeated ruler of Trebizond. He merely states
that David lived in comfortable retirement. (Kritovoulos, History IV.46-
53)[158] After describing the massacres of various garrisons in the
Peloponnese, Kritovoulos states that Mehmed had no choice because
he had previously asked them to surrender but they had declined to do
so. (Kritovoulos, History III.133-134)[159]
61
their remains were taken out and disgracefully torn to pieces, even to
shreds, and made the sport of the wind while others were thrown on
the streets.
Chalices and goblets and vessels to hold the holy sacrifices, some of
them were used for drinking and carousing, and others were broken up
or melted down and sold. Holy vessels and costly robes richly
embroidered with much gold or brilliant with precious stones and
pearls were some of them given to the most wicked men for no good
use, while others were consigned to the fire and melted down for the
gold. And holy and divine books, and others mainly of profane
literature and philosophy, were either given to the flames or
dishonourably trampled under foot. Many of them were sold for two or
three pieces of money, and sometimes for pennies only, not for gain
so much as in contempt. Holy altars were torn from their foundations
and overthrown. The walls of sanctuaries and cloisters were explored,
and the holy places of the shrines were dug into and overthrown in the
search for gold. Many other things they dared to do. (Kritovoulos,
History I.237-246).[161]
62
his courage and military skill and valour.’ (Kritovoulos, History
II.107)[165]
63
Hagiography
Anonymous – Life of Michael the Synkellos
For a biography of a man who spent half of his life under Islamic rule
there is little reference to Islam. There are a number of reasons for
this; firstly the author was a Byzantine so he was less informed about
Michael’s early activities in the Holy Land; secondly Michael was not
involved in any controversies with Muslims; and finally the main focus
of the biography was Michael’s opposition to iconoclasm.
The one and only direct reference to Islam concerns the increase in
taxation that the Muslims imposed on the Christian community. ‘It
came to pass in those days that a certain heavy fine was imposed by
the impious Hagarenes on the holy church of the Resurrection of Christ
our God….to the extent that those who lived in the holy city of Christ
our God were unable to pay this monetary fine’ (Life of Michael the
Synkellos 6).[167] The reference speaks for itself. The harsh tax is
unjust and designed to make life unbearable for the monks. Another
minor reference occurs later in Michael’s Life when Michael and his
disciples, Theodore and Theophanes, have an audience with the
iconoclastic emperor Theophilus. The monks are severely beaten and
the brothers are tattooed with insulting iambic verses. As part of their
punishment Theophilus declares that he will ‘hand them over to two
64
sons of Hagar that they may conduct them to their own country’ (Life
of Michael the Synkellos 20).[168] The implication of the threat is that
the Muslims will be really harsh to the saints, who were considered
foreigners in Byzantium, and will deport them to Muslim territory and
execute them. This part of the sentence was never actually carried out
as the emperor decided to deal with them himself but the implied
threat was seen as a real possibility.
Constantine, better known by his later monastic name of Cyril, was the
brother of Methodius and one of the famous ‘Apostles of the Slavs’.
There exists a long life of Constantine written in Slavonic based on
Greek sources. The author of the life is unknown but candidates
include Methodius or his disciple, Clement of Achrida. It was composed
soon after Constantine’s death.
65
mission, an attack on the Christian understanding of God in the form
of the Trinity (which the Muslims take in very carnal terms), an
emphasis on the superiority of Islamic culture and a pointing out of a
perceived inconsistency in Christian morality by claiming that
Christians were not following Christ’s instructions to love one’s
enemies (Luke 6:27-29 and Matthew 5:44) when they fought Muslim
armies. Constantine has a very low opinion of Muhammad. He, if his
hagiographer reports him correctly, emphatically disbelieved that
Muhammad had received any revelation. Rather than restraining the
baser instincts of humanity, he catered to it. ‘By not curbing your
wrath and your lust, but only letting loose, did he fling you into the
abyss?’ Another line of attack was the stance that Islamic culture was
superior to Byzantine culture. To this, Constantine responds bluntly ‘All
the arts have come from us’ (Life of Constantine the Philosopher 6)
which ends that line of argument.[172] However, the hagiographer
does pay the Muslims the compliment that they were ‘intelligent men
well-versed in geometry and astronomy and other sciences…’[173] The
Muslims return to the attack on the Trinity but are immediately
silenced by Constantine quoting the Quranic Sura (Q. 19:17) on the
virginal conception of Jesus. Most probably at this stage of Arab-
Byzantine relations, Constantine received this helpful information from
a local Christian informant rather than knowing the Quran before he
left Byzantine territory.
66
a number of issues resulting in the Khazars declaring the rabbis
victorious. The evidence shows that, for Constantine, the person of
Muhammad was a central issue. The truth or falseness of Islam
depended on Muhammad.
The Life of Stephen of Mar Sabas is full of pious anecdotes and wise
sayings that involve Stephen, the monks of Mar Sabas and
surrounding monasteries.
67
There is no indication that a Muslim visitor to Mar Sabas was in any
way unusual. However, the ex-Muslim denounces his old religion as
‘vain’ and mentions it in the same breath as the devil. It seems that
the monks of Mar Sabas considered Islam to be part or all demonic in
origin.
The Bedouin rushed up behind them [the nuns] like dogs, barking as
they chased their prey, with their threats and menacing behaviour
striking terror into the hearts of these rational sheep of Christ. It was
their hope that the strength of the women’s fear would cause them to
stop and to be too weak to run, and that thus they would fall into their
filthy hands….When the Bedouin had got hold of that holy woman, one
of them grabbed her pure hair, wishing to defile her chaste body. He
became furious with her. Barking like a dog, he dragged and pulled her
about and pushed her. (Leontius, Life of Stephen of Mar Sabas
50.4)[180]
The Bedouins are then struck down by the power of God and the nuns
escape unharmed. It is then revealed that Stephen had witnessed the
entire event and had helped the nuns by praying with his arms
outstretched. The Bedouins are referred to as Amalek, drawing a
comparison with the incident in the Old Testament where the Israelites
defeated the Amalekites by having Moses hold out his hands (Exodus
17:8-13). Not only are the Bedouin portrayed as base and animal-like
but a dichotomy is established where the Christians are the ones true
and loyal to God while the Muslims are the enemies of God.
68
Stephen thinks talking to the authorities is a waste of time because
they will not listen to reason.
69
Martyrology
Monks and monasteries were often the victims of Islamic aggression
due to their wealth and status. On a raid in 785 Abbot Michael of the
monastery of Zobe and 36 of the monks were martyred for refusing to
convert to Islam.[183] Other times monks were victims along with the
rest of the population. For example, in the raid that resulted in the
capture of the city of Amorion in 838 the raiding Islamic armies
massacred 30,000 soldiers and civilians with the fall of the city. On the
difficult retreat 6,000 Byzantine prisoners were beheaded because
some prisoners managed to escape.[184] Comparatively few accounts
of martyrdoms survive from the Byzantine period. There must have
been many occasions where the names of the victims remained
unknown for want of an author to write an account.
70
III and the caliph. The hagiographer states he translated the text from
Syriac but Huxley supposes an earlier Greek text as the source; a text
related to the previously mentioned Sixty Martyrs of Gaza.[187] The
account has no other support from other historical sources and is
considered apocryphal by most scholars.[188] There is no evidence of
any truce or the account of the atrocity of the execution of pilgrims in
any martyrology. The main value of the text is the view that the
author had of Islam. The hagiographer had an intense hatred of Islam.
He lived ‘in a harsher and more truculent society than that of St. John
Damascene’ so he ‘invented an atrocity in order to give vent to his
hated.’[189] The probable connection between the two accounts is a
historical core relating to the garrison of Gaza that was later altered
into the text of the Sixty Martyrs of Jerusalem by some mischievous
monk with the aim of discrediting any peace-treaty with Muslims.
71
Syrian. Elias is taken to a judge, who is unsympathetic and decides to
agree with the accusers. Subsequently, Elias is brutally executed.
72
The Martyrdom of Abo, the Perfumer from Baghdad is a Georgian work
that recounts the martyrdom of an Arab convert to Christianity.
Culturally, Georgia was very much within the Byzantine cultural sphere
as they shared the same Orthodox Chalcedonian faith as the
Byzantines. In his list of Melkite martyrs of the Umayyad and early
Abbassid period Mark Swanson fails to mention Abo even though he
mentions nine other martyrs.[195] The text states that he was
martyred on the 6th of January, 786.[196] The account was written by
a Georgian cleric by the name of John, son of Saban at the behest of
the Catholicos Samuel. There is no indication that John knew Abo
personally but he certainly had access to first hand information. The
text indicates that Abo had become something of a celebrity in
Georgia, strongly implying that conversions to Christianity were a
rarity. The account follows a similar pattern to an earlier martyrdom,
that of Eustace the Cobbler, a Zoroastrian convert to Christianity, who
lived in 5th century Georgia.
73
arrest and have him tortured and beaten until he confesses the faith of
our prophet Muhammad. If he refuses, then kill him, so that his words
may not win him a lot of imitators.’[200] Abo is imprisoned and
interviewed. He refuses to recant and is eventually beheaded.
74
very same temptations that were offered to Anthony were those that
contemporary Christians found equally attractive and prompted them
to convert to Islam. Lamoreaux points out that these conversion
narratives ‘attempt to portray in the sharpest colours the contrast
between Christian perseverance and Islamic roguery.’[203] Anthony
refused the offer and was beheaded on Christmas Day, 799 AD.
The account was so famous that the Melkite theologian, Theodore Abu
Qurrah, referred to it in his tract on the defence of icons. He states:
In our own day there was a well-known martyr, from a family of the
highest nobility among the outsiders, whose story is wide-spread. May
he remember us to Christ in his prayers, he is called St. Anthony. He
used to tell everyone he met that he came to believe in Christianity
only because of a miracle he saw in connection with an icon that
belonged to St. Theodore, the martyr. (Theodore Abu Qurrah, A
Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons XVI)[204]
Mar Sabas was an import Orthodox monastery on the Dead Sea coast.
In 797, 20 monks were murdered by a band of Bedouin raiders. The
entry in the Roman Martyrology is for John, Sergius, and companions
– a group of 20 monks of the Laura of Mar Sabas near Jerusalem, who
75
were killed in one of the anti-Christian Arab raids. Many more were
wounded, and a few escaped.
All bear witness to it, that it was true – not only on account of the
virtuous and pure way of life of this disciple, but also because his
death and departure from the world took place through the baptism of
martyrdom, which admits of no stain, for he was one of the holy
fathers who were martyred, killed by the Bedouin in the laura of this,
our father, the great Mar Sabas. What befell them and their
martyrdom – this has been written about by the excellent and virtuous
wise man, Abba Stephen the son of Mansur, the Damascene, an
honour and a glory to our laura.’ (Leontius, Life of Stephen of Mar
Sabas 77.5)[206]
76
Basoes. The other versions such as one composed by Michael the
Synkellos focus on the life of a single officer such as Callistus, the dux
of Koloneia. No version names the entire group of martyrs. More than
a dozen versions of the incident survive, probably because
martyrology was an immensely popular genre in Byzantine literature.
When the Saracens told the generals that Mahomet was a true prophet
and Christ was not, the generals asked them: ‘If two men were to
quarrel about a field, with one saying “It's mine!”, and the other
saying, “No, it's mine!”, and one had many witnesses that it was his
field and the other had not a single witness but himself, what would
you say — whose field was it?’ The Saracens replied, ‘His, of course,
who had the many witnesses.’ ‘You have judged right’, the generals
answered them. ‘So it is with Christ and Mahomet. Christ has many
witnesses: the ancient prophets, whom you also recognise, from
Moses to John the Baptist, witnessed to Him. But Mahomet only
witnesses to himself that he is a prophet, and has no other witness.’
The Saracens were confounded, but attempted then to defend their
77
faith thus: ‘That our faith is better than Christianity is seen in this:
that God has given us victory over you, that He gives us the best lands
on earth and an empire much greater than the Christian.’ To this the
generals replied: ‘If that were so, then the idol-worship of Egypt and
Babylon, and of Greece and Rome, and the fire-worship of Persia,
would have been true faiths, for at some time each of these peoples
has conquered others and governed them. It is obvious that your
victory and power and wealth do not prove the truth of your faith. We
know that God sometimes gives victory to Christians, and sometimes
leaves them in torture and suffering to correct them and bring them to
repentance and cleansing from sin.’
78
agree in placing the martyrdom in the 860s, disregarding the scribal
dating that places the martyrdom in Umayyad times.[212]
79
‘Abd al-Masih is recognised by one of his raiding companions and is
denounced.[214] After he refuses to accept Islam, ‘Abd al-Masih is
beheaded and his body is burnt. His final words are not a denunciation
of Islam but a declaration in the truth of Christianity.
80
Polemical Works
John of Damascus – On Heresies
81
John’s refutation is the most famous and early Christian response to
Islam in Greek. Andrew Louth justly calls John a ‘pioneer’ in the area
of Islamic polemics as John did not have any patristic sources to draw
on. The Font of Knowledge was written sometime in the first half of
the eighth century about the same time that Ibn Ishaq was composing
his Sirat Rasual Allah, thus this Byzantine Greek source is
contemporaneous with the earliest Arabic source for the life of
Muhammad, something not often acknowledged. The verdict on John’s
chapter on Islam has varied widely. Some theologians such as John
Meyendorff have concluded that John only had a superficial
understanding of Islam. He states that ‘his [John’s] contribution to the
history of Byzantine polemics against Islam is slight’ and ‘he is
certainly much better informed about events in Constantinople than
about Islam.’[219] Meyendorff considers John to be living in a
Christian ghetto having little contact with Islam. He even doubts that
John had read the Quran, even though he quotes from four Quranic
suras.[220] However, the increasing consensus, most eloquently
advocated by Daniel Sahas, has shown that the opposite was true.
John’s brief account demonstrates an excellent summary of Islamic
belief filtered through the eyes of Christian theology.
Louth sums up the content thus: it ‘starts off defining Islam, situating
Muhammad historically, and summarizing his teaching, especially as it
bears on Christianity; it then deals with Muslims objections to
Christianity, and goes on to discuss various suras from the Quran, the
last of which is no more than mentioned, after which there is a brief
and rather inconsequential list of Muslim practices.’[221]
He concludes that ‘There is no doubt from this that John has a fairly
accurate picture of Islam.’[222]
82
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. 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. 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.
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 (God) 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 the
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).
83
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.”
The other answered: “You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and
take my wife”. (John of Damascus. On Heresies 101).[223]
That John was well informed can be seen by the details he mentions.
He begins with biographical information on Muhammad and provides a
selective history of the rise of Islam. He knows when Muhammad
flourished and his teaching, especially as it impinges on Christian
doctrine. He knows a number of scandalous incidents in the life of
84
Muhammad like his marriage to Zeynab,[224] his multiple marriages,
his account of receiving revelations alone in a cave, his claim to be a
prophet and his authorship of ‘books.’ John is aware of the Quran, or
at least a proto-collection of suras that Islamic tradition had gathered
from its earliest times.[225] John quotes or summarises a number of
suras and knows the sura titles. This means he had access to Arabic as
there were no Greek versions at this stage.
85
Theodore was author of a number of directly polemical tracts, while
others are more apologetic. His most aggressive work is entitled
Refutations of the Saracens [or Dialogues] by Theodore Abu Qurrah,
the Bishop of Harran, as Reported by John the Deacon. The recently
discovered preface shows that the work was actually composed by the
otherwise unknown John the Deacon. Other polemical treatise includes
his tract on Free Will and Questions on Free Will against Muslim
fatalism. His tract On the Trinity and On Icons also have a Muslim
audience in mind. Other tracts deal with inter-Christian rivalries. Being
a Melkite, Theodore disputed with Nestorians, Monophysites and
Maronites. Theodore even composed a traditional Tract against the
Jews.
The Dialogues were written in Greek so this work was easily accessible
to Byzantine theologians.[231] The language of the Dialogues probably
explains their combative and dismissive attitude, despite being written
within the boundaries of the Abbasid Caliphate. Few Muslims would
have had the language skills to read the contents. The preface, for
example, states the view that Islam is a pseudo-religion: ‘…he
[Theodore] worthily held up to public scorn the impious religion of the
Hagarenes and showed to all that it was worthy of complete
derision.’[232] John the Deacon also states that he considers Islam to
be ‘a heresy.’[233]
86
demon, he said, “God sent me to spill the blood of those who venerate
the divine nature as three hypostases and of all those who do not say,
‘God is one, barren-built, who did not beget and was not begotten,
who has no partner.’’ This is the theology of one who is insane.’[234]
It is difficult to believe that Theodore would have been actually been
able to get away with his comments. Perhaps it is wishful thinking by
John the Deacon.
Other topics in the Dialogues deal with issues that were at the heart of
the differences between Christianity and Islam. Theodore defends the
text of the Bible[235] and disputes the claim that Muhammad was
predicted in the Scriptures.[236] He is aware that Muslims deny the
Trinity,[237] the crucifixion[238] and the deity of Christ.[239] These
Theodore defends as best he can and is depicted as getting the better
of his opponents. Theodore even defends monogamy against the
Muslim insistence on polygamy by using the example of Adam and
Eve, something a Muslim would accept.[240] The Dialogues
demonstrate that there was available to Byzantine scholars a work
against Islam that was accurate and comprehensive from the early 9th
century.
Niketas of Byzantium
– Response and Refutation
– Refutation of the Quran
Niketas wrote the first formal systematic refutation of Islam and the
Quran in Greek on Byzantine territory. His work was indicative of the
rise of learning in the 9th century and the theological engagement at
the time. Niketas composed ‘A Refutation of the Falsely Written Book
of the Arab Muhammad’ often known as ‘The Refutation of the Quran.’
He also wrote a ‘Refutation of the Epistle of the Hagarenes’ which was
a response on behalf of the Emperor Michael III of a letter from the
caliph for the emperor to embrace Islam. Niketas was also author of
87
polemical works against the Armenians and the Latins.[241]
Meyendorff claims that Niketas had probably never even met a Muslim
and that his Refutation was merely a scholarly exercise.[242] That
Niketas would go through some trouble for a work that would be
unusable seems improbable. Niketas made the effort to read previous
works against Islam in preparation for his own polemics. He had read
Theodore Abu Qurrah’s works.[243] Polemics were meant to be
practical or their usefulness would be negligible. That the work
survived suggests that some in the Byzantine Church found it useful;
however, it was definitely aimed at a Christian rather than a Muslim
audience.[244]
88
contents, calling it the ‘most pitiful and most inept little book of the
Arab Muhammad’, full of blasphemies against the Most High, with all
its ugly and vulgar filth.[250] He knows that the Quran teaches the
Virgin Birth but sees this as ‘an act of effrontery and contrary to his
[Muhammad’s] own wishes.’[251] Niketas then mocks the Quran for
claiming that the Virgin Mary was the sister of Moses and Aaron.
Niketas concludes that the Quran contains some things that are from
God but many others that are not. He speculates that God is either
changeable or does not exist, neither is an option he is willing to
accept. Niketas is responding to the Muslim claim of a progressive
revelation. This was a difficult case for Christians to argue as Muslims
89
used the same arguments against Christianity as Christians used
against Jews.[257] Since Niketas cannot accept the options that God is
changeable or non-existent he makes the connection that the god of
Muhammad is the devil.[258] In reaching this conclusion Niketas was
drawing on Saint Paul. New Testament texts like II Corinthians (II Cor
11:3-4) make it clear that the Islamic doctrine of a human Christ who
was a mere apostle (Paul’s ‘another Jesus whom we have not
preached’) must be satanic. The Byzantines often believed that the
devil would mix truth with deception in order to trap believers.
90
so Eutychius is directly challenging the Islamic direction of prayer
towards Mecca.
Euthymius Zigabenus
– Dogmatic Panoply
– Disputation on the Faith with a Saracen Philosopher
91
considered epileptic attacks rather than demonic manifestations.
Despite the fact that Zigabenus uses the material for polemical
purposes he is quite well informed as to the biography of Muhammad.
Bartholomew of Edessa
– Against the Hagarenes
– Anonymous Tract Against Muhammad
92
himself. Bartholomew shows that nothing either in his parentage,
education, or life betrays any God-given mission. From this he
concludes that Muhammad was an impostor, preaching without any
divine credentials. Bartholomew is well acquainted not only with the
Christian position which he defends vigorously, but also with the
position of his adversaries; he knows the customs, practices, and
beliefs of the Arabs, and he boasts that he has read ‘all of your sacred
books.’[267] That Bartholomew has some knowledge of the Quran is
indicated by his use of the passages that are favourable to Jesus and
Mary. He throws this back at Muslims by saying: ‘…in the entire Quran
there do not occur any praises of Muhammad or his mother Aminah,
such as are found about our Lord Jesus Christ and about the Holy
Virgin Mary, the Theotokos.’[268] This passage also shows that
Bartholomew knew Muhammad’s mother’s name, something he could
only have learned from Islamic tradition.
93
Muhammad’s wives and children; the editor of the Quran and the
Nestorian monk who taught Muhammad Christianity are all named
differently.
Paul of Antioch
– Letter to a Muslim Friend
– Letter from the People of Cyprus
Very little is known about Paul’s biography. His extant works indicate
that he originated from Antioch, entered the monastic life and
eventually became the Melkite bishop of Sidon. The exact dates of his
most famous work are unclear, but evidence from existing manuscripts
and internal references place his activity between 1140-1200.[273]
Paul was a native speaker of Arabic and all his existing works were
composed in this language.
94
1. Muhammad was only sent to the Arabs and Islam is not a
universal religion.
2. The Quran praises Christ so Christians need not convert to
Islam.
3. The prophecies of the Old Testament confirm Christian doctrines
like the Trinity and the incarnation.
4. Christian doctrines can be proved by reason.
5. Quranic terms support the Christian concept of God.
6. That Christianity was perfect and any new revelation was
unnecessary.[276]
Accepting the blind devotion that Muslims hold for Muhammad and the
Quran, Paul’s tactic is not to dismiss them as false but to present them
as misunderstood. In this manner Paul is turning a common Muslim
polemical tool against them. Muslims often claimed that the Apostles
had misunderstood Christ. Both Paul and his Cypriot redactor
demonstrate a ‘prodigious’ knowledge of the Quran.[277] Paul uses all
the pro-Christian Quranic suras that he can muster and the Cypriot
adds more and even includes the names of the suras quoted by Paul.
The key to the argument is the limited scope of Islam and the
universality of Christianity. This was a strong case as Byzantine
Christianity was nowhere near as culturally imperialistic as Islam or
Western Christianity. Orthodoxy had a strong tradition of allowing
vernacular translations of the Scripture and worship in native
languages.
‘If the book which they have in the one language of Arabic and is in
one location cannot have been altered and not one letter of it is
substituted, how can our books which are written in seventy-two
languages be altered? In each of them there are thousands of copies,
which were accepted for six hundred years before the coming of
Muhammad. They came into people’s hands, and they read them in
their different languages despite the size of their countries and the
distance between them. Who can speak seventy-two languages? Or
who could make the decision to collect them from the four corners of
the earth to change them? If some of them were changed and some
95
were left – this was not possible because they are all one message, all
the languages. So such a thing cannot ever be said.
Indeed, we have found a proof that is more impressive than this in his
words in Counsel, ‘Say: I believe in whatever scripture Allah hath sent
down, and I am commanded to be just among you. Allah is our Lord
and your Lord. Unto us our works and unto you your works; no
argument between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and unto
him is the journeying’. As for those who are not People of the Book, it
says in The Disbelievers, ‘Say: O disbelievers! I worship not that which
ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your
religion, and unto me my religion.’ It also says in The Spider, ‘And
argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that
is better, save with such of them as do wrong ; and say We believe in
that which hath been revealed unto us and revealed unto you; our God
and your God is one, and we surrender unto him’. It does not say: You
surrender to him, but ‘and we’, i.e. himself and the Arabs who followed
what he brought.’[278]
96
Ricoldo’s best-known work is the Contra Legem Saracenorum or
Against the Law of the Saracens. It was written in Latin in Baghdad so
the local Muslim authorities were totally unaware of the nature of his
work. Ricoldo was clearly one of the better-informed Latin authors on
Islam having spent four years in Baghdad learning Arabic, the Quran
and Islamic traditions. He was not impressed with what he learnt. He
found many points in the biography of Muhammad that were worth
criticizing.
97
breath…The Saracens themselves say that Muhammad, a single man,
could not produce the Quran without God’s help, with its many
references to the Old and New Testament. In fact, there are many
things there against the Old and New Testaments.’[283] Ricoldo also
brings up the issue of Muhammad’s lack of miracles. He understands
miracles as a guide to truthfulness, citing the example of Moses and
Jesus. He is aware of the Muslim claim of the miracle of Muhammad’s
splitting of the moon but is dismissive of it as he knows what Muslims
assert is not in the Quran.[284] By attacking the two central pillars of
Islam, Muhammad and the Quran, Ricoldo tries to undermine the
assurance of Muslims.
Finally, Ricoldo cannot believe that the success of Islam is solely due
to human success so he adds that ‘But his chief teacher was, I think,
the devil.’ Ricoldo is very critical of Islamic law, which he terms
‘rambling, confused, opaque, irrational and violent.’[288] He is
obviously contrasting Islamic law with Christian canon law. He gives an
account of temporary marriage that was practised as a way of
circumventing the Islamic prohibition regarding fornication. Ricoldo
even quotes the verse from the Quran that Islamic theologians use to
justify their conduct.[289]
98
John Kantakuzenos
– Four Orations Against Muhammad
– Four Apologies Against the Muslim (Muhammedan) Sect
99
three persons, the Father and the Mother and the Son’.[295] This is a
direct reference to the Quran injunction that says exactly this.
Kantakuzenos then proceeds to vindicate Christian monotheism
against these charges. He aware of Islamic determinism and
commented on its irreconcilability with the traditional view of human
free will to do both good and evil.[296]
100
written during his relatively comfortable captivity at Nicaea during the
last days of his imprisonment.[299] Gregory’s account makes it clear
that Christians under Turkish rule flocked to him and begged him to
provide answers to their questions. The Turks used the opportunity to
try to humiliate Gregory and the Christian faith ‘as a proof of the
ineffectiveness of our faith’.[300] Often under Turkish rule priests and
bishops were expelled from their sees, property was confiscated and
the church was reduced to poverty and the people were left without
leaders to respond to the Muslim propaganda. One of the most
commonly asked questions was why God had ‘abandoned’ their nation.
It is evident from other sources that the Turkish conquests led to a low
morale amongst the Christians who were subsequently easily
converted to Islam.
Gregory is not afraid to criticise the Turks in the most abusive terms;
he calls them ‘this impious and god-hating and all-abominable race –
[who] boast that they dominate the Romans [Greek Orthodox] on
account of their own faith in God’ and ‘they live a reproachful,
inhuman, and God-hating life ….to live a prodigal life in swords and
knives, indulging in slavery, murder, plundering, rape, licentiousness,
adultery and homosexuality.’[304] It is certain that he was much more
courteous in his actual discussions while remaining staunch in his
101
views. His letter was never meant for Turkish eyes so the contents
remained unknown to them.
By the conclusion of his captivity Gregory was well informed and had a
good understanding of Islam but his experiences led him to dismiss
their claims to a divine revelation as baseless. Sahas makes the
comment that Palamas was rather ignorant of Islam as revealed by his
initial discussion with Ishmael.[305] The limited scope of the
discussion between the two on the nature of almsgiving is not
conclusive. Certainly, Gregory must have learnt much about Islam
during his captivity but it is impossible to measure his knowledge
before he was captured. The low level of Turkish morality was probably
the deciding factor for Gregory’s rejection of Islam since the Turks
claimed that ‘God gives them his consent’ to abuse the helpless
Anatolian Christian population. Gregory’s concluding remarks on
Muhammad that he propagated Islam by ‘means of war and the sword,
with pillage, enslavement and executions’ shows that Islam was to
blame for Turkish aggression against the Christians.[306]
At one point, a group called the Chiones, enters debate with Gregory
in front of the sultan. They are recent converts to Islam but their
identity is uncertain. Meyendorff considers them to be Christian
converts to a type of Mosaic Judaism in an effort for them to find some
kind of accommodation with the Turks.[307] Sahas sees them as
Jewish converts to Islam.[308] Gregory has nothing but scorn for the
Chiones and their knowledge. He calls them ‘…men who, taught by the
Satan, had studied nothing else but blasphemies and shameful
things…’[309] The Chiones try to argue that circumcision is a necessity
since it is in the Old Testament but Gregory silences them as being
inconsistent. He says that ‘Since you are referring to the old law and
to what was handed down by God to the Hebrews at the time – for
traditions of God also were the keeping of the Sabbath, the Jewish
Passover, sacrifices which were to be offered exclusively by the
priests, the altar in the interior of the temple, and the dividing curtain
– since all these and other such things have also been handed down
by God, why do you not cherish any of them and you do not practice
them?”[310] Neither the sultan nor the Chiones seem to be aware of
the usual Islamic retort of Scriptural corruption.
The final dispute with Tasimanes on the divinity of Christ caused huge
crowds to gather. Tasimanes is aware of the traditional charge of
102
Scriptural corruption and claims that ‘There was reference to
Muhammad in the Gospel but you cut it out’.[311] He also uses Muslim
victories as an indication of Islamic truth. Gregory responds with the
usual defence that the Gospel is too widespread to be altered in every
place. It is, however, his response to the second proof that is telling.
He says ‘Muhammad marched from the East and he progressed
victoriously to the West. He did so, however, by means of war and the
sword, with pillage, enslavement and executions, none of which has its
origin in God…’[312] Gregory, as a good Byzantine, even brings up
Alexander the Great, as a similar example of a great conqueror. The
difference was that others did not entrust their souls to Alexander on
account of his victories. As the dispute was growing heated Gregory
called it to a halt, probably fearing violence on behalf of the Turks.
Manuel lived in the time of terminal political and economic decline for
the Byzantine Empire. He was the second son of the emperor John V
Palaeologos. He rejected his father’s personal conversion to Roman
Catholicism and remained staunchly Orthodox all his life. He was born
in Constantinople in 1350 and named co-emperor in 1373. He
succeeded his father as sole emperor in 1391 and ruled until 1425
when, after a long illness, he renounced the world and became a
monk. He died soon afterwards. His foreign policy alternated between
serving as a vassal to the Turks to finding western help against them.
To that end Manuel made a long futile journey to the west between
1399-1403, visiting leaders like the Pope and the kings of France and
England, trying to find military assistance against the Turks.
103
the dialogue.[314] By the time Manuel was writing the tide had
definitely turned against Christianity. ‘The Turks had greater powers of
assimilation than the Latins. There were many more Turks, and they
promoted conversion to Islam, which virtually insured that a Greek’s
descendants would consider themselves Turks. As the Turks raided
and conquered, they enslaved many Christians, selling some in other
Muslim regions and hindering the rest from practicing their faith.’[315]
104
inhabitants[318], who have fled to the clefts in the rocks, to the
forests, and to the mountain heights in an effort to escape a death
from which there is no escape, a very cruel and inhuman death
without any semblance of justice…Nobody is spared, neither very
young children nor defenceless women. For those whom old age or
illness prevents from running away there is no hope of escaping the
murderous blade.’[319] Manuel claims that the lawlessness was so
great that even Muslim holy men, or ‘Muslims priests’ as Manuel dubs
them, are victims of Turkish aggression. This puzzling statement could
refer to various Shi’ite or syncretist Muslim imams or perhaps
bystanders who got in the way of assaults.
105
Diplomatic Correspondence
Leo III – Letter of Leo III to Umar
Leo rejects the heavenly origin of the Quran but he does not resort to
the usual claim that the monk Bahira or renegade Jewish Rabbis were
responsible for the teaching of Muhammad. He states that it was
Umar, Ali and Salman the Persian who composed the Quran. The
divine authorship was merely ‘rumour’ that had spread amongst the
Arabs.[325] This seems to be a combination of the various stories of
Muhammad’s teachers and the collection of the Quran under the early
Caliphs. Leo singles out the reference in the Quran to Miriam (Mary,
the mother of Jesus) being the sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram
106
as an example of the absurdities in the Quran. Leo takes this to mean
that Muhammad has confused the two personalties due to the
similarity of names despite there being 1370 years difference between
the two… ‘The Christ, according to the promise of God, ought to come
from the tribe according to the promise of God, ought to come from
the tribe of Judah, whereas Miriam, the daughter of Amram, belonged
to that of Levi. Your objections are full of inconsequences, and offer
nothing but a multitude of gross and inadmissible falsifications. The
source of so many such subterfuges and contradictions is naught but
human invention…’[326] The ‘objections’ probably refer to Muslim
explanations of Mary being Aaron’s sister as a figurative expression
but Leo will have none of this because Mary was not from the priestly
Levite tribe but rather from David’s tribe, that of Judah.
The Sirat Rasual Allah of Ibn Ishaq mentions John 15:23 that the
Paraclete is a prophecy of Muhammad.[327] Leo totally rejects this
interpretation of the passage. If Leo was responsible for the letter then
this was the earliest reference to this Islamic apologetic point. Leo also
knows of the Muslim claim that Abraham built the Kaaba in Mecca. He
knows perfectly well that the Kaaba was ‘pagan altar of sacrifice not
the House of Abraham that Muslims claimed.’[328] Leo strongly
implies on this point that despite their claims to monotheism, Muslims
are stained with a crypto-paganism. This is a recurring theme in other
Byzantine polemics.[329] Leo is even aware of the incident of Zeynab
when he states ‘he [Muhammad] succeeded in seducing the woman
Zeda’ in his discussion of the immorality of Islamic sexual ethics.[330]
107
Patriarch of Constantinople. He was renowned as a classical scholar
and author. He wrote scholia on a number of classical authors such as
Plato, Aristotle, Lucian and Dio Chrysostom. He was appointed
Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia in 902 but spent most of his
time in Constantinople. He seems to have died some time around
932.[331]
Among the minor works of Arethas exists a letter refuting Islam in the
most abusive and blunt terms. The authorship of the letter is disputed.
Some scholars like Daniel Sahas[332] and Patricia Karlin-Hayter are
willing to acknowledge Arethas’ authorship while others like Romily
Jenkins deny the authorship. Jenkins even goes as far as to claim the
authorship actually belongs to a diplomat named Leo Choirosphactes.
Whatever the authorship, it is doubtful that the letter would have ever
been sent. Not only would it have caused diplomatic uproar but no
Muslim would have been convinced by its arguments. The letter
probably circulated as a scurrilous pamphlet among Arethas’ circle of
literary friends.
The letter itself deals with many of the same topics of previous
polemics. Sahas divides the letter into thirteen sections:
1. The title which states ‘To the Emir of Damascus at the instigation
of Romanos the King’
2. Acknowledgement of receiving of previous correspondence from
the emir
3. An opening remark on Islam
4. The truth and reliability of Christianity
5. On the divinity of Jesus and a comparison between Jesus and
Adam
6. The divinity of Jesus and a comparison between Jesus and
Ezekiel
7. Muslim misconceptions about the divinity of Jesus
8. The veneration of the cross
9. Defense of the divinity of Jesus
10. Military success and religious truth
11. A critique of Muslim teaching on Paradise
12. The meaning and purpose of the incarnation
13. Closing of the letter
108
Arethas can hardly be accused to ignorance regarding Islam; not only
did he go on a diplomatic mission to Egypt and Syria for the emperor
but he also copied works by Theodore Abu Qurrah. The letter itself
begins with an insulting statement:
But how did you venture to call the faith of the Saracens pure and
immaculate…Isn’t that a faith full of filth, that subjects you mostly to
sexual acts with women and many other shameful and improper
deeds?[333]
The letter goes on to deal with the standard topics like the veracity of
the incarnation and the divinity of Jesus against the misconceptions of
the Muslims. Arethas uses the proof of the Old Testament prophecies,
the miracles of Jesus and the success of Christianity ‘through poor and
simple men, twelve in number.’ Arethas even knows of the Muslim
comparisons of Jesus to Adam and Ezekiel that try to disprove the
uniqueness of Jesus. Adam was used because, like Jesus, he had no
father and Ezekiel was used because he raised people from the dead.
The most insulting aspect of the letter is Arethas’ attack on the Muslim
understanding of Heaven. Meyendorff, who rejects the Arethan
authorship, says of the work that ‘the pamphlet consists essentially of
a number of jokes in poor taste about the Muslim concept of
Paradise.’[334] Arethas takes the high moral ground in his attack on
Islam. He was renowned as a staunch defender of the canons of the
church and it would be expected that he took the moral code of the
canons quite seriously too. He finds the polygamy, concubines, easy
divorce and the carnal understanding of paradise all distasteful. For
example, Arethas states that if in Heaven there would be eternal
eating and drinking then Heaven would be overflowing with excrement
as a result. He states ‘Thus you and your paradise are full of
excrement and stink. Where, then, are you going to find so much
perfume in order to anoint yourselves with, as you are doing now in
this life, which is so corruptible.’[335] This letter points to a
widespread popular knowledge in Byzantium of the Muslim concept of
paradise. The jokes were probably circulating around Constantinople
and Arethas probably picked them up form there. Arethas resorts to
sarcasm and exaggeration but he does not totally misrepresent his
enemies. There were many Muslims who took a literal understanding
of Heaven.
109
Michael III – Letter in Response to the Hagarenes
110
The most striking aspect of Nicholas’ Letter to the Emir is its civility
and the cordial manner which he addresses the caliph despite the long
history of animosity between the Muslims and the Byzantine Empire.
Friendly remarks include the term ‘most glorious and brilliant Emir’
and ‘my beloved friend’ in the opening subscription. Nicholas even
composed a homily on Thessalonike so he knew perfectly well the
savagery with which the Arab pirates had treated the citizens when the
city was captured in 904,[340] a mere decade before the letter. It is
apparent that Nicholas is using the same kind of discretion that
Niketas of Byzantium used in his letter on behalf of Michael III. The
most famous statement of Nicholas is that in which he views the
Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate as the two great earthy
powers. His exact words are ‘…there are two lordships, that of the
Saracens and that of the Romans, which stand above all lordship on
earth, and shine out like two mighty beacons in the firmament.’[341]
111
Homilies and Sermons
Sophronius of Jerusalem – Homilies
112
Saracens attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and
plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why
have churches been pulled down? Why is the cross mocked? Why is
Christ, who is joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths so
that he justly cries out to us: “Because of you my name is blasphemed
among the pagans,” and this is the worst of all the terrible things that
are happening to us. That is why the vengeful and God-hating
Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the
prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder
cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy
churches, overturn sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies
arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of victory
in war] and add victory to victory.’[345]
The most obvious fact revealed by the text is the violence that the
invasions brought to the province. Often the initial invasion is
portrayed as practically bloodless due to the speedy collapse of
Byzantine resistance. However, even with typical rhetorical
exaggeration of Byzantine literature, Sophronius paints a blood-chilling
portrait. Also noticeable is the references to the Arabs as ‘pagans’.
Was Sophronius aware that they were monotheists or was he relying
on his own extensive reading of classical ethnography? Or perhaps
Sophronius had heard that the Arabs were monotheists but their
actions made him doubt this? Other questions also arise. The first
question is whether the targeting of Christian symbols like churches
and crosses is a result of Islam or just part of the general destruction.
The mention that the cross is ‘mocked’ has a distinctive Islamic ring to
it. Sophronius, at this early date, probably did not know of the Quranic
denial of the crucifixion but he is likely to have witnessed the tearing
down of crosses as specified in the Pact of Umar.
113
the homily in Antioch due to the references to local saints like Evodius
and Ignatius.[346] The use of Greek as a literary language and the
parallels to an apocalypse attributed to Hippolytus places the homily
sometime in the seventh or eighth centuries. The seventh century was
a time of famine and war and it resulted in much apocalyptic
speculation.[347] The author may or may not have been named John
as it was a common name in antiquity and misattributed to the more
famous John Chrysostom.
114
Gregory Dekapolites – Historical Sermon on What the Saracen
Saw
The Historical Sermon on What the Saracen Saw is the only extant
work by Gregory. It is a sermon on the conversion of a Muslim prince,
who is converted to Christianity by a miraculous vision of the Christ
child in the Eucharist. The historicity of the events described by the
sermon have been doubted by some owing to the miracles and the
existence of a number of similar parallel tales.[351] In the version
translated by Daniel Sahas[352] he places the setting in Egypt but
Hoyland sees the term Ampelos as a corruption of Rempli, the Greek
version of Ramala (Diospolis). The church and the priest that the
Saracen attended was evidently a Melkite, hence the passing of the
story on to Gregory, and this indicates that the setting was Palestine.
Most likely there were no Melkite churches in rural Egypt in the ninth
century.
115
The narrative shows some sympathy for the Emir, who is reluctant to
execute his kinsman, but he is prompted by his advisors and the
attack on Muhammad as a false prophet to execute the Christian
convert. The irony of the situation would not have been lost on
Gregory’s audience.
The Emir laughed again and said to the officials who had gathered in
the palace: “This man is mindless. What shall we do with him? Take
him out and expel him.” Those, however, sitting by the king said: “He
meant to desecrate and corrupt the religion of the Saracens. Do you
not hear how he curses and anathematizes our great prophet?”
The monk and former Saracen cried out loudly: “I feel sorry for you
Emir because you, unfortunate one, do not want to be saved. Believe
in our Lord Jesus Christ, the crucified one, and anathematize the
religion of the Saracens and their false prophet, as I did.” And the
Saracen Emir said: “Take him out as I am ordering you. He is mindless
and does not know what he is talking about.” Those sitting by with him
said: “Well, you heard that he anathematized the religion of the
Saracens and that he is blaspheming against the great prophet, and
you say, ‘He does not know what he is talking about?’ If you do not
have him killed we will also go and become Christians.”
116
Janissaries. Isidore considers the practice to be inhuman in the
extreme. The introduction to the homily indicates that it was delivered
during the First Sunday of Lent in 1395.[355] Typical of the time
Isidore offers the explanation that the Turkish conquests were a result
of the sins of the Byzantines.
For what would a man not suffer, were he to see the child he had
begotten, whom he had raised, for whose sake his eyes had shed
many tears many times, praying that [his son] would attain the
pinnacle of happiness – [what would he not suffer, were he to see this
child] seized by the hands of men from another race suddenly and
violently and forced to change over to strange habits and expected to
become soon thereafter the [bearer] of barbaric garb and speech and
the vessel of impiety and other foulness.[356]
Isidore is concerned that not only are the children converted to Islam,
which he calls ‘impiety’ and ‘foulness’ but also that they are being
assimilated into another culture. To convert to Islam was to be
assimilated into Turkish culture.
117
Liturgical References
Pseudo-Niketas Chionites – Formula of Abjuration
118
It is often overlooked that the Formula of Abjuration is actually an
accurate account of those Islamic doctrines that Christians found
incompatible with Christianity. That the formula was actually used is
beyond doubt. Prospective converts would hardly anathematise beliefs
they did not hold. They certainly would have pointed this out to those
in authority if that was the case. The Formula of Abjuration is evidence
that the Orthodox Church had practical experience with Muslim
converts and that some Muslims did find Christianity appealing enough
to convert. This can be seen by the constant flow of converts like
Beser under Leo and Thephobos under Theophilus during the lengthy
history of the Byzantine Empire. An Arabic Muslim historian, Al-
Qalanisi in his Damascus Chronicle, mentions in passing that when the
castle of Buza in 1138 was captured by Byzantine forces the qadi and
four hundred other Muslims converted to Christianity.[363] These
converts almost certainly used some version of the Abjuration
Formula.
119
prayer and chrismation, for the second group Methodius requires
fasting for ‘two Lents’ and then chrismation and the final group is
received back but is banned from taking communion for life.[365]
While never expressed in the text it seems that the conversion would
have occurred within the territory of the Byzantine Empire. There
would have been little inclination for slaves to revert to Christianity
under Islamic rule as the penalty was rather harsh.
120
Miscellaneous References
The Doctrine of Jacob the Newly Baptised Jew
121
The exact identity of Anastasius is a controversial issue as no reliable
biographical information survives outside of the corpus of his own
works. The historian Eutychios of Alexandria (877-940) makes the
claim that Anastasius was the monastic name of the retired Byzantine
general Mahan (Vahan) who was defeated by the Arabs at
Yarmuk.[368] The authenticity of the works attributed to Anastasius is
also unclear. What is clear is that Anastasius was a monk from the
monastery of St. Catherine sometime during the seventh century.
There are about a dozen works attributed to Anastasius, including ‘a
collection of Interrogations et Responsiones,[369] a commentary on
Psalm 6 and a Good Friday sermon’.[370]
Whenever they[374] hear ‘natures’, they think they are shameful and
outrageous things, the members which essentially go with the bodies
of men and women. Thanks to this, they flee from such an expression,
as if they were pupils of the Saracens. For these people, hearing the
birth of God, or the generation of God, immediately thinking of
marriage, blasphemously speak of insemination and carnal union.[375]
122
Arabs. Daniel Sahas confirms that Anastasius is dealing with Islam but
also recognises that it is on a very rudimentary level when he states
that ‘Anastasius Sinaites lacks the sophistication and the
comprehensiveness of John of Damascus on matters regarding
Islam.’[377]
123
did not have access to any Islamic texts like the Quran or religious
treatises but rather his own observations and hearsay. All the
references to Islam that Germanus supplies point to this as his source
of information.
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
124
The original language of the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius was
Syriac but it was quickly translated in Greek.[386] It was one of the
few Syriac texts to have this privilege. Later the text was translated
into Latin and Slavonic, resulting in an even wider distribution. The
author seems to have been a Chalcedonian Christian writing in Syriac
due to his loyalty to the Byzantine Empire and the popularity of the
work among Chalcedonian audiences.[387] The work was composed
around 690, after seventy years of Arab rule, when there was great
apocalyptic speculation due to civil war, plague and famine.[388] The
author has great hope that Islamic rule would be overturned soon by
the Christian Empire of Byzantium. With the advent of Christian rule
the parousia would be imminent.
‘And he will take a poll tax from orphans and from widows and from
holy men. And they will have no mercy upon the poor and they will not
give justice to the oppressed. And they will treat with insolence people
of old age and they will sadden the spirit of those that are
troubled.’[390]
125
Digenes Akrites
126
God, Christ and the saints are constantly referred to in the poem but
they are part of the cultural milieu rather than a central part of the
narrative.
Little is known of John Phocas but he mentions his birth in Crete and
his service in the military.
John Phocas wrote a brief account of his travels to the Holy Land
around 1185. It is concerned with his visits to Orthodox holy men
living in the various monasteries along the path of his pilgrimage.[397]
Thus as far as Tripolis there are important castles along the coast, but
inland there runs a large range in which live the Assassins. They are a
Saracen race, and are neither Christians nor of the Muhammedan
persuasion. Rather they are a sect on their own. They acknowledge
God and call their leader God’s Ambassador, and at his command they
are sent to the rulers of great nations and kill them with the sword.
They too die in the adventure, for they are outnumbered when they
have undertaken the deed, and this martyrdom they believe to be the
way to immortality.[398]
127
Theodore Metochites was the prime minister to the emperor
Andronikos II. His portrait exists as a mosaic in the Chora monastery.
It depicts Metochites presenting the gift of the church to Christ.
Theodore was a great student of the classics and wrote poetry, letters
and a collection of essays on a variety of subjects.
128
exhortation for them to remain loyal to the Church. It is probably in
response to a letter by the Nicaean Christians to the patriarch on their
status.
‘As many as wish to live in secret practising and keeping in their heart
the Christian way, because of fear of punishment against them, these
also shall attain salvation’. This is in contrast to the traditional
Byzantine attitude of remaining firm in the faith even against overt
persecution. Anthony Bryer even chides John Kalekas for having
forgotten Matthew 10:33.[402] This is the first evidence for the
phenomenon of crypto-Christianity under Ottoman rule.
Those who turn away from sin, the church of God, the general healing
place of souls, opens the gates of its healing, dispenses the
corresponding medication and therewith arranges the healing of all.
So no-one needs to become weary or fall into doubt and
underestimate its healing, because there is really no sin which is
victorious over the benevolence of God; the holy writings give
numerous examples for those who turn away from their previous
badness and show real peace and change, among others that of the
glutton, that of the prostitute, that of the robber, that of the people of
Nineveh and that of the people of Manasseh, who instigated the people
for forty years to idolatry and turning away from the Creator. God
pushes no-one away and does not turn away, he has a boundless sea
of goodness, if we only sincerely repent and humbly and tearfully ask
for his mercy.
129
have been thrown, the church will count them among the Christian
flock, heal them and care for them; they will not find any hindrance for
the wellbeing of their soul because of their, as mentioned, earlier
erring. Much more will all those amongst them who openly and
willingly show their regret, so that they prefer to suffer for their belief
in God even achieve the martyr’s crown. A sure proof of this is the
great martyr Christi Iakobos the Persian. All of them, though, who
want to live for themselves and in seclusion out of fear of punishment,
who therewith internalise and realise Christianity, will similarly find
salvation, in as far as they strive to obey the commandments of God.
In connection with this guarantee the document of the church of God
under consideration was enacted.
130
Saint Sabas due to his recent conquest of Jerusalem.[405] The
annihilation of the Byzantine army at Myriokephalon by the Muslim
Turks in 1176 was an event that Neophytos found very distressing.
Muhammad is referred to as a pseudo-prophet and a servant of the
devil. In his Commentary on the Apocalypse Muhammad is referred to
as the Anti-Christ due to his teachings, which Neophytos sees as
morally degenerate because of their sexual licence.[406] Neophytos
represents the typical Byzantine attitude towards Islam. The level of
understanding was not well informed but the little that he did know
was enough for him to judge the religion harshly.
131
Gennadios dwells at length on the Christian understanding of the
Trinity and the divinity of Christ. This exposition takes up eight of the
twelve chapters of Confession of Faith. Gennadios tires to avoid
technical terms but he is clear in his statements. In section four he
says, ‘We thus believe one God in Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
as our Lord Jesus taught us. And since he is truthful and absolute
truth, we believe this also to be true, and this his disciples taught us
thus more broadly.’[412] Gennadios uses the term ‘Trinity’, a term not
used in the Nicene Creed. It directly challenges the Quran statement
that God is not three. Gennadios is also emphatic that the church has
followed the teaching of Jesus truthfully to counter the Muslim
accusation that his teaching was corrupted. Gennadios stresses this by
mentioning the ‘disciples’ which not only includes the Apostles and
Gospel authors, but also the Church Fathers in general. In section nine
Gennadios is clear on the crucifixion. He states ‘We believe that our
Lord, the Christ, was crucified and died, through his own will, for many
and great advantages, that require many reasons [to explain] – all this
according to his humanity. For the Word of God is neither crucified or
dies, nor is he raised [from the dead], but rather raises the dead
himself just as he raised the flesh he put on’.[413]
132
Conclusion
Byzantine views towards Islam display a wide variety of knowledge
and opinion. They range from disinterest and ignorance to well
informed and sophisticated. The Byzantine tradition in response to
Islam began outside the borders of the empire. Over time, this
knowledge passed into Byzantine territory. Initially Islam was a
political rather than a religious threat to the Byzantine Empire and the
Orthodox Church. As the threat of Islam (as a religion) increased so
did the religious response by the ecclesiastical authorities. The
Byzantines remained negative and hostile to Islam. However, aspects
of Islam that were seen as derived from or compatible to Christianity
were often admired and praised by the Byzantines.
133
Byzantine historians often refer to the ethnic designations of members
of the Byzantine nobility. This sometimes included Arabs and Turks.
These indications of nationality are no different from that of Italians,
Normans or Slavs who joined Byzantine society. If they were loyal to
Byzantine traditions then those from Muslim backgrounds were praised
and respected.
134
accurate information in Latin for the first time. Interestingly, no
Byzantine polemicist is recorded as travelling to the Islamic world to
study Islam as Ricoldo had done. The views of these medieval authors,
like their Byzantine contemporaries, were clouded by their own cultural
and theological biases but they did look at the sources of Islam to
provide an accurate portrait. However, this was something the
Byzantines had been doing for hundreds of years previously.
135
Bibliography
Primary Sources
136
Thessalonike Concerning the ‘Seizure of the Children’”, in Milton V.
Anastos (ed.), To Hellenikon: Studies in Honour of Speros Vryonis, Jr.
New Rochelle, New York: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1993. pp. 135-143.
Kantor, Marvin. Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, 1983.
Leo the Deacon (trans. Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis F. Sullivan). The
History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth
Century. Dumbarton Oaks Studies XLI. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2005.
137
Maas, Michael. Readings in Late Antiquity: A Sourcebook. London and
New York: Routledge, 2000.
138
Peters, F.E. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Volume 2: The Classical
Texts and Their Interpretation. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1990.
Sahas, Daniel J. “What an infidel saw that a faithful did not: Gregory
Dekapolites (d. 842) and Islam.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review.
31 (1986), pp. 47-67.
Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. Volume XIV:
The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, reprinted 1991.
Theophanes the Confessor (trans. Cyril Mango and Roger Scott). The
Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern
History AD 284-813. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Secondary Sources
139
Armstrong, Karen. Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. Great
Britain: Phoenix Press, 1991.
Bryer, Anthony. ‘Greek historians on the Turks: the case of the first
Byzantine-Ottoman marriage’ (Article IV) in Peoples and Settlement in
Anatolia and the Caucasus. London: Variorum Reprints, 1988. pp. 471-
493.
140
Geisler, Norman L and Saleeb, Abdul. Answering Islam: The Crescent
in the Light of the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
Haldon, John “The Works of Anastasius of Sinai: A Key Source for the
History of Seventh-Century East Mediterranean Society and Belief”,
Averil Cameron and Lawrence I. Conrad (ed.), The Byzantine and Early
Islamic Near East, Vol. 1: Problems in the Literary Source Material.
Princeton, New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1992.
141
Kazhdan, Alexander P (ed.). The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. 3
Volumes. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
142
Nicol, Donald. A Biographical Dictionary of the Byzantine Empire.
London: Seaby, 1991.
143
Apology’. Christian-Muslim Encounters. Gainsville: University Press of
Florida, 1991. pp 95-107.
144
145
Document Appendix
An Unpublished Passion of the 42 Martyrs of Amorium[415]
When his servant Ishmael became angry with Isaac, Sarah became
cross with him and chased him from his master's house, at the same
time as his mother, disinheriting him completely and not leaving the
smallest share to him. By a prophetic warning she foresaw the future
and announced the arrogance of the expelled Ishmael against the
elected people. Ishmael had treated Christ's martyrs with injustice
and we will talk about these martyrs.
146
3. The Traitor
The impudent rejoiced in the promises that were made to him, he let a
good part of the army which he brought leave; they did not have
flames or torches. The traitor judged the night would help him. He
distributed scabbards, sticks and arms. The traitor, then, being in the
tower he should have kept, sent the men off after swearing to not
injure anyone. He left the besiegers to penetrate the town and they
rushed in. The father had his throat cut in front of the son, the son
was taken into captivity in front of the father, fire devoured the
daughter and a brother saw his brother mowed down by the double-
edged sword. Babies received blood from their mothers rather than
milk and the mothers’ teats were cut off. These babies had their
throats cut. Once a barbaric army abandons itself to anger it does not
give way to sympathy. It just considers how to gorge itself on human
blood and not let anyone escape death.
147
5. Captivity in the Orient
After this inhuman massacre the cruel people came upon the forty-two
martyrs of piety. They put them in iron chains and drove them to their
country with a multitude of Christians. Arriving at a place nominated
by the local Pankalion, the brute had them die by the double-edged
sword, he gave some as a gift to important people in the state and
locked others in prison in the company of the saints. It would have
been preferable to die than to have a life of unhappiness. Children of
free women are reduced to slavery by the slave, the enemy and the
rejected. For seven whole years, the courageous captives remained
tolerating the dirt, hunger, vermin, with naked feet. Their food was
examined and finally the noblemen left the prison for one near the
Tigris, as they had decided it would be there that they would be
interrogated. They went by horseback followed by an escort who would
frighten them. He tried to reach one man and get them to give way.
But the forty-two resisted like a single man – same opinion, same
decision. The judge met not one man, but the whole group.
They then brought out the eunuch Theodore with the surname of
Krateros, fortified by his divine soul. He appeared in front of the
infamous governor who flattered him and made promises if he gave up
Christ. But he recognised that his faith was able to resist the flattery
and affirmed he [the governor] would never attract servants of Christ
to his religion. The soldier of Christ, having attacked the tyrant with
frankness, was condemned to have his head cut off. His clothes were
torn off, his belt was attached to his head and the double-edged sword
sent him to paradise. The virtuous Constantine was brought out and
when they saw that he also refused to obey orders his tunic was torn
up and he was also decapitated. Next they executed Theophilos and
after him Callistus. They must have firstly cut off the tyrant’s head
with their plain speaking and were then subjected to the double-edged
sword. In the future they were to become honoured with the title of
protospatharios.
7. Martyrdom of Basoes
148
company anyone who had a fearful soul. This Basoes, when he saw
that the tunics of the martyrs were ripped up, removed his own
clothes, calling: “Naked I came out of my mother, naked I will return
to my Master. I ripped my clothes at the time of approaching the
martyr’s test. I will expect that Agonothere arrives and he will crown
me.” When he had been executed, a brilliant, powerful light came
down from the sky and as the saints were singing for the third hour, it
showed that it was Basoes’ lamp which shone among the martyrs.
After him the others were also decapitated, the sixth of March, Michael
and Theodora governing the Roman Empire with piety.
8. An Apostate
Until now our discourse has told of the victories of the soldiers of
Christ showing that the order in the sky followed that on earth. After
the courageous ones had finished their battle, a Christian was taken
out of prison and he was asked if he would give up his faith. As a
reward, he would receive palace honours and many favours. He
promised to conform to the royal edict. And he was told to stand on
the cross when it arrived as if it was vile and despicable, which he did
do. Oh, the most impious of men, why did you do that? One should
have told you to walk on aspic and basil and not desecrate the trophy
of the king of the universe. Genesis had prescribed to observe the
head of the snake and ordered him to observe your heel. His heel (or
his trickery) ran the risk of being observed miserably. He has
condemned his soul to death. The guilty one did not win, as the chiefs
of Amaregnes suggested to their king to put him to death. It is not
fair, they said, that he renounced his religion and someone who can’t
stand by his religion would distance himself more easily from a foreign
religion. Ameroumnes [the caliph al-Wathiq] decided then that he
would cut off his head as well.
Which voices does the unhappy one hear, what does he think and
reason, when he is led to his death? What did you gain in committing
this crime, unhappy one? You lost your faith and didn’t win life, after
having lost the first, you also lost the second. After the execution, the
body was flung into the river with those of the saints, on the judges’
orders. The bottom of the river swallowed him up: he wasn’t judged
worthy of associating with the glory of the others, he who had
149
dishonoured divinity. The martyrs’ bodies, it transported them as they
advanced, swimming/drifting, it escorted them and celebrated their
triumph as champions of the faith. The crowd of Christians gathered
the precious leftovers and perfumed them with rich essences, then put
them in a chosen place, glorifying the Holy one who glorified them. All
honour and adoration to him now and forever and to the ages of ages.
Amen.
150
Footnotes
[1] Hanson, Craig L, “Manuel I Comnenos and the ‘God of Muhammad’: A Study in
Byzantine Ecclesiastical Politics,” John Victor Tolan (ed.). Medieval Christian
Perceptions of Islam. p. 59.
[2] Hanson, Craig L, “Manuel I Comnenos and the ‘God of Muhammad’: A Study in
Byzantine Ecclesiastical Politics,” John Victor Tolan (ed.). Medieval Christian
Perceptions of Islam. pp. 58-59.
[5] Sura 16:103 “We know well that they say ‘only a man teaches him,’ [but] the
language of him to whom they allude is foreign, whereas this is clear Arabic speech.”
[6] Hoyland. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. p. 505, note 182.
[7] Ibn Ishaq (trans. Guillaume). The Life of Muhammad. pp. 79-81.
[9] Ibn Ishaq (trans. Guillaume). The Life of Muhammad. pp. 98-103.
[11] Ibn Ishaq (trans. Guillaume). The Life of Muhammad. pp. 165-166.
[13] Armstrong. Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. pp. 144-5, 157, 181, 192,
195-7, 202-3, 233-40.
Armstrong lists Muhammad’s wives as the following: Khadija (p. 80), Sawdah (p.
144), Aisha (p. 145), Zaynab bint Kuzaymah (p. 192), Hind bint al-Maghria, who was
also called Umm Salamah (p. 195), Zaynab bint Jahsh (p. 196), Umm Habibah, who
was also called Ramlah (233), Safiyah (p. 233), Maymunah (p. 234), Jayayriyah (p.
199) and Hafsah (p. 236). Maryam, the Coptic slavegirl, was a concubine and not a
wife (p. 236).
151
[17] Armstrong. Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet. p. 185.
[18] Ibn Ishaq (trans. Guillaume). The Life of Muhammad. pp. 714-15.
[21] Ibn Warraq. Why I Am Not a Muslim. pp. 35-36, 39-41. Ibn Warraq is a convert
to secular humanism so the debates between Islam and Christianity so not really
concern him.
[27] A Muslim would simply not be convinced by a New Testament assertion on the
divinity of Christ. If a Christian were to quote John 1:1-17 the Muslim would say that
was a corrupted passage.
[30] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haman_(Islam)
[35] There is evidence that Nikephoros revised his work but the main changes are
stylistic. If Nikephoros later discovered that Muslims were monotheists he chose not
to do anything about it.
152
[37] Nikephoros literally calls Amr a ‘Hellene.’ In 8th century usage he means a
classic polytheist like the ancient Greeks.
[44] Khadija was the first wife of Muhammad. Armstrong. Muhammad: A Biography
of the Prophet. pp. 79-81. There are various spellings of her name.
[45] Mango and Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. pp. 464-65.
[48] Conrad, Lawrence I. “Theophanes and the Arabic Historical Tradition: Some
Indications of Intercultural Transmission.”, (Chapter 12), Arab-Byzantine Relations in
Early Islamic Times. Michael Bonner (ed). p. 341.
[49] Mango and Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. p. 466.
[50] Mango and Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. p. 477.
[51] Mango and Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. p. 483.
[52] Mango and Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. p. 485.
[53] Mango and Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. p. 502.
153
[58] Genesios (trans. Kaldellis). On the Reigns of the Emperors. pp. 40-41.
[69] Kaminiates. (trans. Frendo and Fotiou). The Capture of Thessaloniki. pp. xxxvii-
xxxix.
[70] Kaminiates. (trans. Frendo and Fotiou). The Capture of Thessaloniki. p. 23.
[71] Kaminiates. (trans. Frendo and Fotiou). The Capture of Thessaloniki. p. 33.
[72] Kaminiates. (trans. Frendo and Fotiou). The Capture of Thessaloniki. p. 91.
[73] Kaminiates. (trans. Frendo and Fotiou). The Capture of Thessaloniki. p. 109.
[74] Kaminiates. (trans. Frendo and Fotiou). The Capture of Thessaloniki. p. 121.
[75] Kaminiates. (trans. Frendo and Fotiou). The Capture of Thessaloniki. p. 45.
[77] Leo the Deacon (trans. Talbot and Sullivan). The History of Leo the Deacon. p.
65.
154
[78] Leo the Deacon (trans. Talbot and Sullivan). The History of Leo the Deacon. p.
79.
[79] Leo the Deacon (trans. Talbot and Sullivan). The History of Leo the Deacon. pp.
149-50.
[80] Leo the Deacon (trans. Talbot and Sullivan). The History of Leo the Deacon. p.
72.
[81] Leo the Deacon (trans. Talbot and Sullivan). The History of Leo the Deacon. pp.
192-96.
[82] Leo the Deacon (trans. Talbot and Sullivan). The History of Leo the Deacon. p.
77.
[83] Leo the Deacon (trans. Talbot and Sullivan). The History of Leo the Deacon. p.
126.
[91] Anna is mistaken in this account. Malek Shah was poisoned. The account is that
of the murder of Malek Shah’s vizier, Nizam-al-Mulk, by the Assassins. The inherit
violence of the group is stressed by Anna. Buckler. Anna Comnena: A Study. p. 423.
155
[98] Kazhdan and Epstein. Change in Byzantine Culture. p. 257.
[101] Angold. Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni 1081-1261. pp.
112-113.
[106] Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical
Councils. p. 40.
[107] Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical
Councils. p. 185.
[110] Akropolites, George (trans. Ruth Macrides). George Akropolites: The History.
pp. 92-94.
156
[114] In this case pro-Roman can either be pro-Christian or pro-Byzantine or more
probably both.
[116] Vryonis. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of
Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. p. 425.
[124] Makhairas, Leontios (trans. Dawkins). Recital Concerning the Sweet Land of
Cyprus entitled the ‘Chronicle.’ Volume 2. p. 3.
[125] Ibid. p. 4.
[126] [126] Makhairas, Leontios (trans. Dawkins). Recital Concerning the Sweet
Land of Cyprus entitled the ‘Chronicle.’ Volume 1. p. 121.
[127] Makhairas, Leontios (trans. Dawkins). Recital Concerning the Sweet Land of
Cyprus entitled the ‘Chronicle.’ Volume 1. p. 103.
[128] Makhairas, Leontios (trans. Dawkins). Recital Concerning the Sweet Land of
Cyprus entitled the ‘Chronicle.’ Volume 1. p. 649.
[129] Makhairas, Leontios (trans. Dawkins). Recital Concerning the Sweet Land of
Cyprus entitled the ‘Chronicle.’ Volume 1. p. 633.
[130] Makhairas, Leontios (trans. Dawkins). Recital Concerning the Sweet Land of
Cyprus entitled the ‘Chronicle.’ Volume 1. p. 657.
157
[131] Alice-Mary Talbot, “Chalkokondyles, Laonikos,” in The Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium. p. 407.
[132] Miller, William. ‘The Last Athenian Historian: Laonikos Chalkokondyles’, The
Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 42, Part 1 (1922), p. 38.
[133] Miller, William. ‘The Last Athenian Historian: Laonikos Chalkokondyles’, The
Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 42, Part 1 (1922), p. 44.
[134] Vryonis Jr, “Evidence on Human Sacrifice Among the Early Ottoman Turks,”
Studies on Byzantium, Seljuks and Ottomans. p. 145.
[135] Magoulias. The Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. p. 66.
[136] Magoulias. The Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. p. 62.
[137] Magoulias. The Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. p. 73.
[138] Magoulias. The Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. p. 110.
[139] Magoulias. The Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. p. 133-
34.
[140] Magoulias. The Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. p. 198.
[141] Vryonis Jr, “Evidence on Human Sacrifice Among the Early Ottoman Turks,”
Studies on Byzantium, Seljuks and Ottomans. pp. 143.
158
[151] Kritovoulos (trans. Riggs). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. p. 110
[152] Kritovoulos (trans. Riggs). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. pp. 142-145.
[158] Kritovoulos (trans. Riggs). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. pp. 175-176.
[159] Kritovoulos (trans. Riggs). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. p. 156. The
castle of Kastrion had its 300 survivors executed and a similar fate befell the people
of Gardikion.
[161] Kritovoulos (trans. Riggs). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. pp. 71-74.
[163] Kritovoulos (trans. Riggs). History of Mehmed the Conqueror. pp. 41-42.
159
[173] Kantor. Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes. p. 37.
[187] Huxley. “The Sixty Martyrs of Jerusalem,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 18 (1977), pp. 372-3.
[189] Huxley. “The Sixty Martyrs of Jerusalem,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 18 (1977), p. 374.
160
[194] McGrath, “Elias of Heliopolis: The Life of an Eighth-Century Saint,” Byzantine
Authors, Literary Activities and Preoccupations. p. 105.
[195] Swanson, Mark N, “The Martyrdom of Abd al-Masih, Superior of Mount Sinai,”
David Thomas (ed.), Syrian Christians Under Islam, the First Thousand Years.
Leiden: Brill, 2001. pp. 116-118.
[201] Lang. Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints. p. 124, p. 129.
[203] Lamoreaux, John, “Early Eastern Christian Response to Islam,” John Victor
Tolan (ed.). Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam. p. 22.
[204] Theodore Abu Qurrah (trans. Sidney H Griffith), A Treatise on the Veneration
of the Holy Icons. p. 74.
[205] Lamoreaux, John, “Early Eastern Christian Response to Islam,” John Victor
Tolan (ed.). Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam. p. 23.
[206] Lamoreaux. The Life of Stephen of Mar Sabas. pp. 125 - 126.
[207] Amorion or its Latinised name of Amorium was capital of the Byzantine
province of Phrygia.
161
[213] Ibid. pp. 370-71.
[224] Unfortunately John thinks Zaid is Muhammad’s friend and not his adopted son.
[227] John C. Lamoreaux, “ The Biography of Theodore Abu Qurrah Revisited,” Alice-
Mary Talbot (ed.), Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56. pp. 32-35.
[230] Lamoreaux, John, “Early Eastern Christian Response to Islam,” John Victor
Tolan (ed.). Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam. p. 21.
162
[234] Lamoreaux. Theodore Abu Qurrah. p. 224.
[242] Meyendorff uses the word ‘spoken’, suggesting a religious exchange rather
than casual pleasantries. Meyendorff. “Byzantine Views of Islam,” in John
Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church. p. 99.
[243] Hanson, Craig L, “Manuel I Comnenos and the ‘God of Muhammad’: A Study in
Byzantine Ecclesiastical Politics,” John Victor Tolan (ed.). Medieval Christian
Perceptions of Islam. p. 64.
163
[254] Krausmuller, “Killing at God’s Command,” Al-Masaq 16 (2004). p. 170.
[255] The references are Exodus 32:27, Numbers 25:7-8 and I Kings 13:33.
[260] Eutychius of Alexandria. Watt. The Book of the Demonstration. Volume 1. Pp.
131-132.
[262] Kazhdan and Epstein. Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth
Centuries. p. 163.
164
[273] Thomas, “Paul of Antioch’s Letter to a Muslim Friend and The Letter from
Cyprus,” David Thomas (ed.), Syrian Christians Under Islam, the First Thousand
Years. pp. 203-04.
[276] Siddiqi. “Muslim and Byzantine Christian Relations: Letter of Paul of Antioch
and Ibn Taymiyah’s Response” in Nomikos M. Vaporis (ed). Orthodox Christians and
Muslims. Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1986. p. 37.
[277] Ebied and Thomas (ed.). Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades. p. 6.
[278] Ebied and Thomas (ed.). Muslim-Christian Polemic during the Crusades. pp.
73-75.
[292] Vryonis. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of
Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. pp. 424-425.
165
[293] Nicol. The Reluctant Emperor. p. 180.
[294] Sahas. “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” GOTR. 36
(1991), p. 69.
[297] Vryonis Jr, “Evidence on Human Sacrifice Among the Early Ottoman Turks,”
Studies on Byzantium, Seljuks and Ottomans. pp. 144.
[298] Vryonis Jr, “Evidence on Human Sacrifice Among the Early Ottoman Turks,”
Studies on Byzantium, Seljuks and Ottomans. pp. 145.
[299] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” GOTR. 25 (1980), p. 411.
[300] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 415.
[301] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 417.
[302] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 431.
[304] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 414-15.
[306] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 429.
[309] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 418.
166
[310] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 423.
[311] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 427.
[312] Sahas. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the
Muslims, ” p. 428.
[314] Vryonis. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of
Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. p. 428.
[316] Vryonis. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of
Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. p. 424.
[318] Manuel means the native Byzantine Christians who populated the region.
[319] Palaeologus, Manuel II. (trans. Dennis). The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus.
p. 42
[320] Jeffery, Arthur. “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between Umar II and
Leo III”, The Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944) pp. 269-276.
[323] Jeffery, Arthur. “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between Umar II and
Leo III”, The Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944) p. 270.
[324] These leaders were the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, the Persian Emperor
Cheoroses, the Negus of Ethiopia and the Governor of Alexandria.
[325] Jeffery, Arthur. “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between Umar II and
Leo III”, The Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944) p. 292.
[326] Jeffery, Arthur. “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between Umar II and
Leo III”, The Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944) p. 309.
167
[327] Ibn Ishaq (trans. Alfred Guillaume). The Life of Muhammad. pp. 103-104.
[328] Jeffery, Arthur. “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between Umar II and
Leo III”, The Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944) p. 310.
[330] Jeffery, Arthur. “Ghevond’s Text of the Correspondence between Umar II and
Leo III”, The Harvard Theological Review 37 (1944) p. 324.
[332] Sahas, ‘Arethas “Letter to the Emir at Damascus”: Official or Popular Views on
Islam in the 10th Century Byzantium’, The Patristic and Byzantine Review, p. 77.
[333] Sahas, ‘Arethas “Letter to the Emir at Damascus”: Official or Popular Views on
Islam in the 10th Century Byzantium’, The Patristic and Byzantine Review, p. 73.
[335] Sahas, ‘Arethas “Letter to the Emir at Damascus”: Official or Popular Views on
Islam in the 10th Century Byzantium’, The Patristic and Byzantine Review, p. 76.
[338] Jenkins, Romilly J.H. “A Note on the ‘Letter to the Emir’ of Nicholas Mysticus”,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Volume 17, 1963, p. 399.
168
[345] Hoyland. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It. pp. 72-73.
[352] Sahas, Daniel J. “What an infidel saw that a faithful did not: Gregory
Dekapolites (d. 842) and Islam.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review. 31 (1986), pp.
47-67.
[353]Sahas, Daniel J. “What an infidel saw that a faithful did not: Gregory
Dekapolites (d. 842) and Islam.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review. 31 (1986), p.
52.
[355] Hero, Angela Constantinides, “The First Byzantine Eyewitness Account of the
Ottoman Institution of Devsirme: The Homily of Isidore of Thessalonike Concerning
the ‘Seizure of the Children’”, in Milton V. Anastos (ed.), To Hellenikon: Studies in
Honour of Speros Vryonis, Jr. p. 135.
[356] Hero, Angela Constantinides, “The First Byzantine Eyewitness Account of the
Ottoman Institution of Devsirme: The Homily of Isidore of Thessalonike Concerning
the ‘Seizure of the Children’”, in Milton V. Anastos (ed.), To Hellenikon: Studies in
Honour of Speros Vryonis, Jr. p. 136.
[357] Sahas. “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” GOTR. 36
(1991), p. 57.
[358] Sahas. “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” GOTR. 36
(1991), p. 58.
169
[360] Sahas. “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” GOTR. 36
(1991), p. 59.
[361] Hanson, Craig L, “Manuel I Comnenos and the ‘God of Muhammad’: A Study in
Byzantine Ecclesiastical Politics,” John Victor Tolan (ed.). Medieval Christian
Perceptions of Islam. p. 60.
[362] Sahas. “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” GOTR. 36
(1991), p. 67.
[363] Gibb (trans.). The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades. pp. 248-49.
[365] Sahas. “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” GOTR. 36
(1991), pp. 61-63.
[368] Griffith. “Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos, and the Muslims.” GOTR. 32
(1987), p. 343.
[370] Griffith. “Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos, and the Muslims.” GOTR. 32
(1987), p. 342-43.
[371] Griffith. “Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos, and the Muslims.” GOTR. 32
(1987), p. 341.
[372] Griffith. “Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos, and the Muslims.” GOTR. 32
(1987), p. 347.
[373] Sahas, Daniel J. “Anastasius of Sinai (c 640-700) and the ‘Anastasii Sinaitae’
on Islam,” in Contacts between Cultures, vol 1. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen
Press, 1992. pp. 336-337.
[375] Griffith. “Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos, and the Muslims.” GOTR 32
(1987), p. 351.
[376] Griffith. “Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos, and the Muslims.” GOTR 32
(1987), p. 352.
170
[377] Sahas, Daniel J. “Anastasius of Sinai (c 640-700) and the ‘Anastasii Sinaitae’
on Islam,” in Contacts between Cultures, vol 1. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen
Press, 1992. p. 337.
[378] Alexander Kazhdan, “Germanos I,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. pp.
846-847.
[381] The tashahhud was the Islamic creed that stated that ‘There is no god but God
and Muhammad is His prophet.’
[382] The Allahu Akbar was the cry that ‘God is great.’
[384] Mango. The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453. pp. 150-51.
[385] Mango and Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. p. 555.
[390] Ibid.
[396] Kazhdan and Epstein. Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth
Centuries. p. 117.
171
[397] Wilkinson. Jerusalem Pilgrimage 1099 – 1185. pp. 22-23.
[399] Vryonis. The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of
Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century. p. 411.
[402] Bryer, Anthony. ‘The Cypto-Christians of the Pontus and Consul William Gifford
Palgrave of Trebizond’ (Article XVII) in Peoples and Settlement in Anatolia and the
Caucasus. pp. 13-14.
172
[415] Halkin. Hagiologie Byzantine. pp. 152-169. Thank you to Claire Douglass for
her assistance in translating this text.
173