7 September 2014
A.D. Remembering John of Damascus’s Critique
of Islam
St. John of Damascus’s Critique of Islam
Webmaster
note: The following passage is from Saint John’s monumental work, the Fount of Knowledge, part two
entitled Heresies in Epitome:
How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin. It is usually
just cited as Heresies.
The translator’s introduction points out that Fount of Knowledge is one of the most
“important single works produced in the Greek patristic period,…offering as it
does an extensive and lucid synthesis of the Greek theological science of the
whole period. It is the first great Summa of theology to appear in either the
East or the West.” Saint John (+ 749) is considered one of the great Fathers of
the Church, and his writings hold a place of high honor in the Church. His
critique of Islam, or “the heresy of the Ishmaelites,” is especially relevant
for our times.
There is also the superstition of the
Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a
forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born
to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and
Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi,
or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent
me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning
star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means
great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great
idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has
appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New
Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101]
devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of
the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been
sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in
this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.
He says that there is one God, creator
of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. [102] He says
that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a
servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses
and Aaron. [103] For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into
Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he
says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they
seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified,
he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself
into heaven. [104] And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into
heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’
And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did
not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have
written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen
into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say
this word.” [105] There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things
in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask:
‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the
prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss. And
we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the
sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say
that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how
Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die
and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then,
when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same
way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your
presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the
Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you,
too, might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we
say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then
they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly
say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not
actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which
runs: You’re spinning me dreams.) [106]
When we ask again: ‘How is it that
when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive
anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: “First do you show us by
witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us
just what Scriptures there are that testify about you”’—they are ashamed and
remain silent. [Then we continue:] ‘Although you may not marry a wife without witnesses,
or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor possess a
beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives and
property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and
your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who handed
this down to you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone known who
testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it while he
was asleep.’
Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or
Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring
Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets
and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently
maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son
of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them
say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as
saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us
by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we
say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why
do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is
inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the
Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is
outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit.
Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have
mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate
than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or
some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us
Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’
They furthermore accuse us of being
idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer
them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba
[107] and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had
relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when
he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that
the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the
holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, [108] and then he left the asses behind with
the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick
with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but they
still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as
you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on
it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for
venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit
of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that
Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the
present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.
As has been related, this Mohammed
wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example,
there is the book On Woman,
[109] in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if
it be possible, a thousand concubines—as many as one can maintain, besides the
four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish,
and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way. Mohammed
had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell
in love. Once, when they were sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way,
God has commanded me to take your wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an
apostle. Do as God has told you and take my wife.’ Rather—to tell the story
over from the beginning—he said to him: ‘God has given me the command that you
put away your wife.’ And he put her away. Then several days later: ‘Now,’ he
said, ‘God has commanded me to take her.’ Then, after he had taken her and
committed adultery with her, he made this law: ‘Let him who will put away his
wife. And if, after having put her away, he should return to her, let another
marry her. For it is not lawful to take her unless she have been married by
another. Furthermore, if a brother puts away his wife, let his brother marry
her, should he so wish.’ [110] In the same book he gives such precepts as this:
‘Work the land which God hath given thee and beautify it. And do this, and do
it in such a manner” [111]—not to repeat all the obscene things that he did.
Then there is the book of The Camel of God. [112]
About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the
whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not
room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink
the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by
drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied
them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose
up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little
camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God
and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come
from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel
coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it
begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and
without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it
evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not
your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about
the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly,
like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into
paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so
foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in
paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the
camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger
and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so your prophet is
boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him
the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water
still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of
delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all
up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will
become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of
the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after
sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise.
How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might
happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the
camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to
you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you
that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses,
where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the exterior
darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire, sleepless worms, and hellish
demons.’
Again, in the book of The Table, Mohammed says
that the Christ asked God for a table and that it was given Him. For God, he
says, said to Him: ‘I have given to thee and thine an incorruptible table.’
[113]
And again, in the book of The Heifer, [114] he says
some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number,
I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised and the
women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized.
And, while he ordered them to eat some
of the things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain from others. He
furthermore absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.
Endnotes
99. Cf. Gen. 16.8. Sozomen also says
that they were descended from Agar, but called themselves descendants of Sara
to hide their servile origin (Ecclesiastical History 6.38, PG 67.1412AB).
100. The Arabic kabirun means ‘great,’
whether in size or in dignity. Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of the
‘Heavenly Aphrodite’ but says that the Arabs called her Alilat (Herodotus
1.131)
101. This may be the Nestorian monk
Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and
claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.
102.
Koran, Sura 112.
103. Sura 19; 4.169.
104. Sura 4.156.
105. Sura 5.Il6tf.
106. The manuscripts do not have the
adage, but Lequien suggests this one from Plato.
107. The Ka’ba, called ‘The House of
God,’ is supposed to have been built by Abraham with the help of Ismael. It
occupies the most sacred spot in the Mosque of Mecca. Incorporated in its wall
is the stone here referred to, the famous Black Stone, which is obviously a
relic of the idolatry of the pre-Islam Arabs.
108. Gen. 22.6.
109. Koran, Sura 4.
110. Cf. Sura 2225ff.
111. Sura 2.223.
112. Not in the Koran.
113. Sura 5.114,115.
114. Sura 2.
From Writings, by St John of
Damascus, The Fathers of the
Church, vol. 37 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 1958), pp. 153-160. Posted 26 March, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment