Defending the Quot People of Truth Quot in the Early Islamic Period ...1.

Defending the ‘People of Truth’
in the Early Islamic Period

The History of
Christian-Muslim
Relations

Editoabod
David Thomas
University of Birmingham
Tarif Khalidi
American University of Beirut
Gerrit Jan Reinink
University of Groningen
Mark Swanson

Luther Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota

VOLUME 4

Defending the ‘People
of Truth’ in the Early
Islamic Period

The Christian Apologies of Abu R itah

by

Sandra Toenies Keating

BRILL

LEIDEN BOSTON

2006

Photo front cover: Vase, Jar, Iraq, Abbasid dynasty, 10th century, Earthenware painted over
glaze with luster H. 28.2 x Diam. 23.2 cm (11 1/8 x 9 1/8 in.) Origin: Iraq

Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Christians and Muslims have been involved in exchanges over matters of faith and morality since the founding of Islam. Attitudes between the faiths today are deeply coloured by the legacy of past encounters, and often preserve centuries-old negative views.

Tl eHistyofCl isiiartMttsiittiReatiions, TetsandStdies presents thesurvfvtng,reeordofp Rencounters in authoritative, fully introduced text editions and annotated translations, and also monograph and collected studies. It illustrates the development in mutual perceptions as these are contained in surviving Christian and Muslim writings, and makes available the arguments and rhetorical strategies that, for good or for ill, have left their mark on attitudes today. The series casts light on a history marked by intellectual creativity and occasional breakthroughs in communication, although, on the whole beset by misunderstanding and misrepresentation. By making this history better known, the series seeks to contribute to improved recognition between Christians and Muslims in the future.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Keating, Sandra Toenies.

Defending the “people of truth” in the early Islamic period : the Christian apologies of Abu Raitah / by Sandra Toenies Keating.

p. cm. — (The history of Christian-Muslim relations, ISSN 1570-7350 ; v. 4)

Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.

ISBN 90-04-14801-9 (alk. paper)

1. Abu Ra'itah al-Takriti, Habib ibn Khidmah, 9th cent. 2. Apologetics.

3. Christianity and other religionslslam. I. Abu Ra'itah al-Takriti, Habib ibn Khidmah, 9th cent. Selections. 2006. II. Title. III. Series.

 

  Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers, MA 01923, USA.

Fees are subject to change.

printed in the NETHERLANDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements         vii

Introduction: A Ninth-Century Defense of Christian

Doctrine: Abu Ratal al-Takts Response to His

Muslim Critics         1

Christians and the Rise of Islam         1

Christian Apologetic under Islamic        Rule         3

Islamization and Conversion from Christianity. . . . . . . .        12

Arabic: The New Lingua Franca         19

Arabic Christian Apology and Theological Debate . . . .        24

Abd Ra’itah al-Takrt (c. 775-c. 835)         32

Name          33

Date          35

Ecclesiastical Status         40

A Christian Mutakallim          49

Conclusion          55

Writings         56

Genres          59

Topics          61

Addressees and Opponents          62

Translation Method          65

Manuscripts          68

Extant Manuscripts          70

List of Known Writings          71

I A Risalah of Abd Ra’itah al-Takrt on the Proof of

the Christian Religion and the Proof of the Holy

Trinity          73

Introduction          73

Content and Context         73

Addressee and Date          79

Translation and Arabic Text          82

II. The First R isalah on the Holy Trinity          147

Introduction          147

Content and Context          147

Addressee and Date          159

Translation and Arabic Text          164

III The Second Risalah of Abu Ra’itah al-Takrt on the

Incarnation         217

Introduction         217

Translation and Arabic        Text         222

4. Witnesses from the Words of the Torah, the Prophets

and the Saints         299

Introduction         299

Translation and Arabic        Text         308

5. From the Teaching of Abu Ra’itah al-Takriti, the

Syrian, Bishop of Nisibis: ‘On the Demonstration of the

Credibility of Christianity Which was Received from the

Preaching of the Evangelists in the Holy Scriptures’. . . .        335

Introduction         335

Context and Addressee          335

Contents          338

Translation and Arabic Text         342

6. Christological Discussion         347

Introduction          347

Context and Date          347

Contents          349

Translation and Arabic Text          352

Abbreviations          358

Bibliography          359

Index         367

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to extend a special thanks to the staff at the Fondation Georges et Mathilde Salem in Aleppo, Syria, for their kind help in providing me with photographic copies of the manuscripts Bibl. Sbath found in their collection, and to the staff of the Bodleian Library at Oxford and the Vatican Library for their help with relevant manuscripts.

I also wish to thank the editors of this series for their assistance in bringing this text to its final form. I am very grateful to the staff and faculties, especially Monica Blanchard, of the Institute of Christian Oriental Research at the Catholic University of America and of the Pontifical Institute for the Study of Arabic and Islam in Rome for their unfailing help and for allowing me unlimited access to their libraries, without which my research would have been impossible. A special and lasting expression of gratitude goes to my teachers who accompanied and occasionally prodded me along the long road toward learning Arabic: Richard M. Frank, Fr. Sidney Griffith, Fr. Andrew Lane, Fr. Maurice Borrmans, and Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald. Without their patient and constant support, this volume would never have seen the light of day.

Finally, I especially wish to thank my husband and children for their patience and love throughout this project.

A NINTH-CENTURY DEFENSE OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE: ABURAITAH AL-TAKRlTBS
RESPONSE TO HIS MUSLIM CRITICS

Ch stiais ad th« Ris« of Islam

It is likely that Christians andJews living in Mesopotamia at the beginning of the seventh century could not have imagined the magnitude of the change that was about to descend upon their world. Life was continuing much as it had for centuries, albeit under the exhausting burden of the warring Byzantine and Persian empires. Yet, from an obscure place in Arabia, a military and religious leader stepped on to the stage of history, bringing a religion that would change the face of the world in less than two hundred years. The man who came to be known as the Prophet Mulammad was believed by his followers to have received revelations from God for twenty- two years until his death in 632 a.d. In the last decade of his life he gathered around himself a small community and set in motion one of the most breath-taking conquests in history.

Initially the Arab conquerors essentially left the existing bureaucratic and legal structures they encountered in place, insisting only that their subjects pay taxes and refrain from slandering Mulammad or their religion. However, by the middle of the eighth century the Muslim community had developed a self-confidence that manifested itself in the desire to transform society according to the demands of the Qur’an. The result was the appearance of a new dynasty, the 'Abbasids, and a new capital, Baghdad, founded near the ancient Christian city of Takrit. Under these new rulers, Arab-Islamic civilization flourished and for five centuries relative peace and prosperity prevailed throughout the lands they dominated. Although the 'Abbasids never had direct authority over the entire territory controlled by Muslim rulers, their presence and influence was widely felt in every aspect of life. Through their leadership, Islamic civilization entered its Golden Age and was able to attain exceptional achievements in science, medicine, law, astronomy, poetry, literature and art. While the 'Abbasids remained in power in Baghdad,

Muslim society flourished until the Mongol invasions in 656/1258.’

As the Islamic empire grew in power and stability, the Christians living within its confines were confronted with dramatic changes in their daily lives. Those living in North Africa and east of Byzantium who had been divided by their acceptance or rejection of various ecumenical church councils were now united under an alien rule that was having increasing influence over every area of their existence. Many of those who had supported Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (428-431), as well as the champions of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (412-444) who subsequently rejected Chalcedon, had formed communities in the East. Before the rise of Islam, they had generally been able to maintain a degree of autonomy through political and territorial separation. Now, all Christians, Nestorians, Jacobites (Cyrillian Monophysites), Melkite Chalcedonians, Maronites and others, were faced with the challenges brought by Islam.

The turn of the ninth century saw a rapid cultural transformation that deeply touched both the Christian and Islamic communities. The first 'Abbasid century was a formative period for all aspects of Islamic thought, as well as a time during which relations between Muslims and Christians were solidified into patterns that were to last for a millennium. The stablization of the Islamic community had established a more regulated and uniform society, creating the conditions for an intellectual and cultural flowering. For Christians and Jews, increased religious and social restrictions were accompanied by unique opportunities to participate in the nacent stages of what would become an explosion of scholarly activity. And so it was that the commencement of the 'Abbasid reign found the Syrian Jacobite community of Iraq in transition: as a new civilization grew out of the meeting of cultural streams from Persia, Byzantium, Arabia and Mesopotamia, a new language and legal system prevailed, and many were choosing to convert to the young religion of Islam. At this time, theological exchange between Muslims and Christians emerged in a form which had not occurred earlier and was to become rare in the following centuries. It was in this unique milieu that the Jacobite Habib ibn Hidmah Abu Ra’itah made his contribution as a Christian apologist.

1. M.A. Shaban, The 'Abbasid Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

Ch tm Apologetic 1        Islamic Rule

It has been common in the West to regard the period of Christian intellectual history following John of Damascus in the seventh century as one of decline, during which little other than commentary and copying of previous writers occurred. Yet, for those living in the Islamic context, the nature of discourse had changed, and Christian theologians were forced to come up with creative ways by which to express and explain their faith. While Christians and Jews remained the majority until well into the tenth century, the steady rise to power of Muslim Arabs after the death of Mulammad pressed them to address challenges being made to their religions. During this time, the theological and philosophical agenda began to be set by Muslims who challenged Christians to defend the consistency and even intelligibility of their faith.^[1] The initial appearance of the apologetical literature that resulted can be found in Syriac-speaking circles, but during the first 'Abbasid century, Christian intellectuals begin to feel compelled to write their defences in Arabic.

The theological debate between Muslims and Christians had already commenced during the lifetime of Mulammad, and by the beginning of the ninth century polemical writings similar to those of Abu Ra’itah authored by adherents of both religious communities were becoming common.^[2] Although the origins and actual content of the earliest discussions remain obscure, it appears that a number of areas of conflict arose very soon after Mulammad’s initial revelatory experiences. Among these were whether Mulammad’s own position vis-a-vis Israel’s prophets could be recognized by Christians and Jews, the authenticity and authority of his religious experiences, and in particular, his call to absolute monotheism.^[3]

For the multitude of Christians living increasingly under Islamic rule, this last point became the primary source of friction in their relations with the Islamic community, because it precluded the two fundamental Christian beliefs: the Trinity and the Incarnation. Even when they could not agree on the exact expression and implications of these two doctrines, nearly all Christians had historically held that both were critical to authentic faith in Jesus Christ. Defining the meaning of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, however, had not been an easy task, and continued to be a bone of contention among various Christian groups for centuries after the first ecumenical councils.

The problem had arisen from the fact that, while Christians believed that both doctrines were clearly implied in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures (first as foretold in prophecy and later fulfilled in actual events), the inner character of neither the Incarnation nor the Trinity was explicitly stated in an unambiguous formula. The introduction of Hellenistic thought, primarily in the form of neoPlatonic, Stoic and Aristotelian philosophy, had subsequently raised questions that the scriptures did not seem prepared to answer. For several centuries following the birth of Christianity, Christians had been engaged in a heated debate trying to work out an accurate and clear expression of the nature of the Incarnation and the Trinity, often resulting in some less than edifying incidents. The conflict had culminated in the Council of Chalcedon which, far from resolving the issue, precipitated several splits in the Christian community that eventually became irreparable. It was into the aftermath of Chalce- don that Islam was born, with its own unequivocal condemnation of even the possibility of an incarnation or trinity in God.^[4]

The revelation to Mulammad was at its heart the message of absolute monotheism. This seemed to put it immediately at odds with the Christian teachings of the Incarnation and Trinity. The Qur’an clearly and unambiguously rejects any notion thatJesus was more than a prophet (Sura 4:171; 5:75; 43:59, 63-64), and its cosmology expressly prohibits the possibility of God’s becoming incarnate by a refusal to admit a similarity between God and creation (Sura 6:100; 112:1-4) or of God having a son (Sura 2:116; 6:101; 10:68; 19:35; 23:91; 37:149-153). Further, in the struggle against the polytheism of the nomadic Arab tribes, the Qur’anic insistence on absolute monotheism made Christian Trinitarian doctrine suspect (Sura 4:171; 5:73; 6:22-23, 136-137, 163; 16:18). As a consequence, these topics became the central focus of debate between Muslims and Christians in the following centuries.

By the end of the eighth century, Christians, too, were becoming more aware of their Muslim rulers and beginning to recognize that Islam was not just “the heresy of the Ishmaelites”, identified by John of Damascus and many Greek writers after him.6 This increased awareness was probably the result of a combination of a growth in the number of converts to Islam, as well as the flowering of intellectual communities during the relative peace that decended ^[5] on the Mediterranean world after the 'Abbasid rise to power. More interchange between Muslims, Christians andJews resulted in an increased awareness of the views of each other and the necessity to respond to their questions.

The first written Christian accounts addressing such issues appear around the turn of the eighth century in Syriac.^[6] These initial responses generally followed one of two avenues. Either they saw the advent of the Arabs with their new religion in apocalyptic terms as fulfilling a prophesied eschatological stage,^[7] or they tried to treat the new theological challenges in a systematic way. Although Syriac writers did not take up the genre of apologetical debate with Muslims with as much enthusiasm as later Arabophone Christians, one finds in the early extant texts Christian replies to the topics which would later become standard for Muslim and Christian apologetics: the legitimacy of Muhammad’s prophethood and the revelation of the Qur’an, the status and authenticity of the Gospel, the Trinity and Incarnation, laws and practices governing Christian life (veneration of images, fasting, sacraments, etc.).^[8] All of these are subjects which Abu Ra’itah and his contemporaries deal with extensively in Arabic in their various writings in response to Islam.^[9]

In many ways, the central challenges of Islam were not new to the Christian community, and learned Christians were quick to acknowledge this fact. From the very beginning, Christians had been faced with the Jewish rejection of their claim that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and that he in fact was God incarnated. They had also already confronted the absolute monotheism of Judaism, which, like that of Islam, denied the possibility of a multiplicity within the being of God. These two tenets of Christian faith conflicted so deeply with theJewish concepts of God that Christians were forced to demonstrate the very continuity between their beliefs and those of the Hebrew scriptures.^[10]

This difficulty was compounded by the fact that the nascent Christian community existed within a predominantly polytheistic context where the possibility of beings who were the result of the intercourse between humans and divinities was widely accepted. Pagans were not disturbed by the impression that Christians worshipped three gods (even if they were sceptical of the limitation to so few) and believed in the existence of a person half divine, half human, born of a god and a woman. Christians consequently were obliged within this milieu to clarify carefully what they meant by “trinity” and “incarnation” in a way that avoided tritheistic and polytheistic implications. Finally, the early encounter with Hellenistic philosophy added a tangle of questions, concepts and vocabulary foreign to Jewish and Christian scriptures which had to be sorted through.^[11] As a result, early Christian theologians had occupied themselves with explaining the doctrines of Incarnation and the Trinity both to the members of their own communities as well as to their opponents in such a way as to preserve monotheistic belief while still maintaining what was divinely revealed. All of these ancient factors presented themselves again in different ways in the new encounter with Islam, and the multitude of texts preserved from this early period provided a blueprint for later Christian writers.

Islam, too, arose out of a polytheistic nomadic society in which Judaism and Christianity had exercised some limited influence, especially among the sedentary population.^[12] [13] The fight against sirk (idolatry usually associated with polytheism) is one of the most common themes found in the Qur’an, where it is contrasted with ihlas (fidelity to God alone) and tawhid (monotheism). Although sirk as such is generally tied to blatant worship of multiple gods, the Qur’an identifies Christians, and evenJews, as musrikun (those who practice sirk) because they in some way compromise the unity of God.14 Similar to earlier Jewish critique, much of its criticism of Christianity is directed particularly at the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity which seem to lead to polytheism. This made it possible for Christian apologists confronted with Islam to draw on the arguments made by their predecessors against the charges of polytheism and tritheism by Jews.

As a consequence, scholars of Abu Ra’itah’s day were faced with the task of explaining complex questions about the exact character of the unity of God, its relationship to the three hypostaseis, and their relationships to each other and to creation. The struggles of the early church in answering the challenges are well known and need not be enumerated here.^[14] However, it should not be assumed that Abd Ra’itah and his contemporaries simply repeated what they had received through the theological tradition. They were eminently aware of the differences between their situation and that of the Cappadocian fathers, on whom they relied for a great deal of inspiration.

A significant reason why a defense of Christian doctrine could not be taken over wholesale from earlier apologists such as Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian and Irenaeus, was that the (Qur’an had added another problem to the mix: it claimed that scripture passages which supported such teachings had been falsified by the Jews and followers of Jesus.^[15] Many of the arguments about historical events (such as the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus’ prediction of the coming of Muhammad, and the role ofJesus’ disciples) had resulted in a stalemate between the two communities, since both sides appealed to their own scriptures as revelations from God for their primary evidence. Whereas Christians did not recognize Mulammad’s prophethood and the validity of the Qur’an, Muslims asserted that theJews and Christians had tampered with their own scriptures. Consequently, Christians responding to this claim were obliged to limit themselves to scriptural texts that were not the object of great dispute. Abu Ra’itah, for example, employs numerous scriptural references to prophets and persons who were recognized by the Islamic community in his replies to Muslims, including quotations from Jesus not connected to his death or resurrection.

The effect of this limitation for writers such as Abu Ra’itah was to force them to appeal to reason and logical deduction (just as those who engaged pagan philosophers had done), supplemented with acceptable scriptural evidence. The rising interest in Greek philosophy by Muslim mutakallimun during the 'Abbasid period, in part prompted by the desire of the caliphs to create a new social, intellectual, and political ideology encompassing all peoples in the empire,^[16] provided a common basis from which to work, and allowed Christian scholars to actively participate, even if in a restricted and circumspect manner, in one of the most significant periods of Islamic thought.^[17]

Exactly during the decades around the turn of the ninth century in which Abu Ra’itah’s letters were composed, intellectual enterprises sprang up throughout the young empire. Scholarly centers were founded that aimed at collecting and publishing hadit, and establishing Islamic legal schools. Simultaneously, Muslims began massive translation projects of ancient Greek texts on philosophy, rhetoric, medicine, astrology, and the natural sciences. Soon, extensive efforts were under way to collect, translate and harmonize all of the known works of Aristotle, Plato, Galen, Hypocrates, Ptolemy, and a host of others. Unlike earlier Syriac translations that had been made in nearly every major Hellenized Syro-Christian city, the Arabic translation movement was initially found exclusively in Baghdad, only a short distance from Abu Ra’itah’s Jacobite community.^[18]

The greater part of direct Christian participation in the effort can be traced to the Nestorian community because of its generally better relationship with Muslim authorities, but the effects were felt throughout the wider Christian church. As more texts became available in Arabic, Muslim intellectuals entered into an age-old debate and brought with them new questions and new perspectives. Because they were often drawn into discussions on religion, Abu Ra’itah and his Christian contemporaries became relatively knowledgable of the issues currently being argued in Islamic scholarly circles. Often, they were able to use the questions to their advantage, drawing subtle connections from controversies about the eternity of the Qur’an as the Word of God and its relationship to the Divine Being, divine attributes, human knowledge of God, interpretation of the revealed text, and how one can determine the authenticity and status of oral tradition, to the christological and trinitarian topics on their own agendas.^[19] [20] For example, although Abd Ra’itah never directly mentions Muslim discussions on the terms “being”, “knowledge” and “life”, he certainly assumes that his opponents accept the necessity of these eternal divine attributes. In fact, a clear parallel can be identified between these attributes and those of being, speech and will, which were the subject of extensive debates surrounding the createdness of the Qur’an.21 As a result of this intellectual context, although Abu Ra’itah does devote some of his attention to traditional topics and evidence for them (especially in Proof), his primary argument is a philosophical one concentrated on the triune nature of God 22

It is here that a notable aspect of Abu Ra’itah’s method should be mentioned. In order to establish the soundness, indeed even the existence, of Christian monotheistic belief, he and his contemporaries depart from the Cappadocian emphasis on the triune economy in the one God^[21] [22] and begin instead with the divine unity. In fact, Abu Ra’itah always develops his argumentation from the basis of God’s absolute oneness, to threeness, to incarnation. This does not mean that he overlooks the revelation of the Trinity in history, but rather shows how the One God is ultimately revealed through the Incarnation to be three. This, too, is necessitated by the assumptions of his Muslim audience. For them, the real questions are why and how God became human, while still maintaining continuity with previous (monotheistic) revelations and without introducing plurality into the divine being. It is for this reason that although Abu Ra’itah mentions the Holy Spirit in connection to God’s threeness, he never elaborates on the third Person to the same extent as the other two. This move from de deo uno to de deo trino is a conscious and practical one. Without first firmly grounding Christian teaching in the one God, any further assertions put forth in response to Islamic critique will be useless.^[23]

Islaii at oidCo 1 CTS 1 .؛lomClist anity

A second, and perhaps more significant difference between early Christian apologists and those of the 'Abbasid period was the context of an escalating number of Christians converting to Islam. Whereas most of the Church Fathers whose writings were available to Abu Ra’itah and other theologians of his time lived as minorities among pagans who were slowly turning to Christianity, the 'Abbasid age saw an unprecedented numbers of Christians accepting the new religion. Now the concern was not only to justify Christian beliefs which seemed absurd to non-Christians (previously a pagan majority and now the growing Islamic minority),^[24] but to stem the tide of conversions away from the well-established and ancient Christian church. Clergy and scholars were prompted to make their case in favor of Christianity in such a way as to defend its intelligibility and legitimacy in the face of Islamic criticism, as well as to calm fears and encourage confidence within the Christian population.

Although it is extremely difficult to gain an accurate picture of the trend of conversion to Islam during the 'Abbasid period, some general calculations have been made by modern scholars. Based on the estimate of the Umayyad governor, 'Ubayd Allah b. Ziyad, around the year 64/675, only about three percent of the population in Iraq had converted to Islam.^[25] Many of those who converted early on were women who married Muslim men, a practice explicitly condoned in the Qur’an. However, beginning with the reign of the caliph Harin ar-Rasid (170-193/786-809), the rate of conversions increased dramatically. By the mid-ninth century, the Muslim population of Iraq is thought to have reached nearly forty percent.^[26] This was surely a cause for alarm among Christians who had themselves been the majority for several centuries previous.

The reason for this rapid increase in conversion to Islam can be found in the coincidence of the missionary zeal of individual Muslims and the more organized efforts to “Arabize” society under the recently formed 'Abbasid regime. The initial contact between Muslims and Christians had been for the most part characterized by tolerance so long as the conquered peoples paid the gizyah, a type of poll tax, and submitted to their Arab rulers.^[27] This was in keeping with the explicit prohibition of forced conversion to Islam found in the Qur’an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2:256). Instead, non-Muslims were given the option of paying the gizyah, which was also justified by the (Qur’an: “Fight those who do not believe in God or the Last Day . . . nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from among the People of the Book until they pay the gizyah willingly and are subdued” (Sura 9:29). In return for payment of the tax, specific groups of non-Muslims identified as “People of the Book”, the ahl al-kitab, were granted protection, or dimmah, and religious toleration by the state.^[28]

In spite of the Qur’anic affirmation of Christianity and Judaism as legitimate religions, the underlying assumption that the truth of the revelation to Muhammad would be apparent to all, and therefore that Islam would be embraced by everyone, does not lie far below the surface of the prevailing vision among Muslims, an expectation that was frustrated time and again. Disappointment that the revelations were not immediately recognized and confirmed by the Jews and Christians of Makka probably played a major role in Muhammad’s move in 622 to the predominantly pagan city of Yatrib, later known as Madinat an-Nabi (“the City of the Prophet”). Yet, adherents of the new religion for the most part seem to have respected the command that there be “no compulsion in religion,” and widespread attempts at spreading Islam were not undertaken until decades after Muhammad’s death. Some have even speculated that conversion in the early Islamic world was discouraged because the gizyah was an important source of income for the nascent government.

Initially, the payment of the gizyah had seemed advantageous to non-Muslims. Consequently, as the Arab conquerers swept across the Mediterranean world, hundreds of Christian and Jewish cities and villages faced with the choice of conversion to Islam or payment of the tax accepted the latter and fell into Arab hands without a struggle. Many probably hoped that this would bring an end to the exhausting and burdensome wars between the Sasanian and Byzantine empires that had been raging on and off for centuries. Others, particularly the Jewish communities, may have thought that the gizyah would buy them religious freedom and ease the yoke of foreign rule.^[29] However, the apocalyptic literature of the period reveals the fears of those who saw another side of the current rulers. Many recognized in the new religion a serious threat to the Christian community, and correctly predicted it as the beginning of the end of Christian control of the eastern Mediterranean. This, they believed, could be nothing other than punishment from God, and the gizyah was to become symbolic of this divine chastisement.^[30]

The enforcement of the gizyah varied with time and place depending on the convictions of the local rulers,^[31] but some general observations may be made. As the Arab armies rapidly moved beyond the Arabian peninsula in the second half of the seventh century, they were able to take large areas of land with little force. Although many cities surrendered peacefully through treaty, usually involving some lump payment in return for remaining unscathed, those that did not submit were besieged and the inhabitants killed off until the city officials surrendered. Both groups, however, were subject to the choice of paying the gizyah and karag (land tax) and accepting the status of dimmi, or conversion to Islam and exemption from all tax.^[32]

In Mesopotamia, the villages and country peoples yielded with little resistance, but the capitol city of Edessa was subjected to a long, unrelenting siege, after which it finally surrendered and paid a fixed tribute. Those in the countryside were charged with providing provisions for the army, but no monetary payment was required of them. Both taxes were extremely moderate compared to other areas of the empire, such as Egypt, and apparently no karag was leveled in hard currency. However, the situation changed under the Umayyad caliph 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwhn (65-86/685-705).34 Dionysius of Tell Mae records that in 691/2 'Abd al-Malik took a census and began to impose a four dinar tax on all adult non-Muslims to replace the previous one dinar tax. In his Chronicle, Dionysius points to this incident as the beginning of the Arab oppression of Christians and the evils that followed.^[33] [34] A similar account is given by Michael the Syrian, who dates the census six years later.^[35] Indeed, the reformed gizyah represented a four hundred percent increase on city dwellers and a shift from a tax in produce to money for those in the countryside. Further, now the land itself, and not produce, was taxed based on its distance from city markets.^[36]

For non-Muslims the tax burden forced one of three choices. A landowner could continue to pay the gizyah and the karag to the best of his ability. He could also choose to abandon his land and emigrate to a city, thus becoming free of the karag but still subject to the gizyah. Initially, it appears that most Christians chose the latter option. Both of these entailed accepting dimmi status as “protected” citizens of the empire. However, as time went on and increasing social, political and religious restrictions were added to the tax burden, the third option became more and more attractive: conversion to Islam. Through conversion a person was automatically exempted from both the gizyah and the karag, and thus could continue to possess property while being required to pay only the moderate zakat (alms tax) imposed by the ’art ah?^[37]

The expansion and defining of particular restrictions on the dimm apart from those connected to the gizyah and the karag had already begun with the sporadic institution of policies and practices encouraging the Islamization and Arabization of areas under Arab control by caliphs of the Umayyad dynasty (41/661-132/750). Along with the tax reform, 'Abd al-Malik initiated efforts to limit the public display of Christian andJewish images and to replace them with Arabic inscriptions. This was particularly apparent in the monetary reforms whereby new coinage was issued eliminating notations and symbols other than Arabic, carrying instead (Qur’anic inscriptions and references to the caliphate.^[38] Road signs, too, begin to bear the sahada, the Islamic profession of faith.^[39]

The most significant of all was the erection of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem with its (Qur’anic inscriptions directed explicitly against Christianity. As a public edifice, it was a symbol affirming the superiority and finality of Islam in the ancient holy city of Jerusalem.^[40] However, apart from isolated incidents, Christians and Jews continued to function within the new social structure relatively unhindered in their cultural and religious practices. The rarity of reports of harassment for religious reasons can be taken to indicate that pressure experienced by the dimm in the Umayyad period was primarily economic and political.^[41]

With the accession of the 'Abbasid dynasty to the caliphate in 750, the situation changed. Now, along with the stabilization of Islamic society and religion after a century of expansion and internal turmoil, specific policies encouraging the use of Arabic and privileges granted to Muslims were put into place. An important contributor to the success of the 'Abbasid rise to power was the promise of the new regime to assimilate all of the populations under the control of the Islamic caliph into full participation in political and religious life.^[42] In contrast to the previous practice of reserving high positions only for those who could trace their lineage back to the earliest Arab followers of Mulammad, the 'Abbasid caliphs began to open society to Arabs and non-Arabs alike, extending the benefits to adherents of Judaism, Christianity, and Persian religions who converted to Islam.^[43] This stepped up an effort to encourage conversion already begun by the Umayyad caliph 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz (99-101/717-720) a few decades earlier.^[44] The consequence of his program was a slow but steady rise in the numbers of those turning to the new religion. Under the new 'Abbasid regime the tide swelled as more and more indigenous peoples began to be drawn to the advantages of conversion through the convincing arguments put forth by Muslim theologians in favor of Islam.^[45]

Simultaneously, dimmi status became less and less tolerable as limitations increased. In return for paying the gizyah, non-Muslims were accorded freedom to maintain their own religious beliefs, exemption from military service and from the zakat, as well as the right to be judged according to their own religious law.^[46] By the middle of the eighth century, however, these benefits were being diminished progressively by restrictions on public displays of religion, limitations on property ownership, and the requirement of distinctive signs and dress for all non-Muslims.^[47] This situation continued throughout the first decades of the ‘Abbasid caliphate until Harin ar-Ral (170193/786-809). At this point, evidence in Islamic historical records shows that the increasing strictures placed upon the dimml were justified with an appeal to earlier practices, which were then further defined and expanded.

The pretext for curtailing the rights of the dimmi was the so-called “Covenant of ‘Umar”.4 This text, which exists in several forms, presents itself as a contract between the caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Hattab (13-23/634-644) and Christians in conquered cities. Essentially it is a rather long and explicit list of regulations covering a host of public and private actions, as well as guidelines governing relations to Muslims to be followed by the dimmi in return for their protected status. Oddly enough, the Covenant is written in the first person plural by Christians in some copies, and by Muslims in others. It would be strange, however, if Christians had imposed the multitude of restrictions contained in the Covenant on themselves. Further, there are no known treaties made with conquered cities that bear any resemblance to the Covenant.

Instead, it is likely that the Covenant of ‘Umar first made its appearance in its present forms as much as a century later. Tritton suggests that it was developed by the emerging legal schools as a format for treaties. This can be seen in the extensive example of the Covenant found in the Kitab al-Umm written by the jurist as-Safi’1 at the beginning of the ninth century.^[48] [49] The stimulus to spell out the implications of the (Qur’anic verses related to the dimmi probably came during the reign of the second ‘Umar, who was more interested than his predecessors in the creation of an Islamic state. Because it was obvious to the writers of the Covenant that these restrictions were implicit in the (Qur’anic prescriptions, they believed that the attribution of the initial formulation to ‘Umar I was logical. Nonetheless, subsequent application of the regulations of the Covenant was irregular and appears to have been entirely dependent on the sensibilities of the local authority. In some places Muslims complained of the influence and wealth of the dimml, while in others genuine persecution of them occurred.^[50]

In the period between Harin ar-Rasid and al-Mutawakkil (232247/847-861), exactly the time during which Abu Ratal is writing, relations between Muslims and Christians had become decidedly strained, and Christian chroniclers such as Dionysius of Tell Mae began to identify their situation as one of religious persecution.^[51] Now the policy of the 'Abbasid caliphs to promote conversion to Islam through the promise of full participation in political and cultural life, coupled with the added incentive of relief from the gizyah, and religious and social restrictions, made it increasingly attractive for non-Muslims to abandon their ancestral religions. It is within this context that sophisticated Christian apologetics directed against Islam develops.

Arabic: Ibie Nn LguaF-raica

Along with strategies of taxation and limitations imposed on nonMuslims, the 'Abbasids adopted the Arabic language for official government transactions and everyday speech. Previously, conquered peoples had continued to conduct business in Greek, Persian and Syriac, and local languages and dialects remained in use. In fact, numerous government officials had remained in their posts after having been defeated by Arab armies precisely because they could negotiate the language. Often an Arab governor or administrator who was not literate in any official language of commerce was appointed to oversee the affairs of an area that had surrendered, leaving him simply to rely on the infrastructure already present. Evidence of the resulting bilingual commercial and social transactions is ubiquitous throughout the seventh and eight centuries.^[52] Only with the caliph al-Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik (86-96/705-715) did all official records begin to be kept in Arabic.^[53] This now made bureaucratic positions available to those who did not speak the local language, including former soldiers and their family members. The trend was intensified by the 'Abbasid intention to unify the empire into a single homogeneous community which necessitated a common language.Just as converts to Islam began to be rewarded with official positions, Arabic gained a privileged place and soon replaced all other languages for bureaucratic, as well as everyday matters.^[54]

After the 'Abbasid dynasty took up the reins of power and subsequently moved the capital of the Islamic empire from Damascus to the newly founded city of Baghdad in 762, the Arabic language began to take hold as the lingua franca of predominantly Syriac-speaking peoples. The Arabic that became the official language of the Islamic empire was, of course, that based on the Qur’an. Muslims believed that the language in which the holy book had been revealed, the quraisi dialect spoken by Mulammad, was sacred. This made it the object of serious study for theologians even before it became a developed literary language.^[55] Among the other scholarly disciplines which gained importance under the 'Abbasid caliphs was the intensive effort to classify the vocabulary and grammar of Arabic, providing the basis from which it grew to rival Greek, Latin, Syriac and Persian in the Mediterranean world.^[56] Yet, although Arabic developed dramatically as a language of literature and commerce, it retained its character as a sacred language heavily laden with Qur’anic presuppositions and definitions.

This state of affairs is reflected in the growth of Christian Arabic literature in the first 'Abbasid century. Initially, Christian writers had responded to the challenge of Islamic missionizing attempts on their community with treatises primarily in the scholarly languages of Greek and Syriac. As Arabic became more widespread and these languages began to be accessible only to a few of the learned, Christian apologists were obliged to turn to composition in the new language in addition to traditional ones. Consequently, between 750 and 850, along with the Bible, many Christian classics and liturgical texts were translated into Arabic.^[57] A second change can be detected in the intended audience of the texts. Previous to the middle of the eighth century, Christian polemic against Islam was generally directed inwardly in an attempt to ward off conversions.^[58] Such treatises could be written in languages understood only by Christians.^[59] The first centuries of the 'Abbasid period, however, witnessed a shift to Arabic as Christian writers were obliged to change their focus from internal defenses of the faith against Islam to more direct external apologies defending their beliefs from Muslim criticism.

The Christian community was at this time apparently without an “official” translation of the scriptures in Arabic. To date, all evidence points to the first appearance of efforts to translate more than scattered passages sometime in the beginning of the ninth century.^[60] Abu Ra’itah’s own Jacobite community does not seem to have possessed liturgical or scriptural texts in Arabic, and the presence of citations in his writings appears to be based on his own translation.^[61] The Qur’an itself suggests it was the lack of initiative on the part of Christians to make the Gospel accessible to Arabic-speakers that was a factor in God’s initiation of revelations to Mulammad. Numerous passages assert that Christians and Jews were concealing all that was present in the scriptures through various means of deception (Sura 2:42, 140, 146, 159, 174; 3:71, 187). This is accompanied with an emphasis on the Qur’an as an Arabic revelation (Sura 12:2; 12:37; 41:44; 42:7) which could be understood by everyone. The implication seems to be that the scriptures were in a language that was not accessible to the arabophone community, and that there was little interest on the part of Christians to make them available for purposes of evangelization. Now, two centuries later, the tables had been turned and Christians were the object of missionary efforts on the part of Muslims. Regulations laid down by the Islamic rulers forbade Christian evangelization and laws based in the Qur’an made conversion away from Islam apostasy punishable by death. At the same time, Arabic spread as the lingua franca of the empire.

The transition from Syriac to Arabic is evident already within fifty years of the 'Abbasid rise to power. One of the most important Syriac apologies for Christianity that appeared roughly contemporary with Abh Ra’itah’s Arabic treatises is that of the Nestorian Catholicos Timothy I (727-823). In this letter, Timothy recounts his responses to the Caliph al-Mahdi (158-169/775-785) who had asked him about the teachings of Christianity.^[62] Although it was originally composed in Syriac, the letter is more widely known in its Arabic version,^[63] suggesting that an Arabic recension was more accessible and hence more useful. There is no evidence that Abu Ra’itah himself wrote in anything other than Arabic, even though it is likely that the generation preceding him was Syriac-speaking, and it is clear that he assumed Arabic was the language best understood by his Christian readers.

While the Syriac apologetic tradition did not die out completely, as is evidenced by the later Syriac treatises authored by, among others, Abu Ra’itah’s younger colleague, Nonnus of Nisibis,^[64] Arabic was to become the primary vehicle for the defense of Christianity in the Muslim-dominated lands of the east. By the beginning of the ninth century, each of the three major Christian denominations which found itself existing in Arab-dominated lands had produced an important apologist in Arabic: the Nestorian 'Ammar al-Basri (c. 800-850), the Melkite Bishop of Harran, Theodore Abu Qurrah (fl. 785-829), and the Jacobite Abu Ra’itah.^[65] After these three, Christian Arabic apologetic soon eclipsed the number of similar treatises appearing in Syriac.

The shift to Arabic forced Christian apologists to contend with the difficulties it presented as a language. Whereas John of Damascus had composed his summary of Christian doctrine and the “heresy” of Islam in the first half of the eighth century in Greek, a language which had been fully mastered by the Christian community,^[66] later writers were confronted with the problem of translating complex ideas and doctrines into an idiom that explicitly precluded their basic premises, and in the beginning, had not yet acquired the vocabulary necessary for such an enterprise. The problem was thrown into

relief when Christians tried to articulate ideas in terminology already dominated by Qur’anic images.^[67] For example, the notion of tawhid (monotheistic belief) had essentially been defined by the (Qur’an to exclude multiplicity in God, as contrasted to sirk (associating others with God). This made it difficult for Christians to explain and defend the doctrine of the Trinity in Arabic as consistent with monotheism without being accused of polytheism, and consequently idolatry.^{[68] [69] [70]} As a result, Christian apologists of the first 'Abbasid century were required to use imagination and skill in presenting traditional Christian teaching as consistent and credible.

Arabic ClstiiAjlgy aid ThologaDebate

The Arabic apologetical treatise has its roots in the well-developed Syriac apologetical tradition. Most of the subjects that emerged later in Arabic polemic are found defined already in Syriac literature.76 Eventually, a standard repertoire of topics and arguments was developed which appears in the works of numerous known and anonymous writers taking up the pen in defense of their own faith. The issues were generally formulated and organized in a treatise by the apologist to serve two objectives. First, it was intended to provide Christians with a sort of handbook of ready responses to be given to the questions posed by Muslims about their religion. A second and equally important aim was to encourage wavering Christians and sustain their faith in the face of Muslim missionary efforts. Often the authors were compelled to emphasize and defend the credibility of Christian claims concerning the Trinity, Incarnation, and certain practices for Christians themselves, since the Muslim argument that they were absurd and contradictory was beginning to sow doubt within the Christian community.7’

Georg Graf has identified two levels of debate behind these apologetical writings: first, scholarly polemic that took place between the intellectuals of the Muslim and Christian communities intent on laying out the issues in complex theological and philosophical categories, and second, popular polemic that extended to a wider range of participants, and was aimed at expressing teachings in a more simplistic form.^[71] These two types of polemic are indicative of the extent to which discussion on religion had spread; not just scholars but also common folk were pressed into defending their beliefs and urged to consider conversion to Islam. Such engagement is encouraged by the Qur’an within the limits of fairness: “Do not dispute with the People of the Book except in a courteous manner, unless it is with those who do evil. Say: ‘We believe in [the revelation] which has been sent down to us and sent down to you; Our God and your God is One, and we submit to Him” {Sura 29:46).

Scholarly polemical debate between Christians and Muslims appears to have evolved into a somewhat fixed form parallel to munazara found in theology in Islamic intellectual circles. The origin of the munazara, or disputation, is connected to the development of Qlm al-kalam, the “science of speech”. The latter is closely related to the form of hiaXsCi5 / ؟iaXsyso0ai employed by some church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria, and, while it is not simply a transference of the Greek or Christian form of debate into Islamic circles, the munazara seems to have drawn its inspiration from it.^[72] These rhetorical tools continued to be used by Christians well into the Islamic period to lay out their positions and were probably known by Muslim scholars and adapted for their own use.^[73]

Although general parallels can be found between the rules of debate laid out in certain known Aristotelian texts, such as the Sophistikoi Elenchoi and Topics VIII, and Islamic munazarat, important differences exist between them. In the late antique period, rhetoric was highly valued as a constitutive part of a good education and disputation was considered to be a necessary exercise. However, for Islamic theology, the munagara was seen as a means to arrive at the truth and not just a rhetorical exercise.^[74] In debates between Muslims and Christians, the goal becomes the ability of one side to convince the opponent of the truth of his religion. The presumption is that when one enters into the debate, one is already in possession of the truth. Exploration and study of a particular question was expected to take place among like-minded scholars, apart from the constraints of a munlarra..^[75]

According to several historical accounts, it was understood that one was free to refuse to participate in a staged munagara, especially if he was convinced that the opponent was someone who did not understand the topic to be debated.^[76] For the one who lost the debate, there was a penalty. Although there are reports that losers were executed, there is little evidence that this actually occurred. Instead, the one who was judged to have been defeated was often fined, and failure to pay the fine could result in imprisonment. For non-Muslims who lost the debate, the expectation was conversion to Islam, but few seem to have done so. A number of munazarat were staged by Muslim officials, such as those at the court of the Caliph Mu’awiyah ibn Al Sufyan (41-60/661-680), who brought together Christians and Jews more for the sake of information or the fine to be paid than for purposes of conversion.^[77]

This, however, seems to have changed by the ninth century as the drive to draw all people into the Islamic umma increased. Consequently, more Christians were being invited into conversations in which they were asked to defend their beliefs and encouraged to convert to Islam. This is suggested by the comments Abu Ra’itah makes to those confronted with the risks of participating in such exchanges (On the Trinity 2). Christians appear to have been constantly aware of their precarious situation in entering into munagarat and did not push the limits of the debate in defense of their faith. On the contrary, although difficult questions were asked, the discussion was kept cordial. For example, the conversation between the Nestorian Timothy I and the Caliph al-Mahdi does not end with the Catholicos “winning”, even though the account of it is written from the Christian point of view in Syriac. Few Muslims would have had access to this text, but apparently the Nestorians were unwilling to take the chance!^[78]

In most cases, the actual munagarat are difficult to reconstruct because of the nature of the historical records. Certainly, it can be argued that debates actually took place among various Muslim intellectuals, as well as between Muslims and Christians and/orJews. In any case, there is enough evidence to put their existence beyond doubt.^[79] Some Muslim officials in particular, such as the Caliph al- Ma’mdn, are known to have been very interested in religious questions and staged debates for entertainment and their own edification.^[80] However, most accounts of munagarat have obviously been redacted and the arguments softened by later editors. Sometimes people and places are not named clearly, making it difficult to determine to what extent or whether the events described actually occurred. Many accounts exist in several recensions in which different participants “win” the debate. Conclusions in which a person is able to triumph with a single well-phrased question or answer also raise the suspicion that the ideal is presented rather than the reality. These texts betray the desire of the author to record the event not exactly as it transpired, but as it should have occurred in his eyes, perhaps after some thought and research. The goal of these texts is to set before the reader ready-made, succinct statements that offer the strongest position possible for use in future debates.^[81]

In many cases, the evidence that exists for a munazara is not written in the form of a transcript, but instead as a theological tract that includes the objections and even explanations of the opponent(s).^[82] While these tracts (often designated as a risalah or a radd) do not claim to reproduce munazarat, one detects behind them the underlying experience of actual participation by the authors in debate and their desire to formulate in a coherent form a sort of “handbook” for others who might also be engaged such activities.^[83] These are the type of texts that one finds among the writings of Theodore Abu Qurrah and Abh Ra’itah.

Since one can identify numerous hints of Abh Ra’itah’s own participation in munazarat in his writings, especially in Proof of the Cl fstiiRelgo Ct eTi iity and Ct elcarnatoa brRfsketch of the formal requirements for debate here is helpful for understanding the structure of the texts. The procedures for munazarat in Islamic thought can be traced back as early as the mutazili Dirar ibn 'Amr (c. 112-c. 184/ c. 730-c. 800) and were fully developed by the tenth century.^[84] The basic ground rules included the prohibition of generally obnoxious behavior, such as shouting, interrupting the opponent, or trying to enlist the support of other listeners, although one was allowed to point out repetitions or errors on the part of the adversary for the benefit of onlookers. At the conclusion, the person who had invited the participants, usually a caliph or vizier, would decide who had “won” the debate and the competitors were obligated to accept his decision graciously.^[85]

Before the munazara commenced, each person was to choose whether he wished to be the questioner (الائل) or the respondent (المعلل). The former was considered to be the position of advantage, and usually the weaker party was allowed to begin. The interrogator was not allowed to give an answer or explanation, only to pose the questions, and thus lead the debate in a direction favorable to his own position. The respondent was permitted to answer the questions either with an agreement that substantiated the claim or with a refutation; however, he was required to give a reply even if he believed the question was pointless. If the questioner was defeated by the answer of the respondent, he was not allowed to begin again, but forced into the position of answering the questions of the opponent until he could regain control of the debate.^[86]

In view of these rules, the best strategy for the questioner was to force the opponent into precision and dominate the direction of the debate so that certain answers were given. The questioner could then show that all of the possibilities had not been considered by his opponent. Nonetheless, it was very important that it did not appear that he was stalling for time. By contrast, the respondent had to be careful that he had fully understood the question and weighed all of the possibilities before giving his answer so as to lead the debate in his own direction by anticipating the ensuing questions. A successful respondent was one who could quickly move into the dominant position by skillfully gaining control.^[87]

Formal munagarat was often structured according to the requirements for a proof (يرهان.). First the questioner asked for a description of the proof. This necessitated the respondent to lay out the evidence or caue (علة) fo^ the^roof, and the٠n general va^d of it (طرد العلة). It is in the third step that the respondent put forth his most important arguments. In many cases one or more analogies were used to show the general validity of the proof offered.^[88] At this stage the respondent had to be aware of the types of arguments his questioner and listeners would accept. There were many among the Muslim theologians and jurists who did not accept analogy (قياس) or consensus (اجماع) as legitimate evidence, and between Muslims and Christians the problem of tahrif (falsification of the scriptures) inhibited the use of scriptural proof-texts, ahadit, or any ecclesial documents. The respondent was consequently required to find a common foundation or principle on which to base his argument that would be acceptable to his opponent. Many, most notably the Mutazilah, found a solution in rationalism. Christians were quick to pick up this approach and respondents such as Abu Ratal used a combination of reason and commonly accepted scriptural arguments to make their point.^[89]

According to Muslim logicians, there were two types of questions which a questioner could pose: the mas’alah tafwid (مألة تفويض) and the mas’alah hagr (مألة حجر). The first of these is a question open to the respondent and allows all possibilities, e.g., “what is a human being?” The second, which was used extensively by theologians, provided the options and the respondent was forced to chose one, e.g., “is A considered to be X or Y?” This latter form of questioning can be traced to Aristotle’s Topics VIII.2. It was customary to begin a munagara with a mas’alah hagr because it quickly exposed the opponent and revealed the extent of his knowledge. His success in the debate depended upon whether he recognized the full implications of the choices he had been given and how he chose to handle them.^[90]

Within either of these two lines of investigation the questioner typically proceeded by compelling his respondent to ever more precise distinctions. For example, if the respondent chose an undesirable option when presented with a mas’alah hagr, the questioner could proceed by saying, “if you say X, then there are only two possibilities, A and B. A leads to C, B leads to D, and both are unacceptable. Thus, Y is the only solution.” Two kinds of distinctions were recognized in debate, taqsim (تقسم), those differentiations made in the subject at hand and tafriq (تفريق), differentiations made between the meanings of a single word.^[91] Taqsim allowed the questioner to pursue distinctions within a single topic, such as those between different grammatical categories, e.g., is a term being used as an adjective or as a noun? Tafnq, on the other hand, emphasized the different meaning of a single term, e.g., in what way is the opponent using the word “one”? Both of these types of distinctions can be identified in Abu Ra’itah’s writings, but are especially clear in On the Trinity. Using taqsm, he asks his opponent whether the divine attributes are “single, absolute names” or “predicative names”, followed by an explanation and the implications of each (§11). The foundation of his apology, however, is based on tafnq, forcing a definition of the meaning of the term “one” according to Greek philosophical categories (§§8-10).

In nearly all of his extant letters, Abu Ra’itah follows the standard pattern of question and answer common in the writings of his contemporaries. He begins each topic with the statement or question of the opponent, either in the singular or plural: “now, if they say, . . . then it should be said . . . .” (فان قالوا. . . .بقال لهم ان). A similar style is found frequently in the Fathers and is probably the model for later Christian writers: غ5 أح taE . . . ٠EV أاًة / Eav Epn . . . aKOKpivougE0a. This form is not a direct dialog following a pattern of A-B-AB, but rather a series of hypothetical questions or objections and responses.^[92]

In his own treatises, Abu Ra’itah lays out the series of questions in such a way as to pursue as many of the possible objections of the questioner as possible. In nearly every case, he assumes that his Christian reader will participate in the position of the respondent, and almost never the questioner.^[93] This, of course, gives his Christian reader the tools necessary to try and gain control over the potential debate and show the validity of theJacobite view. As a form of apologetic primarily intended to instruct other Christians, it leads the reader to see the strength of Christian teaching in the face of difficult and convincing questions, and to assist Christian intellectuals in adopting the developing munagara structure and using it to their own advantage when they were called upon to defend their faith.

In summary, it is clear the Christian community at the turn of the ninth century living under Islamic rule was confronted with a new situation that necessitated a creative response. Faced with the rising number of Christian converts to Islam as a consequence of Islamization in conjunction with an increase in the gizyah and restrictions on the dimmi, Christian theologians sought to ameliorate the circumstances through writings designed to give answers to common theological questions posed by Muslims that at the same time encouraged Christians in their faith. Because this occurred during the rapid supplanting of local languages by Arabic, those addressing the situation were obliged to formulate their thoughts and responses in a new medium initially not well-suited to accommodate Christian ideas. Further, with the Islamic rejection of Christian scripture as a starting point, writers such as Abu Ratal and Theodore Abu Qurrah began to produce treatises designed to aid Christians in scholarly as well as everyday debate with Muslims using reason as a common basis for argumentation. Consequently, in this period doctrinal apologetic between Muslims and Christians begins to flower, revealing a keen interest on behalf of the writers in each community in the beliefs of his opponent and the desire to articulate his own faith in a new mileu.

Aba R tah alTaliftl, the Jacobite (c. 775-c. 835)

It is within this rapidly changing environment that Habib ibn Hidmah Abd Ra’itah al-Takriti makes his appearance. Although he is among the first Christians to write in Arabic whose name is known, very little can be said to date about his person. Traditionally, Abd Ra’itah has been recognized as a bishop of theJacobite Syrian Orthodox church, and his writings are preserved in collections of the Monophy- site community, particularly those of the Coptic church. However, it is unlikely that he was a bishop, and the references to him as a member of the hierarchy of the Syrian Orthodox church in Nisibis are certainly incorrect. Nonetheless, the information that is currently available about Abu Ra’itah allows a certain degree of confidence in establishing the parameters of his life and its context.

Name

The primary source for information about Abu Ratal is his name, which is found in some form in nearly all of the headings given to his works in the various extant manuscripts.^[94] The most complete version of his name is found the manuscripts of On the Trinity, Threefold Praise (II), and Station.^[95] In these three, his title is given as “Habib ibn Hidmah, known as Abu Ra’itah alTakrt the Jacobite” (حبيب بن خدمة المعروف بابى رائطة التكريتى اليعقوبى). The kunya (surname), Abu Ra’itah, is a relatively rare name. “Ra’itah” is known exclusively as a feminine name, and would not have been given as an honorific title. The most likely explanation is that Abu Ra’itah was a father of at least one daughter, but had no surviving sons. His ism (personal name) Habib is, of course, a common name among both Christians and Muslims, but the nasab (kinship name) ibn Hidmah is more problematic. The various manuscripts in which Abu Ra’itah’s writings are found and references to him in outside sources give the voweled text as Haditah, Hudaytah or Hudaybah. This complication arises from the fact that in the early period the text was not pointed, leaving later scribes to add points as they understood it. Without the points, the name can appear as either حدمه or ^[96].حدسه However, most modern scholars have followed the Coptic tradition and accepted Hidmah as the correct reading. A difficulty remains with this reading in that it means “service”, an unlikely name in any interpretation. To date, one can simply observe that it is an Arabic term, which would indicate his connection to an Arabic-speaking community; however, its unusual meaning casts doubt on its usefulness for determining his family origin.

Finally, the nisbah (place of origin) “al-Takrt ” is commonly given to Abu Ratal. The city of Takit, situated just a short distance outside of Baghdad, was an intellectual center of the Western Syriac community which reached its apex with Anthony the Rhetor (d. 845) and the Patriarch Cyriacus (793-817) during the period in which Aba Ratal was active.^[97] At this time, Syriac was rapidly being replaced by Arabic as the lingua franca of the area. This was especially true of a city like Takrit because of its close proximity to Baghdad. It is clear from his writings that Aba Ra’itah was fluent in what is now known as Middle Arabic,^[98] but it is highly likely that he was born of Syriac-speaking parents and belongs to the transitional generation of those who were fluent in both Syriac and Arabic.^[99] One notices certain tell-tale aspects of his writing such as his use of ل to signal an object, which is forbidden in Arabic, but required in Syriac. He also commonly employs اذ as a translation for the Syriac gheir, itself being a rendering of the Greek yap.^[100] Both of these are indicative of Arabic-speakers living in the Syriac milieu.

Date

Only two datable events are connected with Abu Ra’itah which allow any possibility of narrowing the outside dates of his life. The first is the occasion of his sending the Archdeacon Nonnus of Nisibis (c. 790-c. 870)1٥2 to Armenia to represent him in a debate with Theodore Abd Qurrah. The request was made by the court of the Bagratid Armenian prince, the isxan Abd ’!'Abbas Asot ibn Simbat (d. 826), nicknamed Msaker, “the meat-eater”, who ruled between 804 and 826.^[101] [102] Abd Qurrah had arrived in Armenia during his missionary journey throughout the Mediterranean in an effort to gain converts from among Monophysite Christians to the Diophysite teachings of Maximus the Confessor (d. 662).^[103] At first he was successful and convinced the prince to adopt the faith as it had been expressed by the Council of Chalcedon (451). However, with the arrival of Non- nus, Asot Msaker was persuaded to accept theJacobite objections to Chalcedon and turned away from the Melkite teachings.

Two of Abd Ra’itah’s extant writings, On the Union and Threefold Praise (I), are explicitly addressed to the isxan arguing against the position presented by Abd Qurrah. The first of these was meant to be a letter of introduction for Nonnus and a brief outline of the Jacobite doctrine. The second, which is much longer, is apparently a follow-up letter written to answer further objections which arose in the debate between Abd Qurrah and Nonnus.

In On the Union, Abd Ra’itah apologizes for having been unable to respond to the request of the prince, asking that Nonnus, whom he has instructed, be accepted as a replacement. He writes:

Your letter, O Excellency, finds me shackled, detained, and prevented from hastening to your command and coming to you. Without a doubt this hindrance upon me is from God-villainy all around restricts me, and I complain to God of my misfortune. Although I burn for release, I have found no one to aid me, so I have decided to send . . . the Deacon Ilyan [Nonnus], a relative of mine, to you. (On the Union 2) Some have suggested that Abu Ra’itah’s excuse need not be taken literally, that he was simply otherwise occupied and did not wish to travel to Armenia.^[104] Indeed, in the absence of corroborating evidence, caution should discourage one from taking this statement at face value. However, the extent of his complaint and comment that he has not been able to find anyone to assist him in his troubles do support a more literal reading. The nature of his predicament remains unclear though, and could be anything from a chronic illness to physical detainment, yet it should be noted that imprisonment is not an impossibility. Nonnus himself was later imprisoned along with the entire household of the Armenian royal family, and Abu Ra’itah alludes to this danger in two of his other letters.^[105]

Throughout his writings, Abu Ra’itah is careful never to make explicit references to either the current Muslim authorities or the consequences of their rule or to Islam. Therefore, if he had been confined, it is improbable that he would jeopardize an apparently already difficult position by mentioning those who have imprisoned him and the reasons why in this letter if it were connected to his activities as a Christian apologist. On the other hand, if his reference is to a metaphorical imprisonment, he may simply mean the state of Christians living under Arab domination, although it is difficult to see how this would inhibit him more than Nonnus or the isxan himself. In any case, at this point one cannot place too much weight on these brief remarks concerning his decision not to travel to Armenia.

In contrast, the meeting between Nonnus of Nisibis and Abh Qurrah in Armenia is substantiated by several outside accounts. The Armenian chronicler Vardan (1198-1271) writes:

In those days a bishop, Epikura by name, came to Asot and tried to convert him [to the theology] of Chalcedon. When Buret, a certain vardapet in Mesopotamia, heard of this, he dispatched the deacon Nana, who came and disputed with Apikura, defeating him by the power of the Holy Spirit. So the isxan expelled him and was confirmed even more in the faith of Saint Gregory.^[106]

The references to “Buret” (Pnit) and “Epika/Apika” (bujJilinLui) are certainly corruptions of the Arabic names Abh Ra’itah and Abh Qurrah respectively. Louis Maries has made the argument that the use of the genitive in the transliteration of Abh Qurrah indicates that Vardan employed an Arabic source for his chronicle here, plausibly an account of the discussion between Nonnus and Abh Qurrah itself.^[107]

Vardan places this event as having occurred “in those days” between two known dates, that of the death of the Emperor Leo V in 820, and the death of the isxan Asot Msaker in 826. However, his placement of the account does not necessarily indicate an historical sequence of events. Vardan often uses such structures as literary devices in his chronicle, rather than as indicators of chronology.^[108] Another chronicler, Mxithar of Ayrivankh (fl. 13th c.), puts the encounter between 801 and 821.^[109] It is, nevertheless, possible that he has used Vardan as a source, repeating what he had before him with a different emphasis on the course of events.^[110] A Georgian

chronicle paints a different picture of the meeting between Abu Qurrah and an unnamed “Armenian” who is doubtless Nonnus of Nisibis. Written from the Chalcedonian point of view, Abu Qurrah is portrayed as the victor in the debate.^[111] Nonetheless, although the details of these accounts vary, all three substantiate the event itself. Further, the inclusion in the Armenian accounts of a reference to Abu Ra’itah provide an added witness to his own part in the encounter between Nonnus and Abu Qurrah.

The Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (1166-1199), reports that in 1125 (813/814), Abu Qurrah had traveled to Alexandria and Armenia on a missionary journey to spread the teachings of Maximus the Confessor. In response to this threat, Nonnus was sent to Armenia during the reign of Patriarch Cyriacus (793-817) to engage in debate with him.^[112] If this is true, then Non- nus probably arrived there sometime between 815 and 817, somewhat earlier than Vardan’s account suggests. Van Roey argues that the earlier date is most likely correct, since the source of Michael’s Chronicle here is the history of the Patriarch Dionysius of Tell Mae (r. 818-845),^[113] who would have been unlikely to attribute such an initiative to his predecessor had it not been true. Instead, the date of 813/814 given by Michael probably reflects the date that Abu Qurrah began his missionary journey.^[114] In any case, the incident itself has not been contested, and is supported by numerous other sources (including Abu Ra’itah’s own writings), making it fairly certain that the appearance of Nonnus in Armenia, at the suggestion of Abu Ra’itah, can be dated sometime between 815 and 820.

The second incident, which can be dated precisely, is Abu Ra’itah’s involvement in the deposition of a bishop of Nisibis. In the earliest direct reference to Abu Ratal known to date, Michael the Syrian writes in his Chronicle that Philoxenus of Nisibis was removed from his see in 827/828 on the basis of accusations made by Abd Ratal and Nonnus of Nisibis. The passage states that:

In that year, a synod of forty bishops convened to meet with the Patriarch [of Antioch] Mar Dionysius [of Tell Mae at the monastery] of Asphoulos, near ReS'ayna, on account of Philoxenus of Nisibis, whom he had removed from his episcopal see. The ones who brought the accusations against him were his Archdeacon Nonnus of Nisibis and Abu Ra'itah of Tagrit, [both] scholars and philosophers. When [Philoxenus] was summoned [before] the synod, he did not come, and without giving leave he returned to Nisibis. At that time the synod declared Abiram and Philoxenus anathema, and the two of them became associates.^[115]

Based on Michael’s record of the event, it can be assumed that Abd Ra'itah and Nonnus were at this time in close contact, and that Non- nus had returned from Armenia. Michael includes a letter written by Mar Dionysius which notes that the bishops had delayed making a decision for six years,^[116] bringing the accusations back as early as 822, during which time Nonnus must have been residing in Nisibis, or at least fully aware of the situation there. In any case, he appears to have left Armenia by the death of Asot Msaker in 826.

Since the synod at Ras 'Ayna can be dated between 827 and 828, and no other evidence of Abh Ratals later activity is available, it can be taken as the terminus post quem of his death. Assuming that he was not exceedingly old at the time of the synod, and allowing that he was older than his nephew Nonnus (c.790-c.870), it is not a stretch to place his dates between 770 and 835. This time period in fact encompasses that of his known contemporary, Theodore Abh Qurrah, who probably lived between 785 and 829.118

One might add here that these dates also increase the possibility that Abh Ra’itah was in personal contact with a known Mutazili, Abh Ma'an Tumamah ibn al-Asras an-Numaryi al-Basri, who died around 213/828. Samir has pointed out that the name “Tumamah” appears in the superscription of Sbath manuscript 1017 (15th century Egyptian) as the addressee of Abh Ra’itah’s short defense of Christianity through the use of reason (Demonstration). As Samir correctly observes, although this is the sole manuscript in which the name is given,^[117] [118] it is doubtful that a later Christian scribe would have added the name of an earlier (relatively obscure) Muslim scholar with such precision, since Tumamah ibn al-Asras would have been known only to specialists. Further, the name is unusual, reducing the chance that it was added merely to give the text an addressee.^[119] The fact that Abh Ra’itah was nearly an exact contemporary to Tumamah ibn al-Asras adds weight to the veracity of the claim.

Ecclesiastical Status

The date range of 770-835 situates Abh Ra’itah’s period of activity during the Patriarchs of Antioch Cyriacus (793-817) and Dionysius of Tell Mae (818-845) aid theJacobite Maphriens Sarbil (793798), Sam’hn I (798-805), Sam’hn II (805-815), Basilius of Balad I (818-829) and Daniel (829-834).^[120] This was a period of ecclesiastical turmoil for the Jacobite church in Takit with infighting and mutual excommunication among several bishops, the Maphriens and Patriarch Cyriacus. In part, the issue stemmed from the greed of Basilius and his attempt to collect a tax from the Muslims in Takrit. The consequence of this ill-conceived idea was the destruction of several churches and execution by the Muslim authorities of at least one of Basilius’ accomplices on the grounds of “insult to the Prophet”.^[121] No doubt this affair raised the tension level between Muslims and Christians in the city. In addition, unrest following the death of the Caliph al-Amin (193-198/809-813) brought uncertainty to Christians throughout the empire until al-Ma'mdn (198-218/813-833) gained control of Baghdad in August of 819.^[122]

It has been noted that tradition has perpetuated the view that Abu Ratal was a bishop during this period, usually of the city of Takrit.^[123] Essentially the arguments have been tied to the nisbah “al- Takriti” given to him in numerous manuscripts and other sources. Generally, a nisbah indicates a place of origin; however, in the case of a cleric, it can also mean that one is bishop of that see. Georg Graf, following Coptic writers of the 11th to the 14th centuries, takes his nisbah to mean that Abu Ratal was theJacobite bishop of the influential Syriac-speaking city of Takrit in the diocese of Sardo;.^[124] Abu Ishaq al-Mu’taman ibn al-'Assal includes him in his list of Syrian authors (before 1260) as “Habib ibn Hudaita al-Takrt, Bishop of the City of Takrit of the Diocese of Sarb^, known as Abb Ra’itah.”^[125] Somewhat later, the encyclopaedist Abb l-Barakat Ibn Kabar ’ams ar-Riybsah identifies him as “Habib, known as Abb Ra’itah, the Bishop of Takrit.”^[126] Subsequent writers have relied on these sources and included Abb Ra’itah in bishop lists for Takrit.

In the twentieth century the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatiybs Afram al-Awwal Barsawm, Patriarch of Antioch (1887-1954) put forward the suggestion that Ibn al-'Assal and Abb l-Barakat were mistaken in believing that Abb Ra’itah was a bishop.^[127] His brief arguments have been summarized and expanded by Fiey in a short article published in 1986.^[128] However, because one still finds references to Abb Ra’itah as bishop, it is helpful to give a summary of Fiey’s position, here, along with some further observations.

The strongest evidence in favor of the tradition that Abb Ra’itah was a bishop are two of the sources mentioned above: Michael the Syrian’s report of his involvement in the deposition of another bishop at the Synod of Res'ayna in 827/8, and Abb Ra’itah’s delegation of the Archdeacon Nonnus of Nisibis to represent him in a debate with Theodore Abb Qurrah, Bishop of Harran, before the Armenian isxan Asot Smbat Msaker. Some scholars have argued that Abb Ra’itah appears to have had an authoritative capacity in both instances, particularly in the second in which he was apparently invited as an official representative of theJacobite community. Further, it is claimed that Abd Ratal could only have sent Nonnus if he had held a higher rank in the church.)30

In response one must first point out that neither Abu Ratal himself nor any of his colleagues make mention of his being a bishop,)3) nor is he named in any of the contemporary lists of bishops of Takrit, which to date are fairly complete.’32 This certainly undermines the traditional view in light of the fact that two of the most well-known Christians engaged in debate with Muslims, the Nestorian Catholicos Timothy I and the Melkite Bishop of Harran, Theodore Abu Qurrah, as well as the Archdeacon Nonnus of Nisibis, are always clearly named as ordained leaders in contemporary sources.

One can add to this the evidence of the Armenian chroniclers who call Abu Ra’itah a teacher or vardapet (33’.(الا1االآالللالس[ل Surely his status as bishop would have been recorded here, had it been known, since it would have given greater authority to Nonnus as a participant in the debate and his eventual capacity as adviser to Asot Msaker. Michael the Syrian’s account also adds an interesting detail to Non- nus’ arrival at the court. It seems that Asot did not immediately receive him as Abu Ra’itah’s representative since Nonnus was a “young man”, and Abu Qurrah refused to meet with him because it was not dignified for a bishop to debate with someone so young.’34 While Michael may have added some of this story for effect, Abu Ra’itah himself seems concerned that Nonnus may not be accepted as a suitable replacement (On the Union ’). If Abu Ra’itah had in fact been a bishop, it is odd that no mention is made of the disrespect that such a refusal to receive his envoy would have meant. Instead, the account focusses solely on the success of Nonnus. ^{[129] [130] [131] [132] [133]}

Neither does Michael’s chronicle state explicitly that Abu Ra’itah was present at the synod of Ras 'Ayna in the capacity of bishop or otherwise, only that he “brought the accusations” against Philoxenus. Furthermore, it names Nonnus of Nisibis with his title before Abh Ra’itah. This is important for several reasons. First, the title “Mar” is not given to Abu Ra’itah as it would have had he been a bishop. Second, the rank of each individual, very important in ecclesiastical circles, would have been indicated in the order that each is named. Michael would have known this, and been careful to use the proper titles and order. Third, it is striking that Gregory Abh ’l-Farag, known as Bar Hebraeus (Ibn alibi, 1225-1286), in his Chronicon Ecclesiasticum mentions only Nonnus in connection with the incident at Ras 'Ayna,^[134] substantiating the letter of Mar Dionysius which Michael includes. If Abh Ra’itah had been a bishop, his accusation against Philoxenus would have been sufficient on its own, without the assistance of Nonnus, especially if he had held the right to participate in the synod.^[135]

The second argument that Abh Ra’itah could only have sent Non- nus in his place to the court of the Armenian isxan if he had held a higher position has been countered by the suggestion that Non- nus only accepted the request as a favor to his friend or relative.^[136] [137] Even more compelling, however, is the further evidence found in Michael’s Chronicle that it was not Abh Ra’itah, but the Patriarch Cyriacus, who sent Nonnus to confront Abh Qurrah. Concerning Nonnus’ visit to Armenia, Michael writes: “The Patriarch Cyriacus then sent the Archdeacon of Nisibis to unmask [Theodore Abh Qurrah’s] heretical views, so that he did not deceive the Armenians. When Nonnus arrived, he saw that Asot was inclined toward the heresy of Pygla [i.e., Abh Qurrah]. . . .”138 Previous scholars have assumed that the substitution of Cyriacus for Abh Ra’itah reflects an error on the part of the chronicler. However, it seems at least plausible, if not more likely, that Abu Ratal, unable to travel to Armenia himself, sent the prince’s request to the patriarch along with the suggestion to delegate Nonnus, whom he would instruct on how to proceed in debate with Abb Qurrah. At a minimum, it is another strike against the view that Abb Ra’itah was a bishop—his involvement is not even mentioned in Michael’s report of Nonnus’ visit to Armenia.

A few other counter-arguments have been added to the mounting evidence against the traditional view of Abb Ra’itah as bishop. Fiey notes that Abb Ra’itah’s letter to Armenia (On the Union 1) mentions that it was carried by his relative, a deacon named Elias (Arabic 139,(اليان and this could indicate that Nonnus was not the only one he delegated.^[138] [139] Contrary to Fiey, however, one must point out that all of the known sources that give an account of the meeting between Theodore Abb Qurrah and a Syrian Jacobite opponent before the isxan Asot Msaker name only Nonnus of Nisibis. The error can be reasonably attributed to a copyist of Abb Ra’itah’s writings (in transcribing اليان for ناتان) and does not necessitate the involvement of a second deacon.^[140] Finally, Samir argues that his name makes it fairly certain that Abb Ra’itah was married and had a daughter. While not precluding the possibility that he was a bishop, this adds more weight against it.^[141]

In view of the above evidence, the fact that Abb Ra’itah and his contemporaries make no mention of his status as a bishop of the Syrian Orthodox church forces one to conclude that this tradition is in fact an error. It is more probable that it was later copyists who, recognizing the high regard he received in the Monophysite community, took his nisbah “al-Takiti” to mean that he was a bishop of that important city.^[142] That being the case, the notable absence of a title associated with Abb Ra’itah in the earliest references to him must necessarily raise the question of his true position in the Jacobite church. It is obvious both from his own writings and the later traditions surrounding him that he was a well-respected person who had the confidence of his own clergy and whose fame had spread.

A clue to All Ratal status may lie in the reference to him in the Armenian records that he was a “vardapet in Mesopotamia” (i]uiliquiu)bui h HhRbmu). In the period in which Abd Ratal lived, the ecclesiastical office of vardapet was in the process of becoming a more formalized position in the Armenian church. The origin of the Iranian term is uncertain, but its earliest ecclesiastical usage Armenia is as a translation for the biblical word StSaoKaXo؟, and sometimes for pappi. Although by the fifth century vardapets appear to have been ordained, they are not mentioned as a separate class of clergy, did not have a liturgical role, nor are they included in the nine grades of the hierarchy of the medieval Armenian church. In the century preceding Abd Ratal, vardapets have status as theologians, and the term is often used to refer to the orthodox teachings of the Church Fathers.^[143]

At this time, the primary function of a vardapet was to pass on and interpret church teachings. For this, an extensive knowledge of the Bible and scriptural exegesis was essential. As a teacher and exegete, a vardapet generally had disciples, and often took on the role of a missionary to gain converts to Christianity. This was especially important in times of anti-Christian pressure. The term apparently came into widespread use during the rule of the Sassanians over Armenia in the seventh century with their effort to assimilate Christians into Zoroastrianism. The majority of the Christian clergy were fairly uneducated, relying on vardapets to provide the teachers and scholarly effort needed for resistance. In the ninth and tenth centuries, the office of vardapet became clearly defined, and a distinguished vardapet was often regarded as an equal to the bishop. There are even records of vardapets participating in synods independently of their bishops.^[144]

In his own writings, Abd Ra’itah reveals himself to fit the description of vardapet exactly-— is a teacher, intellectual authority, and “missionary”, yet appears to act relatively independently within his church, making no mention even of his own patriarch. His various letters and treatises are concerned with explaining and defending difficult teachings (in several instances, apparently to clergy in nearby communities), instructing his readers on how to proceed in debate with opponents of theJacobite church, and providing examples from Scripture and the Fathers to support his claims. In his writings addressing Islam, he seeks to convince both Muslims and wavering Christians of the viability of Christian doctrine in the face of doubt and incentives for conversion to the new religion. In this manner Abu Ra’itah seeks to repel Islamization efforts just as the Armenians had resisted Zoroastrianism. It is little wonder that the Armenians identified him as fulfilling the role of vardapet in their own church.

In fact, one finds in the Syrian Orthodox church a position similar to the Armenian vardapet in the malpono. This Syriac term, also used to translate the Biblical hihaoKaXo؟, refers to the less developed position of one authorized to teach church doctrine. Like a vardapet, a malpono was responsible for teaching the faith to converts and children, even though this may not have been his primary occupation. Several saints and theologians are given the title (such as Ephraem the Syrian and Jacob of Sarug), denoting their status as recognized teachers of the faith.^[145] Abu Ra’itah himself gives Ephraem the title الملفان in Arabic (Threefold Praise (I) 13), a simple transliteration of the Syriac, rather than translation, suggesting that he understood it to be a particular title.

Although the position of malpono was not clearly defined until later, by the beginning of the sixth century the term appears as a title given to teachers at the Nestorian School of Nisibis.^[146] The School was a continuation of the one which had been suppressed in Edessa in 489, and it carried on the work of educating the Nestorian clergy and intellectuals. For over a century it was a center of Syrian Christian learning until the rise of Islam. It was followed by the creation of a further academy in Seluecia-Ctesiphon in the sixth century, and eventually a new school in the capital of the empire at Baghdad under the Catholicos Sabro’ (r. 830’s). In each of these institutions the title of malpono was given to the learned teachers who taught Scripture and doctrine as well as relevant philosophical texts.’48

Abu Ratal himself is nowhere given the Syriac title of malpono, nor is he known to have been associated with a particular insitution, but his erudition and apparent authority as a theologian is consistent with what is known of the Nestorian malpono. Its similarity to the Armenian position further makes it very probable that it lies behind his designation as a vardapet. If this is the case, then his ecclesiastical status is greatly clarified.

As a malpono Abd Ratal would have been well-versed in biblical exegesis and church doctrine, and would have been involved in teaching at some level. He probably was not ordained, nor did he serve in any official capacity in his church, accounting for the silence about his position in the Jacobite church in Syriac chronicles. In fact, there is no obvious reason to believe that Asot Msaker contacted him directly as a member of the hierarchy. It is more likely that the communication came through another, perhaps the Patriarch Cyriacus himself, who contacted Abd Ra’itah because of his reputation as a scholar, or perhaps because of his fluency in Arabic, the language of Abd Qurrah. The position of malpono also explains his role as a consultant but not participant in the synod of Ras 'Ayna. There his rank as a theologian would have added weight to the accusations against Philoxenus, but in the Jacobite church he would not have taken part in the synod directly.

A final observation regarding the Armenian epithet should be made here. It is clear from a careful examination of Abd Ra’itah’s writings that he saw himself as a defender of the true faith and a missionary of sorts in the face of both the efforts of Abd Qurrah to spread Melkite teachings and the challenge of Islam. It is not surprising then that the Armenian church should recognize him with the honorable title of vardapet in a time when the church was beginning to feel the pressure to abandon its traditional teachings. Thus, Vardan’s designation of Abd Ra’itah as a “vardapet in Mesopotamia” implies more than a simple attempt to translate the Syriac term malpono into another language. It is a recognition of his important task as teacher and missionary in the changing times in which he lived. ^[147]

A c        sti.au ]M^u^^(^4٧allim

Although neither external references to Abu Ra’itah nor his own writings give direct information about his position in the wider intellectual community of his day, it is important to make some initial observations before turning to his works. If the dates projected for his life are correct, Abu Ra’itah came of age during the formative stages of the two Islamic madahib al-kalam in Basra and Baghdad towards the end of the eighth century under the guidance of Wasil b. 'Ata (d. 131/749) and 'Amr b. 'Ubayd (c. 49-c. 144/c. 669-c. 761), and Dirar b. 'Amr (fl. 168-194/785-810), respectively. These two groups are traditionally recognized as the “forerunners” of the Mutazilah, who gained particular prominence under the reign of the Caliph al-Ma’m٥n (198-218/813-833) with the attempt to make their doctrines the standard for Islamic orthodoxy. The stabilization of the political and cultural realm under the 'Abbasid caliphs with its attendant interest in Greek civilization created an environment in which theological and philosophical questions could be pondered and studied. This intellectual ferment at the turn of the ninth century resulted in the development of kalam as a science.

Wensinck has noted that the term kalam means “speech”, with the related meanings of “discussion” and “disputation”. Those who were engaged in the early debates of such topics as free will and the createdness of the Qur’an were called mutakallimun, “those who discussed”.^[148] Initially, the term seems to have referred to those who used discursive arguments to make their case. Fairly early on, however, the science of kalam ('ilm al-kalam) came to mean especially theology, or the religious sciences, and the use of rational arguments to explain the faith and defend it against doubters. The role of kalam as an apologetical tool was particularly important in the early centuries of Islam, and it has maintained this character throughout its history. Although modern scholars (and past critics) have tended to emphasize the importance of Hellenistic philosophy for the mutakal- limun, it is crucial not to overlook the primary place which apologetic had for them, and the use of reason (aql) in its service. Initially, the mutakallimun were chiefly concerned with defending their faith against the zanadiqa—the “unbelievers” who were influenced especially by Mazdaism, Manicheism, and later Greek rationalism. They wanted to protect Islam from those who would introduce “multiplicity” and anthropomorphism into God, innovations which were explicitly rejected by the Qur’an..150 Later Christianity, with its doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, became a significant target and partner in the debate on the nature of God.^[149] [150]

Those Christians who engaged these Muslim mutakallimun sought to use the same rational arguments to make their case for the Christian faith. Yet, the difficulty of finding common ground on which to meet the opponent was a formidable task. Without recourse to a common scriptural base or mutually acceptable authorities such as the Fathers, they were forced to construct their arguments on principles that could be embraced by those who rejected Christian doctrine. Certainly Christians had faced this challenge before with the spread of Christianity throughout the Greco-Roman world and beyond in the confrontation with numerous other religious systems, and many recognized that the earlier apologetical heritage could serve those now living under Islamic rule. Similar to earlier apologists such as Justin and Origen, Christians identified the fortuitous budding interest in the Islamic scholarly community in Greek philosophy towards the end of the eighth century as just such an opening through which to enter into debate and defend their faith. By appealing to logically constructed arguments about the being of God and His relationship to creation, as well as reasoned proofs refuting charges of deception and duplicity made against Christians, they aimed to show that Christian teachings were not irrational, but rather eminently complex and subtle.

Although other Christian apologists are known to have engaged Muslims on key doctrinal issues before the beginning of the ninth century, Abu Ratal is one of first whose name is known to have done so in the language of Arabic. As a Christian mutakallim and one engaged in theological debate with Muslims, Abu Ratal recognized the parallels between the exigencies of his own time and those of the past and used the experience of his predecessors as a spring-board for his own response to the crisis. But two important differences separate him from earlier apologists which demanded his own insight and innovation. First, the new language of intellectual discourse was Arabic, which was not easily malleable for expressing traditional Christian doctrine, and required the development of a vocabulary out of terms already heavily influenced by the Qur’anic world-view. Second, the new religion challenging Christianity was one of absolute monotheism, which shared neither a common scriptural nor cultural heritage, and rejected the very possibility of a Trinity or Incarnation.^[151] Christian mutakallimun accepted these challenges and began the process of explaining and translating their faith in the new milieu to make it coherent and rational for those to whom it appeared to be neither. In his writings, Abu Ratal reveals himself to be a full participant in this important period of intellectual history, and as one of the three most significant Arab Christian apologists of his day along with the Nestorian 'Ammar al-Basri and Theodore Abu Qurrah. These three notable Christian mutakallimun were among the very first to set down the basic points of controversy and outline responses to them which would form the foundations for Arab Christian thought in the centuries to come.

On the one hand, the earliest Christian mutakallimun were at a distinct disadvantage. As first generation Arabic speakers, they often did not have an educated grasp of the language, which was in the process of developing a technical philosophical vocabulary. This increased the risk of misunderstanding or disagreement with those in political power, sometimes with dire consequences. On the other hand, they had the benefit of a long tradition of engagement with those who disagreed with Christianity, as well as access to Greek logic, often in the original language or through good translations. In this way, they were able to take advantage of the growing interest of Islamic scholars in Hellenistic thought and occasionally to influence debates in Islam at a critical point in its theological development.^[152]

The goal of these Christian scholars was twofoldto counter the arguments put forward by Muslims concerning Christian Scriptures and central doctrines, and to commend Christianity as the true religion both to their fellow Christians and to Muslim partners in debate.^[153] To do this, Abu Ratal uses every tool at his disposal: traditional arguments from the Fathers (especially the Cyrillian tradition and the Cappadocians), Greek logic, an extensive knowledge of the Christian Scriptures, and an accurate grasp of Islam and its theological implications. Although he rarely cites the writing of any particular author directly when he is addressing Muslims, careful examination of his arguments exposes him as well-educated in the Syriac intellectual tradition, with an added awareness of Islam and a good knowledge of Arabic. Through controversialists such as Abd Ratal, the Syriac theological heritage formed the basis for Christian thought in Arabic and the elaboration of new models in its confrontation with Islam.)^[154] [155]

It should be emphasized here that Abu Ra’itah’s knowledge of Islam appears to have grown out of direct engagement with Muslims. Several of his writings, especially the rasa’il On the Trinity and On the Incarnation, exhibit the signs of having been drawn from actual conversations and debates in which he had taken part. His accuracy in recounting the objections and argumentation of Muslims of his day suggests that he was probably a participant in the staged debates between scholars of various religions (Muslim, Jew, and the Christian denominations) which are known to have taken place in Baghdad.)55 This would account for the context of several of his letters, as well as the extent and precision of his knowledge. By all accounts, he was considered by his fellow Christians to be an expert and successful at responding to interreligious theological issues.

All of the conditions and constraints characteristic of the Christian community in the early ninth century are particularly apparent in Abu Ra’itah’s rasa’il and treatises written in defense of Christianity in light of the challenge of Islam. Abu Ra’itah does not launch an open attack against Islam itself, but rather constructs a complex web of questions and answers designed to lead his reader to the conclusion that trinitarian language provides the only appropriate predication of God, and consequently that Christianity is the true religion. He does this in a manner that follows the general pattern found in the apologies for Christianity of his contemporaries, 'Ammar al-Basri and Abu Qurrah. Making use of the ancient Christian apologetical approach, they first emphasize the importance of miracles and prophecies, supported by a comparison of Christian teachings, Scriptures, and prophets with those of other religions. These are measured according to various criteria; for example, Abu Ra’itah insists it is critical that these indicators be accessible to all people. Finally, by means of a set of negative criteria, all religions except Christianity are eliminated as being the true “religion of God”.’^[156] As evidence in support of his thesis, he lays out common themes concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation, and supplies explanations of various rituals and customs in a manner that he believes will be convincing to those of his own community who are confused or inclined to embrace Islam, as well as to those Muslims who are engaged in polemics directed at exposing what they believe are inconsistencies and errors in Christian faith and practice. As note above, he does this as one of the very first to adopt Arabic as his medium, drawing on his knowledge both of the Christian apologetical tradition and of Islam.

At its core, Abu Ra’itah’s apologetical approach assumes what has been recognized by modern scholars as characteristically Neoplatonic, with its philosophical premise that human beings can discover the existence of God through reason. Created humanity must in some manner reflect the God who created it, and human perfections point to those qualities in the Creator. Consequently, one must use reason to evaluate religious doctrines in light of what can be known by the human mind. Further, the veracity of any religion can only be established when it can be shown that the sole motivation for a person to adhere to that faith is divine proof.^[157] [158] That Christianity is the only religion which fulfills these criteria is the conclusion Abu Ra’itah and his fellow apologists set out to demonstrate.

Abu Ra’itah was a mutakallim in his own right, the Christian counterpart to those Islamic scholars at the turn of the ninth century who sought to defend their faith through rational arguments. He is one of the first, whose name is known, to defend Christian faith against those who, like Abu 'Isa al-Warraq (d. 861), dismissed it as inconsistent and contradictory, making no sense in Arabic.^[159] In an effort to argue the legitimacy of Christianity, Abu Ra’itah broke new ground by helping to create a common language and influence the meanings of terminology and concepts in a period of intellectual development which would set the stage for centuries to come. This is certainly his greatest contribution.

In spite of the limited historical references to him, it seems possible to narrow Abu Ra’itah’s period of activity as a teacher, participant in public debate, and writer to between 810 and 830. One can be almost certain that he had died before 840. This places him near Baghdad during the greatest period of intellectual ferment in the course of Islamic history, and makes him a contemporary of some of the most important Christian thinkers in the ninth century Mediterranean world:^[160] [161] the Nestorians 'Ammar al-Basri and Catholicos Timothy I, the Melkite Theodore Abu Qurrah, and 'Abd al-Masfl al-Kindi (fl. 820-825). He was also alive during the intellectual careers of the eminent Mutazilah of Basra, Abu l-Hudayl al-'Allaf (135/752-226/840)161 and his student, Ibrahim ibn Sayyar an-Nazam (d.c. 225/840),^[162] and of Baghdad, Bisr b. al-Mu'tamir al-Hilali (d. 210/825),^[163] and his student, Tumamah ibn al-Asras. It is further reasonable to assume that Abu Ra’itah lived under the rule of the 'Abbasid caliphs Harin ar-Rasid (169-193/786-809), al-Amin (193-197/809-813), al-Ma’mun (197-218/813-833) and possibly al- Mu'tasim (218-227/833-842), who represent an important period in the Muslim engagement with the Greek philosophical tradition, one in which Abu Ra’itah and his contemporary Christian and Jewish thinkers actively participated.

Abu Ra’itah was involved in the life of the Syrian Jacobite church as a theologian and teacher, probably in the capacity of malpono. Although nothing is known about his education, it is evident from his writings that he had studied the Scriptures and the Fathers and was fairly knowledgable regarding Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle. He was also likely a native Syriac-speaker who had learned Arabic well enough to participate in debate with Muslim scholars. Consequently, Abu Ra’itah was able to draw on his own first-hand experience of Islam through debate, and to gain more than a cursory knowledge of the Qur’an. His use of all of these resources reflects his own social context and the Syriac intellectual tradition, which he then employs to respond both to the missionary activity of

the Melkite church and the challenge of Islam in order to convince both Muslims and Christians of the validity of Christian beliefs, making his works unique in this genre.

Wtigs

Abu Ra’itah’s writings can be divided into two general groups: refutations of the theological positions of other Christians, namely the Melkites (Chalcedonians) and Nestorians, and responses to questions and accusations about Christianity on the part of Muslims. The first group reveals the continuing bitter struggle among the various Christian churches that grew out of the clashes over the ecumenical councils. As the churches in the East were slowly being cut off from those in the West, the Jacobites, Melkites and Nestorians continued their polemics against one another as they had for centuries. Abu Ra’itah and many of his co-religionists were beginning to become aware, however, of the tremendous challenge that Islam presented, as well as the degree to which the inter-confessional squabbles put Christians at a disadvantage in dealing with the difficulties arising out of their new situation. Abu Ra’itah’s contribution to this apologetical literature provides a rare view of the issues at the heart of this conflict, particularly between the Jacobite and Melkite churches, while at the same time offering an insight into the effect that these historical controversies had on Christians living in the midst of the Islamization of society.^[164]

Abu Ra’itah’s writings in response to Islam, which are contained in this volume of translations, are for the most part composed as letters to members of the Jacobite community (most likely clergy), advising them on how to construct an effective reply to the concerns of their Muslim neighbors about Christian doctrines. The ostensible purpose of these texts is to decrease the numbers of Christian converts to Islam by giving coherent answers to the questions of both Muslims and Christians. Using a dialectical method, Abu Ra’itah builds his case by finding points of agreement with his Muslim opponents and drawing out their logical conclusions in support of Christian teaching. Because of Muslim suspicions about the integrity of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, he finds his primary resources in philosophical principles that are just becoming known in Islamic scholarly circles through the translation of Greek texts. All Ra’itah’s arguments are clearly designed to allay the fears and doubts of Christians being called upon to defend the coherence of their faith against Muslim criticisms. But the fact that he wrote in Arabic (unlike his predecessors who primarily employed Syriac) and used sources available to Muslim intellectuals of the period suggests a second purpose—his desire to participate in the intellectual life of the emerging Islamic culture and gain a foothold for Christian thought within it.

At the present time, Abu Ra’itah can be credited with ten and possibly eleven writings, although only nine are known to be extant. Two additional texts, preserved in Coptic manuscripts, contain excerpts taken from other writings and an account of Abu Ra’itah’s participation in a debate with representatives of the three dominant Christian confessions. The eleven surviving texts have been edited and translated into German by Georg Graf using available manuscripts.^[165] Of the texts that can be attributed to Abu Ra’itah directly, just eight appear to exist today in complete copies; a ninth shows signs of having lost pages.^[166] To date this is all that can be identified as belonging to Abu Ra’itah’s corpus.

The writings included in this volume belong to what remains of Abu Ra’itah’s defense of Christianity against Islam. Although only one of these texts (Demonstration) can be identified as having been written as a direct response to a Muslim in answer to questions raised about Christianity, all of these writings have such questions as their subject. This group also includes four major works: The First Risalah on tie Holy Tity, Tie Second Ris lali ontl e I cant , Witnesses .jiom tl e Woids 0؛ tl e Torah, tl e p op lets and tlie Saints, and. A Ris lai on the p ooJoftheChTistianReiigionandtheP ooJoftheHoly Tiintty,as> wehas, the very brief text, c^n tl e DemonstTaiionof tl e CTedibiitty op Cl stianity. Included here is also an untitled account written by another author of a debate in which Abu Ra’itah supposedly took part designated Cl TistologicalDiscission.

At least one and perhaps two writings can be presumed lost. The source for this conjecture is a text entitled From 'The Book of the Confession of the Fathers’,^[167] which contains a brief summary of a few short excepts from either two or three writings by Abu Ratal. What is noteworthy is that it mentions works that are not known to be extant. The editor states that the first citation is taken from a risalah written to the “Christians of the West”, that is, theJacobite community^[168] living in Bain,^[169] a city located in the district of •irhan near Mossdl.^[170] From the passages reproduced in Confession, as well as Abd Ratals own reference to it in the On the Incarnation (§85), it can be deduced that this risalah probably contained an explanation of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and perhaps the Trinity, including biblical citations as evidence for both. The references to this text indicate that the arguments made in it were primarily concerned with the true nature of Christ’s body and the Incarnation in general.

The compiler of the text in Confession also gives a short excerpt from what he says is “the second risalah of the three rasa’il, in which [Abd Ra’itah] speaks of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation” (§3). The citation can be identified as having been taken from the On the Incarnation, which belongs together with the On the Trinity. Both of these rasa’il are lengthy treatises addressed toJacobite Christians living in close proximity with Muslims. Neither of the two rasa’il makes reference to a third, and the statement in Confession could be interpreted to mean the previously mentioned risalah to the Christians in Bain. If this is the case, then the subject of that risalah would have been a defense of Christianity intended for Muslims, not Melkites or Nestorians. It was not unusual for the three topics of Trinity, Incarnation, and Christian practices to be covered together in the apologetical works of writers in this period.^[171] Abu Ra’itah in fact does address all of these subjects together in his Proof of the Christian Religion. Therefore, it is not implausible that a third risalah belonging with On the Trinity and On the Incarnation, perhaps discussing Christian practices, did exist, but has been lost.

Genies

Among Abu Ra’itah’s nine generally complete writings, some recognizable genres emerge, two of which are common in Christian- Arabic apologetic literature.^[172] The first is a general apology for the Christian religion, usually including an explanation of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, and certain Christian practices, as well as criteria for recognizing the true religion. This genre is particularly well-represented by Abu Ra’itah’s Proof. His contemporaries, Abu Qurrah and 'Ammar al-Basri,^[173] both wrote such apologies, which appear to have been widely circulated. These general apologies are a sort of vademecum intended to provide their reader with short, clear answers to questions and objections raised about Christianity.^[174] They usually do not go beyond the basic outline of an answer sanctioned by the Christian community they represent. Abu Ra’itah himself often suggests a further line of questioning that can be pursued to encourage the questioner to see the logic of the argument. The apology format is also found in Abu Ra’itah’s treatises defending Jacobite practices against the charges made by Melkites in the Threefold Praise (II) and the Refutation.

The second type of Christian Arabic apologetical literature represented in Abu Ra’itah’s writings is the risalah (رسالة), which is a sort of epistle-treatise format. A similar genre of epistle-treatise is found in Syriac literature, and can probably be traced back to the Greek erotapokriseis apologetical style.)75 Abu Ratals twin rasa’il On the Trinity and On the Incarnation are typical examples of this type, although aspects of it appear in nearly all of his writings. The Arabic risalah is generally distinguished by statements from the author professing it to be a response to a request, followed by a letter whose contents are presented in a dialectical treatise form. The writing is characteristically addressed to a person or community who has ostensibly consulted the author on particular doctrinal issues. As in the case of Abd Ra’itah’s writings, the persons are often only vaguely identified, if at all. In reality, the address to a particular recipient is only a thinly- veiled medium to convey the material containted in the text. Abu Ra’itah uses the risalah format to communicate information obviously intended for a much wider audience. This is not to assume that the occasion for the risalah has been entirely fabricated, but rather that the author takes the opportunity to construct arguments that are of interest beyond the immediate circumstances in which he is writing. This intention is made particularly clear in Abu Ra’itah’s decision to write in Arabic, which made his texts available to those outside of the Syrian Jacobite community.

In all of his rasa’il,176 Abu Ra’itah first gives a brief account of the occasion of the missive and then quickly turns to develop a treatise designed to address religious controversies of the time. The format of the treatise is dialectical, in which possible questions are posed, followed by an appropriate answer, and in many cases a counter question with several potential answers and their implications. As will be discussed in detail below, the more formal question and answer format adapted into a narrative style is reflective of that employed in the debates being staged in Islamic scholarly circles. It is also probable that this dialectical form lies behind the development of Um al-kalam, or dialectical theology, in Islam.^{[175] [176] [177]} By the turn of the ninth century when Abu Ra’itah is writing, one finds the essential characteristics of the dialectical format in Islamic theological texts.’78 It is reasonable to suggest that Abu Ra’itah chose the rasa’il format to convey his ideas both because of his familiarity with it in Syriac literature and because it was recognizable to his Muslim opponents.

In addition to the more common apology and risalah, Abu Ra’itah makes use of other literary forms to construct his arguments in defense of Christianity. The most important of these is the list of biblical and patristic citations in support of a particular doctrine. An example of this type is the extensive compilation found in Witnesses. Such lists are also contained in the body of some of his other works, for exampCethe Poo, Ct eUnoand Th TefoldPTai,؛« (Ij.AVhoughAhey are generally presented with little introduction, these collections of “proof texts” provide important information for understanding Abu Ra’itah’s apologetical method and his knowledge of his opponents.

Tojdcs

In spite of the variety of genres and purposes found in his writings, some recurrent themes can be identified throughout Abu Ra’itah’s extant corpus. In keeping with the standard topics found in Muslim- Christian controversial literature, those texts concerned with a defense of Christianity include the usual explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity and its relationship to monotheism, as well as an exposition and defense of the teaching on the Incarnation. This is, of course, in answer to the explicit rejection of these beliefs in the Qur’an. Abu Ra’itah’s own treatment of the charges made against Christians about their doctrines reveals his clear insights into the problem, and much of his writing on the subject is taken up with clarifying the disagreement about the nature of monotheism and its implications for appropriate speech about God.

In his general apology for Christianity (Proof) he also deals with common questions about a multitude of Christian practices, such as veneration of the Cross, prayer facing East, the Eucharistic celebration, and the forty-day fast, as well as concerns about the Christian abandonment of certain Jewish practices, including animal sacrifice, circumcision, and the Law of the Covenant. The apology treats a further issue of particular concern in his day, ways to recognize the

,78 Cf. Van Ess, “Disputationspraxis,” 23-60. true religion. In addition to the standard topics (Trinity, Incarnation, Christian practices, and the signs of the true religion) customary in the writings of Arab Christian controversialists of the early ninth century,179 Abu Ratal covers several specific issues, including valid reasons for conversion, parameters for discussing religious doctrines, proper use of analogy, and the problem of tahrf. Each of these plays a key role in the development of his argument and is of special interest for understanding his response to Islam. Taken as a whole, Abd Ratals writings touch on nearly every topic that can be identified as a point of theological contention between Muslims and Christians of his day.

Addressees iIOJJio net

In general, the immediate addressees of all of Abd Ratals writings can be identified as members of his own Syrian Orthodox community, whom he generally refers to as the “People of Truth” (اهل الحق). The exceptions to this are texts explicitly addressed to the Armenian isxan Asot Msaker180 (On the Union and Threefold Praise (I)), and Demonstration, which has evidence of being addressed to the Mutazili Tumamah ibn al-Asras. None of the remaining works is directed to a specific person, although in most of them Abd Ra’itah claims to have composed the document in order to provide information requested by an unnamed Christian individual either in defense of Christianity in general or of Monophysite teachings in particular, 'nindfin% Ot e Ti ty, Ontl elcamaioReftat on and Poof. Texts Threefold Praise (II) and Witnesses, which do not have clear introductions, probably also fall into this category. At the same time, it seems apparent that Abd Ra’itah intended all of these writings for a wider audience. This is the case both with regard to those texts taking up questions raised by Muslims and by non-Monophysites.

In a quick survey of Abd Ra’itah’s known works, it is easy to recognize his primary adversaries as Muslims and Melkite Christians, with some references to the Nestorians. Throughout his writings against other Christians, Abd Ra’itah argues for the superiority of the position held by the Jacobites (اليعقبيون). This is the name he seems

,78 Griffith, “Abd Ra’itah,” 169-170.

18° The Armenian church subscribed to monophysite doctrines, but was estranged from the Syrian Jacobite church on account of certain liturgical practices. to accept for the Monophysite community, even when he refers to it as the “so-called Jacobites” (المميين اليعقوبية) (Threefold Praise (I) 7, 8). Generally, he contrasts the faith of his own church with that of the Nestorians and Melkites (الملكيون والكوربون), the two other major groups of Christians living in the Mediterranean world at the time. These three, Nestorians, Jacobites, and Melkites, are often found together in the apologetical literature of the period, as well as in debates defending Christianity. The untitled text (iDiscussion) mentioning Abu Ratals participation in a debate before a Muslim official reports that a representative from each denomination was asked to present the teachings of his own church, without attacking the other two. This combination of spokesmen for the three confessions, (sometimes also including a Jew) appears regularly in accounts of staged debates. But, in spite of his disapproval of the teachings of his fellow Christians, he does not mention sectarian conflicts in any of his writings directed towards the questions of Muslims. He shares this habit with other Christian apologists at the turn of the ninth century who were aware that confessional disagreements were a topic in the Qur’an and considered by Muslims to be proof that Christians had strayed from the original perfect revelation.^[178]

The second group of adversaries who are the object of Abu Ratals rebuttals are the Muslims. Although they are never mentioned by name, the texts concerning objections raised by Muslims against Christianity are so unambiguous there can be no doubt they are the subject. Instead, he identifies the Muslims as “those who differ from us” or “our opponents” (مخالغونا). Speaking to hisJacobite reader, Abu Ra’itah refers to the partner in debate in On the Trinity 7 as “the one who is your opponent in religion . . . “(^[179].(مخالغكم فى الملة In other places, he speaks of “the People of the South” (اهل التيمن), who are clearly Muslims. The identity of the “opponents” is also confirmed by the citations Abu Ra’itah produces from the Qur’an in order to illustrate his arguments in defense of Christian teachings. These are accompanied by comparisons with Muslim practices and explicit engagement with questions about God that were being asked by the Muslim community in his time. Abu Ra’itah’s skilled use of this material reveals an exceptional knowledge of theological discourse occurring among Muslim scholars.

One can deduce from his care not to mention his opponents by name that Abu Ra’itah was particularly cognizant of the danger writing on this subject poses to himself and his Christian readers. The reason why he does not wish to be too obvious by naming his adversaries can be surmised from his context and hints in his writings. As he points out in the opening paragraphs of On the Trinity, public opposition to Islam could be risky, but was sometimes unavoidable. The lack of explicit reference to Islam or Muslims in any of the texts, even though the “opponents” can be no one else, may have been an attempt at protection from over-zealous government and religious officials. In the event that some difficulty did arise about the content of his writings and he was called on to explain himself to the Muslim authorities, he could argue that it was not the offended party who was meant, but rather some other less orthodox group. Another possibility is that he intended to claim he was directing his critique against another monotheistic religion such as Judaism. This, however, draws one’s attention to a second observation.

By writing his texts in Arabic, Abu Ra’itah made them accessible to Muslims as well as Christians. In fact, his style of writing sometimes presumes a great deal of knowledge about Islam on the part of the reader. Unlike many other writers on the subject, Abu Ra’itah in no way distorts the teachings of Islam, but rather expresses them clearly, using terms and concepts so heavily Islamic as to suggest they are drawn from actual conversations with Muslims he has collected over his career. In addition, the care that Abu Ra’itah has given to avoid any mention of Islam while he continuously addresses his other enemies by name is evidence that he not only expected his writings to be read by Muslims, but probably even intended it. In making use of Arabic, Abu Ra’itah made certain that his serious engagement with Islam and the challenges it posed to Christian faith could be read by and perhaps be convincing to his opponents. In doing so, however, he placed himself and fellow Christians at some risk, and sought to protect them with a degree of anonymity. Whether this was effective or not cannot be determined from the texts themselves.

As an apologist for the intelligibility and veracity of Christianity, Abu Ra’itah was a full participant in the intellectual milieu of his day, a Christian mutakallim. Unlike many of his predecessors, he did not simply translate the Syriac tradition into the new language of Arabic. Rather, he began the attempt to communicate Christian faith clearly and coherently in a new idiom already heavily influenced by a religion hostile to it. In this way, he helped set the stage for future debates and determine the theological language which would be used in them. Abu Ra’itah’s influence on Arab Christian theology has long been recognized by the Coptic and Syrian Orthodox churches. His insight and response to current questions provide an important window into the Christian engagement with the Islamic environment in a critical period of the intellectual development of both. Abu Ra’itah saw himself following in the footsteps of those apologists who had gone before him both as an evangelist and as a defender of the faith. Thus, he took up the pen in order to give his fellow Christians tools they needed to face a new challenge and to remain the “People of Truth”.

Tnslat        Met

It is hoped through this translation to make Abu Ra’itah’s contribution to apologetical discourse with Muslims at the turn of the ninth century better known and appreciated. Each of the texts is preceded by a brief introduction, situating it within its context with what can be ascertained from the text itself and other historical materials. As with any translation, the primary difficulty is to communicate to the reader in clear language the subtleties and complexities of the argument of the author. This translation, too, finds itself subject to all of the pitfalls and limitations inherent in any endeavor to mediate between two very different languages. The problems here are further exacerbated by significant cultural differences and the passage of more than a millennium. An attempt to provide a faithful rendering of the original Arabic by following general sentence structures, rigid vocabulary choices and the complex development of the argument can allow the reader to gain a better appreciation of the rhetorical strategies of Abu Ra’itah and his opponents, as well as the intellectual and political milieu in which they lived. However, the result can also be decidedly inharmonious and even misleading when implications and idiomatic phrases are not translated into modern-day language. Thus, it is imperative for any translation of these texts to maintain a balance between faithfulness to the original Arabic text and interpretation of the intention of the author.)^[180]

In the instance of Abu Ra’itah’s writings, the intention of the author is of paramount importance. The primary purpose throughout his writings is to convince his listeners, both Muslim and Christian, of the truth of Jacobite Christianity. Thus, he consciously chooses terminology and expressions from his own milieu which would appeal to his intended audience and draw them to his own position. Unfor tunately for the English-speaker, the “bridge” that Abu Ra’itah carefully builds between his own faith and that of his opponent does not always reveal itself with as much subtlety in translation as one finds in the Arabic. This is especially true in the case of common vocabulary which had taken on new connotations as they were claimed by Islam. A particular example here is the word gahada and all of its derivatives ('gihad, igtihad, etc.). Originally, the term means simply “to endeavor, to strive”, however, by Abu Ra’itah’s day its Qur’anic and Islamic legal meanings were widely known. He takes advantage of this and uses it frequently with its original meaning, while contrasting the Islamic gahada with that of the Christian.

It must therefore be constantly borne in mind that Abu Ra’itah himself was a translator, attempting to communicate to Muslim challengers his own Syriac Christianity, which was heavily informed by Greek thought and by the conclusions to theological controversies arrived at several centuries earlier. Abu Ra’itah was well aware that he needed to provide more than proof-texts from biblical, patristic or philosophical sources to convince his opponents. It was instead the meaning and implication of the Christian message that was important, and consequently he takes great pains to develop his arguments in terms that will strike the appropriate chord with “those who differ”.

While some of his Muslim listeners were acquainted with Greek philosophy and even Christianity (themselves being among the recently converted), many were sceptical of the validity of non-Mus- lim authorities. Moreover, these would have been untutored in the standard philosophical and patristic texts to which Abu Ra’itah could have appealed among Christians. To contribute to the difficulty, Abu Ra’itah was a linguistic pioneer. One finds throughout his letters terms for which he could not find an acceptable Arabic word and relied on a transliteration (1—-الهيلى) or Arabization of a word with which he was familiar (اقانيم, for uqnum, the Syriac translation of hnooraoEl؟) to convey his ideas. Finally, Abu Ra’itah does not appear to have had an Arabic translation of the Bible available to him, and was forced to render the necessary passages himself, which he sometimes does rather freely. As a result, his own writings are disjointed in places, occasionally ambiguous and even impenetrable. All of this adds to the challenges facing the modern day translator.

These considerations have informed the decisions made in an attempt to produce an accurate and understandable translation. The approach chosen here is to adhere as closely as possible to the Arabic text, but to give priority to the meaning of the passage where a literal translation may obscure the sense. This can sometimes result in an awkwardness in the English text. However, it is hoped that by preserving a degree of the “otherness” of the text, the reader is encouraged to enter more fully into the feel of the Arabic. This can also aid in reducing the potential for reading modern sensibilities into an early medieval writing. In light of this, no attempt has been made to “update” Abu Ra’itah’s language. For example, in several of his writings, he refers to his own Christian community as “the Jacobites”, the name by which they were known throughout the Mediterranean world, but are correctly referred to as the Syrian Orthodox community. Neither has his use of the masculine pronoun for God been altered, a practice that was universally unquestioned until recently, and which has less serious implications in a bi-gendered language.

In general, a one-to-one correspondence between English and Arabic words has been maintained, except in instances of homonyms where an alternative word better conveys the Arabic meaning. A particular difficulty with the Arabic text is the habit of the Arabic- speaker to multiply synonyms (usually adjectives) to communicate intensity, which becomes repetitive and unwieldy in English. In these instances unnecessary repetitions have sometimes been dropped in favor of a superlative or other appropriate choice. In the service of clarity, repeated pronouns have also been eliminated, and usually replaced with the nouns to which they refer. These are contained in brackets, as are all additions to the text which are my own. In order to reduce the confusion that can arise from the wordplays that Abu Ra’itah sometimes employs, this translation capitalizes words referring to God (He, One, Who). Often these are clarified in Arabic through the use of a pronoun that is usually lost in an English rendering. Finally, the sentence and paragraph divisions made by Graf have generally been followed. He has identified the most appropriate sentence segments, as well as paragraph groupings in most cases, even if they are sometimes arbitrary in the original text. However, new section numbers have been assigned in order to create shorter, more convenient passages.

Abu Ra’itah’s letters offer an important insight into a critical period in the relations between Muslims and Christians, as well as in the development of Islamic theology, and warrant closer attention by modern-day scholars than they have previously received. It is hoped that the following translations will provide the non-Arabic speaker with a clear example of Abu Ratals thought and method of engagement with his adversaries and provide the possibility for further study.

Miusrijrts

To date eleven relevant manuscripts containing texts associated with Abu Ra’itah have been identified. Georg Grafs text from 1951, which made use of eight of these,^[181] provides a careful edition that has served as the basis for the present rendering.^[182] In preparing his own edition of Abu Ra’itah’s extant works, Graf relied primarily on Par. ar. 169 and Bibl. Sbath 1001, basing his transcription and German translation on the Paris manuscript and noting deviations from Sbath 1001, with additions from other manuscripts where they were clearer or more complete. Graf was also aware of the existence of Bibl. Sbath 1041, 1042 and 1017, as well as another unnamed manuscript, but they apparently were not available to him, since they were held privately.^[183] Further, he notes that while he was able to consult Bibl. Sbath 1001 during his own research in 1932, he was unable to locate it again after Paul Sbath’s death in 1945.^[184] However, Fr. Samir Khalil has discovered that the manuscript collection of Paul Sbath is now held by the Georg et Matild Salem Foundation in Aleppo, Syria. Consequently, I have been able to consult copies of these manuscripts and have included variations in the footnotes of the Arabic text.

Based on the textual integrity of the Sbath manuscript (S) where it is more complete than the Paris manuscript (P), and on the improvements made in (P), Graf concludes that neither is a copy of the other, but rather both are made from an earlier copy. This earlier recension, he suggests, was probably a Coptic edition made in Egypt, where (S) was found. Graf s argument in favor of this is that Abu Ra’itah’s two writings defending the addition to the Trishagion against the Melkites (Threefold Praise (I) and (II)} include the Trishagion and 'O Movoyevi^؟ texts in Coptic, which Abu Ra’itah, a Syriac speaker, would not have added.^[185] This in fact appears to be correct, since Abu Ra’itah himself refers to the Greek version of the Trishagion throughout these two writings. Further, the letters are intended for readers who would be Arabic speakers, perhaps understanding Syriac or Greek. But apart from these two passages, the Coptic community finds no reference in any of his extant writings. Graf also notes that the other later manuscripts, none of which were used for his edition, are all clearly of Coptic origin, supporting the theory of an original Coptic recension.^[186]

In general, the notes offered by Graf have been reproduced in English here (incuding his suggested readings of variant forms), along with notes of errors in the Graf text. This edition, however, has not used the manuscripts of On the Trinity found in the writing of al- Kindi, since it is certain that the latter is drawing from Abd Ra’itah and the author has made numerous alterations and additions for his own purposes. These manuscripts have also been identified as much younger than those containing the works of Abu Ra’itah.

The following translation has assigned abbreviated titles to each of Abd Ra’itah’s texts to make them easier to identify. Further, more extensive paragraph numbering has been added to allow more precise scholarly reference. Some attempt has been made to organize the text into topics, although since this does not exist in the original, no artificial divisions have been introduced. It is hoped that these additions have resulted in a text and translation that is useful both for those who are familiar with Arabic and those who are not, in order to make Abu Ra’itah’s works better appreciated by modern scholars.

Eat Mil sCTijrts

S Bibl. Sbath 1001 (16 17th c.;^[187] 63r-157v)^[188] Includes Trinity, Incarna- tion,Union,ThrefolPTaise(I),RfitatioT,,Wit esseSjdhreflPraiselII), Poof

52. Bibl. Sbath 1041 (18th c.)^[189] Includes Trinity, Incarnation, Union, Threefold PraisellRfilaliortWit essesT tffold. Praise (!),Poof

53. Bibl. Sbath 1042 (14th c.)^[190] [191] Includes Threefold Praise (II), Trinity

54. Bibl. Sbath 1017’94 Includes Demonstration

P Par. ar. 169 (1064 AH / 1654 AD; 51 v—98 r)^[192] Includes Trinity, Incarnation, Union, Threefold Praise (I)

T Ms. 320 (Theol. 177; 81 r-21O v)^[193] Includes Trinity, Incarnation, Union,, Threfol PraisellRfilaliortWit esseSjdhreflPraiselllProcf

V1 Vat. ar. 101 (1405 AH / 1688 AD; 374 v—375 r) Includes Confes- sion^[194]

V2 Vat. ar. 103 (13th c.; 144 r)^[195] Includes Demonstration

V3 Vat. ar. 1492 (13th—14th c.; 30 1-31 1)1 Includes Discussion

O Hunt. 240 (Bodl. ar. christ. Uri 38; 1266 AH / 1549/50 AD; 118 1-119 r)198 ^[196] [197] Includes Discussion

Q Par. ar. 183 (13th c.; 369 r—370 r)^[198] Includes Confession

R Par. ar. 82 (14th c.; 95 r97 v)^[199] Includes Discussion

LittifK 0يا'^الآ Igs^[200] [201]

Wigs in Dfense 0؛ Chrsfiitfy

1. “A Risalah of Abs Ra'itah al-Takrt on the Proof of the Christian Religion and the Proof of the Holy Trinity” رسالة لايى رائطة الكريتى فى 204( اثبات دين النصرانية واثبات الثالوث المقدس Proof) (VIII)

2. “The First Risalah on the Holy Trinity” (السالة الاولة فى الثالوث ا (المقدس On tleT nitj ١زا

3. “The Second Risalah on the Incarnation” (الرسالة الثانية لايى رائطة الكريتى فى التجد) (On the Incarnation) (II)

* A third Risalah belonging with I and II now lost (الرسالة الثانية من الثلث سائل التى قالها فى الثالوث المقدسة والتجد)

4. “Witnesses from the Words of the Torah, the Prophets and Saints” (شهادات من قول التوراة والانبياء والقديين) (Witnesses) (VI)

5. “From the Teaching of Abs Ra'itah al-Takrt, the Syrian, Bishop of Nisibis: On the Demonstration of the Credibility of Christianity Which was Received from the Preaching of the Evangelists in the Holy Scriptures”

من قول ايى رائطة التكريتى السر.باذى امقف نصعيبين مستدلا يه على صحة النصعرانية)

(Demonstration) (X) (المقبولة من الداعين المبشرين يها يالانجيل المقدس بر ان عبد ابئوؤالمطران ابنسطورى واب VI. Christ logical Discussion قرة الاسقف ا"لملغى وابو رائطة'اليعقوبى اجتمعوا, عند احد الوزراء. فطلب منهم (ان يصف كل واحد منهم اعتقاده بقول موجز ولا .بعررض احد مبه على صاحبة

(Discussion) X)

*. “A Risalah to the Christians of the West in Bain ”, now lost

(سالة له الى من بالبحرين من نصارى المغرب)

Writings In Defense of the [Jacobite (SyrianO) rthodox) CihiTch

7. “From the Third (Second)^[202] Risalah of Abu Ra’itah al-Takrt on ‘The Refutation of the Melkites on the Union [of the Divinity and Humanity in Christ]’” ((من الرسالة الثالثة (الثانية) لابى رائطة الكريتى فى الرد على الملكية فى الاتحاد (On the Union) (III)

8. “The Third Risalah of Abu Ra’itah alTakrt: ‘Evidence for the Threefold Praise of the One Who was Crucified for Us to AbUlAbbas al-Batriq AsUt ibn Sinbat from the Servant of God,Jesus the Messiah, Habib ibn Hidmah” ( السالة الثلثة لابى رائطة التكريتى: احتجاج عن الثلثة تقديسات للغى صبب عنا لابى العباس البطر.بق اشوط بن لسنباط من عبد الله .بسوع الميح حبيب بن خدمة) (TeefoldPraise (I)) (IV)

XI. “A Treatise of Habib ibn Hidmah, Known as Abu Ra’itah al-Takrt theJacobite on ‘Evidence for the Threefold Praise for the One Crucified for Us’” (مقالة لحبيب بن خدمة المعروف بابى رائطة التكريتى اليعقوبى فى احتجاج عن الثلاث تقديسات للذى صلب عنا) (Threefold Praise (II)) (V)

10. “The Fourth Risalah of Habib ibn Hidmah, Known as Abu Ra’itah al-Takrt the Jacobite, ‘Refutation of the Melkites’” (الرسالة الرابعة لحبيب بن خدمة المعروف بابى رائطة التكريتى اليعقوبى رد على ا لملكية) (Refita- tion) (VII)

11. “From the ‘Book of the Confession of the Fathers’” (من كتاب اعتراف الاباء) (Confession) (IX)

A RISALAH OF ABU RAIIAH AT-TAKRITT

ON THE PROOF OF THE CHRISTIAN REFIGION
AND THE PROOF OF THE HOFY TRINITY

IntToduct

Content aid Context

Abh Ra"'bah’s> p oefeftbieCh. t anReigonandP oefeftheHoly Trinity is the most comprehensive and the longest of his writings in defense of Christianity against Muslim criticism. Although he covers many of the topics found in it more extensively in On the Trinity and On the Incarnation, it is his most thorough attempt to give a general overview of many of difficult questions posed by Muslims. In it, he treats six main topics: legitimate and illegitimate reasons to convert to a religion (§§2-14), the use of analogy as an aid to understanding the Trinity (§§15-25), biblical witnesses in support of the doctrine of the Trinity (§§26-28), questions about the Incarnation (§§29-34), biblical witnesses in support of the doctrine of the Incarnation (§§35-37), and Christian practices (§§38-46). Here, without a conclusion, the text breaks off, although the Sbath manuscript clearly indicates that at least one page is missing. Unfortunately, without the final pages of the text, it is impossible to determine the full extent of the treatise. It is notable that the copiest has given the title Proof of the Christian Religion and Proof of the Holy Trinity to the manuscript, implying that he had before him a text in two parts. It is therefore possible that the original text also included a more detailed treatise on the Trinity than is found in the first part of the existing manuscript.

The text presents itself as a kind of handbook filled with responses for someone confronted with one of the most serious difficulties facing the Christian clergy in the early ninth century: how to stem the rising tide of conversions to Islam that were occurring for a multitude of reasons, but first and foremost as a result of social pressure. The Proof first addresses the issue of conversion, and then moves through the three major topics at issue between Muslims and Christians, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and particular Christian practices. For each of these, Abh Ra’itah offers three types of evidence—analogies, scriptural passages, and parallels found in the Qur’an or Islamic practice—in order to show the validity, and even superiority, of Christianity. Several of the issues he touches on in the Proof do not appear in any of his other writings, particularly those of Christian practices, such as prayer facing the east, veneration of the Cross, celebration of the Eucharist, and abandonment of the Jewish custom of circumcision, making this text valuable for establishing the wider context within which he is writing.

Abu Ra’itah opens his apology for Christianity by examining the motivations for a person to convert to another religion. To substantiate his argument, he provides a list supported by biblical citations^[203] of what he considers to be common reasons why people belong to a particular religion and categorizes them according to whether or not they are legitimate. From his ensuing defense of Christianity, it appears that Abu Ra’itah did not believe that the majority of Christians who became Muslims had done so as a result of an honest search for the truth, nor that the Muslim community had gained many of its new members fairly. Instead, he implies that Islam had used two unacceptable means to coerce Christians into conversion, worldly temptations and fear. This is an underlying theme in all of his extant writings addressing Islam, which are plainly intended to provide the basis for theological discussions with Muslim contemporaries in an attempt to “level the playing field.” Abu Ra’itah does this while simultaneously setting out convincing proofs for Christians who were confused or intimidated by the arguments of Muslims in the hope of persuading them that their worldly desires were inappropriate reasons to abandon their faith.

In spite of this obvious purpose, nowhere in his explanation is an example given which indicates that he is speaking of those who would convert to a particular religion. In fact, all of these reasons could be motivations to convert to a distorted version of Christianity. Yet, it is striking that the six negative reasons given by Abu Ra’itah conform perfectly to common accusations made against persons who were becoming Muslim in the eighth and ninth centuries: that conversions resulted from a desire for a better position in society (either to gain status or to ease the burden of restrictions and taxation on non-Muslims) or because of the incentives offered by the religion itself (polygamy and concubines, ease of divorce, and explicit descriptions of rewards and punishments in the Hereafter).^[204] Along with “fear of the sword,” as he puts it in Demonstration, he argues that these reasons are not fitting motivations for conversion to any religion. His conclusion is that the only legitimate reason for conversion to another religion is that one is convinced that it is true, and the only way one can be certain of its truth is that it has been confirmed by miracles and signs from God. Although not explicitly stated, his central argument here is that, while Christianity has been verified by the miracles of Jesus and his Apostles and disciples, the religion of Muhammad has no such evidence. Therefore, adherents to Islam cannot be sure that their religion is the true one.^[205]

Without mentioning the problem explicitly, throughout his writings Abu Ratal hints at the primary crisis of the church in his day: the beginning of mass conversion from Christianity to Islam. During Abd Ratals lifetime, the Muslim population in Iraq appears to have increased from approximately ten percent to nearly forty percent. Further, since new converts tended to move to the larger cities, and the capital city of Baghdad was home to a large number of Muslim government personnel,^[206] Abd Ra’itah would have been a first-hand witness to the rapid changes that were occurring. Among the converts were Christians and Jews who made the Islamic profession of faith for different reasons, some more and less authentic in the eyes of their neighbors. Several writers of the period, including Abd Ra’itah, comment on this issue and respond in an effort to slow the rising tide of conversions.

Unlike previous generations of Christians living under Islamic rule, those of Abd Ra’itah’s day experienced changes in policies under the new 'Abbasid regime which strongly encouraged conversion and the Arabization of culture throughout the empire. The parameters of these policies were dictated by the rights and obligations granted to Christians by the Qur’an itself, which contains several verses relating to the relationship between Muslims and members of other religions, and Islamic law, based on the sunna of the Prophet. Essentially, the teaching of the (Qur’an is one of toleration and respect for the so-called ahl al-kitab, literally “People of the Book,”^[207] that is, the Jews, Christians, Magians (Zoroastrians) and Sabi’a who have received a recognized scripture from God through a prophet.^[208] Forced conversion of these monotheists was expressly forbidden in the Qur’an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the right path is clearly distinguished from error.”^[209] Those to whom God had sent a messenger and a scripture where thus understood to have access to “the right path”. However, tension had grown between the followers of Mulammad and the ahl al-kitab on account of the latter’s refusal to accept the legitimacy of the final revelation of the Qur’an.

The (Qur’an portrays Mulammad as the “Seal of the Prophets” (ختم النبيين), the last in the line of prophets for each of the monotheistic religions. Accordingly, the prophets of the ahl al-kitab are honored figures as precursors to Islam who were sent by God with a message. The Qur’an insists that this message is the same for all peoples, and that the discrepancies that exist between it and the scriptures of the other religions is simply the result of envy and deception on the part of the followers of the earlier prophets (Sura 42:13-14). The message given through Mulammad in the Qur’an is thus a corrective to all previous scriptures, and their truth can be known in comparison to it (Sura 41:43-45). To the extent that the ahl al-kitab adhere to basic tenets of Islam (i.e., profess monotheism, revere Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, observe a divine law, give alms to the poor, etc.) they are recognized as legitimate religions instituted by the one God.

The vast majority of the ahl al-kitab, however, did not accept the legitimacy of Mulammad or the Qur’an and were consequently not granted equality with Muslims. With the spread of Arab political control beginning already during the lifetime of Mulammad, Christians and Jews were forced to accept the secondary status of dimmah (“protection”) in society and to pay the gizya. Initially this did not pose a serious problem for non-Muslims living in Arab-controlled territories. However, as the government began to stabilize, a more explicit program to establish the superiority of Islam and Muslim Arabs in society was put into action. By the beginning of the eighth century, under some of the last Umayyad caliphs, new policies favoring Islam began to have a significant impact on non-Muslims.

Although Christians and Jews remained in high stations of government and society, their freedom was becoming increasingly limited. With the rise of the 'Abbasid dynasty to power, non-Arab Muslims were raised to a status equal to Arab Muslims, Arabic was made the official language of government, and the gap between Muslims and dimmi was widened. This meant that the opportunities once enjoyed by Christians and Jews as government officials, court scholars, doctors, etc. were severely reduced. Non-Muslims who had occupied local government positions and continued to conduct bureaucratic activities in local languages came under pressure to make way for Muslims and Arabic. The justification for this shift was the argument that Muslims should not be subject to the authority of a non-Muslim. The Umayyad caliph 'Umar II had first declared that no Muslim should be in this position and commanded his governors to begin removing non-Muslims from higher government offices. However, this was not strictly enforced, and many Christians and Jews continued to retain their positions. Under 'Abbasid rule, policies favoring Arabic and Muslim workers were implemented more frequently so that by the reign of al-Mutawakkil in the middle of the ninth century the law prohibiting non-Muslims from government service was widely enforced.^[210] No doubt many of Abd Ratal’s Christian readers were beginning to feel threatened by this development and contemplate conversion to Islam to safeguard their positions. But, Abd Ratal insists, this is not a sufficient reason for conversion.

Simultaneously, added restrictions on religious displays (crosses, processions, ringing of church bells, building of churches and synagogues, etc.) increased the burdens of daily life for non-Muslims. Many scholars believe that it is this period that the so-called “Covenant of 'Umar” reached its present form. The conclusion was that opportunities for full participation in society became limited only to Muslims.^[211] One can well imagine, as All Ra’itah hints in the Proof of the Christian Religion, that those who desired relief from the gizya or to have a better or more secure position in society (§2) would be strongly tempted to convert to Islam.

This situation was in some way exacerbated by a growing Muslim scholarly community and the establishment of Islamic centers for study. The early 'Abbasid period saw the collection and publication of the ahadit, the foundation of several Islamic legal schools, massive translation projects of ancient Greek texts on philosophy, rhetoric, medicine, astrology, and the natural sciences, and a distinctive architectural style. Now Islam had become an comprehensive way of life that could rival the local cultures with which it came into contact. Intellectual arguments, as well as exegetical and legal methods, developed in light of Greek philosophy strengthened the claims of Muslim theologians.^[212] This in turn made Islam more attractive to those Christians who were wavering and who saw the advantages conversion brought. The simultaneous experience of the difficulties of being a non-Muslim and the growth of a vibrant Islamic community tempted many to abandon their Christian faith.

Seen in this light, Abu Ra’itah’s Proof is a complete summary of Christian faith designed to respond to the charges leveled at Christians by Muslims, as well as to provide convincing arguments for Christians themselves. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the opening paragraphs where he lays out justifications for conversion. His six unacceptable reasons contrasted with the single legitimate motivation are directed both at Muslims, whom he believes are gaining converts through unfair means, and Christians, who are not examining the causes for their acceptance of a new religion carefully enough.

Thus, in his risalah aimed at proving the truth of the Christian religion, Abu Ra’itah provides his reader not only with answers to common questions posed by Muslims, but with a method to be applied in any situation. He begins each of his arguments by identifying the central issue in the question, and systematically lays out responses designed to address his listener’s concerns. In general, he opens with a logical argument, eliminating absurdities and contradictions, substantiated with analogies found either in nature or in Scripture. To these he adds scriptural passages as proof texts to support his position. In all of his arguments Abu Ra’itah takes care to provide examples and evidence that could be acceptable to both a Christian and a Muslim reader. He cleverly includes prophets and figures recognized in the Qur’an in nearly all of his biblical citations, and only rarely chooses ideas blatantly rejected by the Islamic revelation. In this way, he provides his Christian brother the basis for a line of defense that might ultimately be convincing to all of his listeners.

Addressee and Date

In the opening greeting Abu Ra’itah gives no indication to whom his risalah is addressed, but instead simply acknowledges his reader in (§2) as “my brother”. One can deduce from the contents of the risalah that this person is himself aJacobite and quite possibly a member of the hierarchy or a teacher like Abu Ra’itah—the arguments given are complex and assume a fairly deep knowledge of both Christian doctrine and Islamic thought. Although the Proof appears to be primarily intended as a handbook of answers to the most common questions asked by Muslims, it is also clearly aimed at convincing Christians to remain steadfast in their faith. In (§13), he advises the recipient of the treatise to adjust the arguments to his own situation using his own good judgement. Therefore, one might suggest that the addressee is some member of the clergy, perhaps a bishop, who is confronted with the problem of members of his flock slowly converting to Islam. It is also likely that Abu Ra’itah assumed that his risalah would be read by those who had already left Christianity for Islam, as well as Muslims involved in missionary efforts directed at Christians.

Because of the lack of internal evidence, it is impossible to date the Proof precisely. The circumstances at which it hint—an increase in conversions from Christianity to Islam and in staged debates between Muslims and Christians may indicate that it was prompted by the activities of the court of the Caliph al-Ma’m٥n. This would put its appearance sometime between 813 and 833. Assuming that the necessity for such a work did not arise immediately, and that Abu Ra’itah responded relatively quickly, the date for the earliest appearance of the text can be narrowed to approximately 815.

It is also notable that Abu Ra’itah does not give any hints of the turmoil that was taking place in the Muslim community near the end of al-Ma’m٥n’s rule. As the Mu'tazilah gained more and more influence in the court, their doctrines became the standard by which orthodoxy was gauged. Already in 827 some scholars were being questioned about their views on the createdness of the Qur’an, and in 833 a full-fledged interrogation was begun.^[213] The Mihna, or “inquisition”, lasted until the reign of al-Mutawakkil (232-247/847861), who ended it in 849. During this time many officials, scholars, and prominent people were questioned. Most capitulated, but a few were tortured and imprisoned, and several later died as a result of the harsh treatment.^[214] This affair was of considerable concern in theological circles, and many of the issues Abu Ra’itah touches on in his writings, including the unity of God and the eternity of the divine attributes, were at the center of the debate.^[215] If he had been aware of these events taking place at the court, it is difficult to explain the apparent absence of any hint of the views of either the MUtazilah or their opponents, or any attempt to distance himself from the conflicts. This suggests that the Proof was written before the controversy had become intense sometime around 825.

When compared to Abu Ra’itah’s two other longer extant works, On the Trinity and On the Incarnation, one notices immediately that the latter present arguments that are significantly more developed and complex. The questions posed by the interlocutors are elaborate and Abu Ra’itah’s responses follow the logical implications of the various possibilities to a greater extent. One also has the impression that the Proof has been written more with Christian readers in mind that the other two rasa’il. These considerations lead one to suspect that Abu Ra’itah wrote the Proof first, and later, after having had more experience as a controversialist and in confronting the issues presented by Islam, composed a longer trio of letters based on issues similar to the contents of the Proof.

With these clues in mind, it is possible to propose a general date for the composition of the Proof at sometime between 815 and 825, followed by the trio of rasa’il including On the Trinity and On the Incarnation. Although a somewhat earlier or later date is plausible, this suggestion cannot be too far from correct.

رسالة لايى رائطة التكريتى فى اثبات دين النصرانية
واثبات الثالوث المقدس

1. وفقك الله وايانا لدرك الحق والهمك الوقوف على الصواب واوصلك

الى تناول الحسنى ومكنك من الغبطة والزافى . سألت الحقك الله بالفائدة' ان اشرح لك الحالة التى دعت العاقل والجاهل الى قبول دين النصرانية ا ١٠٠٠٥١        ا٠ا .فد صد, ,دك ط ,٠٠فاطالدة

بديا وامتناعهم اخيرا . وقد اعتمدت فى جوابك على معرفة فاطر الدعوة' ومظهر النحلة رب السموات والارض له ا لحمد دائماً ابدأ . فنقول فى ذلك بحسب اعتقادنا من قول السلف الافاضل من الائمة المنتخبين ودعائم الايمان والدين بركات الله عليهم صلواتهم تحفظنا وتوفقنا امين .

2. اعم يا اخى ان كل مذهب تفرع فى الدنيا وكل دين ظهر فى العالم لا يخلوا اعتقاد فاعله من احد سبعة اقسام اضطراراً . احدها اما رغبة فى عاجل طهر نفعه وغيره ٠ والثانى طمع فى اجل يرجوا دركه . والثالث رهبة قاهرة' يضطر الى قبوله . والرابع رخصة فى كل مطلوب من المحظورات تسببه .

الخا استحساناً لتنمقه ٠٠١ فته الاد -- اطاج خمعة - هط والخامس استحسانا لتنميقه وزخرفته . والسادس تواطا وعصبية من رهط محتال على رهط والوصول الى العز والمظافرة' على القدرة' وادراك الثروة' والايسار بنصرة' .

A Risalah of Abu Ra’itah al-Takrt

On the Proof of the Christian Religion
and the Proof of the Holy Trinity

1. May God give you and us success in arriving at the truth! And may He inspire you in the pursuit of what is correct, lead you to grasp perfection, and give you happiness and honor!

You have asked, may God give you the benefit! that I explain to you the circumstances in the beginning in which both knowledgable and ignorant [people] were called to accept the Christian religion, and their eventual denial [of it]. In the reply to you, I am relying on the knowledge of One Who brought forth the proclamation and Who manifests grace, the Lord of the heavens and the earth, glory be to Him forever and always! We are speaking in this [book] in accordance with our beliefs and [drawing] from the teaching of the best [of our] chosen leaders and pillars of faith and religion, may the blessings of God be upon them, [and may] their prayers protect us and give us success. Amen.

2. Know, my brother, that in every ideology^[216] that has spread throughout the earth, and every religion which has appeared in the world, it does not fail that the conviction [of those who believe in the religion] necessarily has its source in one of seven types [of reasons]. One of these is the desire to gain advantage and other [benefits] in this world. The second is the desire for the Hereafter, and the hope of its attainment.^[217] The third [reason] is over-powering fear compelling one to accept [the religion]. The fourth [reason] which motivates [someone] is the allowance of everything desired that is forbidden. And the fifth is to be highly regarded, so that one is glorified and decorated. The sixth is collusion and tribal solidarity with a tribe to deceitfully [over-power another] tribe, and the attainment of influence and seizing of power, the realization of wealth, and the facilitation of success.

وهنه الستة الاقسام حائد' عن دين الله وخارجة عن طاعته ومغار'فة دينه لما يعتريها من الفساد ويلتحق عليها من التناقض. فاما القسم السابع الذى به يقوم ا لبرهان وعليه معتمد الايمان من تأييد رب العزة' بما يعجز ا لعقل عن تحصيله ويمتئع الخلق عن فعله الا لاهل الحق المرشدين.

3. حدنا ه الص٠ا٠٠مذاذ الاقساالستةالخ1 ٠        اا٠ج

3 ووجدنا معتقدى دين النصرانية منابذين الاقسام الستة الخارجة عن ارادة' الله جل ذكره المضاددة' لدين الحق. فاولها الرغبة العاجلة الملتمسة من اهل الدنيا التى تشره الانفس الى قبولها فانها مناصبة لانجيل الله وعهد سا"الا لا اله انعات7 الا ال الا ة السحة لان العدن ميثاقه الذى به وله واليه انقادت الامم الى الدعوة' المسيحية لان المعول عليه من الرغبة الوصول الى راحة الدنيا ومتابعة العز والعظمة واتنعم والاستظهار بالغوائد وبذل المال. ووجدنا اهل دين النصرانية قد الزموا من فرائض الانجيل ‘نرك ادراك الرغبة العاجلة وازالتها ما الزمهم من التواضع والذلة والخمول والقلة ويكلفهم الصبر والقنوع وان يتاسوا بطير السماء فى ترك ,اذخار وبذل الاجتهاد فى التعب والاقتصار على قوت يوم بيوم والاستدراج فى ضيق المسالك ومنعهم التبجح فى الراحة والخفض. مما اكد عندهم انهم اذا فعلوا افعال الخير والبر كلها التى افرضهم عليهم من -١لءاصد,،٠ظلااااه صا- مص ادا ذلك كله قبول التعب والنصب فى طاعة الله ومرضاته مدة' حياتهم ان يعدوا ذلك كله عند انفسهم فيقولوا انهم عبيد بطالون فعلوا ما امروا به مما يلزمهم من خدمة سيدهم بغير ^[218]

[But] these six types [of reasons] diverge from the religion of God, and lie outside of obedience to Him, and so are separated from His religion because of the depravity which possesses them, and the contradictions inherent in them. [However,] the seventh type is one for which there is proof, and upon it faith is sanctioned by the support of the Lord of Majesty. For understanding is too weak to grasp it, and creation is prevented from effecting [this true religion], apart from the rightly-guided^[219] People of Truth.

3. We find that the believers of the Christian religion reject the six types [of reasons to convert to another religion] foreign to the will of God, His remembrance is exalted! [and] contrary to the religion of truth. The first is the longing of this world, the desire of worldly people which [their] souls greedily accept, that is set up against the Gospel of God and promise of His Covenant by which, for which and to which the peoples were guided to the proclamation of the Messiah. Because that on which avarice is dependent is the attainment of worldly ease, pursuing might and power and luxury, and gaining profit and spending money. We find that the people of the Christian religion are obligated by the divine precepts of the Gospel to renounce the attainment of the longing[s] of this world and to do away with them.

What obligates [these people] is humility, submissiveness, obscurity and poverty, and they are charged with patience and modesty. And they should be like the birds of the heavens in refraining from gathering up treasures^[220] and not expending great efforts in toil and being contented with [enough] food day to day,^[221] and proceeding step by step along the narrow paths.^[222] They should not boast [of living] in ease and comfort. That which they are assured of is that when, during their lives, they do acts of goodness and righteousness [and] all of what is enjoined upon them, [such as] the acceptance of hardship and exertion in obedience to God and for His pleasure, and if they count all of this to themselves, they say that they are useless servants, doing what they were commanded by Him [that] service [for] their Master made incumbent upon them, without [the

حمدلامفايةوغبة.فات كا حاكهدار.نيل ٠ا. حمد ولا شكر . فاية رغبة ٠فادت من كانت حالنه هنه الى قيول دين فرائضه هكذا .

4. والقم الثانى هو طمع الآجل المرجو ادراكه بالامل. فان ذلك ايضاً

مغارق لشريعة المسجح. وذلك ان الرجاء منه حصل لاهل الطاعة الملتزمين من شرائعه المجاهدين لشهوات انفسهم القامعين لاجسادهم بالغغلة المتوصلين باعمال البر الى سيرة' الملائكة الروحانيين. انهم يخلصون بعد نثورهم من القبور وبعثهم من التراب من الاجداث ووصرلهم الى مته(الااندكه.افعائااد. طعا لا٠ا لا ملكوت السماء ان يكونوا فيها مثل الملائكة بغير طعام ولا شراب ولا لباس ولا تزوج ولا 'فنية ولا فائدة' معروفة مما تسكن اليه الانفس وترجوه الطا        الحعا٠        اللذات11 النعد        اك٠        الافتخا        داحصدا

المطامع من        المتعارف        من        اللذات والنعيم والعز        والافتخار        . بل حصلوا

من ذلك كله على امر مجهول لا يعرف ولا يوقف عليه قيلوه وهو ان يوصلهم

، ا اثم 12ا٠٠        كلما٠ حاذالدل        ى        ال هالا        .ذا لا

بعد اماتتهم        ا نفسهم        من        كلما فى حياة' الدنيا        دركه        الى ما لا        تراه عين ولا

تسمع به اذن ولم يخطر على قلب بشر ٠ فاى طمع ينسب الى ما يرجا دركه ولا يعرف نفعه ممن هنه حاله .

5. واما القم الثالث الذى هو الرغبة القاهرة التى 'نضطر الى قبول دين

الئص.ا٠-فذلكممىلئ        ا٠        ا،13 الدا 14 المعا

ا لنصرا نية فذلك ممتع خارج عن دين ا لنصرا نية . ان الداعين اليها خاملون ضعفاء مساكين فقراء متواضعون مبددون صيادون. افترقوا فى جمع الدنيا اباديد قليلة ا لعدد ذليلة حقيرة' النسب ضعيفة مهينة فى ا لبدن عاجزة' ^[223] [224]

expectation of] praise or thanks.^[225] What [worldly] longing could lead someone in this position to accept a religion whose commandments are like these?

4. The second kind [of motivation] is to desire the Hereafter, [and] the hopeful expectation of its attainment. This, too, deviates from the law of the Messiah, for this hope [only] comes to obedient people, who put themselves under the obligation of His law, who struggle against the appetites of their souls [through] the restraint of their bodies by indifference and by continuous works of piety, [leading them] to act as the spiritual angels. They will be saved after their resurrection from the graves, and their awakening from the dust of the tombs, and their arrival in the Kingdom of Heaven, where they will be like the angels, without food or drink, clothing or marriage,^[226] property or [other] well-known benefits that souls rely on and hope for [in this life], the usual things coveted, like sensual delights, comfort, power and glory.^[227] Rather, instead of all of this, they attain something unknown, receiving [something] not perceived and not understood [in this world], that is, after they have made themselves dead to everything in the life of this world, they attain what no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and no human heart has imagined.^[228] What [earthly] desire of someone in this position could be linked to what he hopes to attain, [since] its usefulness is unknown?^[229]

5. As for the third kind [of reason to convert], the over-powering fear that compels [one] to accept the Christian religion, this is forbidden and foreign to the Christian religion. Its missionaries were obscure, weak, poor, needy, humble, scattered, fisherman. They dispersed themselves throughout the whole world, [were] scattered in small numbers, despised, of base lineage, weak, contemptible in body, powerless. Childlike in understanding, perfect^[230] was their speech, one was their garment, unshod were their feet.^[231] The earth

طفلة فى العقل [...؟] منطقها واحد سربالها حافية اقدامها الارض مركبها الغربة مأواها الرجاء داعيها اللام كلامها الصلاة' نعيمها الصفح جزاؤها الجهل شراءها ٠ يعلمون بين الامم ان المرسل لهم نهاهم وحرم عليهم حمل ا لسيف وحصر على قابلى دعوتهم المكافحة والمناضلة وافترض عيلهم الصفح عن الاعداء والاحسان الى من أساء. فاية رهبة او يأس يتخوف من هنه حاله ان ينتسب اليها.

6. واما القم الرابع اعنى الرخصة فى كل مطلوب من امحظورات فذلك مغارق للدعوة' المسيحية اذ هى تقول من نظر الى امرأة' بعين شهوة' فقد زنى يمها فى قلبه ومن طلق امرأته بغير سبب يجور فقد انتج لها الزناء ومن تزوج مطلقة فقد زنى. فهذا فى يماب الشهوة' اللازمة دافع للرخصة. فاما فى ا لقنية الانخا فاصا ٠٠٠٠ ل ا٠ كمالا يمكن الجمل يدحل ٠        ٩ ة' الخيط

والاذخار فانها تقول انه كما لا يمكن ا لجمل ينخل فى سم ابرة' الخيط كذلك لا يستطيع الغنى ان ينخل الى ملكوت الله. وان من لم ينكر نفه ويجحدها يمل ويهلكها ثم يحمل صليبه وع الله مغارقاً لجمع ما فى الدنيا من اللذات كلها والشهوات ويستحق نفه عامدا من اجله فليس لله باهل

ان يكون تلميذا ولا يصل الى اللامة من جهنم. بل من قال لاخيه المؤمن

احمق يريد نقصه وخزيه فقد استوجب اعتقاده وبهذا يدين.

7. واما القم الخامس الذى هو الاستحسان لتنميقه وزخرفته فذلك ايضاً غير جائز فى شريعة الانجيل . لان المقصود بالعبادة' المطلوب بالديانة المدخر للعاقبة المرجو المكافأة' المعتمد عليه فى الدنيا والاخرة' رجل

فايت 17 S        يتئم 16 S        كامله 15 S

was their vessel, exile their dwelling, hope their cause, peace their teaching, prayer their comfort, forgiveness their recompense, folly’4 their purchase.

They taught among the peoples to whom they were sent, prohibiting and forbidding them to carry the sword, )5 and the one who accepts their proclamation is restricted from battle and fighting, and the forgiveness of enemies and charity to the one in distress is incumbent upon them.)6 What fear or hopelessness could frighten someone who is in this position into being associated with [this message]?

6. The fourth kind [of reason], namely, the allowance of everything desired that is forbidden, this deviates from the Christian proclamation, for it says “the one who looks on a woman with lustful eyes, has committed adultery with her in his heart”)7 and “the one who divorces his wife without cause does wrong, and brings on her adultery. And the one who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"’8 This contradicts [any] permission for license in the face of desire.’9 As for the acquisition and accumulation [of worldly things], they have said “Just as it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, so is the rich man incapable of passing into the Kingdom of God.”2٥ And the one who does not deny and renounce himself, even die to himself, then carry his cross and follow God, separating himself from all worldly pleasures and desires, and make himself humble for His sake, he does not deserve to be a disciple for God, and he will not receive security against hell. Rather, the one who says to his brother, the believer, “The fool!”, desiring his downfall and his disgrace, he has earned hell.2’ What license is implied in this belief and this religion?

7. As for the fifth type [of reason for acceptance of a religion], which is the approval to adorn and ornament oneself with finery, this is also not permitted in the law of the Gospel. Because the aim of worship, what is wanted in religion, is the storing up of treasure ^{[232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238]}

را.,,د..ق||د معلآ. المنتا

مصلوب ضعيف الظاهر مهين المنظر .لين صالبه وتلقيهم اياه .لكل نكال ا        ته دفنه فئ19 حالة استحسان ا٠        هذا 'فبوله از,فا

ا وجب موته ودفنه . فاية حالة استحسان لزم من هذا قبوله واى زخرف او تنميق يلتحق بمن هذا يقينه .

8. واما القم السادس الذى هو التواطى والعصبية على اعمال الحيلة

والمظافرة' بالنصرة' لبلوغ العز وادراك الثروة' فانا قد وجدنا المشتهرين ببشرى هنه الدعوة' فيه مهانة وعصابة ذليلة شعارهم التواضع ودثارهم الخمول يبددوا فى الارض متغرقين فى حوالى البلدان الشاسعة . وهم يزعمون ان المرسل لهم الى دعوة' الامم امرهم ان لا يقتنوا ذهباً ولا فضة ولا نحاسا ٠ ومن لعلم خته ادار للاطمه الاخر ٠ ومن سخره ميناً فليمش معه ميلين ٠ ومن طلب اخذ الثوب فلا يمنعه ان ياخذ مع الثوب الرداء. وحظر عليهم قنية ثوبين او حمل زاد ٠ وان يشهروا انفسهم انه ارسلهم كمثل الا٠        ا٠ذئ اهـ        ل2 ظ ا٠ ٠٠        G٠٠٠u ٠ل ٠،٠٠

الخراف بين الذئاب. وان كلمن قبلهم يظن انه قرب لله قربانا. فاى تزايد , ٠٠اط22, سد حذ ن ال ل١ل ي١ اداكاساً , ع حاً او تواطى او اعمال حيلة فى الوصول الى عر او ادراك ايسار او ظهور جاه ممن هدحاله من الاقلال والرعب والفزع وا لتعب والفقر سوء الحال.

9. ولما تبين ان الشريعة المسيحية مغارقة الاقسام الستة فقد بقى ان يكون ا لخاص بها اللازم لها انها ظهرت واستظهرت على جميع الاديان بتأييد رب ^[239] [240]

for the end [of time], the reward hoped for, that on which [one] relies in this world and the next, is a Man crucified, weak in outward appearance, seen as contemptible by those who crucified Him. They imposed on Him every punishment, resulting in His death and burial. What kind of approval could one cling to [by] accepting this [religion] and what ornaments and adornments are taken up by the one who has this as his conviction?

8. As for the sixth kind [of reason], which is collusion and tribal solidarity in acts of deception and an aid in the successful attainment of power and the realization of wealth, we find that for those who become known through the good news of this proclamation there is humiliation in it. [They wore] a lowly headcloth, their underdress was humility and their overdress was obscurity. They were scattered over the earth, separated from each other in the remotest countries. And they claimed that the one who had sent them to summon the peoples had commanded them: “Do not possess gold nor silver nor copper”,^[241] and “the one who is struck on his cheek, should turn the other [cheek] toward the one who struck him. And when he is pressed [by someone into going] a mile, he should go two miles with him. And if someone tries to take [his] garment, he should not refrain from giving the garment along with [his] cloak.”^[242] It is forbidden to them to possess two garments, or to carry provisions.^[243] And so they should make themselves well-known [far and wide], for He had sent them like lambs among the wolves.^[244] And any one who received^[245] them would think that he had offered a sacrifice to God.^[246] What is the increase or [advanatage of] collusion or means to an end for the achievement of power and realization of affluence, or appearance [and] high rank for the whose condition is this, neediness, fear, hardship, poverty, and an unfortunate situation?

9. Since it has been shown that the Christian law differs from [these] six kinds [of false reasons to belong to a religion], it remains that the characteristic of it, the inherent property belonging to it, is that it is evident and demonstrated to be above every religion by the

العالمين الذى ايد به الداعين اليها من الايات المعجزات والبراهين ا لوضحات التى قادت جمع الامم الى قبولها طوعاً ٠ فاذ 'فد وضح وبان قبول الامم دين النصرانية على تشتيت اهوائها وانقطاع نسبها واختلاف اخلاقها وتنائى بلدانها وتباعد هممها فضلأ عن السنتها والفاظها بلا رغبة دنيوية ولا رهبة ولا طمع فى آجل معروف ولا استحسان وتنميق ولا رخصة واباحة ولا -اطو2طاسذط٠لددعاًل تواطى على اقامة علم بعز لبلوغ المامول ٠

10. فلا بد من السابع الذى دلت العقول وتحيرت الذهون وتاهت ال, 25 طا اكا اكذ الا, اهات الا احا اب ا الوفود وبطل القياس واكذب الاراء وامات البدع واحيا المجهول واعي الحيل وفات الفكر !ادراكه وذلك بتاييد المسجح الله سبحانه الذى ايد به

سد ٠٠ 26ده ص دم ده د ابد27 امئ~دهاحائه رسله وتوح به وفوده وقوى به اصفيائه واكرم به محبيه وامنح به احبائه

. . ده فه28 . احاك! ٠. ضمه فتحصالاكمهداذذه ا ام وزين به ووفونه من احيائهم اموتى باسمه وفتحهم الاكمه باذنه وابرائهم البرص بحوله وغير ذلك من الجرائح بقوته والاعاجب المبصرات 29 I أص ، فعطا^مىنا^ئ ع الظاهرات التى لم بقدر على دفعها احد ملك كان او مملوكا شريغا او وضيعاً حكيما او جاهداً حكيماً ان سفيهاً . فحققوا دعوتهم الصحيحة بهنه الايات الصادقة واستغنوا بذلك عن تحقيقها بزخرف الكلام وتمويهه

واحكام نسقه واقامة محاله وعقد مجهوله وايضاح مشتكله لان الكلام كافة ^[247] [248]

confirmation of the Lord of the Worlds, Who confirmed with it those who proclaimed [the Christian law] through signs and miracles and clear proofs^[249] which led all of the peoples to accept it willingly.

So [motivation for] the peoples’ acceptance of the Christian religion is clear, in spite of the diversity of their inclinations and the break from their origins [such an acceptance necessitated], [in spite of] differences in their values, great distance between their lands, the divergence of their intentions, not to speak of their [diverse] practices and word usages, [they accepted it] without [prompting by] worldly desires or fear, without aspiring to a known afterlife,^[250] without approval and embellishment, without licentiousness or permissiveness, without collusion to revive the prestige of [one’s heritage] in order to attain what is hoped for.

10. Thus, the seventh [reason for adhering to a religion] is necessary, which understanding is [too] weak [to grasp] and the intellect is at a loss [to understand], crowds [of seekers] go astray [in search of it], analogy is in vain. And it exposes the opinions [of it] as false, kills heresies, gives life to the unknown, incapacitates subterfuge, contemplation fails [to reach] an understanding of it. And this is done with the confirmation of the Messiah, God, may He be praised! Who by it confirms His Apostles, and by it He has destined^[251] His company [of Apostles], by it He has given power to His dear friends, by it He has bestowed honor upon those who love Him,^[252] by it He has granted favors to His beloved, and by it He has adorned [them]-H؛s company [of Apostles], namely, gave life to the dead in His name, they opened [the eyes] of the blind by His permission and healed the lepers by His strength, and [performed] other wonders by His power, and visible and perceptible marvels that no one is able to reject, be he king or servant, high-born or low-born, educated or ignorant, wise or foolish. They proved the authenticity of their proclamation by these true signs, and were able, because of these, to dispense with its authentication through embellished and affected speech, practiced style, with setting aright what is absurd, joining together what is unknown, and explicating what is obscure, because

يسير دفعه غير عسير رده وان كان هو الغاية فى الصحة والبيان. واما الايات والجرائح فلا سبيل الى جحودها وانكارها فى ا لقلب وان جحدها اللسان بحسد او بغضة سبقت .

11. وان قال قائل وما بأس ان يكون الله حقق دينه بالمرغوب فى امور الدنيا والمرهوب جميعا او ابحدها خاصة. و'فد ترون موسى ابن عمران وغيره من الانبياء المقبولة منكم قد دعوا الى دين واظهروه واثبتوه . بالرغبة والرهبة جميعا. اما الرغبة فكقول موسى ان الله مورثكم ارض كنعان وبساتين ارض ,ح د السالك*.فعامانه3لنقذلكمما٠سه يجرى منها اللبن وا لعل لكم قيها رمان وليمون وغير ذلك مما تشتهيه الانفس وتلنه الاعين . واما الرهبة فكقوله ايضاً لبنى اسرائيل وتقدمة اليهم ان الله مورثكم ارض الامم يقيناً فتقتلونهم حيث لا تبقون منهم احدا لكيلا ضدى سلى ال اهدام ؤ عان. ا ثاك 4 اصالف يضلوكم ويميلوكم الى اهوائهم فى عبالة' اوثانهم وسوا اعمالهم واستاصلوهم من بين ظهوركم ولا ترحموهم ولا تعاهدوهم عهداً ولا عقدأ ولا تقبلول منهم فدية. فاى وعيد ارغب من هذا واية رهبة ارهب مما وصفت.

فنقول ان ترغيب مومى لبئى اسرائيل ايها الحكيم وتغغيله الارض المقدسة عتدهع ءلا٠مص٠ها.الا٠ .32ا ص دقتا ا لمقدمة عندهم على ارض معر وغيرها من الارخين وامرهم يقتل مكانها ومفك دماء جبابرتها بحق وليس ذلك منه ترغيباً وترهيباً فى اتبات

the word is able to be rejected without difficulty and refuted, even when it [has reached] the greatest [level of] credibility and clarity. But it is not possible to deny and reject the signs and wonders in [one’s] heart, even if the tongue denies them because of prior envy or hatred.

11. Someone may say: “What is the harm if God shows His religion to be true through things of the world that are desired and feared, [either all] in general or one of them in particular? You see that Moses, son of 'Imran^[253] and the other prophets accepted by you, proclaimed a religion and they revealed it and confirmed it with desire and fear together. As for the desire, it is just as the statement of Moses that “God made you heirs to the land of Canaan and the gardens of a land from which flow milk and honey,^[254] and in them are pomegranates and lemons for you, and other things that souls long for and please the eyes.” As for the fear, it is also just as his statement to the Sons of Israel, offering to them that “Surely God has made you heirs of the land of the peoples, so you shall kill them until not one of them remains, in order that they not lead you astray nor incline you to their heretical ways in service of their idols and their evil works. Root them out from your midst and do not show mercy to them. And do not contract a treaty or pact with them, and do not accept ransom from them.”^[255] Which of these promises is more desirable than this, and which fear is more terrible than what I have described?”

We say that if Moses awakened the desire of the Sons of Israel, o Wise One, to have a preference for the Holy Land over the land of Egypt or any other lands, and commanded them to kill its inhabitants and to shed the blood of its tyrants, [this was] correct. This was not in order to affirm the religion and prove it true through desire and fear. Rather, [through this] he brought about the protection

الدين وتحقيقه . بل جعل عصمته الدين وقبوله بالايات والجرائح التى اظهرها واجراها الله على يديه بارض مصر كمثل اتيانه بالجراد والقمل والبرد واستحالة نيلها الى الدم وظهور الموت فى ابكارهم واغراقه فرعون وجنوده وانغتإح البحر لعبور الشعب وتحليته الماء المر لبنى اسرائيل اطعامه المن والسلوى وانحباس وجرى الماء من الحجر وتظليلهم بالغيمام نهارا واشراقه عمود من نور ليغاً . فهنه الايات اثبت دين الله على يدى موسى من العجائب المذاعة فى الامم كافة.

12. ولما كان قد اصطفى شعباً مارداً وحزباً حديثا لا يطيعه لعجز رأيه وغلظ فهمه بل يطبع شهوة' المهلك له لغغلته وقسوة' قلبه واماتة فكره عن ذكر الله له ا لحمد وا لتمك بدينه وقبول عهده بطغيان اهل مصر واعتقاده وحده ذك لعا٠ذعا        ٠ذائعا        حعلهدالا٠        المقد.المد        ا33

اصنامها وذلته لعبادتها ورغبته فى غذائها وجهله بالارض المقدسة المدعوا العا غذائعا غت ل 34 كان للد مندا مكناً دعد تحققه لد اليها وغذائها ورغبته لمن كان للدين منكرا مكذبا بعد تحقيقه لديهم بانواع من الايات واصناف من العجائب الذائعة فى الامم امر بقتل تلك الامم المعاندة' لدين الله وعزفهم فضل الارض المقدسة على ما كانوا يعتقدونه ويحنون اليه من ارض مصر وغذائها.

والبرهان على ذلك قول الله سبحانه لنجيه موسى عند التماسه خلاص بنى اسرائيل من يد فرعون وضلالة قومه واستعباده اياهم وسوقهم بكل عذاب

of the religion, and its acceptance through signs and wonders that God revealed and caused through the hand of [Moses] in the land of Egypt, as the example of His sending the locusts and lice and hail, and transformation of the Nile in the land into blood, and [causing] the appearance of the death of their first-born, and His drowning of Pharaoh and his armies, and the sea opened for the passage of the tribe. And He made the bitter water sweet for the Sons of Israel, and gave [them] manna and quail to eat. The water, which had been held back, flowed from the rock. He shaded them with clouds by day, and made a pillar of fire shine by night. Now, these signs proved the religion of God by the hand of Moses [and] are among the wonders widely-known by the all of the peoples.^[256]

12. Since He had chosen a rebellious people and a young^[257] tribe, who did not obey Him on account of their^[258] weak judgement and crude understanding, and instead obeyed their [own] yearning for destruction because of their foolishness and hardness of their hearts; [they had] destroyed^[259] their idea^[260] of the remembrance of God, glory be to Him! and [their] adherence to His religion and acceptance of His Covenant because of the oppression^[261] of the Egyptians and their own belief in the [Egyptian] idols, their depravity in worshiping them, their desire for [Egyptian] food and their [own] ignorance about the Holy Land to which they were called and its food, and its desirableness for them, [a tribe]who denied and rejected the religion [of the Egyptians] after it was shown in their presence to be true with various signs and diverse wonders, [because of this] He commanded the killing of those peoples who resisted the religion of God and He announced to [the Israelites His bestowal of] the favor of the Holy Land, in spite of their [previous] beliefs and their yearning for the Land of Egypt and its food.

The proof of this is the statement of God, may He be praised! to His intimate friend, Moses, when he begged Him to save the Sons of Israel from the hand of Pharaoh and from the error of his

اليم واظهاره لهم دينه وانزال كتابه عليهم بسننه وشرائعه على يده راحما لهم هناك اذ يقول الرحيم لعبده موسى نظراً نظرت الى ذلة شعبى الساكن بارض سرصت ضح٠حمغ ٠٠كيس٠ فتعال اسلكلذلك فاد35 مصر وسمعت ضجيجهم ونزلت بخلاصهم. فتعال ارسلك لذلك. فابتدى موسى قائلأ من انا فى القدر لاعز فرعون وجنوحه لخلاص بنى اسرائيل ولست بمستئبط القول لاتى امرء نزر كلامى ولسانى الثغ. فحفل ذلك من اردت تحميله.

13. قال الله لموسى يا موسى من خلق القم واللسان او من اقام بصيرة' الاعمى وجعل ناطقاً وخارساً. ا ليس بقدرتى. فانا معك وملهمك ومؤيدك. وقال له وما تلك بيمينك يا موسى وقال له عصاى. فقال له القها. فالقاها فاذا هى خية ثعبان يسعى. فهال ذلك موسى فقال الله له اشدد يدك به. ففعل ذلك موسى فصارت بيده عصا. ثم امره ان يستر يده بسرباله فسترها واظهرها وهى فى البياض كالثلج. وامره ان يسترها ثانية فاخرجها عائدة' كجسده . فقوى موسى فى نقه. وهنالك امره الله بجهاد فرعون الغاشم وجنوحه وضربه اياهم بهنه العصا الحقيرة' بانواع من الايات واصناف من الجرائح حجة قائمة بالغة فى العالم باسره لكى يتذكر او يخشى. فغرق بها فرعون وجنوحه بعد قسوته وامتناعه من الاتباع بما نزل بهم من النقم . فاثبت بالايات دينه والاقرار به والمعرفة باياته فى صدور بنى اسرائيل وابطل جمع

people, from his enslavement and oppression of them with every painful torment, and to reveal to them His religion and send down to them His book with His practices and His law^[262] by His [own] hand in mercy to them here [on this earth],^[263] when the Merciful One said to His servant Moses: “I have seen the humiliation of my people dwelling in the Land of Egypt, and I have heard their cries, and I have descended to save them. And so, I send you for this.” So Moses began speaking: “Who am I to be able to do something against the mightier Pharaoh and his armies for the salvation of the Sons of Israel?^[264] I cannot devise [convincing] speech, for I am an insignificant man. My words and my tongue are defective. Give this task to someone whom You wish to burden with it.”

13. God said to Moses: “O Moses! Who created the mouth and tongue? Or Who gives sight to the blind and makes eloquent and dumb? Is it not in My power? I am with you and inspire you and stand by you.”^[265] And He said to him: “What is this in your right hand, O Moses?” and he answered Him: “My staff.” Then He said to him: “Throw it [down]!” So he threw it down, and suddenly it became a snake, a moving serpent.^[266] This terrified Moses, but God said to him: “Grasp it with your hand!”. So Moses did this, and it became a staff in his hand. Then He commanded him to hide his hand in his garment, and he hid it in it, and [then] showed it again, and it was white as snow. And He commanded him to hide it a second [time], then he drew it out [and] it had returned to being like his [own] flesh. So Moses was strengthened in himself.^[267]

Then God commanded him to fight against the Pharaoh and his armies, and to strike him and them with this paltry staff with various signs and [every] sort of wonders, as unshakable, far-reaching evidence for the whole world, so that they would remember [God] or fear [Him]. So with [the staff] He drowned Pharaoh and his army, as the punishment He sent down upon them, after [Pharaoh] hardened his [heart] and he had been prohibited from pursuing [the Israelites]. Through signs, [God] affirmed His religion and confession of it and

شبهات وضلالات ما اش به سحرة' فرعون مكايدة' منه لموسى ولدعوته .

14. وذلك لاحتمال العصا السر الاعظم من العصا الاتية بالصليب المنقذ

به اهل العالم. فهنه سنة الله جارية فى الاولين والاخرين من اقامة دينه ونصب علمه وثبات حجنه على خلقه تصحح من الايات وبين من ااح٠اتالتلاطدعاءقارلهت لا ن اب        36لا

المعجزات التى لا يحيط بها عقل مخلوق ولا يقوم بذكرها قلب مبرى لا بكثير الرأى وبلخ الكلام ولا ببأس ونجدة' كما وصفت.

لك د        37 ب        ل ا        ا ا        .أ

فاذصار ذلك لم يحتاج النصرانية الى المذاضلةءليهاواثبا'تهاباصيل الراى وبلخ المنطق لتقصيرها عن ادراك كنه حقها وبلوغ غاية صدقها بما وصفت قبل هذا الموضع من ايضاح بلوغ غاية صدقها بالايات والعجائب التى اذلت صعاب الرقاب وذلت قاسية القلوب او لبس الادراك والوقوع على ذات ا لموصوف بعينه. فهل يسلم ا لرأى اعنى والقول جميعاً من ا لدرك. فعجز قولنا اذن وصف رأينا عن درك صفة ما لا درك لصفته والوقوع عليها بكنهها وا لمعرفة بذلك والاقرار به . دليل واضح وبرهان بين على دليل قولنا وصواب منطقنا الذى قلناه عن ائمة النصرانية واحتملناه من كتب الله القديمة والحديثة المحققة دعوتها بما وصفنا من الايات والعجائب من غير رأى ولا قياس ٠

15. واذ سئلنا عن بعض قولنا فى الله سبحانه من امر التثليث والتوحيد

the knowledge of His signs in the hearts of the Sons of Israel, and He thwarted all of the doubts and errors which sorcerers of Pharaoh gave to them, turning them against Moses and his proclamation.

14. And this [occurred] because the staff [of Moses] bore the greatest mysterion of the staff which was to come in the Cross, through which the people of the world would be delivered. For this is the customary practice^[268] of God, from the first to the last [peoples], in the establishment of His religion and erecting His banner and affirming His proof for His creation: correction through signs and clarification through miracles, which are not comprehended by creaturely understanding and are not located in the memory of a created heart,^[269] [it is] not in the many opinions, nor eloquent speech, nor the strength and courage [of human beings], as I have described.

Since this has happened, it is not justified to battle^[270] Christianity and to remain firm [against it] with unswerving opinions and eloquent speech, because they are incapable of attaining the essence of its truth and reaching the utmost limit of its veracity, as I have [already] described before this. [In fact,] the place [where] the elucidation [necessary] to reach the utmost limit of its veracity [is found] is in the signs and wonders which humble obstinate difficulties [in the search for the truth] and overcome hardness of heart or uncertain comprehension and perception of a being which is being described in itself. Can an opinion, that is, [any] statement, be certain [and] complete in comprehension? Our statement (that is, a description of our opinion), is incapable of attaining a description of something whose description cannot be attained, nor the perception of it in its essence or the knowledge of this or the confession of it.

A clear indication and an evident proof confirming our teaching and the correctness of what we say is what we have said about the leaders of Christianity and what we have taken from the Old and New Books of God, which confirms the truth of their proclamation by what we have described of the signs and wonders, without [resorting to] opinion or analogy.

15. If someone asks us about [any] part of our teaching about God, may He be praised! concerning the Trinity and the Unity, and

وامر التجسد والتأنس وغير ذلك من صفاته فاجبنا .درأى او قياس او حجة من كتاب فوقع قريباً من البغية واقبع السائل فى جوابه شكرنا الله على ذلك وان ا لغى بعيدا منها غير ملائم لها فى جمتع ا نحائه او جلها فذلك جميل هو على صدق صفته فى قوله ان تصفنى الواصفون فلا ينال العقول.

نعئى فى ذلك قد سهل علينا جوابك وجواب غيرك . فان وقع ما عسى ان نجيبك به موافقاً شانياً فذلك من الله له الحمد وحده . وان قصرنا عن رجائك وخالفنا ظنك فيما طمعت فيه منا والتمسته لدينا فجدير انت ان ترم ذلك بعقلك وتتغمضه بشرفك وتركن فيه ا لى حمن الظن بمودتك.

فالمذموم لعمرى من بخل بما عنده وان قل والعاجز عند بذل الكلام. وهذا حين صرت الى جوابك ومرادك ان شاء الله تعالى.

16. قال مخالغونا يا معشر النصارى وصفتم الله الهة ثلثة لاثباتكم اياه اقانيم ثلثة وواحدا فردا فى العدد. ووصفنا اياها بما هو ملائم لها فى جمتع انحاء جوهرها وماهيتها. فاعلم يا اخى انهم على احدى منزلتين لا محالة. اما قوم لم يعرف مذهب قولنا وغرض نحلتنا. فيعذروا فى وصفهم ايانا بغير ما ٠ طيهس١مبه ان حاز ان يعذ 39 احد عد الجهز اى'فو ما نحن عليه لجهلهم به وان حاز ان يعذر احد على الجهل. واما قوم اوضحوا بالغرق بعلم ومعرفة من غير اكتراث ولا حرج ■ فيلزمهم من العيب وا لثنعة ما لا يحتاج الى جوابهم اذ كان يلزمهم فى اعتقادهم واحدا فردأ

the matter of the Incarnation and becoming human, and anything else about His attributes, and we answer with a deductive proof or an analogy or evidence from a book, and if [the answer] happens to approach the goal and the questioner is happy with the answer [given to] him, then we thank God for this! If it is found, [however], to be far from [the goal], not appropriate for [the question] in all or most respects, this is [still] good and holds true for His predication, for according to His statement: “The understanding of the one who describes Me with descriptions is not capable of succeeding.”^[271]

We mean by this that it is easy to give you and others an answer. For if it happens that what we might answer you is appropriate and suitable,^[272] then this is from God alone, may He be praised! And if we are short of your expectation and we fail in your opinion in what you had hoped for and requested from us, then it behooves you to rectify this with your [own] understanding, to ignore [the shortcomings of the answer] out of your honor, and to trust in the good will [of the one answering] out of your amicability.

It is reprehensible, by my life! for one to be stingy with what he has and even worse is the one who is incapable of spending words. So, these [conditions are what] I will insist upon for your answers and your desires, if God wills!

16. Our opponents say: “O Christian people! You describe God as three gods,^[273] in that you affirm [God is] three hypostaseis and a single one in number.” [But in reality] we describe [the hypostaseis] by what is appropriate to them in all of the relations of their ousia and their quiddity. Know, O my brothers, it is inevitable that [these people who oppose us] fall into one of two categories. Either [they are] people who do not know the content of our doctrine and the purpose of our faith ([and then] they can be forgiven in their ascription to us of something other than what [we hold], because they are ignorant of it, for it is permitted to forgive someone for ignorance), or they are people who, in [their] difference [with us] exhibit knowledge and learning without careful attention or constraint, and they are necessarily at fault and disgraceful, so one does not need to give them an answer, as [for example] when they require it [in

.دقولهم ذلك من غير فحص ولا تفتيش . ولو تبينوا ذلك لما نطقوا بشئء هذا قددحدا40 ف القا اذا        ١٠١٠٠٠١١٠ ل, الشفقة

من هذا و'فد يجدوا فى القياس اذا هم الطفوا النظر وناصحوا بالشفقة ا نفسهم سببا لما وصفنا فى بعض وجوهه لا فى كلها.

17. فحد القياس المستعمل من ذوى المعرفة فضلأ عن صفة الله له الحمد المعتلية عن كل صفة موصوفة الارواح والاجسام جميعاً . واذ غرضنا ذكر القياس وعظمت حاجتنا الى استعماله فى ايضاح قولنا لمن التمس ذلك منا وجب علينا الاجتهاد والمبالغة فى تصحيحه من امكن الاشياء واقربها مأخذ وان بعد ذلك واستصعب لبعده من الاشياء المقيس فيه فى كل انحائه.

فقد ينبغى لمن تقلد ذلك ان يشتق 'فياساً بجمعه من اشياء شتى تقع السائل فى ملائمته للمتخن له 'فياساً للعجز الواحد منها عن بلوغ صفة الملتمس له قياساً وللسائل ان يقبله اشد القبول وان لم يجد ذلك فى اصول الاشياء. ان الملتم" له-فاساًلعلها42ط كا -فا        د . المعقدل المحه

الملتمس له قياسا يعلوا على كل قياس موجود من المعقول والمحسوس كما وصفنا .

18. فما قولكم فى مصابيح ثلثة يوقد ضوءها اعتى لا ذات المصابيح اعينها. اواحد هو خاصة او ثلثة فقط او واحد وثلثة جميعاً معاً. فان قالوا هو واحد خاصة اى معدود واحد لا ثلثة فى ا لضوء قلنا لم نعد ا لضوء كله لبعض المصابيح الذى لا يجاوز فى اخراج ضوءه خاصة غيره من المصابيح فلسنا نراه يغادر ضوءه شيئاً ولا يسلب غيره من ا لمصابيح خروجه وا لخارج ايضاً ضوء كامل فى الذات لا بعض الضوء.

response to] their confession of the One alone, with neither [their own] examination nor investigation into their teaching on this. If they wish to clarify this [teaching], why do they articulate it in this [manner]? If they made a careful investigation and were sincerely concerned for themselves,^[274] they would find in the analogy [we offer] a basis for what we have described in some of its aspects, [if] not in all of them.

17. The term ‘analogy’ is used by those having knowledge besides for the exalted predication of God, glory be to Him! for every attribute predicated of spirits and corporeal beings in general. And if our goal is to present the analogy, and our need for its use increases in an explanation of our teaching to the one requests this from us, then effort and intense [care] in its correct [application] are necessary for us [in order to find] the best possible things [to use for the analogy] and the simplest approach, even if this is far removed and is considered to be difficult, on account of its distance from the things that are compared to it in all of its relations.

Now, the one who seeks to take this on must derive an analogy by gathering it together from various different things [so that] it satisfies the questioner in its appropriateness for that which an analogy is used, because one [thing] is incapable of attaining a [complete] description of that for which the analogy is sought, and [so] the questioner must accept it wholeheartedly, even if he does not find this [completeness] in the elements of the things [compared]. For that for which the analogy is sought is above every analogy found among what is intelligible and perceptible, as we have [already] described.

18. What do you say about three lamps whose light has been ignited (I do not mean the being of the lamps themselves): is it one particular [light] or only three [lights] or one and three together? If they say: “It is one particular, that is, counted as one, not three, in light”, we say: We do not count the light of all of them to [a single] one of the lamps which, in emitting its light, does not have [anything] particular apart from the [other] lamps. Nor do we see that its light takes something away, or deprives the other lamps of their [own] emission [of light]. And the emitting of light is also perfect in being, not [just] a part of the light.

فان قالوا ثلثة قلنا فكيف ذلك وليس بينهم اختلاف فى الضوء والانارة' ولا تباين فى المكان . بل هى ملائمة فى جمع حلاتها المستوجبة بها الضوء ليعلموا ان الضوء الموصوف واحد وهو ثلثة جميعاً معا. اما واحد فغى ماهية الضوء وجوهره واما ثلثة فغى العدد الواقع على ذات المصابيح الخاص اللازم لكل واحد منها.

19. كذلك ا لقول فى الله سبحانه وله الحمد. بل افضل من ذلك بان لاشبه ولا مقدار واحد فى ا لجوهر والازلية وا لعلم والقوة' وا لمجد والعظمة وغير ذلك من الصفات الجوهريات وثلثة فى الاقانيم جميعاً معاً هو بعينه لقوام ذا ته خاصة لكل واحد منها. وثبوت خاصته مع توحيده والتئامه بغيره من الاقانيم وانفراده بها واستدلال الواقع بها عليه دون غيره من الاقانيم المتحد بها سوى ذلك من انحاء ا لصفات الدانة على جوهره ما لا سبيل ان يوجد فى غيره مثله البتة كما وصفنا.

20. فان 'فالوا ان الضوء الذى وصفتم هو وصف اكثار وتوحيد جميعاً من

قول عام فيه من انه ضوء واضواء وكل واحد منها قائم بعينه غير مضاف اليه غئادضافدعضشاالدعض فما الحائا سيران43 تصفدا هنه غيره او يضاف بعضها الى بعض. فما الحائل بينكم وان تصفوا هنه الاقانيم التى ذكرتم الاهاً والهة وان كان كل واحد منها علة نفه قائم من غير ان يضاف الى غيره من الاقانيم وهذا خلاف قولكم بعينه اباً وابناً وروح 'فد 44 فعا دعف        هنه الضدا 'نضاف ال ذها        ٠        الصه        كاصافير

قدس . فهل بعض        هنه الضواء تضاف الى غيرها        من        الضوء        كاصافتكم

,.ز هد الاقا- ال        ,خ تمك, اداها ادأ ادنا قد        45

بعض هنه الاقانيم الى بعض وتسميتكم اياها ابا واينا        وروح قدس        .

Now if they say: “[It is] three [lights]”, we say: Why is this? There is no difference among them in the light and the illumination, and no separation in the place [of the light]. Rather, what is necessary for light is proper [to them] in all of their states. So they should know that the light described is one and three together [simultaneously]: one with regard to the quiddity of the light and its ousia, and three with regard to the number applicable to the being of the particular lamps necessary for each one of [the lights].^[275]

19. This is like the teaching about God, may He be praised and glory be to Him! but more excellent than this, because [for Him] there is no likeness nor measure: [God is] one in ousia, eternity,^[276] knowledge, power, honor, majesty, and substantial attributes other than these, and [God is] simultaneously three in hypostaseis in Himself because of the mode of being proper to each one of them. What is proper [to each hypostasis] is constant in its union and harmony with the other hypostaseis, as well as in its uniqueness and its individuality apart from them. And the demonstration [that this is correct is that] the application [of the individual property] to [one of the hypostaseis] to the exclusion of the [other] united hypostaseis is the same as this in the relations of the indicative attributes to its ousia, although it is absolutely not possible that one find in anything else His likeness, as we have described.^[277]

20. They may say: “The light which you describe, is it a plurality and a unity together, [so that] one speaks of it generally as ‘light’ and ‘lights’? [Either] each one of them stands alone without a relationship to another, or they are related, one to the others. What prevents you from describing these hypostaseis which you have presented as ‘God’ and ‘gods’? If each one of them is a cause in itself and stands [alone], without being related to the other hypostaseis, then this contradicts your statement itself [that they are] Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Is one of these lights related to the other as you have related one of the hypostaseis to the other, and which you have named Father, Son and Holy Spirit?”

قلنا .ذانا انتفعنا ن تعد تلخصنا ج حنا نعت القا ١>غ>ب.. ش٠ ^[278] قلنا ترا نا انتفعنا فى تقديم تلخيصنا وشرحنا نحت القياس لكم كثير ٠دشىء

اذ صرتم تلتمسون قياسا للسماء وارتفاعها وطولها على ما هو دونها يمنزلة السقف او الخباء فنسئل عن الفلك الدائر والنجوم هل نجده فى السقف

الخا المضظ        . له 'فاع ادعا الحك, كان ٠ ل^[279]ف٠

والخباء المضروبين له قياسا ايها الحكيم . كان سوى سوى فى جمع الحال المقيس به ولم يخالغه . فاذا كان اذ هو الضء بعينه لا قياس له .

فانما اتخذنا الضوء قياساً مقنعاً فى بعض انحائه فى توحيده وتثليثه جميعاً معاً كما وصفنا من الله سبحانه عندنا جوهراً واحدا اقانيم ثلثة جميعاً معاً لا فى اضافة بعضها الى بعض وتسميتها باكثار وتوحيد جميعاً الضوء اعنى والاضواء . لا يلزمنا فى هذا القول الهة والاه وارباب ورب كما ظننتم .

21. فاذ وجدنا فى اصول الاشياء المعقولة المفهومة شيئاً واحدا يحتمل كلا الصغتيم . وذلك فى بعض انحائه واحداً اعئى وثلثة جميعاً من غير ان يستحيل القول فيه. وجب علينا فى سائر الانحاء الموجودة' فيه المخالفة لغيره ما شرح سبب ذلك وعلمه الى حقه وصدقه.

واعلم يا اخى ان من الاشياء الواقعة على الاشياء ما يقال على قسمين احدها اق ط        الير ماهت المشذك فه اب المتحذا48 منه دلا نادة

واقع على جوهر اًلشىء وماهيته المشترك فيه الجمع المتجزا منه بلا زيادة' لاساط قد        تة لأ4ال..ا٠لهآظالاكه.الل

ولا نقصان على قدره وتقطيعه . المباين به نظراءه فى الجوهر الموصوف به

We say: Have we [not] shown and been successful in the summary and explanation of the terms of the analogy we offered to you? [There are] many things for which you might persist in requesting an analogy[for example], heaven and its heights and its sizefrom what is beneath them in rankf roof or a tent. So we ask you about the rotating heavenly bodies and the stars: do we find in a roof or [even] in a large tent an analogy for them, o Wise One? In the general case of what is used as an analogy, a likeness is equal to it and is not different from it; when, however, it [concerns] the thing in itself, there is no analogy for it.^[280]

We have only taken the light as a sufficient analogy in the partial similarity of its unity and its threeness simultaneously, as we have described concerning God, may He be praised! according to [our teaching] as one ousia and three hypostaseis simultaneously, not [as an analogy] in the relationship of some of them to the other or in the naming of the plurality and unity of [them] together (that is, the light and the lights). It is not necessary for us in this teaching [to speak of] gods and God, or lords and Lord, as you think.

21. When we have found something among the elements of the things that can be known and understood that can carry at least two attributes, and this is in part similar to it, that is one and three simultaneously, without it being an absurd statement, it is necessary for us [to provide] for the remaining aspects present in [the thing], which are different from that other [thing to which it is being compared] that has been presented, a reason for [the difference] and to instruct [the listener] on its truth and its correctness.

Know, o my brother, that one can make two sorts of statements about things that are applied to [other] things.^[281] The first [of these] is applied to the ousia of the thing and its quiddity: everything that is a component of [the thing] participates in it, without increase or decrease in its measure or its members. What are distinguished in this [category are other things that] correspond to [the thing described]

علينا كقول القائل حى وانسان.

والاخر على تقطيعه وامتيازه يعينه غير مشارك له فى الجوهر ويوصف .له بخاصة كقول القائل سعد وخالد بالخاص منها منسوب ياسم العام لمشاركته فى الواقع عليه بكماله من غير نقصان . قاما العام بان ينسب باسم الخاص لانه بحالة القول فيه لا. بل قد يوصف سعد وخالد حؤا وانساناً وذلك كذاك ولا يوصف الحى والانسان بارسال سعداً وخالداً لما فيه من الشنعة والكذب.

22. فاذ 'فد بيننا اسم العام وا لخاص جميعاً فلننظر فى كل معئى كل واحد منهما فى وقوعه على الشى.» ا لمقول عليه. هل يجوز استعمال العام منها باكثار او توحيد على الانفراد او جميعاً كما وصفوا ام لا. فانسان اسم واقع على جوهر وانسان وحده بلا ريادة' ولا تقصان. فاذا صار الناس كلها اعنى الاشخاس جوهرا واحداً اسمه الانسان لم يصخ تسميتهم باكثار ايضا اى الناس والا صار معئى ذلك جوهراً واستحال الكلام وصار الموصوف كذباً. ىللكالفاصفمذاقاساًصاسم ه م فانضأ5ان كذلك ا لضوء ا لموصوف منا قياسا هو اسم جوهر ا لضوء . فان يصح ان يوصف ضوءا واضواء فانما صار يعئى ذلك جوهر وهذا المحال بعينه ان كدن م؛ احدا5        اهـكىاطذا

يكونجوهراً واحد جواهر شتى كما وصفنا .

in ousia (which we have [already] described), as when one says “living” and “human being”.

The other [kind of statement describes each individual] member and its differentiation in itself, not what is has in common [with other things] in the ousia. [The thing] is described by a [specific] property, as when one says “Sa'd” and “Halid”. What is peculiar about [the thing] is related to the name of the general [category], because of its real participation in [the general category] entirely, without decrease [to itself].^[282] [However,] substituting [the name of] the general [category] with the name of the specific [property], so that it’s position is changed in the statement, no, [that is not possible]. Rather, “Sa'd” and “Halid” are described as “living” and “human being”, and this is so, but “the living” and “the human being” are not described conversely as “Sa'd” and “Halid”, because there would be ugliness and falsehood in [this].

22. Now, when we have clarified the name of the general and of the specific completely, let us examine the meaning of each of them in its application to the thing of which it is said. Is it permissible to employ the general [category] with a plurality [of things] or a single [thing], with the individual or a group, as we have described, or not? For “human being” is a name applied to the ousia [of a human being], as well as to one [individual] human being, without increase or decrease. Now, although all human beings, that is, the individuals, are one ousia whose name is “human being”, it is not correct to name [the individual] also as a plurality, that is, as “human beings”, otherwise the meaning of [the name of the individual] would be “ousia”, and the word would be changed and what is described would become a falsehood.^[283] This is the same with our description of the light as an analogy: [our analogy refers to] the name of the ousia of the light. If it were permissible to describe “light” and “lightnesses”, this would, on the contrary, mean the ousia, and this is impossible in itself, that one ousia be various different ousiae, as we have described.^[284]

23. هذا فى الخلق الذى الخطاء فيه يسير رده خفيف. فاما ان يختمل ذلك

فى ا لله جل وعز ا لذى غير ا لخطاء فى صفته زيادة' كانت ام نقصاناً يفضى عن ،كس دق الالعذا ففاللهلهالحمداس٠        ٠ا 52

النعيم ويقرب الى العذاب . فاسم الله له الحمد اسم جوهر بذوات القانيم الثلثة بلا زيادة' ولا نقصان. وهذه الاقانيم جوهر واحد لا جواهر.

فلن يجوز وصفنا باكثار اى الهة بل واحدا كقولنا فى الشمس انها ذات ثلثة اشخاص ذاتية وصفات جوهرية بغير تباين ولا افتراق من جوهرها الواحد المقول على صحة وجودها وانفرادها بوحدانيتها شمساً واحدة' ذات جوهر واحد مدروكة ثلثة خواص معروفة اعنى القرص الذى هو الموصوف .;لاذب..!كز.١.ب.. الت54همااك الح٠اةمذذكت٦لصا صدفاً بالصغتين الجوهريتين التى هما النور والحرارة' منذ لم تزل بهما موصوفا انه لم يزل والد النور مولدا متساويا بوجود ا لقرص قديماً بقدمه بلا زمان سابق لوجود احدهما قبل غيره .

كذلك والحرارة' منبثقة منه فى النور المولود منه ازليا بازليته قديماً بقدمه . ليس القرص النور ولا النور الحرارة' بامتياز الوجود الخاص لكل واحد من القرص وا لنور وا لحرارة' بل جوهر واحد وطبع واحد وقدرة' واحدة' ثلثة خواص مدروكة شمساً واحدة' معروفة .

24. فاذا كان ذلك ممكنا من ا لمخلوقات المصنوعات فهل ينكر ذلك فى الخالق الصانع جل ذكره كما وصف ذاته بوجوده حيا ناطقاً بحياة' ازلية ونطق جوهرى. نطقه مولود منه ازلئ منذ لم يزل وحياته منبثقة منه بلا زمان ثلثة خواص ذاتية اى اقانيم جوهرية اباً والدا لكلمته منذ لم يزل وابناً مولودا بلا

23. This is the case with creatures, in which the error in [the argument] can be easily refuted. However, applying this to God, exalted and powerful, Who is without error in His description, be it an increase or a decrease, leads [one] away from blessing and towards chastisement. For the name of God, glory be to Him! is the name of the ousia with the beings of three hypostaseis, without increase or decrease. These hypostasis are one oa, not- oislae.

It is not permissible for us to describe [the ousia] as a plurality, that is as “gods”, but rather [only] as one, as we say about the sun, for it is a being of three existent individuals and [three] substantial attributes, without difference or separation from their one ousia. [It is] that which is called “one sun” because of its genuine existence and uniqueness in its singularity, a being, one ousia, comprehending three known properties, that is, the sun disc which is described with two substantial attributes, which are the light and the heat, since [the sun] does not cease to be described with the two [attributes], in that it does not cease to generate the light, [which is] generated simultaneously with the existence of the sun disc from before time, without one of [the attributes] having existed prior to the other two.

This is the same with the heat: it proceeds from [the sun disc] in the light generated from it eternally and before time. The sun disc is not the light and the light is not the heat, on account of the differentiation of the specific existence belonging to each one (the sun disc, the light and the heat). Rather, [it is] one ousia, one nature, one power and three properties, comprehended and known as one sun.

24. Now if this is possible of things created and made, should this be denied of the Creator and Maker, Whose remembrance is exalted? In this way, His being is described by His existence as living and speaking, with life eternal and a substantial word.^[285] His word is begotten from Himself from eternity without ceasing, and His life proceeds from Him without time: three existent properties (that is, three substantial hypostaseis), a Father, Who begets His Word cease-

زمان وروحا منبثقا منه بغير درك الاها واحدا وربا واحدا وجوهرا واحدا .

فاما اخافة الابن والروح الى الاب فاضافة جوهرية لم تزل لان الاب علة ازلية للابن والروح . لانهما منه على اختلاف خواصهما لا هو منهما من غير تقديم ولا تاخير كاملين من كامل ازليين من ازلى لاتفاق كل واحد منهم مع الا- ٠ كا انحا        ا        اط كانا.-        ,ا        ازا الز 56

الاخر فى كل انحاء        جوهرها        وماهيتها كاضافة        هابيل وحوى        الى ادم الذين

هما منه كاملن من        كامل جوهر واحد ثلثة        اقانيم مفرحة'        كل واحد منهم

بخاصيته اللازمة له        منسوب        بها اعنى الابوة'        والبنوة' والانبمثاق مع التئامها

وتوحيدها جميعاً فى الجوهر . وكما ان ادم وحوى وهابيل كل واحد منهم اذا توهل بخصيصة ذاتية الانسان فهو انسان كامل حقا له حتا الانسان بكماله وهو حقاً حئ ناطق مائت وثلاثتها انسان واحد ايضا اى جوهر واحد .

25. كذلك القول فى الله سبحانه كل واحد من الا٠فاذيم الثلثة اذ هو توهل شعت ذا- اله كائ لا ط لا ٠ 57 ئ اضاً اله احدك بخصيصة ذاته اله كامل لا بعض ولا جزو وثلثتها ايضا اله واحد اى جوهر واحد من غير ان يلحقها تباين فى المكان لعموم ذاتها ولامتزاج جوهرها ولاختلاط طبعها. ليست كالاجسام ولا الاجساد المتباينة المتغرقة اذ هى ليست بجد ولاجم.

وهذا بعض تحقيق قولنا فى توحيد الله له الحمد وتثليثه بقدر ما يمكن من القياس المخلوق المبصر المحدود اعنى الضوء وادم وهابيل وحوى

lessly, and a Son, Who is begotten without time, and a Spirit, Who proceeds from Him, without interruption, One God, one Lord, one

م™

As for the relationship of the Son and the Spirit to the Father, it is a substantial, unceasing relationship, because the Father is the eternal cause of the Son and the Spirit, for they are from Him (in spite of the difference of their properties), He is not from them, without being earlier or later [in time], two perfects from a perfect, two eternals from an eternal, because of the identity of each one of them with the others in every way with their ousia and their quiddity. [This is] like the relationship of Abel and Eve to Adam,^[286] who were from him: two perfects from a perfect, one ousia, three hypostaseis, each one of them differentiated by its particular inherent properties and related through them, that is, fatherhood, sonship and proceeding, completely together in their harmony and their unity in the ousia. And just as it is the case that Adam and Even and Abel, when each one of them is regarded [from the perspective] of the existent characteristic of “human being”, [each] is in truth a perfect human being, [fulfilling] the definition of “human being” completely. [Each] is truly living, speaking, mortal, and the three of them are also [only] one human being, that is one ousia.

25. This is the same as the teaching about God, may He be praised!: each one of the three hypostaseis, when it is regarded [from the perspective] of the characteristic of His being is perfectly God, not a part or a component [of God], and the three of them are also one God, that is, one ousia (without their being affected with separation in place^[287]), because of [the] generality of their being, the mixing of their ousia, and [the] commonality of their nature. [However,] they are not like corporeal things nor like bodies, which are separated and divided, since they do not have a body or flesh.

This is part of the substantiation of our teaching about the unity and trinity of God, glory be to Him! in as much as an analogy is possible from what is created, visible, and limited, that is, [an analogy

وا لشمس لمن يكؤن قياسا وعلى قدر احتمال العقل المخلوق العاجز عن الوقوع على صفة خاصته فضلأ عن بعده من الوقوع على بعض صفات الله لهالحمد.

26. وقد يجب علينا ان نتع القول فى القياس فى توحيد الله سبحانه له الحمد وتثليثه بنبوات وشهادات وايات من كتب الله المنزلة القديمة والحديثة تصديقاً لقولنا وتعريفاً لمن يخالغنا معشر النصارى. اثا لم نبدع ولم نلفظ بما لم ينزل به كتاب وحملته الانبياء والابرار ا لقديمة والرسل المبشرون بالحديثة حكاية منهم عن الله الذى اوحى اليهم اسراره وحملهم داذذهذلكهحهكا احد منعدلاها ٠١58ماذهط'فداحتمالى باذنه ذلك وشرحه كل واحد منهم لاهل عصره وزمانه على قدر احتمالهم قبودالاسرار.

27. قال نجئ الله فى كتابه التورية ان الله له الحمد قال عند خلقة لادم ساذساكتذالذافه59 6كحد اذ صف دان الله لا لنخلق انسانا كصورتنا وشبهنا. فبدى بالتوحيد اذ وصف بان الله قل وختم بالتثليث بقوله كصورتنا مثالنا ٠ ومن 'فوله ان ادم 'فد صار كخدنا شبيهاً بالقول الاول على تثليثه وتوحيده. وقوله ايضاً ان الله قال عند اجتماع الناس كلهم فى بابل والتماسهم بناء الح لتفايق الارض عليهم تعالوا ننزل

with] light, and Adam, Abel and Eve, and the sun, for One Who brings analogy into being, and in proportion to what the created and weak [human] intellect can bear in order to arrive at a proper attribute [of God], aside from the fact that [the intellect] is far from reaching [even] a part of God’s attributes, glory be to Him!

26. Now it is necessary for us to pursue the teaching of the analogy for the unity of God, may He be praised! glory be to Him! and His trinity in the prophecies and witnesses and signs of the old and new Books of God that have been sent down, as a verification of our teaching and instruction for the one who disputes us, the Christian community. Truly, we do not innovate,^[288] nor express anything which was not sent down in a Book and which the prophets and the ancient pious ones and the Apostles, the messengers of the new [Covenant] passed on themselves concerning God, Who revealed to them His mysteries and charged them with [passing them on], by His permission,^[289] and each one of them explained^[290] [the teaching] to the people of his age and time, in as much as they were able to accept the mysteries.

27. The intimate friend^[291] of God said in his book, the Torah, that God, glory be to Him! said at the creation of Adam: “Let Us create a human being in Our image and Our likeness.”^[292] [Moses] began with the unity, when he explained that “God said”, and concluded with the trinity in his statement: “in Our image and Our likeness.” And [in another place] is his statement that: “Adam has become like one of Us”,^[293] similar to the first statement concerning [God’s] trinity and His unity. Also, [in the Torah] is his statement that God said when all of the people had gathered in Babel and sought to build the tower, because the land was [too] restrictive for them, “Truly,

ونغرق هناك الالسن. دل بذلك على كلتى صفتيه تثليثه وتوحيده .

قلهاضاًغذدمات٠ااه6اللهلعدهاا        صديا خمتهت٠ا٩ الاه

ومن قوله ايضا عندما ترايا الله لعبده ابراهيم عند باب خيمته ترايا الله له ممثلا؛ لاثة فبا        ا. ا        '        ٠        ض لجداً أ        لالأ ط        ان62

له ممثل* رجالا ثلثة فبادر        ابراهيم        نحوهم        وخر ساجدا لهم        قائلا يا        رب ان

كت لادك ما فالا        تعدن        اك٠        ل        ذك لآت63        ظا        اضا

كنت لديك مرحوما فلا        تعدل        عن        النزول        بعبدك لآت        بقليل        من        الماء

واغل ارجلكم. المخبر منه لابراهيم بانه حقاً واحد وثلثة. وغير ذلك من قول موسى ما لو تكلفنا كتابته لخرج بنا اتساع الكلام وكثرته عن الجواب.

28. ثم ان داوود النبى حقق 'فوله بان الكلمة ذات 'فائمة الاه حق من الاه حق لا كلام منتقض اذ يقول فى 'فوله لربه بانك ربنا ابدأ 'فائمة كلمتك موجوحة' فى السماء ٠ وقوله ايضاً لكلمة الله اسبح . فالكلمة اذا الاه حق مستوجب التسبيح من داوود وغيره من الخلائق ٠

فضناً عن قول المسيح سبحانه لتلاميذث ورسله عند ارساله اياهم لدعوة' الحق المبطلة ذكر الالهة الكثيرة وعيادتها مبشرين داعين الى الله الواحد اذ يقول لهم الحميد اذهبوا وبشروا الناس كافة وطهروهم باسم الاب والابن والروح القدس وانا معكم الى انصرام الدنيا.

فذلك صفة لم تزل ولا تزال كتمت عن الاولين لعجزهم عن الوقوع على

let Us decend and divide the languages there.”7’ With this He indicated both of His attributes, His trinity and His unity.

Also is [Moses’] statement: When God appeared to His servant Abraham at the door of his tent, God appeared to him in the form of three men,^[294] [295] and Abraham hastened toward them and prostrated himself, before them, saying: “O Lord, if I have [found] mercy before you, do not turn from staying [a while] with your servant. I shall bring a little water, and I shall wash your feet.”^[296] From [this] it was made known to Abraham that He is truly one and three. And there are statements of Moses other than these, but if we were to take up [the task of] writing them down, the extent of the sayings and their great [number] would draw us away from the answer [we wish to give].

28. Then, David, the Prophet, verified [Moses’] statement, that the Word [of God] is a [self]existent being, true God from true God, not an inconsistent^[297] Word, when he said in speaking to his Lord: “You are our eternal Lord, Your existent Word is present in heaven.”^[298] And also his statement: “To the Word of God I give praise.”^[299] The Word is, then, true God, deserving the praise of David and other creatures.

In addition is what the Messiah, may He be praised! said to His disciples and His Apostles when He sent them to proclaim the truth, [and] abolish the invocation of many gods and worship of them, to announce and proclaim the One God, when He, the Praiseworthy, said to them: “Go and announce [the Good News] to all people, and purify^[300] them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and I am with you until the end of the world.”^[301]

This description [of God as three and one], (as well as other things which God, glory be to Him! made known), which has never ceased and does not cease [to be true], was hidden from the fore-

معناها وغير ذلك مما الله له الحمد اعلم به وظهرت للاخرين ليكاملهم فى العلم وا لمعرفة ولما لطف وذق فى ا لمعئى الموجود فيهم من القول الاسان ده العادء٠االتلاطتفم        ساه        ٠٠٠٠

والايمان به واليها دعوا التلاميذ تفريقا منهم من تابعهم وبين غيرهم ممن وصف الله لعزيز صفته وبها حققوا دعوتهم الصحيحة اقتداراً منهم على الايات ا لغير محصى عددها والجرائح كلهم كما وصفنا .

فهذا فى اول مسائلهم كاف لكيلا يطول القول فيه فيمل لكثرته .

29. فاما قولهم ما الذى دعا الله سبحانه الى التجد والتأنس افما كان يمكنه خلاص البشر من غير ذلك ٠

فاعلم يا اخى ان الذى دعا الله تبارك اسمه الى التجد والتاًنس بقدر ما يختص عقلها الضعيف والذى قلناه عن كتب الله وحملتها بصلاحه وجوده تفضله ط ، اطه ءا_.ل_بيا6دكهاا دعن وتفضله على خلقه وامتنانه عليهم بحسب حاجتهم الى ذلك منه وعظيم رحمته لهم لارتطامهم كانوا فى الهلكة والميتة ونشره لهم وتجديده خلقهم المتملكءليهم كل البلاء لاشتمال انواع الحظية عليهم عامة ٠

لام ٠٠ ل        ارخ ا٠اًالذ خلاط66 فان ع ط6

فاحق من تولى تجديدهم اولا واخيرا الذى خلقهم بديا ٠ فان يكن تطاطيه

اليهم لخلاصهم وا نقاذهم اخيراً عبثا لم يكن الذى دعاه الى خلقهم بدياً مدحا . بل هو ممدوح جل ثناؤه بدياً ووسطاً واخيراً . عقل ذلك من عقل و-جهلمنجهل.

fathers because they were incapable of perceiving its meaning, was revealed to later [people] so that they would be more perfect in knowledge and understanding, and because the meaning available to them concerning the teaching and faith in [God] became [more] subtle and refined. The disciples preached [this description of God] in their dispersion [over the earth] to the ones who followed them and among others who described God with His honorable description, and by it proved [the disciples’] proclamation to be the true one, having [also] the power [to perform] countless other signs and every wonder, as we have described.

Now this may be enough for the first of their questions, so that remarks do not become too drawn out and become boring because of its extent.

29. As for their statement: “What was it that caused God, may He be praised! to become incarnate and become human?^[302] Was the salvation of humankind not possible for Him in [a way] other than this?”

Know, o my brother, that that which caused God, blessed is His name! to become incarnate and become human (as much as our weak understanding is capable [of grasping] and [based on] what we are able to draw from the Books of God and what they pass on [to us]), is [found] in His righteousness, His goodness, and His grace and favor [He shows] to His creation in accordance with its need of these from Him, and His great mercy on them, because they had fallen into destruction and death, and [He wanted to] resurrect them and create them anew, for every affliction had mastery over them, and every kind of sin had overcome them.

The most suitable [one] who could undertake their renewal was alone the One who had created them in the beginning. If His inclination towards them for their salvation and their deliverance was finally in vain, then that which caused Him to create them in the beginning would not be a glorification [for Him]. But He is glorified and exalted, He is extolled in the beginning and the middle and the end. [And thus His victory is apparent.] The one who understands this is wise, and he does not know [it] who is ignorant.

30. As for their statement “Was the salvation of humankind not

وسوء فهمه وا نكاره فعل الله سبحانه صغيرا وكبيرا وقدرته عليه وارادته لسابق علمه فى تقدير الامور وتكوينها. لم يمكنه خلافه يعينه وانما يفعل له ا لحمد ما يعلم ا نه ينتفع ا لخلق يه من ا لجهة ا لتى يمكن ا لبشر قبولها. لان كل ما اراده كان عليه 'فادراً لانه لا يستصعب عليه امر يريده ولا يمخ ان يكون شى يقويه.

فما عسى ان يجيبوا لو سألهم سائل عن سياسة الله له الحمد للبشر وارساله اليهم رسله افعل ذلك لانه كان يمكنه عند ارسالهم اليهم غير ذلك فلمم فعل ذلك الرحيم ليكونوا حجة بالغة عليهم كافة وليأمرهم يما احب واراله ويحذرهم ما بغض وكره ليجيبوا طائعين غير مكرهين فيتوجبوا حن ثوابه على ايثارهم طاعته على اهوائهم وتقريبهم منه بحن نية الى كريم ثوابه وابعادهم منه الى شديد عقابه لاتباعهم شهواتهم واختيارهم عاجل لذاتهم على اجل نعيمهم منغير فهم منهم ■

31. فان 'فالوا لا ياوى ارسال الرسل منه ومباشرته التى وصفتم من تجده ئ- نلنا ن اذا ساح• الى الدة لآه اموه ان ا ساله وتاًنه قلنا اجل اذا هو يساوى فى ا لجوهر والقوة' فلا امترى ان ارساله ..ما,حا-ا دة اًن نلكما٠ ئ۵ ه7خالغاله قوما فى حاجته ايسر عليه فعلا من ان يروم ذلك ويباشره . فان خالفنا له الحمد فى الجوهر والقوة' وغير ذلك من صفاته لم يكن اذنه وامره وارساله

possible for Him in [a way] other than this?”, the questioner is astonishing, [that] his comprehension is [so] disgraceful and that he would deny that God, may He be praised! does [things] small and great, and [deny] His power over them, and His comprehension [of all things] because of His foreknowledge in ordaining things and bringing them into being. It is not possible for Him to contradict Himself and He, glory be to Him! only does what He knows is useful to creation in the manner which it is possible for humankind to accept. For everything that He wills, He has the power [to do],^[303] for nothing He wills is difficult for Him, and nothing hinders Him from being able to do something.

Would it not be necessary if someone asked^[304] about God’s governance [over human beings], glory be to Him! and His sending of messengers to them: “Did He [really] do this, because it was possible when He sent [the messengers] to them [to do] something else? Why did the Merciful One do this?”, [to answer him]: So that [the messengers] would be profound evidence for all [human beings] and so that He could instruct them in what He loves and wills, and warn them against what He hates and abhors. And [also] because it is necessary that they obey [Him] without compulsion, becoming worthy of His good reward for their preference of obedience to Him against their [own] desires and with good intentions drawing near to Him [to receive] His generous reward, and so keep themselves distant from His severe punishment for pursuing their [own] cravings and preferring them for themselves in this world over their happiness in the next, which cannot be grasped.

31. Now if they say: “His sending out of the messengers and effecting His becoming flesh and becoming human, which you have described, are not the same,” we say: Certainly, if He were the same in ousia and in power, then without doubt His sending people out according to His desire would be easier for Him to do than to wish for [the Incarnation] and effect it. If, [however,] He, glory be to Him! is different from us in ousia and power and His other attributes, then His permitting^[305] and His commanding and His sending of out of the

ا لرسل بايسر فعلأ عليه من تجده وتأنه ومباشرته نفه لخلاص عباده من لآ        الفاه        اكطان        الخطئة الح لة كاث عكم        كلا٠

ضلالة        الغاشم        الشيطان اعنى الخطيئة المستولية كانت عليهم        لتلافهم

واستهزائهم اياها -

ها الز        كان دد حاثنا        ت٠ ك72 ذلك الا ان رن رحماً        ا حذ

وما الذى        كان يدعوه جل ثناؤه        ترك ذلك الا ان يكون لهم رحيما        او حذر

على نفه تغييرا او تبديناً او هزماً من الالام والاوجاع . بل ذلك منتها الجود والرحمة وغاية الصلاح والموافقة والقدرة' والقوة'.

32. فان قالوا قد اقررتم بانه لا متغير ولا مبتدل. فهل من سبيل الى ان يصير احد على حالة غير حالة الاولى بلا تبديل ولا تغيير وغير ذلك مما ذكرتم اذا كان القابل مركباً فيه قبول التغيير والتبديل على ما احاط به عجز عقلنا. ولسنا ايضاً نعقل فاعناً خالقاً بالاذن والقول من غير الة واداة' وكلمة واحتراز بالجهد عن الخطاء والغلط. فما قولكم اكذلك بخلق الله وما ٠ ا73 اذححدئقهدعح٠ عقلنا ء، الاحاطة دما صفنا ا شله اشد اى تروا . انجحدخلقه بعجز عقلنا عن الاحاطة بما وصفنا اونقبله اشد القبول اذ كان ذلك منسوباً الى الله له الحمد فنقبل ا لقول فى تجده وتأنه من غير تغيير ولا تبديل وان فات العقل ادراكه.

33. واما بعد فيجب علينا ايضاح قولنا فى تجده وتأنه من غير تغيير ولا تبديل وقبوله الالام والموت وهو حى لا بموت ولا يألم كما يظن بنا ادا وصفنا قولأ مناقضاً بعضه بعضاً من قولنا التجد والتأنس من غير تغيير ولا

messengers is not easier for Him to do than His becoming flesh and becoming human, and His effecting it Himself for the salvation of His servants from the error of the oppressor, Satan, that is, [from] sin, which was master over them, because they were ruined [by it] and they scoffed at it.

What would cause Him, exalted be His praise! to neglect this? Is He not^[306] merciful towards them, or is He wary of changing or altering Himself or being overcome by suffering and pain? Rather, this is the gift of goodness and mercy, and the greatest righteousness and reconciliation, might and power.

32. Now, if they say: “Do you confess that He is unchangeable and unalterable? How is it possible that something arrive at a state [different] from [its] first state, without alteration or change or anything else that you have mentioned, to accept change and alteration, unless it is a composite,^[307] according to what our weak minds can understand?”, [we say]: we, too, do not understand [God’s] making and creating by permission and speech without a tool or implement or talking, or taking great care against mistakes and error.^[308] What do you say? Is it like this with God’s creation, and what do you think?^[309] Should we deny His creation because of the incapacity of our understanding to grasp it, as we have described, or should we accept it eagerly in [our] hearts since it belongs to God, glory be to Him? For we accept the teaching about His Incarnation and becoming human without change or alteration, even though [our] understanding fails to comprehend it.

33. Now then, it is necessary for us to explain our teaching about His Incarnation and becoming human without change or alteration, and His acceptance of suffering and death, [although] He is living, does not die, and does not suffer pain. It is thought that we describe a doctrine that is inconsistent with itself, since we teach the incarna-

تبديل مائت آلم لا يموت ولا يألم.

فنقول ان المسجح سبحانه كلمة الله لم تزل ثابتة ولا تزال تجد جدا ذا نفس منطيقية مبتدعاً مخلو'فاً مائتاً آلما من الطاهرة' مريم البتول واتحد يه اتحادا 'فنوماً طبيعياً جوهرياً كاتحاد ا لنفس الروحانية يجم الانسان ا لمركب من المزاجات الاربعة من غير تغيير لاحد هذين المتحدين الكلمة اعنى والجد. وسقطت لذلك اعداد الجوهرين الى تحصيل وجود جوهر اوحد فيه لالتئامه واتحاده من شيئين مختلفين الكلمة اقول والجد ذو النفس المتطيقية المخالفة صفة الكلمة فى الواحد المتوحد منها صفة الجسد النى يجد من سربال الاجساد الادمية المركبة.

فهو الاه حق وانسان حق ٠ هو يعينه لا اثنين ويحتمل الصفتين من انه حى لا يموت ولا يألم ولا يبصر ولا يحس بلاهوته وهو ايضا بعينه مائت الم محسوس محدود بتجده وتأنه واحد من اثنين لا اثنين كما وصفنا. ولو ان صغنا اداحاً متاً ألآدال ىص75ءدسص ٠حعةاحدة ان وصفنا اياه حيا وميتا وآلم وغير الم ومبصر وغير مبصر من جهة واحدة' لاستحال القول وتناقض نقضاً بيناً . واما اذ وصفنا ذلك انه صائر فى حل وحال وجهة وجهة ولم يتحيل ولم يتناقض من غير ان يكون الموصوف بالحالين والجهتين معاً جميعاً اثنين البتة .

34. فان جاز ان يضرب قياس فى بعض الانحاء لما لا قياس له ولا مثل قلت ذلك. ان ذلك كالانسان المركب من جوهرين اثنين من النفس الحية

tion and becoming human without change or alteration of one who dies and suffers, [but] who does not die nor suffer.

We teach that the Messiah, may He be praised! is the Word of God, which has not ceased to endure, and will never cease, incarnated in a body possessing a rational soul, newly fashioned, created, mortal, and able to experience suffering, from the pure virgin Mary. He is united with [the body] in a natural and substantial^[310] union, just as the spiritual soul is united with the human body (which is constructed from the four temperaments), without change to either of the two that are united, that is the Word and the body. And because of this, the numbering of the two ousiae comes to result in one existent ousia in Him, on account of His combining and uniting two different things, namely the Word and the body possessing a rational soul. The description of the isolated Word alone is different from the description of the body which is incarnated in a garment of the [kind of] bodies that are human^[311] and composite.

He is true God and true human. He is Himself alone, not two, and sustains both [types of] predicates, that is, living, not dying, and not suffering, invisible, not perceptible [by the senses] in His divinity, and He is also Himself dying, suffering, perceptible [by the senses], limited in His Incarnation and His becoming human, one from two, not two, as we have described. If we would describe Him as living and dying, suffering and not suffering, visible and not visible from a single aspect, this would be an absurd teaching and obviously inconsistent. However, since we describe this [by saying] that He is at the same time in [one] state and in [another] state, from [one] aspect and from [another] aspect, it is not absurd and inconsistent, without what is described by the two states and two aspects^[312] both together being two [separate things] absolutely.^[313]

34. Now, in as much as it is permissible to offer an analogy for what has no analogy and no likeness, let me say this. This [teaching describes what] is like the human being composed of two ousiae: from

المنطيقية الروحانية المحفوظة بالبقاء والجد الحاسى المبصر المتألم المائت واحد لا اثنين بلا تبديل للنفس عن حالها ولا الجد عن حاله محتملان لكك الصفد. دعت ٠ انه ٦ ق مصد        ماءت

محتملا لكلتى الصفتين بعينه من انه مرى وغير مبصر وحى ومائت محسوس معقول وغير محسوس ولا معقول الم وغير الم ا لجد اعنى والنفس الروحانية المتحدة' به لا حتماله جهتين لا جهة واحد' كما وصفنا.

35. وقد يجب علينا اثبات ما ادعينا من التجد والتاًنس وظهورالله بذلك مناجيا للبشر لخلاصهم وانقاذهم من الضلالة من كتب الله وحملتها كما كان تصديق الانبياء ودفعنا ذلك اليهم قبل هذا الموضع.

قال نبى الله داوود فى كتابه المسمى المزامير تضرعاً منه الى الله سبحانه واستعانة واخبارا عما يكون قبل كونه كحد النبوة' الصادقة . ربنا طأطئ السموات وا نزل وازجر الجبال كالدخان.

ومن قوله ان الله يأش جهاراً ولا يسكت ٠ ومن قوله ويرى الاه الالهة فى

صهيون ٠

ومن قوله ارسل كلمته فابرأهم وخلصهم من الفساد.

36. ثم ان ميخا النبى افتتح كتابه بان قال اسمعى ايتها السموات وانصتوا اهل الارض وليكن الرب عليكن شهيدا ان الله خادج من موضعه نازل و!لطئءلئ يقيئاً.

the living, rational, spiritual soul preserved [for eternity] through immortality, and from the sensible, visible body that suffers and dies. [The human being] is one, not two, without the soul altering its state or the body its state, and carrying himself both descriptions, in that he is visible and not visible, living and dying, perceptible and sensible, and not perceptible and not sensible, suffering and not suffering. That means that the body and the spiritual soul united with it permit two [opposing] aspects [to be attributed to it], not [just] a single aspect, as we have described.

35. Now it is necessary for us to explain what we have preached concerning the Incarnation and becoming human, and the revelation of God in this as the intimate friend of humans for their salvation and deliverance from error [found] in the Books of God and what they passed on, just as the prophets have attested. We have presented this to [our opponents] previous to this point.

The Prophet of God, David, said in his book called “the Psalms”, imploring God, may He be praised! and asking for help, reported what happened before [his very eyes] in accordance with [other] authentic prophets: “Our Lord inclined the heavens and descended and drove back the mountains, like smoke.”^[314]

And from [David’s] sayings: “God comes openly and is not silent.”^[315]

And from his sayings: “The God of the gods is seen in Zion.”^[316]

And from his sayings: “He sent His Word, and exonerated them and saved them from corruption.”^[317]

36. Then, the Prophet Micah began his book, saying: “Hear, o heavens, and hearken, people of the earth, for the Lord will be a witness against you. Surely, God goes out from His place, descends and treads upon me.”^[318]

ثم ان ارميا النبى قال فى بعض رسائل باروغ كالمشير الى ربه بان هذا الاهنا لا يشترك معه اخر الذى احتوى على العالم كله وكل سبل اللام خص به عبده يعقوب وحبيبه اسرائيل بدياً . ثم اظهر بعد ذلك على الارض ماشياً ومع الناس مصطحبا ومناجياً . وهذا من اجل خطية يعقوب ومن اجل ذنوب اسرائيل-

واشعيا المحمود بنبوته لا يجاز قوله وافصاح كلامه قال ان العذرى ستحبل وتلد ابئاً ويدعى اسمه عمانوئيل تغسيره الاهنا معنا .

ومن قوله ولد ولد لنا وابن اعطيناه الذى رئاسته على عاتقه الله جبار العالمين سلطان اللام ويدعى ملك المشورة' العظمى اب الدهور الاتية .

37. وموسى نجى الله قال حكاية عن يعقوب اسرائيل عند وصيته اولاده وانبائه اياهم عن الامور الاتية يملا محالة عند اقتراب الساعة لصدق النبوة عليها لا يزول الملك من يهودا ولا رئيس من فخنه حتى ياتى الذى له الملك واياءتترجا الحم وتنظر. فمن لهالملكغيراللهلهالحمد.

٠ ذلك ■٦١٠ الاصا اك ل شعنا ذىىس٦الصحف وغير ذلك من قول عامة الانبياء التى لو تتبعنا ذكرها لطالت الصحف وكثرت ليعلموا اثا قلنا ذلك عن كتب الله المنزلة او حملتها وليس ذلك منا تخرصاً ولا بدعة.

38. واما قولهم فى تعظيمهم الصليب وقد نهينا عن عبادة' الاوثان

Then, the ProphetJeremiah said in a part of a letter to Baruch, as an indication of his Lord, that: “This is our God, [Who] has no other partner beside Him, Who holds the whole world, and all the ways of peace. He bestows it upon His servant Jacob, and His beloved Israel from the beginning. Then He appeared after this walking upon the earth and was a companion and friend of human beings.”^[319] And this was because of the sin of Jacob and because of the offenses of Israel.

And the Prophet Isaiah, who is praised because of his prophecy, [for] his word and eloquent speech cannot be surpassed, said: “The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be proclaimed 'Immanuel^[320] (the explanation of it is ‘our God is with us’).”

And [another] of his sayings is: “A child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose leadership is upon his shoulder, God the Almighty of the worlds, the Ruler of peace, and he shall be proclaimed King of the great council, Father of the ages to come.”^[321]

37. Moses, the intimate friend of God, told this story about Jacob Israel, when he instructed his sons and established the things certain to come with the approaching hour [of his death] in order to verify the prophecy concerning them: “The king will not withdraw from Judah, nor the chief from his tribe until the One to whom the kingship belongs comes and for whom the peoples hope and expect.”^[322] To whom does the kingship belong, other than God, glory be to Him?

There are other statements besides these in all of the prophets which, if we were to give a citation of them, would make the pages longer and many. [Our opponents] should know that our teaching of [the Incarnation] is from the Books sent down by God or those who transmitted them, and this is not a fabrication by us or an innovation.

38. As for their statement concerning our exaltation of the Cross, while we forbid the worship of idols, our exaltation of it, o my

فتعظيمنا اياه يا اخر خاصة على خساسته دليل واضح لقذفنا عبادة' الاوثان وجحدنا سجدة' الاصنام . لانا لو قيلنا عبادتها لما عدلنا عن اكرمها صورة' وارفعها جوهرا ولماحدنا عن المصنوعة بالذهب والفضة والزمرد والياقوت . فاما اذ لم يصمد غير هذا الشكل ا لحقير. فلو كنا اتخذناه من ارفع الاشياء ولحسنها لم يظن بنا احد له عقل بانا ا لتمسنا عبادة' الاصنام فى وجه من الوجوه بل صمدنا صمد الشكل بعينه كما وصفت فصار لنا قبلة وما هو خاصة دون الاشياء كلها.

فظهر الله له الحمد بتجده عليه سبحانه وانقاذه ايانا من عبادة' غير الله فهو طمه اسد ن الا٠ الزح ادا ء        القاصد لعاده دظا ده ا 81

علمه الوكيد فى الارض الذى اياه يؤمن القاصد لعباده بظاهر به ويرجوا عودته الى الارض اخيرا بالمجد وا لكرامة كوعده الحقيق اذ يقول فى بشرا نه ان هنالك يعاينون علمى المتقدم امامى عند عودتى اخيراً مع اجنادى وملائكتى. يا لهذا الرعب الموجل للعدو المبين واجناحه المرحة' لانكشافهم

ا..,.ا.„.لا.ا١        .دهحذأفقاً82        مكس ددى شدة دص

وانهزامهم ولا يزال وجنوحه حذرا فرقا . . . مكايده به وعزه وشدة' باسه فهو . . . ا لمتولية وجوهنا منظره لعبادة' الله ا لظاهرة' . . . من عبادة' الشيطان وضلالة اوثانه .

فهل يمكن المتولى وجهه لعبادة' ربه المتوجه الى قبلة غير قبلته . فالصليب

brother, [even though] it is especially contemptible, is a clear indication of our rejection of the worship of idols, and our repudiation of the veneration of graven images [of them].^[323] Because if we were to accept worship of [idols], we would not refrain from the image most precious and of the finest material,^[324] [325] nor limit ourselves from what is crafted from gold and silver, emerald and sapphire. But when [we] do not turn to anything other than this despised form, [it must be asked]: if we were to make it from the finest and most beautiful things, would not someone who is intelligent think of us that we are seeking to worship graven images in some way or other? Rather, we turn ourselves to this form itself, just as I have said, it has become for us a qiblah,! and something particular apart from all other things.

God, glory be to Him! has been revealed in His Incarnation, praise be upon Him! and has delivered us from worship of [everything that is] other than God, [the Cross] is His sure sign upon the earth, which one who intends to worship Him manifestly^[326] believes in, and hopes for His return to the earth in the end [times] with honor and esteem, as He truly promised when He said through His evangelists that: “There they shall see My sign preceding before Me when I return in the end [times] together with My armies and My angels.”^[327] O what a terrifying fear this is for the clear enemy^[328] and his rebellious soldiers because it exposes them and puts them into flight! And he and his soldiers will never cease to beware and be fearful.^[329]

. . . For how is it possible that the one who turns his face toward worship of his Lord be oriented to a qiblah other than His qiblah? Now the cross is for us a qiblah and a glorious [thing], deserving of

لدينا قبلة ومجد مستحق التعظيم والاكرام والاخلاص الذى اتخنه قبلة خلص دون غيره من الاشياء ٠ فنحن معشر النصارى عابدون ربنا والاهنا لا عابدون الاهاً اخر من المخلوقين.

39. فاما استقبالنا المشرق فى اوفات صلواتنا دون غير من الجهات الثلاث فلامرين. اما الواحد فان البلدة' المسكونة بدياً من ابينا ادم قبل وقعته فيما يوجد من الاباء كالمتفق عليها كانت المشرق والبلدة' المهبوط اليها بعد ا لسقطة والصرعة بالمعصية فبلدة' غربة وجلاء ودار ضائعة وحبس. فالقلب يحن الى الوطن الاول ملتمسا العودة' اليه ملتهفاً اليه اسفاً ناصباً خياله ممثلأ فى قلبه شاخصا بفكره اليه راجيا منالأ لزيارته.

فان دنا السم سحانه تعد ان ساه تلاد ش٠صمدهدالمطة فان ربنا المسجح سبحانه تقدم الى رسله وتلامينه عن صمدهم المسئلة عن وقت عودته اخيرا فقال لهم ينادى لا يداخلكم فى ذلك شك. فلن ينل علم ذلك بتوقع اقول لكم كما ان البرق يبرق فى المشرق ويرى فى المغرب كذلك ظهورى عند اقتراب الساعة ٠ فنحن معشر النصارى متوقعون مجيئه

من المشرق كوعده الحقيق متولين وجوهنا فى اوقات صلواتنا نحوه.

40. فاما قولهم ان جميع الانبياء وجمع الاباء السالغة لم يتخذوا المشرق قبلة فاعلم يا اخى ان الله له الحمد اتخن بيت المقدس قبلة خاصة دون الارض لكها امرهم ان يتولوا وجوههم اليها انما كانوا نحوه وذلك لظهور الله له الحمد بتجده وتأنه فيها واحتماله الصلب المنقذ بتأنه من

exaltation and honor and devotion, and who takes up [this] qiblah, apart from [all] other things, is saved. We, the Christian community, worship our Lord and our God, and do not worship another god from among creatures.^[330]

39. When we turn to the east at the times of our prayers, and not toward any of the other three directions, it is because of two [reasons]. The first is that the land where our father Adam dwelt before his Fall, according to the agreement of what is found in the Fathers, was the east, and the land of the Fall to which [he went] after [his] downfall and ruin through disobedience was a land of exile and [a land] of banishment, a wretched house and a prison. The heart yearns for the first home, longing for the return to it, lamenting for it in sadness. In his heart, [one] raises up his ideal vision, fixes on it with his mind, hoping for the success of his journey.

[The second is] that our Lord the Messiah, may He be praised! granted His apostles and disciples when they asked the question concerning the time of His return at the end [times], saying to them and proclaiming: “Do not let doubt overcome you in this. But no knowledge of this with [explicit] expectations [will be given to you]. I say to you, just as the lightning flashes in the east and is seen in the west, like this will be My appearance when the hour draws near.”^[331] So we, the Christian community, expect His coming from the east, as He truly promised, and we turn our faces at the times of our prayers toward it.

40. As for their statement that: “All of the prophets and all of the forefathers did not take the east as the qiblah,” know, o my brother, that God, glory be to Him, took Jerusalem as a particular qiblah from [all of the places of] the whole world. He commanded them to turn their faces toward it wherever [they are], and this is because God, glory be to Him, appeared in His Incarnation and becoming human in it, and He bore the cross of salvation in His humanity

اهلها واثباته بصديق القيامة الاتية لا محالة لما اقام جده الطاهر بعد وقوعه وقبوله الموت قيام الابد بها. فهذا سر استقبال الانبياء وسائر الاشراف بيت المقدس بدياً واستقبالنا المشرق اخيراً ٠

41. واما اتخاذنا القربان سنة جارية ووصفنا اياه جد المسبح ودمه فذلك كذلك لقول ربنا الاهنا له ا لمجد المسبح جل ذكره فى كتابه الانجيل لتلاميذه المصدقين به يقول لهم اذ ناولهم خبزا فقال كلوا فهو جدى المبذول دون العامة ودونكم لخفران الخطايا . ثم ناولهم الكأس فقل اشربول كلكم جميعاً فهو دمى المبذول المهراق دون العامة ودونكم يسفك. كذلك فافعلوا ميثاقاً منى جديدا عليكم وعهدا حديثاً الى عودتى. فنحن معشر النصارى فاعلون ذلك لامره ايانا لتحيص ذنوبنا وتجديد ذكر موته دوننا وذكر القيامة الى عودته.

42. فاما قولهم بادا تركنا الختانة والذبائح وقد لزمها المسبح المعبود وجمع الانبياء والابرار ا لمتقدمة فاعلم يا اخى ان الله له ا لحمد لا يأمر عباده بأمر الا لعلة وسبب معروفاً كان ذلك عند عامتهم ام مجهولأ وهو ا لكامل الغنى بذاته الذى لا تناله لنغ' شئء مما اهل به او قرب به اليه ولا يأسف على ما فاته منها. والبرهان فى ذلك قوله له الحمد على لسان نبيه داوود فصناً عن غيره من الانبياء لست اكل لحم الثيران ولا اشرب دم التيوس لان لىالارضبكمالها.

بل امر بنحرها ا لرحيم لما ورد بنو اسرائيل ارض مصر وطال بهم المكث

before its people and He affirmed faith in the certainty of the future resurrection when He resurrected His holy body, after it had fallen and had accepted death, forever. This is the mysterion for why the prophets and all of the honorable [fathers] turned towards Jerusalem from the beginning, and [the reason] we finally turn towards the east [in prayer].

41. As for our receiving the Eucharist as a customary practice and [why] we describe it as the body of the Messiah and His blood, this because our Lord and our God, glory be to Him! the Messiah, whose remembrance is exalted! said in His book, the Gospel, to His disciples who believed in Him, speaking when He gave bread to them and saying: “‘Eat, for it is My body freely given for all and for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ Then He gave them the cup, saying: ‘Drink, all of you, for it is My blood freely poured out and shed for all and for you. Do it like this as a new Covenant from me with you and a new pledge, until My return.”^[332] Now we, the Christian community, do this because He commanded us for the purification of our sins, and a renewal of the remembrance of His death for us and the remembrance of the Resurrection until His return.

42. As for their statement that we have renounced circumcision and sacrifices, although the Messiah, Who is worshipped and all of the prophets and righteous people of old adhered to them, know, o my brother, that God, glory be to Him! charged His servants with a command only for a [particular] reason, and the cause of this may be known to all of them or unknown. And He is the Perfect [One], sufficient in Himself, Who does not have a desire of something but that it comes to Him, or He causes it draw near to Himself, and He does not regret what slips away from Him. The proof of this is His statement, glory be to Him! through the mouth of His prophet David (not to speak of the other prophets): “I do not eat the flesh of bulls nor drink the blood of goats, because the whole earth is Mine.”^[333]

Rather, the Merciful One commanded that they be slaughtered when the Israelites came to the land of Egypt,^[334] and their stay there

هنالك والفوا سنن اهل مصر وشرائهم فىاًلعبادة الماكل ولزموا ذبائحهم حتى صار ذلك فيهم سنة جارية كسائر اهل مصر. وكان الخنزير طعاماً لهم والثور والشاة' معبوداً منهم فاعتادوا ذلك وضروا عليه ورسخت محبته فى قلوبهم حتى لم يؤثروا معه غيره من العبادة' والغذاء لطول المدة' فيهم وعظم ما امتولى فيهم من الجهل الى ان ارسل الله فيهم موس نبياً ومخلعاً من ى ز الله ا.        ا,.ائ        اهدائى . ل84

عبادة' غير الله واخراجه اياهم من ارغى مصر وازاحة اهوائهم من اهوى اهلها . فانزل عليهم كتابا من لدن الله ربه اعنى التورية وامر بخلاف ما كانوا عليه من العبادة' والغذاء واستعظاما منه اياها . وفحسمهم بذلك من عبادة' غيره ■ وامر بنحر المعبود كان منهم له واباح لهم فى اكل لحومها ■ وحرم عليهم الخنزير بعد ان كانوا يغتذون به خاصة دون اللحوم .

43. وتحقيق ذلك عذلهم موسى من بعد اخراجه اياهم وبقرهم وغنمهم فصداً عن ا لذهب والفضة اذ تاسفوا وتندموا على ما فاتهم من اكل اللحوم ٠مصإ كهكل .ة.-1 د اكلئا85 شعئا . اللدفاذا ه. ج٦.>■ ن بمصر لقولهم لو بقينا بمصر اكلنا        وشبعنا من اللحم فاذا هم يتذكرون

ويتلهفون على شبع اللحم لتعلم يا اخى ان اللحم المتلهف عليه منهم لحم الخنزير يقيتا لا غيره من اللحم الموجود معهم .

فعلة تطليق ربنا سبحانه لبنى اسرائيل الذبائح وان كان الى قبولها منهم حيناً مرموزا التماس تثبيتهم وردهم بالعبادة' اليه وابطال محبة غيره من قلوهم واشغال صدورهم باثبات المحبة والموحة' له والرغبة اليه وثبات معرفته فى

became longer, and they became accustomed to the practices of the people of Egypt and their laws in worship and to the food. And they practiced animal sacrifices until it became for them a customary practice, as [it was for] the rest of the people of Egypt. Swine [flesh] was food for them and the bull and the sheep were something to be worshipped by them. So they became accustomed to this and were in thrall to it, and love of it was deeply rooted in their hearts, until they did not prefer anything except [the form of] worship and food [of the Egyptians] because the time had grown so long [that they had accepted] them and the ignorance that overpowered them had become great, until God sent Moses to them as a prophet and one to save them from worship of what is not God. And he led them out of the land of Egypt, driving out their longings for the pleasures of its people. He brought down to them [from Sinai] a Book from God, his Lord, that is, the Torah, and commanded what was different from the worship and food [of Egypt] and what was superior to them. So with this He cut them off from worship of [anything] other than Himself, and He commanded the slaughter of what they had [previously] worshiped, and permitted them to eat its flesh. And swine [flesh] was forbidden them after they had eaten it to the exclusion of other flesh.

43. The verification of this is their reproach of Moses after he had taken them and their cattle and their sheep, not to mention the gold and silver, out [of Egypt]. When they were regretful and had remorse over the food and meats they had left behind in Egypt, they said “If we had stayed in Egypt, we would have eaten and had our fill of meat.”^[335] Now when they thought about being satisfied with meat and lamented [it], you must know, o my brother, that the meat that they lamented [not having] was the meat of swine, for surely there was no other kind of meat that was not with them.

The act of our Lord, may He be praised, permitting the Sons of Israel animal sacrifices, even though they accepted them at a designated time,^[336] was [out of] the desire to strengthen them and return them to worship of Him, destroying the love of anything other than Him in their hearts, strengthening their inner devotion with firm love and friendship to Him and [establishing] their longing for

الناس كافة والاقرار به وان كان يرسخ ذلك فى قلوبهم.

وفى احتماله الذبائح ايضاً سر اخر وهو السر الممثل للذبيحة التى عن البشر عامة اعنى المسيح ربنا والاهنا سبحانه وذلك بتجده له الحمد الممكن قبول ذلك لا بلاهوته المتعالية عن الموت والدثر . لانه ان كان بذبيحة تلك البهائم تفغر الخطايا فكم بالحرى يكون الفغران بدم سيدنا والاهنا المسيح سبحانه.

44. كذلك القول فى جمبع الشرائح الجسمانيات فانها سمة ورسم حزب الله دن ددداً لدفن86 دعاهـةد ن. ١لا ظك ن ٠١مان الله بها بديا ليعرفون بها خلصة دون غيرهم من الامم. وذلك فى زمان محدود لا واجب فعلها فى كل حين كما امر الله ابراهم بذلك بعد ان مضى ٠ءىتسىنسذةاذكدكأ٠ف٠١ماذه٠ فاللهلادأ٩دالله من عمره تسعون سنة اذ لم يكن فى زمانه من يعرف الله ولا يامن بالله غيره. فوسمهم بالختان ليعرفوا انهم شعب الله العارفون بربوبيته دون سائر الامم.

والشاهد على ذلك قول الله له ا لحمد على لسان نبيه ارميا اذ يقول حكاية منه عن ربه . 'فد يأتى عليكم ايام التى بها اعهد الى بئى يهودا عهدا جديدا ليس كالعهد الاول الذى عهدته الى ابائهم حين اخرجتهم من ارض معر ■

و8؛ ئللأطلاة٠لا ,ن لانهم ععوا عهدى فزهدت فيهم. وكقوله ايفا على لان حزقيال النبى اذ يقول لجماعة بئى اسرائيل انى اذكر لك عهدى اياك واقيم لك عهدا جديدا. والعهد الاول الذى عهد به الى ابائهم بدياً هى التورية بلا شك المنزلة فيها والاقرار بالتوحيد للهجملة بلا تغير وا لختانة وحغظ ا لبت والذبائح وغير

Him and persistence in knowing Him in every human being, and the confession [of faith] in Him, even as these were [becoming] deeply rooted in their hearts.

And in His permitting animal sacrifices there was another myste- rion—the mysterion of the likeness of the sacrifice which was for all of humanity, that is, the Messiah, our Lord and our God, may He be praised! and this [brought] the possibility by His Incarnation, glory be to Him! to accept [the sacrifice on our behalf] not in His divinity, which is exalted over death and extinction, [but rather in His humanity]. For if by the sacrifice of these beasts sins were forgiven, how much more is the forgiveness through the blood of our Lord and Our God, the Messiah, may He be praised!

44. It is like this with the teaching on all of the laws concerning the body, for they are a sign and a mark of the adherents of God"4 from the beginning, so they would be known particularly by [the law] apart from the other peoples. And this was for a fixed time and it is not necessary to follow them for all time. As God commanded Abraham with this after he had passed ninety years of his life, when no one in his time knew God and believed in God except him, so He marked [Abraham and his descendents] with the circumcision, so that they would know that they were the tribe of God, who acknowledged His divinity, apart from the rest of the peoples.

The witness for this is the statement of God, praise be to Him, through the tongue of His prophet,Jeremiah, when he gave [this] account according to his Lord: “The days are coming upon you when I will make a New Covenant with the Sons ofJudah, not like the first Covenant which I made with their fathers at the time I led them out of the Land of Egypt. Because they disobeyed My Covenant, so I have abandoned them.”))5 And like His statement also through the tongue of Ezekiel the prophet, when he said to all of the Sons of Israel: “I remind you of My Covenant with you, and I will raise up a New Covenant with you.”))6

The first Covenant that [God] made with their fathers in the beginning was without doubt the Torah, in which [the revelation of] the general confession of the oneness of God has been sent down,

114 Or: the party of God.

,,5 Jer 31:31-33. Note addition of the final phrase to the received text.

116 Ez 16:60

ذلك من الشرائع الظاهرة' كما وصفنا.

45. والعهد الجديد الذى لا يشبه العهد الاول هو الانجيل الطاهرالناسخ

بشرائعه شرائع التورية وحدودها الملائم الموافق لها فى الايمان بالله .دحق توحيده. فاذا ٠فد نسخت شرائع التورية يشرائع الانجيل ويحقق به توحيدها امدهولتاطهاضاحه-سملتهالاًالئاً        حأقدساً

املح بتاويله وايضاحه وتسميته ابا وادنا وروحا فدسا .

91اسءلتاالاطدشا لا اكا ئ لا اصادعد اما التورية لم يجب علينا الاخذ يها ولا العمل يسننها ولا وفرائضها يعد ان صحت معرفتنا .ئتوحيد جوهره ووصفنا اياه بحق صفاته واذ حققها المسبح سبحانه عند تأنه وتجده واثبتها لانه هو المغترض لها بدياً اذ لم يبطل شيئاً منها ونسخها افضل منها اخيراً .

فثتان ما بين فرائض الانجيل فى الغفل وبين فرائض التورية كثتان بين الجور فى التغفيل وبين العدل ■ فهذا سبب ترك فرائض التورية لا من تكذيب شىء منها ولا تبطيل .

46. فاما علة صيامنا اريعين يوما فذلك واجب على الناس كافة لخصال شتى. اولها صيام موسى وغيره من الانبياء هنه العدة' بلا زياحة' ولا نقصان التى الستوجبوا بها مناجاة' الله له الحمد وتكليمه وتحلية وجوههم بحلية النور واشراقه. فاهلوا ان يقتدى بهم ويحتذى حذوهم بالصيام اللازم للاولين والاخرين كعظيم منفعته وكثرة' معونته فى اكتساب ا لفضل والاعتصام به فى القرب الى الله سبحانه.

واما الثانية فقبولنا من المسبح سبحانه عند مشاركته ايانا بتجده وتأنامه لنا ^[337]

without an explication, [the command of] circumcision, the observance of the Sabbath, animal sacrifices, and other revealed laws, as we have described.

45. The New Covenant, which is not similar to the first Covenant, is the pure Gospel, abrogating^[338] the laws of the Torah and its limits with its [own] laws, [yet giving] proper sanction to [the Torah] in the belief in God and in the truth of His oneness. Therefore, the laws of the Torah are abrogated by the laws of the Gospel, and [the confession] of [God’s] oneness is established in it, and its explanation is given and clarified, and [God] is named Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

As for the Torah, it is not necessary for us to accept it nor to take up its practices nor its duties, after our knowledge of the oneness of His ousia is correct. And we describe His attributes in truth, since the Messiah, may He be praised! established them and affirmed them in His becoming human and His Incarnation. Because He had assumed them from the beginning, without abolishing anything of them or abrogating them with something better.

What a difference in worth there is between the duties of the Gospel and the duties of the Torah, like the difference in preference between injustice and justice! This is the reason the duties of the Torah were left behind, not because of a denial of something of them or invalidity.

46. As for the cause of our forty-day fast, this is necessary for all human beings for various reasons. The first is the fast of Moses, and others of the prophets, for by this number [of days], without increase or decrease, they were made worthy of refuge in God, praise be to Him! and of speaking with Him and of their faces being adorned by Him with the ornaments of fire and His radiance. It is fitting that they be emulated and their example of the obligatory fast be followed, from the first to the last [human being], for its great benefit and many helps in gaining grace and the protection in it [while] drawing closer to God, may He be praised!

As for the second [reason], we have received [the obligation of

'صا لنا قائداً ما ٠١أ دححعا كده ذذاً^[339] ن٠ دنا نافاً عنا ادل الد صار لنا قائدا مبارزا بجهاده وكده ومنابذا ذنوبنا نافيا عنا ابليس الدنس وجنوحه المستولية كانت علينا لارتكابنا اهوائهم فى شهوات اجسادنا

ا        U        لزات^[340] ادداننا المغط الثاطة لا

ولذات ابداننا المضطرم الشاعلة لاسترخائنا وانقيادنا اليها باستهواننا لها. فمثل لنا ا لجد قتاله ومجاهدته ونصب امامنا كيده بما ماكره سبحانه بجده فى صيامه اربعين يوما بلياليها لقدرته على ذلك له الحمد . فهزمه وهده وكسر قوته ونخ صورته من روعه وحذره مناصبة ا لبشر كافة لما اذاقه من الالم الاول وشديد النكاية بجده الشبيه باجسادنا. وقد نجد فى الكتاب المنزل فضخاً عما وصفنا من تقبيل هنه ا لعدة فى تمحيص الذنوب وتطهيرها بان الله له الحمد لما اباد الناس فى دهر نوح الطاهر حين ا نزل بها عذاب الطوفان اربعين نهارا ولياليها وصير العقوبة المحدودة' فى التورية لمن اذنب من بئى اسرائيل اربعين جلد' . وانهم مكثوا سائحين فى البرية اربعين عاماً اذياً منه الرحيم لهم على ما فرط من 94اء.دفطهءلةاقتصاذافصطمذا

سوء اعمالهم . فهنه علة اقتعارنا فى صيامنا . . .

the fast] from the Messiah, may He be praised! upon His participation with us in His Incarnation and His becoming human for us, He became for us a leader and fighter in His struggle and His labor, and cast off our offenses and drove from us the stain of Ibis, and his armies who had been master over us. Because we had pursued their inclinations for the desires of our flesh and the burning and flaming delights of our bodies, we had become slack and had been led to them by our neglect. [The Messiah] gave to us an example for the flesh [in] His fight and His struggle and set up before us His strategy by which He, may He be praised! deceived [Ibis] in His flesh during His fast for forty days and nights, because of His capability [of doing this], glory be to Him! So He put [Ibis] to flight and crushed him and shattered his power, and erased his image from His mind and He warned him against fighting all human beings. For [this was accomplished] from the first pain He tasted, and the great outrage [done to] His body which is like our bodies.

We find in the Book^[341] sent down [by God], besides what we have described about accepting this number [of forty days], concerning the purification and cleansing of sins, that God, glory be to Him! after He had destroyed humanity in the age of Noah, the righteous, at that time sending down on them the punishment of the flood for forty days and nights, the punishment of forty lashes for the one of the Sons of Israel who had sinned was fixed in the Torah. And they remained wandering in the desert for forty years as a punishment from Him, the Merciful, because of the excess of their evil deeds. Now this is the reason we limit our fast         

THE FIRST RISALAH ON THE HOLY TRINITY

Introduction

Background aid Cents

Arguably the most important of all of Abu Ra’itah’s treatises is The Fit Rfs lah 0 1 tie Holy Triunity), whfcA, akong wAh Tie Rfs lai on the Incarnation, is written in the form of a letter answering the request of an unnamed member of another Jacobite community. Together, these two rasa’il provide his most complete treatment of Muslim objections to central Christian doctrines. Evidence also suggests that a third risalah related to them has been lost. The short compilation found in the Confession of the Fathers of excerpts from several of Abd Ra’itah’s writings refers to The Risalah on the Incarnation as being “the second risalah of the three rasa’il in which he speaks of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation".) The reference is somewhat ambiguous, and the third risalah may be the one written to the Christians of Bain, which Abd Ra’itah himself refers his readers to at the end of On the Incarnation 85 as containing more information on a similar topic.^[342] [343]

However, the possible existence of third letter in connection with On the Trinity and On the Incarnation is not unlikely. The note in Confession 3 implies that its subject was the Trinity and Incarnation, although this is not certain. One might also speculate that the topic of the missing risalah was an exposition of religious practices questioned by Muslims, perhaps with an emphasis on eucharistic celebrations, and other liturgical customs connected to the Incarnation. It was not unusual for the three subjects of Trinity, Incarnation, and Christian practices to be treated together in Syriac liturature, as Abu Ratal did in Arabic in his own Proof of the Christian Religion.^[344]

The significance of the extant texts On the Trinity and On the Incarnation lies in the purpose for which they have been written. Abu Ratal presents his reasons for composing the rasa’il in the opening sections of the On the Trinity: he has been asked by an unnamed person to “write a book explaining what is obscure to you concerning the teachings of the peoples and their claim that what they hold is correct” (§2). In fact, nowhere does he speak directly of “the teachings of the peoples”, that is, the Muslims. Rather, the central intention of these texts can be identified in his statement at the beginning of On the Trinity that it is a clarification of the teachings of “the People of the South”, and that he will provide for his reader the “confession” of “the People of the Truth”, that is, theJacobite community, and the proof for it (§2). The “proof’ or burhan is certainly a reference to the Qur’anic testimony that Christians will be called upon to produce their proof for the truth of their religion on the Day of Judgement (Sura 2:111, 28:75). In particular, they will be compelled to give a justification for their belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. The two rasa’il Abu Ra’itah offers to the Christian (and Muslim) reader are a sort of compendium of ready responses to possible questions and objections that could be leveled against Christians, a kind of kitab al-burhan, to exactly these issues raised by Muslims about Christian beliefs.

Like the Proof of the Christian Religion, these treatises were written within a context of rising external pressure on Christians to convert to Islam, as well as increasing doubts within the Christian community itself. In On the Trinity and On the Incarnation, Abu Ra’itah takes up nearly all of the same questions concerning these topics found elsewhere in his writings. Many of the issues addressed in the Proof appear in a more fully developed treatment using additional philosophical and scriptural evidence. Nonetheless there is a noticeable shift in the tone between the Proof and the two rasa’il. Whereas the former is intended as an overall apology for Christianity, usually providing explanations and replies that might be accessible to any educated Christian, the rasa’il on the Trinity and Incarnation are intended to rebut charges made by Muslim mutakallimun. The form of the Proof is often discursive, giving detailed explanations of teachings designed to convince and bolster the faith of the believer, and is written primarily with other Christians in mind.

The rasa’il On the Trinity and On the Incarnation, on the other hand, are dialectical and follow the rules of debate more closely. In both of these treatises, Abu Ra’itah provides his reader with clearly formulated questions intended to identify the source of the conflict, followed by an arsenal of responses drawing on a variety of sources. Often he assumes a great deal of knowledge on the part of his reader, sketching only the barest outlines of his arguments, and giving brief references to significant theological and philosophical concepts. These are scholarly treatises, not general apologies.

It is in this structure that another important aspect of the texts can be identified. At this critical moment in the development of Islamic theology, Abu Ra’itah offers an insight into the mutual knowledge that Muslims and Christians had of one another, and what topics were of concern to them. With the transition to Arabic and the formulation of Islamic doctrines in light of newly-translated Greek texts, terminology and categories were being defined and solidified, often in ways that excluded Christian understandings of them. The long history of conflict among the churches over the same issues of precise definitions is evidence that Christians did not consider this to be an academic exercise. Now, it appeared that Christianity was being overcome by an alternative religion on the grounds that it was itself inconsistent with reason and what could be known about God. These rasa’il reflect the attempt of a significant figure in the Jacobite church to regain control over those categories and provide a “proof’ that the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are neither contradictory nor nonsensical. In fact, Abu Ra’itah argues, an openness to the evidence necessarily leads one to the conclusion that the Christian understanding of divine attributes and the relationship between Creator and creation can be the only appropriate way to speak about God.

The approach Abu Ra’itah takes to counter the challenges his community is facing displays his exceptional understanding of the problem. After a brief introduction, he lays out the problems confronting the person who would engage in debate with the opponents, and the pros and cons of entering into such a conversation (§§1-4). This is followed by what amounts to a creedal statement put into the mouths of the Muslim interlocutors, and Abu Ra’itah’s request for fairness in the ensuing debate (§4). The next section is an extensive discussion of the definitions of terms and their application to God using logical principles and analogies (§§5-32). The treatise concludes with some examples taken from the “sacred books” demonstrating that it is not inconsistent to say God is a plurality (§§33-38) and some further analogies found in the created world (§§39-45).

Abu Ra’itah begins On the Trinity with a long invocation asking God’s blessings on the addressee of the letter and on Abu Ra’itah himself and the unidentified “us”. While one finds brief introductions in several of his other letters, (e.g., the opening greeting of Proof), the first risalah is extensive. In fact, the introduction itself (§§1-3) bears a strong resemblance to the format of the Syriac preface, which was already well-developed by the end of the sixth century. The composition of the Syriac preface has its roots in Greek sources, but came to be a form in its own right under the influence of Neo-Platonic commentators of Alexandria and Christian Syriac writers.^[345] [346]

Numerous elements of the traditional Syriac preface can be identified in Abu Ra’itah’s text, such as an address to a person without an actual greeting, an appeal to God for assistance (§1), a brief explanation of the occasion and purpose of the letter, a declaration of his unworthiness and fear of the task before him, and his feeling of obligation towards the addressee, as well as supporting biblical citations (§2-3).5 A typical aspect of the preface found in the risalah is the tendency to emphasize that what is being presented is not something new, but rather a simple exposition of what has already been given in the Scriptures and other esteemed authorities, in this case, the ancient philosophers.^[347] Although Abu Ra’itah does not say this directly at the outset, his objective is unmistakable he intends to establish that Christianity is consistent with what has been recognized as the truth throughout the ages and is neither self-contradictory nor an innovation.

The opening of the preface in On the Trinity is a series of petitions begging for guidance in the search for the truth and support for those seeking to live in God’s ways (§1). The language is flowery and complex, and no doubt intended to impress the reader. One notices immediately that in his introductory lines Abu Ra’itah has chosen terminology that is strongly reminiscent of Qur’anic and Islamic ideas: clinging to God’s divine precepts (فرائض) and the obligation of His laws (؛ ,(شرائعghting for God’s ways (مدحرسدسنه), holding fast to God’s<،Word (كلام), rejoicing7 in His religion (دين), rejecting the unbeliever (جاحدين الكفر)) and the Deceiver (9.(1§) (الطاغوت All of these would be recognized by a Muslim, as well as an Arabicspeaking Christian reader, as identifiable aspects of Islamic faith. Yet Abu Ra’itah cleverly turns the phrases slightly to make them Christian. For example, his reference to the fight for God’s “ways”, or sunan, would have been contrasted in the mind of the reader with the sunna of the Prophet Mulammad, the basis for Islamic religious and legal practice. The term sunna itself simply means “practice” or “tradition”, but within the context of Abu Ra’itah’s list it carries with it an implied distinction between Islamic and Christian practice.

This brief inventory of appropriate attitudes of the believer sets the tone for the two rasa’il. By choosing common vocabulary and concepts, Abu Ra’itah lays out Christian teachings in such a way as to show their similarity to Muslim beliefs (and thus demonstrates that they are not incoherent), while at the same time presenting them as superior. Consequently he can respond both to the scepticism of Muslims and the doubts and fears of Christians confronted with Islam.

After his short preface, Abh Ra’itah turns to the project at hand. He states that he is writing this letter in response to a request by the addressee to answer a number of questions and objections concerning “the teachings of the peoples” and their claim that their own religion is correct. In particular, he notes, he will explain the religion of “the People of the South” (اهل التيمن), who say that their faith is superior above all other religions (§2). The phrasing of this is interesting, for it implies that Abh Ra’itah intends to look first at the “teachings of the peoples”, and then more specifically at those

7. Sura 13:36 speaks of rejoicing on account of the revelation of the “Book”

.(الكتات)

8. Sura 29:47, 49; 31:32; 6:33; etc. state that it is the unbelievers who reject the signs of God.

9. Sura 2:256-257; 4:51, 60; etc.

of the “People of the South”. The identity of the latter is certainly believers of Islam.

In keeping with his habit of never mentioning anything Islamic by name, Abu Ra’itah uses the unusual phrase “the People of the South” (اهل التيمن) to identify his Muslim opponents. This epithet also appears in a list of religious groups he gives in Threefold Praise (I) 5. It has been suggested that the designation of “the People of the South” refers to the direction, or qiblah, of the Kabah in Makka toward which a Muslim should pray when one is located in Takit near Baghdad.^[348] This theory has some support in a later Syriac chronicle which distinguishes Muslims as praying while facing the south,^[349] making it a plausible suggestion. However, it seems just as likely that the designation refers simply to the place of origin of the Muslim conquerors. This would better explain Abu Ra’itah’s otherwise odd statement about “the teachings of the peoples” and further clarification “especially the teaching of the People of the South.” Since it is obvious from the text that he only intends to address questions about Islam (hence, the teachings of the Muslims), “peoples” probably refers to Muslims in general, including Arabs, Persians, and other converts.^[350] The “People of the South,” then, are likely the Arabs, who saw themselves as bringers of the message of the Qur’an to the Mediterranean world.^[351] An advantage of this explanation is that it accounts for the two parts to Abu Ra’itah’s statement.

Further, while the Arabs could truly be called “southerners,” the designation of “those who pray facing south” would be somewhat arbitrary. Muslims are very careful and precise about the specific direction of the qiblah, making it relative to one’s own position. The direction of “south” would be a rather vague description, and not necessarily the same for Abu Ra’itah as for his readers. This theory also presupposes that his non-Muslim readers would be familiar with this Islamic practice, not an improbable assumption, but a consideration nonetheless.

In any case, in spite of the lack of an explicit identification, there is no doubt that Abu Ra’itah is setting out to refute only Islamic doctrines in the following two rasa’il. Muslims would have recognized themselves immediately in his lucid summaries of their teachings, as well as the allusions to, and in some cases, near exact citations from the Qur’an. There are at least two possible explanations for this. First, it may be that Abu Ra’itah wishes to deflect some emphasis away from his primary intention to refute Islam. This follows his general approach of never mentioning Mulammad, the (Qur’an, or anything Islamic by name. Perhaps he thought to argue that it is not particularly Islam that is the object of his rebuttal in the event he was called to task by the authorities. However, this seems improbable, since no one reading the remainder of the text could confuse or mistake his purpose.

A second possibility is that his contrast between the “peoples” and the “People of the South” points to the actual phenomenon of those accepting Islam. The period in which Abu Ra’itah lived saw the conversion of many indigenous peoples to Islam. After the 'Abbasid dynasty came into power, the ethnicity of Muslims shifted from predominantly Arab to a majority of non-Arab descent through marriage and conversion.^[352] By the time in which Abu Ra’itah is writing there were many “peoples” who had accepted Islam, although it was well known that the religion originated with the “People of the South”.

In view of this, one cannot help but notice his choice of the plural umam and think of its common usage in Islam in connection with the Muslim community, or umma. Abu Ra’itah appears to be making a tacit comment on the Islamic claim that all Muslim believers are united into the single umma.^[353] Contrary to this assertion, he is reminding his reader that the acceptance of Islam by these various “peoples” is a recent occurrence, and not to be thought of as equal to the ancient religions to which they had adhered before. The move of society in the direction of a single religion, culture and language did not erase the fact that converts to Islam were coming from a multitude of peoples.^[354]

As a prologue to his own explanation and refutation of those who reject the Trinity and Incarnation, Abu Ratal commences the body of his treatise with a statement put in the mouths of Muslims about what they believe. Although he does not cite it again throughout his writings, nor does he discuss every aspect of it in his response to the assertion, it provides the backdrop for the ensuing discussion. The essential argument of the “People of the South”, according to Abu Ratal, is that Christians and Muslims agree on the basic attributes of God. Therefore, it does not make sense for Christians to reject what they know to be true. As evidence, the opponents put forward a list of all of those attributes which they know are recognized by Christians. However, they add the caveat that their refusal to accept the Trinity is justified, because it is incorrect.

This summary, which is a list of commonly held attributes of God, clearly reflects a developed Islamic theology at the turn of the ninth century. One can identify within it attributes found in the Qur’an, as well as in the very long and complex statement of Islamic faith commonly known as the Fiqh Akbar II from the end of the ninth century.^[355] Although the final form of the Fiqh Akbar II appears almost a century after Abu Ra’itah, it contains more terms found in On the Trinity than any other known ' aqzda.^[356] A number of the terms and phrases which cannot be directly connected to the (Qur’an or the Fiqh Akbar II can be traced to other sources found in Abu Ra’itah’s milieau. Another 'aqzda, and one of the most comprehensive from the early to the middle of the eighth century, is that of the Mutazilah reported by al-As’ari, which expresses their teaching about God almost entirely in the characteristic negative language.^[357] The 'aqida of the Mutazilah, of course, develops these in much greater detail, and the order of the terms is not exact. Nonetheless, one can identify a general form in the summary provided by Abu Ra’itah which is similar to the later 'aqida. It is also notable that the conclusions of both reflect a clear rejection of certain Christian teachings. Abh Ra’itah’s text ends with the Muslims denying the possibility of a Trinity in God, while the 'aqida refuses to admit divine incarnation.^[358]

In light of the similarities between the teachings of the Mu tazilah and the statement found in On the Trinity, it might be suggested that Abh Ra’itah’s questioners are adherents of that well-known group.^[359] Baghdad was one of the two important centers of the Mutazilah, and during the reign of al-Ma’mhn, exactly at the time in which Abh Ra’itah is writing, they exerted significant pressure on imperial policy and on the development of theological thought.^[360] In fact, there is strong evidence that Abh Ra’itah’s Demonstration is written to an eminent mutazili who had moved to Baghdad and was very influential there, Abh Ma'an TumSmah ibn al-ASras an-Numaryi al-Basri. There are some important indications, however, that it was not only the Mutazilah who were Abh Ra’itah’s opponents. In particular, he uses analogies throughout his treatises as a significant aspect of his argumentation. However, the Mu'tazilah are known to have rejected analogy as valid, along with any other ideas that compared God to creation. Nonetheless, Abh Ra’itah may have included analogies simply because he intends to provide his reader with every possible type of argument, in order to reach the widest audience possible.

In fact, however, all of the terms and ideas found in the summary of Muslim faith presented by Abh Ra’itah in the risalah can be generally accounted for either in the Qur’an, or in other Islamic sources.^[361] It does not appear that Abu Ratal has created the summary on his own, but rather reproduced what he has heard directly from Muslims with whom he is in conversation, allowing one to accept it as a reliable description of orthodox Islamic faith as it was expressed in scholarly circles in Baghdad at this time. Although the evidence is too limited to identify it as a sort of proUhaqida, it certainly can be counted as one of the earliest summaries known to date.

Second, and equally important, is the extent to which the risalah reveals the knowledge that Abu Ra’itah, as a Christian intellectual, had of Islam. Unlike later Christian accounts of the beliefs of Muslims, particularly those coming from Western writers, Abu Ra’itah’s writings exhibit a profound and accurate understanding of the central issues which separate followers of the two religions. He clearly recognizes his “opponents” as adherents of another faith, not just supporters of a heretical strain of Judaism or Christianity, and proceeds in a suitable manner. The evidence and arguments Abu Ra’itah puts forward in defense of Christianity are intended to address the matters that divide it from Islam, and he believes that he will only be successful if he accurately describes Muslim beliefs and takes them up honestly. The summary of faith which he provides lays out the issues up front and leaves nothing to be disputed for its deception or inaccuracy. His conscientious and meticulous approach make his writings all the more valuable for understanding the intellectual atmosphere and level of exchange that occurred between Muslims and Christians in this period.

With the summary of faith of the “People of the South” as the premise, Abu Ra’itah has constructed his argument in such a way as to get to the heart of the problem of the nature of God (how does one speak appropriately about divine attributes? and, can God become incarnated?), while avoiding the use of any traditional sources to substantiate his position that might provide a basis for his opponents to dismiss his case out of hand. For this reason he begins his treatises by defining the meaning of “one” and its relationship to other predicates, and then moves in the second part to the possibility and reasons for the Incarnation.

This overall structure of his apology is completely determined by an issue he only mentions briefly in (§33) and (§39) at the end of On the Trinity, tahnf, the claim that Christians and Jews have distorted their scriptures and consequently obscured the truth of God’s word. This concern for avoiding rejection by Muslim thinkers on the grounds of tahrf fully informs Abu Ra’itah’s project of explaining and defending the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Knowing that much of the traditional evidence employed earlier by Christian apologists against Judaism will be denied because it contradicts the Qur’an, he is one of the first to build his argument using principles of logic and elements drawn from Greek thought.^[362] Only then does he give further evidence and analogies taken from scriptural examples that he believes will pass the scrutiny of those suspicious of tahnf. It is for this reason he uses passages from the Old Testament almost exclusively, as these can be shown to be acceptable even to “our enemies the Jews” (§39).^[363]

Like the Proof, Abu Ra’itah’s On the Trinity and On the Incarnation are written in the dialectical format common among Arab Christian apologists, and show some signs of following the patterns dictated by the formal munazarat occurring in Islamic circles in this period.^[364] In general, a munazara was expected to follow a three-part structure: a question (description of a proof), a first response (evidence or causes for the proof) and second response (general validity of the proof, often using analogies).^[365] The overall outline of the On the Trinity follows this approach, beginning first with the Muslim question in the creed-like statement (§34), followed by Abu Ra’itah’s rebuttals which include a refutation and evidence for the disagreement, and analogies or examples supporting his position.

For the convenience of the reader, Abu Ra’itah has used the standard apologetical format and organized the text as a series of questions by his opponents followed by the most appropriate way in which to develop a response. In order to produce a successful counter-argument in a munazara, it was first necessary to know what types of argument the opponent will accept. For example, certain groups of Muslim theologians in Abu Ratal’s day were unwilling to accept analogy or consensus as legitimate elements of argumentation. Christians had the added difficulty of responding to the accusation of tai؛.

Most importantly, if one was to succeed in the debate, it was critical to find a common starting point. The Mutazilah used rationalism, and evidence shows that Christians generally adopted this approach. Indeed, Abu Ra’itah begins both On the Trinity and Proof with the issue that is at the root of the disagreement: a clear definition of the meaning of the statement that “God is One” (§7). He then proceeds with a mas’alah hagr (insisting that one of several provided categories be chosen), asking whether God is “one” in genus, species or number. This strategy is recognizable as tafnq, forcing the opponent to differentiate between multiple meanings of a single word. Abu RaAyah aRo uses, taqsfm throughout, Ontbie Ti lity, c^n tbie Icarnat 0 and Refutation, in which distinctions within a single topic are made until the opponent is led to the appropriate conclusion.^[366]

Abu Ra’itah’s skill in using these strategies in making his case support the suggestion that he actually participated in munazarat with Muslims. The complexity of his arguments and his ability to predict how his adversaries will proceed indicates that the On the Trinity and On the Incarnation are closer to edited transcripts of actual debates in which he took part, than to hypothetical exercises designed as teaching tools. While the texts may have been used in academic settings for this very purpose, there can be no doubt that Abh Ra’itah’s personal experience during which he honed his responses and rhetorical skills lies behind the current form of the text.

Throughout the risalah Abu Ra’itah forces his questioners to formulated ever-more precise definitions of their terms, and to define attributes more clearly, until they are compelled to admit the truth of Christian doctrine. Although he does not mention any of the “people of wisdom” specifically, one can identify the Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, behind many of the distinctions he makes. He has also drawn on the insights of the Cappadocian fathers here, whom he mentions explicitly in his writings in defense of Jacobite teachings against the Melkites.

It is only at the conclusion of the text that Abu Ra’itah adds some well-known analogies, and even a few biblical citations that he believes will be helpful to illustrate his argument. At this point he concludes, with the intention of picking up the implications of the Holy Trinity in the Incarnation in his second treatise.

Addressees id Date

The structure of On the Trinity and On the Incarnation follows the form of the risalah noted above, exhibiting the two-fold purpose of being written for an unnamed person or group, while at the same time intended for a much wider readership. The vague reference to an individual at the beginning of the text is someone with whom Abu Ra’itah appears to be acquainted. After this opening remark, he does not mention this person again until the very end. Nevertheless, there is no reason believe that the text was composed under entirely fabricated circumstances, and something may be deduced about the addressee.^[367] In the introduction to the first risalah, he asks the blessings of God on himself and on an unidentified “us”. The references in the opening paragraphs are to a single masculine person, using the familiar (اليك) rather than the formal form (اليكم) of address, which can be understood either as a singular or plural. This suggests that he is writing to an individual whom he knows well and who belongs to the same ecclesial community to which Abu Ra’itah belongs.

Given the remark at the end of the On the Incarnation (§85) that he has written “to the people of Bain”, it seems that Abu Ra’itah’s addressee lives somewhere in the same general vicinity and would be familiar with this Christian community in the district of Tirhan near Mosshl. This is in keeping with the general assumption throughout the two rasa’il that the addressee is having similar experiences with his Muslim neighbors as Abu Ra’itah. It is also clear that, although the bulk of the risalah is presented as a question-answer exchange between Muslims and Abu Ra’itah, the primary expected readership is his own ecclesial community, whom he calls the “People of Truth” (2§) (اهل الحق). That this is the Syrian Jacobite community is readily apparent from the monophysite christological position he puts forth in the On the Incarnation.

One can also assume that the unnamed recipient of these two rasa’il was an educated lay person like himself, or a cleric with whom he was on friendly terms. The contents of the text assume a great deal of learning, both in the Christian tradition, and of basic concepts and intellectual trends in Islam, and would be useless to someone who could not follow the argument himself. Abu Ratal has written the rasa’il as a guide to those who would be invited to participate in debates with learned Muslims and who would presumably be well-versed in the issues that might arise, but who could benefit from the experience and successes of a renowned debate partner. The addressee might also be a clergyman, priest or bishop, who is concerned that members of his flock are unable to defend themselves when confronted by questions put to them by Muslims during their daily activities.

Without any internal evidence for support, it is difficult to pinpoint a date for the two rasa’il, although it is quite probable that they were written together. The smooth transition between the two and the similar degree of care and deliberation in their composition allow the assumption that Abu Ra’itah intended them (perhaps along with a third) to be considered as a unit. Other factors suggest that these writings belong to the middle or latter part of Abu Ra’itah’s career. In particular, many of the arguments found in the Proof have been developed more fully and show a degree of polish that is not apparent in his other writings. If the dates of Abu Ra’itah’s intellectual activity are put between 815 and 828, the two rasa’il coincide with the period of theological controversy that was beginning to arise in the Muslim community in Baghdad.

These particular writings reveal a high level of knowledge on Abu Ra’itah’s part about the positions of his Muslim opponents. In fact, he addresses nearly every topic known to be a point of contention between Muslims and Christians in this period. This knowledge, along with the extent and completeness of his responses and explanations, argues for a good deal of experience on the part of the writer. In addition, Abu Ra’itah probably began to be invited to participate in staged munazarat after he was known as a Christian theologian. The purported occasion of the rasa’il is a request on the part of a distant Christian individual for help in responding to questions raised by Muslims, suggesting that his reputation as a controversialist had spread beyond his home. These factors lead one to the conclusion that the date of composition for both rasa’il is not sooner than 820, and more likely to be assigned sometime towards the end of that decade.

A brief word should be said here about the relationship between On the Trinity and another text containing excerpts from it identified as an epistolary conversation between the Muslim al-HaSimi and the Christian al-Kindi. This document, whose authors have not been conclusively identified, is an extensive exposition of Muslim beliefs and Christian responses to them, including an invitation by each to convert to the religion of the other. The letters claim to be an exchange written during the reign of the caliph al-Ma’mun, which has been convincingly corroborated. However, it is unclear of which community the Christian is a member, and even whether the letters reflect an actual conversation between a Muslim and a Christian or are fabrication for an unknown purpose.^[368]

In any case, of special interest is the long excerpt of Abu Ra’itah’s risalah On the Trinity found in the letter of al-Kindi.^[369] The passage has not been lifted in its entirety from Abu Ra’itah, but has instead been edited and abridged to fit the overall argument made by the author of that letter. Some have suggested that internal evidence points to Abu Ra’itah as the one who has borrowed from the letter in his own writings. However, this forces one to assume that a lesser known person with only one identifiable writing was considered by Abu Ra’itah to be an authority worthy of plagiarizing. It seems instead that some other interesting possible explanations present themselves. Abu Ra’itah states that his purpose for composing the rasa’il is to answer the request of another person who is in need of information on this topic, presumably to defend himself against various charges being made against Christianity by Muslims. al-Kindi’s letter is exactly that. One cannot help but speculate that the author of the letter is in some way connected to the request to which Abu Ra’itah is responding. The dating of both Abd Ra’itah’s first risalah and the letter of al-Kindi to within ten years of each other supports this possibility. That Abd Ra’itah can in fact be identified as the author of the letter is less likely, but nonetheless a suggestion that bears further investigation. At the very least, the dates proposed here for Abd Ra’itah’s rasa’il seem to be confirmed by what can be substantiated about the letter of al-Kindi.

In summary, Abd Ra’itah offers his two rasa’il On the Trinity and On the Incarnation to fellow Jacobites as compendia of clear responses to inquiries about Christianity by Muslims. It is probable that both were written together sometime later in his career, after he had had considerable experience as a controversialist and had become known beyond his own city of Takrit. This situates them sometime between 820 and 830. Using all available resources, he sets out to construct a set of arguments in defense of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which will be convincing to his readers.

It can be established that following the objectives characteristic of Christian mutakallimun of this period, Abd Ra’itah’s goal is threefold in On the Trinity. First, he wishes to appropriate the categories of philosophical thought and especially Greek logic into Arabic as a medium for discourse with members of a new religious tradition determined by its own patterns of expression. Second, in order to find common ground with adversaries who reject much of the traditional scriptural foundation of Christian doctrine, he seeks to move the debate to the level of rational proofs, and consequently pushes his opponent toward the rules governing the art of controversy. Finally, through a dialectical method he forces the discussion to move towards an ever more precise definition of the terms so as to purge it of every ambiguity and come to the logical conclusion that he intends.^[370] It is only when he believes he has succeeded in these aims that he adds non-controversial scriptural evidence to support his arguments. Through this strategy, Abd Ra’itah seeks to reestablish the credibility of Christian thought by showing that it is not logically contradictory, and in fact is authentically based in revealed Scripture. Ultimately, his hope is to introduce Christian definitions into the scholarly debate and give Christians a voice in society where Islam was becoming the dominant world-view.

رسائل حبيب بن خدمة المعروف بابى رائطة التكريتى اليعقوبى

1 .

الرسالة الاولى نى الثالوث المقدس

1. الهمنا الله واياك العواب وايدنا بتأييد المعلى على كل تأييد . وجعلنا واياك ممن يلتمس حقه ونوره وينقاد بضياء سرجه العلمية ويتبع مصابيحه النهرة المرشدة- لمن استنار يمها الى ادراك حقائق الامور مواظبين عليها متمسكين بفرائضه لازمين لشرائعه متحريمين لسننه اخذين بكلامه فرحين دددنه افف لم، دخى ل اسظهحإط الكف الطيرت3 يدينه رافضين لمن خالغه مجتنبين لمن اسخطه جاحدين الكفر والطاغوت

صدد دالله4 د٠ماحا مفاذهلكاذعهةهتدكاغة مصد٠فين يمالله ويمماجاء من عنده . فانه ولى كل نعمة ومنتهى كل رغبة .

2. اما يمعد فانك سالت ان اكتب اليك كتايماً اوضح لك فيه ما اشكل عليك من اقاويل الامم وادعائهم العواب لما فى ايديهم ولا سيما قول اهل التيمن ووصفهم ففل دينهم وشرقه واعلايه على سائر الاديان وان اشرح لك مع ذلك لقرار اهل الحق ومحبتهم وما اتوا به من الحكمة وا لبرهان وانهى ذك ر٠ة6 ال٠٠٠ائإ المحاةساًلت ذلافاأقهلعفالع٠ ذلك بهية المائل والمجاوبة . فلقد سآلت من ذلك امرا فيه بعض العر والععوبة لا يعين عليه الا الله له ا لمجد دائماً . وذلك بخلال انا آت على ذكرها اذثاءالله.

ئ ل ذلك ان كان. شا حال .فد غدد7 الكلأ قاول ذلك ان من كان فى مثل حالى ممن قد غلب عليه الغى وبروز الكلام

8 لا. .        ا        لاد        ل        لالأ..

وقلة الاستمال له وا لحفور لاهله فلا شى اولى به من ا لكف عما لا طاقة له به ولا نهوض . تم من قد لحقه من ا لمؤن وا لكلف فى امر معاشه

From the Rasail of Habib Ibn Hidmah.

,
Known as Abo Ra'itah al-Takrt, theJacobite
The First Risalah on the Holy Trinity

1. May God inspire you and us with what is correct, and give us the greatest of all support. May He put both of us among those who seek His truth and His light, who are led by the light of His lamps of knowledge, and those who follow His bright lights, which show the way to those who seek enlightenment by means of them, to a grasp of the true things. They are the ones persisting in [what is true], clinging fast to His precepts, and the obligation of His laws, fighting for His ways, holding fast to His Word, rejoicing in His religion, spurning those who differ from Him, avoiding those who anger Him, rejecting the unbeliever and the Deceiver, giving credence to God and to what comes from Him. He is the Patron of all grace and the End of all desire.

2. Now then. You have asked that I write a book explaining what is obscure to you concerning the teachings of the peoples and their claim that what they hold is correct, and especially the teaching of the People of the South, and their description of the superiority of their own religion, and its excellence and preeminence above the other religions. And so, along with this [clarification], I shall set forth for you the confession of the People of Truth,^[371] and what they love and what they offer [in defense] of it by way of wisdom and proof, and I shall communicate this in the form of questions and answers. Now, you have asked something which is among the most difficult [things to do, something] which is allotted to no one except God, may He be praised eternally! This is because of the dilemmas [we face], of which I am [now] going to speak, if God wills!

The first of these [is this]: If one is in a position similar to mine, one of those who are defeated by error and excellence of speech, and has little wealth, and is rarely in the presence of his [own] people, then it is better for him to refrain from what he has neither the aptitude nor the encouragement to do. Further, the one who is weighed down by [the duty to] provide food [for others] and [by] the things

الاناح ٥( لاط ازاثخا “اطا«اطذئه٠الغه الدنياى ما لا سبيل معه الى اشخاص رويه وارسال اشراط ذهنه فى البغيه ليحتىس .لجهده من الخطأ والغلط .

اها الثالثة اك 12 ٠٩٠ اصة        الكلف        هذ

واما الثالثة التى هى تفسخ الشهوة' وتردع عن التكلف دشى من هنه الامور الواضعة الزمام والرياط على شفتى حذارى لسفه سفيههم وشغب اها اس ص طاس اشام13 العحا        دماا٠٠ا الغدة

اهل الجهل منهم وطاولهم وافتحارهم والعجابهم بما اوتوا من القدرة’ والسلطان فلا يامن مخالطهم ان يورطوه فيما لا خلاص له منه ولا منجا الا دعون ,الله وعصمته .

3. فقد التبس على ذهنى وانتشرت اركان حيلى ونهت المذهب وتحيرت تءا نف التقد ط ذلك التخهفمماذك٠ت14ا اهمله وصرت مؤامر نغسى التقدم على ذلك والتخوف مما ذكرت او اهمله. فذلك اشد واعظم لتخوفى ولتهيبى مما يلزمنى

---

[1]        Sidney H. Griffith, "Habib ibn Hidmah Abu Ra’itah, a Christian mutakallim of the First Abbasid Century,” Grims Christianus 64 (1980): 161.

[2]        Among the most complete general overviews of Muslim-Christian polemical

writings are Adel-Theodore Khoury, "Apologetique byzantine contre !’Islam (VIIIe- XW si-bole),,” Poctie GTientCbtien 29 (\1959١•. 242-300, Paul- Khoury, Mat iatx Jit seTOt        a        1’1 ئ la        cont        ا st t        ologtqte        islamoltienai e        1        latte atabe        It        tiie        at xite

siecle, 3 vols. (Wurzburg: Echter Verlag / Altenberge: Telos-Verlag, 1989, 1991, 1991١, and David Thomas, ed. and trans., A t Chtstian Polemic tnEatly Islam'. Abt 'ئ al-Warraq’s “Against the Trinity” (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For Christian writings defending the Trinity, see Rachid Haddad, La Tinit ساة cit les t ologieas atabes 750-1050, CoA Beatdiest Religions 15 Paris'. Beauchesne, 1985), 25-83.

[3]        The Qur’an makes numerous references to such discussions between Mulammad and Christians andJews. Of particular interest here are the verses which defend the revelations to Mulammad that contradict Christian teaching, especially those concerning his role as a prophet in a line of prophets (Sura 33:40; 5:19; 6:84-90; 23:23-52), the Trinity (Sura 4:171), and the status of Jesus and Mary (Sura 4:172; 5:17, 110).

[4]        It might be suggested that confusion and frustration with the christological controversies following the Council of Chalcedon played no small role in the relatively rapid conversion of the population to Islam with its simple message of one God. In response to this view, however, it is important to note that the majority of early

[5]converts were from polytheism in Arabia and later from Mazdaism in Persia who didnotreceive Immt states MarshahG.Sj. Hodgson, TkeVent eoflslarn'.COTis teace and History in a World Civilization, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 1/194, 200-206 and Richard Bed, TkeOrigtnofl arntnltsCl tst anEnvironrnent.Tke Gunning Lectures, Edinburgh University, 1925 [London: Macmillan & Co., Ltd., 1926], esp. 190-191). Only in the following centuries did large numbers of Christians and Jews become Muslim, and many arguably under economic and social duress. Nonetheless, the poor witness of Christians in their relations with each other (as Sura 43:65 attests) and contacts with members of other religions (Sura 2:113), as well as a lack of interest on the part of the Eastern churches in evangelizing indigenous groups should not be underestimated factors in conversion to Islam. One can cite as evidence the apparent absence of an Arabic translation of the Bible before the first 'Abbasid century to be used for evangelization of nomadic tribes (Sidney H. Griffith, “The Gospel in Arabic: An Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbasid Century,” Oriens Christianus 69 (1985): 126-167). Mulammad’s initial conviction that he was receiving the message of the Gospels and Torah in Arabic to be used in converting these tribes to monotheism also supports this idea. Only gradually did Muslims become aware of the extent of the discrepancies between the scriptures, indicating that they had a fairly limited knowledge of Christianity.

6. Daniei-JySahas, 3ol؟fDamasc tsoiilslam •.Tie “Heresy of t Islmaeiifes” Leiden. Brill, 1972).

[6]        GerrittJ. Reinink, “The Beginnings of Syriac Apologetic Literature in Response to Islam,” Oriens Christian 77 (1993): esp. 186-187.

[7]        Sidney H. Griffith, “Muslims and Church Councils: the Apology of Theodore Abu Qurrah,” Studia Patristica 25 (Leuven: Peeters Press, 1993), 272.

[8]        Sidney H. Griffith, “The Prophet Muhammad: His Scripture and His Message according to the Christian Apologies in Arabic and Syriac from the First Abbasid Century,” in La Vie du Prophete Mahomet, Bibliotheque des Centres d’Etudes Superieurs Specialises, ed. Colloque de Strasbourg (octobre 1980) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1983), 99-100 and “Disputes with Muslims in Syriac Christian Texts: from Patriarch John III (d. 648) to Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286),” Wolfenbutteler Symposion, “Religionsgesprache im Mittelalter” (11-15June, 1989), 253-257.

[9]        In keeping with his silence on specific aspects of Islam, Abu Ra’itah does not explicitly mention Muhammad or the Qur’an in his own works.

[10]        Jaroslav Pelrkan, Th« ChristianTraditiool Hist, of theDe-oelojmientofDoctrine, vol. 1'. "I Emergence of till Gallic Tradition (10(^-^(^(^(^) (Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 12-27.

[11]        See Bertrand de Margerie, The Christian Trinity in History, trans. EdmundJ. Fortman, Studies in Historical Theology 1 (Still River, MA. St. Bede’s Publications, 1982١, 126138; Jaroslav Pehkan, Christianity and Classical Culture'. The Metamorjlosis of Nat al Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (New Haven, CT. Yale University Press, 1995).

[12]        See for examplJ. Spencer Trimingham, Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-

[13]Islamic Times (London & New York. Longman, Beirut. Librairie du Liban, 1979), esp. pp. 243-286.

[14],4 Gerald Hawting, “Sirk and ‘Idolatry’ in Monotheist Polemic,” in: Dhimmis andOth««'. 3«U)S andChTistiansand th« WoildofClassicallslam., IsraelOTi mtalStdies 17, ed. Uri Rubin and DavidJ. Wasserstein (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, Inc., 1997), 107-126.

,5 Detailed discussions of the relevant topics can be found in Pelikan, Christian Tradition., 1/311-325 and Bertrand Margerie, The Chilian Tii^ntty in Histoiy, trans. EdmundJ. Fortman, Studies in Historical Theology, vol. 1 (Still River, MA: St. Bede’s Publications, 1982), 57-138.

[15] The Jews are accused directly of tampering with the scriptures in the Qur’an in several passages, including Susa 2:63-64, 77-79. Evidence in favor of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, as well as the lack of any reference in the Gospels to the coming of Muhammad was attributed by later Muslim scholars to the treachery of Jesus’ followers. This problem of tahrif will be examined in detail below.

[16],7 See the conclusions of Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The GraecoArabic Translation Moornent in Baglai and Eaili "'Abbasid Society (2nd-4th./8th.-10th. Centuries) (London, New York: Routledge, 1998).

[17]        Gerhard Klinge, “Die Beduetung der syrischen Theologen als Vermittler der griechischen Philosophie an den Islam,” Zeitschrijtjur Kirchengeschichte 58 (1939): 346-386.

[18]        Gulas, Gi kTlougIt ,121-141-',؟•E . Pelers, Aiistollea id. tlAial ؟:Tie Aristotelian Tradition in Islam (New York: New York University Press, 1968), 57-67.

[19]        The theological issues current in Islamic circles in the eighth and ninth centuries are discussed extensively in W. Montgomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1998), Majid Fakhry, A History of Islamic Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, 1983), Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1976) and Morris S. Seale, Muslim Theology' A Study ofOitginis utl^lRefeien (^e to tlCllFatl's London: Luzac & Co. Ltd., 1964). The development of criteria for interpretation and collection of ahadit can be found in Watt andJoseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964, rep. 1986). The books of Wolfson and Seale should be used with care, however. In my opinion, both authors impute far too much Christian influence in development of Islamic theology than is warranted by the evidence.

[20]        Wolfson, Kalam, 112-132, 235-278.

[21]        For the background to this contribution, see Harald Suermann, “Der Begriff lai be!Abu RA١ab,” bi'. ClibstmAraltAjjologet 1258-750) 1ا?س1ا1ماعائة), ed. Samir Khalil Samir and Jorgen S. Nielsen, Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Bookseries), vol. LXIII (Leiden, New York, K٥ln: EJ. Brill, 1994), 157-171.

[22]        Margerie, Christian Trinity, 122-138.

[23]        It seems this apologetical aspect of the theological shift away from the trinitarian economy after the Cappadocians is a significant one that has been overlooked by critics of medieval theologians such as Catherine Mowry LaCugna. In her book, Godfor Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991), LaCugna argues that with Augustine the relations between the divine persons and the economy of redemption were minimized, resulting in an emphasis on God as an impersonal divine source. This, she maintains, was extensively developed by Thomas Aquinas and had far-reaching consequences for all aspects of theological thought. While there may be truth to her argument for the Western church, it does not take into consideration the apologetical difficulties facing those who were forced to defend their trinitarian monotheism, and even of their influence on Aquinas, who was aware of Jewish and Islamic criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a topic which warrants further examination.

[24]        J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), I/27-41.

[25]        RfcharAW .BulAet, CoiCTStOTi tolslarn 1 hteMedicaalPe'd.AiEssay tQtai- titative History (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1979), 81.

[26]        Ibid., 81-82.

[27]        Wadi Z. Haddad, “Continuity and Change in Religious Adherence: NinthCentury Baghdad,,” 'm. Collision ail Continuity. Indigenous Christian Communities in Islamic Lands, Eighth to Eighteenth Centuries, M. Gervers & R.J. Bikhazi, eds., Coll. Papers in Mediaeval Studies 9 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990), 34. However, those who refused to pay the gizyah or to convert risked death or enslavement if they did not prevail against the Muslim armies. See Andre Ferre, “Chretiens de Syrie et de Mesopotamie au debut de !’Islam” Islamochristiana 14 (1988): 77-79.

[28]        Those considered to be included in the ahl al-kitab are Christians, Jews, the Sabi’a (a sect not positively identified) and, by some authorities, the Zoroastrians. Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law, trans. Andras and Ruth Hamori (NewJersey: Princeton University Press, 1981), 33-36.

[29]        Hodgson, Venture of Islam, I/200-203; Armand Abel, “La Djizya: Tribut ou Ran؟on?” Studia Islamica 32 (1970): 5-19.

[30]3, See, for example, Armand Abel, “L'apocalypse de Ballra et la notion islamique de Mahdi,” Anntairele I’lstuflePllotogee etl’Histoire Orientates 3 1935١'. 1-13', ؛.؟. Martinez, “The Apocalyptic Genre in Syriac: The World of Pseudo-Methodius”, in: HJ.W. Drijvers et al. (eds.) IV Symposium Syriacum 1984, Orientalia Christiana Perlica 229 1981١: 337-352; Harald Suermana, Die gesdiicIts t eologiscle Realton atf lie        einfallen len Msiirne        inter elessenisclen Ajjokalsijt        les        7.        dal        unlerts        Frankfurt

am Main, New York: P. Lang, 1985).

[31]        Daniel C. Dennett has made compelling arguments to this effect in his study Conversion anl the Poll Tax in Early Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950). All previous analyses should be understood in light of his conclusions.

[32]        Ibid., 3-13.

[33]        Ibid., 45.

[34]        Dionysius of TeH Mahrfe, Clroondco ا1 = ا e rtiat rtoTisclonico tawmyma mjjsea do- Dionysianum vulgo Oictum, ed. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, CSCO (Parisiis: E Typographeo Reipublicae, 1927), 104/154, 507/116.

[35]        Clonitpee de Mitel le Sytei Pat ale Jacobite d’Atiocle (1166-1199), JeanBaptiste Chabot, ed. and trans. T. I-III, French trans., T. IV, Syriac text (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899-1910), II/473, IV/447.

[36]        Dennett, Conversion, 45-48.

[37]        Ibid., 3-13; Ferre, “Chretiens,” 79-84.

[38]        J.C. Miles, “The Iconography of Umayyad Coinage” Ars orientalis 3 (1959): 207-213; Andre Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archeologique (Paris: College de France, 1957), 67-74.

[39]        Moshe Sharon, “An Arabic Inscription from the Time of the Caliph 'Abd A-Mallk,” Ballet of th« ScloolofOrietalan d. AfricanStlts 29 (1966/. 361-312.

[40]        The inscriptions found on the Dome of the Rock are the oldest known written texts of the Qur’an. The citations chosen emphasize the essential beliefs of Islam such as the unity and oneness of God (Sura 112) and the belief that Mulammad is the prophet of God (Sura 33:54). However, a disproportionate space is given to verses which reject Christian beliefs (Sura 4:169-171; 19:34-37). Oleg Grabar, “The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,” Ars Orientalis 3 (1959): 33-62, repr. in Studies in Medieval Islamic Art (London: Variorum Reprints, 1976), 52-62; Sidney H. Griffith, “Theodore Abu Qurrah’s Arabic Tract on the Christian Practice of Venerating Images,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (1985): 62-65.

[41]        Ferre, “Chretiens,” 104.

[42]        Hodgson, Venture of Islam, I/280-284, 303-305.

[43]        Ibid., I/247-254, 274-276; Arthur Stanley Tritton, The Caliphs and Their Non- MisslimSubjects: ACritCcalShul, of t CoDCTiamtof"'Umar. London, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1930), 18-23.

[44]        See Shaban, Abbasid Revolution, 168 and H.A.R. Gibb, “The Fiscal Rescript of 'Umar II,” Arabica 2 (1955): 2-3.

[45]        Shaban, Abbas'dtRetoli'a

[46]        Showkat Hussain, “Status ofNon-Muslims in Islamic State,” Hamdard Islamicus 16 (1993): 67-70.

[47]        For Christians this included prohibitions against ringing church bells, wearing or displaying crosses, public processions, repairing or building new churches, etc. Ferre, “Chretiens,” 98-103.

[48]        The most extensive study of the Covenant of ‘Umar available remains that of Tritton, Caliphs, especially pp. 5-17.

[49]        Ibid., 12-16.

[50]        Ibid., 229-233.

[51]        Ferre, “Chretiens,” 104-105.

[52]        Hodgson, Venture of Islam, 1/206-207; Gutas, Greek Thought, 23-24.

[53]        Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234pertinens, Jean-Baptiste Chabot, ed. and trans. Syriac text and Latin trans. CSCO, A. Abouna, French trans., (T. 15, series tertia) (Pariis:J. Gabalda, 1916-1920, 1937; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1974), 81/298-299, 109/232-233.

[54]        Hodgson, Venture of Islam, I/235-236, 449.

[55]        Scattered inscriptions and poetry passed on orally constitute the limited pre- Qur’anic literary body of Arabic. Hodgson, Venture of Islam, I/151-153.

[56]        The initial lexicographers and grammarians were non-Arabs who had learned Arabic and were interested in understanding it better. Sibawayh of Ba?ra (d. 177/793) was the first of these and is credited with producing the standard book of grammar used by later generations. Hodgson, Venture of Islam, I/296-297.

[57]        Griffith, “Abu Ra'itah,” 162.

[58]        The end of the seventh century also saw an increase in Syriac apocalypses. These were apparently intended to promote the idea of a future unified Christian empire brought into being after a final holy war in which armies led by the Byzantine emperor would vanquish the Arabs. Since the monophysite churches were especially suspicious that Byzantine efforts were designed to bring them into the Chalcedonian fold, the emperor was portrayed as a figure similar to Constantine and Jovian who would liberate Christians from pagan rule and restore the Christian kingdom in the hopes of preventing conversions to Islam (Reinink, “Syriac Apologetic Literature,” 183-184).

[59]        This is the case with nearly all Syriac apologetic literature of this period. An important example for our purposes here is letter recording a discussion between the Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch Yolannan Sedra (631-648) and a Muslim official named 'Amr, probably 'Umayr ibn Sa'd al-Ansari, that took place in 639. Although there is some dispute about the historical authenticity of the occasion, the intention of the author is clearly to establish Islam as a recent manifestation of Old Testament religion and Mosaic law which does not supersede Christianity. Written in Syriac, it displays an awareness of Islamic claims to be a new religion and shows special concern for the opportunity that the weakness of divisions among Christians provide in the face of Muslim proselytism. Based on this overall theme, the text in its current form can be dated around the beginning of the eighth century. (Reinink, “Syriac Apologetic Literature,” 176-182; Griffith, “The Prophet Muhammad,” 99-100 and “Disputes,” 253-257. A French translation of the text can be found in Franyois Nau, “Un colloque du patriarcheJean avec !'emir des Agareens et faits divers des annees 712 a 715 d'apres le ms. du British Museum Add. 17193. Avec un appendice sur le patriarcheJean Ier sur un colloque d'un patriarche avec le chef des mages et sur un diplime qui aurait ete donne par Omar a l'eveque du Tour 'Abdin,” Journal Asiatique 11/5 (1915): 225-279. A German translation has been prepared by Harald Suermann in “Orientalische Christen und der Islam. Christliche Texte aus der Zeit von 632-750,” Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 67 (1983): 122-128).

[60]        Some scholars have suggestion that translations were made much earlier; however, no concrete evidence to support this has come to light. Griffith, “Gospel,” 128', Arthur NuUbus, Early Versions of the New Testament'. Manuscrift Studies, Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 6 (Stockholm: [Estonian Theological Society in Exile], 1954), 271-277.

[61]        See the arguments made below in Witnesses.

[62]        Thomas Richard Hurst, “The Syriac Letters of Timothy I (727-823): A Study in Christian-Muslim Controversy,” unpublished Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 1985.

[63]        This letter is extant in both a longer and a shorter account. The longer Syriac version is available in A. Mingana, “Timothy’s Apology for Christianity,” vol. 2, 'rn Woo 1 ookeSult S'.CI istianDocu. ments tnSyfiaiArabtal. Galt ni.,ed. and trans. (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Limited, 1928), 1-162, the shorter version is found in A. Van Roey, “Une apologie syriaque attribute a Elie de Nisibe,” Le Museon 59 (1946): 381-397. For Arabic versions see Hans Putman, L’eglise et I’islam sous Timothee I (Beyrouth: Dar el-Machreq, 1975); Robert Caspar, “Les versions arabes du dialogue entre le Catholicos Timothee I et le Calife al-Mahdi (IIe/VIIIe siecle), ‘Mohammed a suivi la voie des prophetes’,” Islamochristiana 3 (1977): 107-175.

[64]        This text has been edited and translated in Van Roey, Nonnus.

[65]        For a brief survey of each of these authors and published editions of their writings, see Griffith, “The Prophet Muhammad,” 101-104.

[66]        The same can be said of Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian, all of which were used by Christians to formulate anti-Islamic polemic directed at their specific communities. See, for example, Reinink, “Syriac Apologetic Literature”; Griffith, “Disputes,” “From Aramaic to Arabic: The Languages of the Monasteries of Palestine in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51 (1997): 11-31, “Greek into Arabic: Life and Letters in the Monasteries of Palestine in the Ninth Century; the Example of the Summa Theologiae Arabica,” Byzantion 56 (1986): 117-138.

[67]        Griffith, “Muslims and Church Councils,” 272-273.

[68]        Hawting, “^irk,” 120-123.

[69]        These include the above-mentioned Trinity, Incarnation, integrity of the Christian scriptures, free-will, sacraments, and numerous Christian practices, such as veneration of the cross, marriage customs, etc. Griffith, “Disputes,” 254-255.

[70]        Sidney H. Griffith, “Comparative Religion in the Apologetics of the First Christian Arabic Theologians,” Proceedings of the PMR Conference 4 (1979): 63-64. Abu Ra'itah, whose letters are addressed almost exclusively to Christians asking advice on how to answer these criticisms, takes great pains to demonstrate the consistency of the Christian faith.

[71]        Georg Graf, “Christliche Polemik gegen den Islam.” Gelbe Hefte 2 (1926): 827.

[72]        Josef Van Ess, “Disp.utationspraxis in der islamischen Theologie. Eine vor- lufige Skizze,” Revue des Etudes Islamiques 44 (1976): 24. See also,Josef Van Ess, Anjange mu.siimii.scl' Tleologt اللثة-! atqada-ritisdie Traktate ats lem listen dalitlert der Higra, Beiruter Texte u. Studien, Bd. 4 (Beirut: Orient-Institut; Wiesbaden: In Kommission bei F. Steiner, 1977).

[73]        There are numerous examples of this, including John of Damascus, the Didascalia of James, Hieronymous of Jerusalem, etc. See Bernd Reiner Voss, Der Dialog in der fruhchristlichen Literatur, Studia et Testimonia Antiqua IX (Monchen: W. Fink, 1970).

[74]        Van Ess, “Disputationspraxis,” 52-53, 55. Nonetheless, as a consequence of scepticism about the possibility of finding religious truth (takafu ’ al-adilla) it remained for some a form of entertainment and an opportunity to show one’s skill at rhetoric (Josef Van Ess, “Scepticism in Islamic Religious Thought,” Al-Abhat 21 (1968): 1-18).

[75]        Van Ess, “Disputationspraxis,” 44.

[76]        Ibid., 34. This was certainly the case among Muslim scholars, and Abu Ra’itah implies in On the Trinity 2, 5 that this was also the case for Christians.

[77]        Ibid., 48.

[78]        Ibid., 28-29.

[79]        It has been argued that existent texts claiming to be eyewitness accounts of debates were written much later as theological exercises and were simply effective literary forms for presenting apologetical arguments. However, the sheer number of Syriac and Arabic apologetical texts in this form which exist, as well as numerous outside references to such debates make it highly unlikely that they did not actually occur. In fact, their effectiveness as literary tools to some extent depends upon their plausibility (Sidney H. Griffith, “Reflections on the Biography of Theodore Abu Qurrah,” Parole de I’Orient 18 (1993): 156-157).

[80]8, Sidney H. Griffith, “Theodore Abu Qurrah, the Intellectual Profile of an Arab Christian Writer of the First Abbasid Century,” The Dr. Irene Halmos Chair of Arabic Literature Annual Lecture (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1992), 24-25.

[81]        Van Ess, “Disputationspraxis,” 27, 39.

[82]        Ibid., 26, 29-30.

[83]        One finds evidence of this in a multitude of writings by both Muslims, such as Almad ibn Hanbal (163-240/780-855), and Abu 'Isa al-Warraq, and Christians, including Abu Qurrah, Timothy I, and of course, Abu Ra’itah.

[84]        Dirar addressed this topic in a book called the Kitab Adab al-mutakallimun (“Methods of the Theologians”), written at the beginning of the ninth century. The later book of Ibn al-Rawandi, Kitab Adab al-gadal (“The Method of Discussion”) had a tremendous influence on later theologians, who passed it down and corrected it. Van Ess, “Disputationspraxis,” 30-34.

[85]        Ibid., 33-34.

[86]        Ibid., 36-38. At munagarat between Muslims and non-Muslims the role of questioner was rarely given to the latter. While maintaining the required level of courtesy, usually the Muslim took the role of “missionary”, often enquiring at the outset why the opponent remained a Christian or a Jew.

[87]        Ibid., 40.

[88]        Ibid., 42.

[89]        Ibid., 36.

[90]9, Ibid., 40-41. Van Ess maintains that theologians did not recognize the two categories of questions until later, although one finds both types in the writings of Abu Ra'itah.

[91]        Ibid., 27; 40, n.8.

[92]        Ibid., 25.

[93]        In On the Trinity, for example, Abu Ra’itah begins with the challenge posed by Muslims for Christians to defend their faith. He gives them the option to choose their position in the debate, but then proceeds to raise questions that they are to answer (§7). However, in the remainder of the text he provides the questions that a Muslim questioner would ask, and the most effective answers and objections to them.

[94]        The exceptions are the manuscripts containing Witnesses and Demonstration.

[95]        The texts of Trinity and Threefold Praise II are contained together in manuscript Par. ar. 169; all three are found in Bibl. P. Sbath 1001 and 1041.

[96]        See the comments of Khalil Samir in “Creation et incarnation chez Abu Ra’itah. fetaAeAevocabuiaAe,” "m Midges eiib^(^nm^(^ge(^iij)oofessn^T etcuijieei«' iibci(iisF<rTdl. Jabre, Publications de !’Universe Libanaise, Section des Etudes Philosophiques et Sociales, 20 (Beirut: Departement des Publications de l’Universite Libanaise, 1989), 190, and “Liberte religieuse et propagation de la foi chez les theologiens arabes chretiens du ixe siecle et en Islam,” in Witness of Faith in Life and Worship, Tantur Yearbook, 1980-1981 (Tantur/Jerusalem: Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research, 1981), 99, n. 12. Samir has devoted some effort to solving this problem and has promised a full explanation of his findings in a future publication.

[97]        Samir, “Creation," 189-190.

[98]        The transition to Middle Arabic through Ancient Southern Palestinian (often called Christian Arabic) for Syriac- and other Aramaic-speakers resulted in a form of the language which reveals some noticeable deviations from Classical Arabic. Aba Ra’itah’s writings exhibit a number of the characteristics associated with the adoption of Arabic by Christians, including the frequent use of ما as a negation, the predominance of subject-verb-object word order (more prevalent in Aramaic) instead of the usual verb-subject order found in Classical Arabic, and a haphazard use of فا and و. These variations from Classical Arabic, among others, often give the reader of Aba Ra’itah’s writings the impression of a carelessness and sometimes incomprehensibility not infrequently found among early Christian Arabic writers. For a full study of this transitional period seeJoshua Blau, A Grammar of Christian Arabic 1-111'. Basel Mainly on South-Palestinian Texts from the First Millennium, CSCO 267, 276, 279/subs. 27-29 (Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1966-1967): esp. 267, subs. 27/42-58.

[99]        It is no accident that Aba Ra’itah chooses to write in Arabic and not in his native Syriac just at the turn of the ninth century. By this period, the 'Abbasid Arabization policy was well under way. Among the many aspects and effects of this strategy was the 'Abbasid caliphs’ hope of unifying the various cultures under their control and providing a common medium for social participation and intellectual exchange. For a well-argued study on the transition to Arabic under the 'Abbasid’s, see Gutas, Greek Thought, esp. his conclusions, 187-192.

[100]        See Salim Daccache, “Polemique, logique et elaboration theologique chez Aba Ra’ita al-Takrit," Annales de Philosophie 6 (1985): 38.

[101]        For complete biographical information on Nonnus of Nisibis, see A. Van Roey, Nonntts de Nisi.be, Tiat Apolog tqite, ؛title, texte et taditct on, BAAothLque du Museon, vol. 21 (Louvain: Bureaux du Museon, 1948), esp. 3-60.

[102]        DieSeltytei'idesjlacobttei'i Hl bltHidmaAbtRatal trans .Georg,Gra؟,GSGO 130 (Arabic text) and 131 (German translation), Scriptores Arabici 14-15 (Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1951), 131/ii. Graf gives the date of 824 for the end of ASot’s rule; however, there is no evidence that he did not reign until his death in 826.

[103]        Griffith, “Reflections,” 146.

[104]        See for example, Graf, 131/82, n. 3 and Van Roey, 19, n. 51.

[105]        In Proof 2, 5 and the Demonstration, Abu Ra’itah argues that fear of the sword provides no proof for the truth of a religion, nor is it an acceptable reason to change one’s beliefs. In both instances he uses the peacefulness of Christianity as evidence for its truth, and with the implication that his readers are aware of other religions, namely Islam, that do not fit this criterion.

[106]        Robert W. Thompson, The Historical Compilation of Vardan Arewelc'i, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 43 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1989), 183. For the Armenian text, see J. Muyldermans, La domination arabe CTiArmifrii.e. Exite I’Histoite Uoersette de Va Ian Paris'. Llrairie Paul- Geuthner•, Louvain: ImprimerieJ.B. Istas, 1927), 60/9-14, Fr. trans. 115. BminipuO jmjOnuhU ™أ kul)nuinu if[( builtlpunui mOniO Ml lignin , t pmOmjp quipdirOti qOm. . . PM|l)hqn01i . qnp initmi Pniptn nfO t)uipqMqtn ( ULpmqtnu , mnmpt qumplimimqO LmOm , npnj tlt| tfuipnOdi pOq Ut٠inmj , t jmipt Otfui qopniptfp . . . t tai|t qOm h?hmOO , t hmunmnh tu mnmiti ( hiuiuinu uppnjO ٩٠pb : The Vardapet Vardan’s Historical Compilation is a history of Armenia from creation to the year 1267.

[107]        Louis Maries; “Epikoura = Aboukara,” Revue des Etudes Armeniennes 1 (19201921): 439-441. Thomson has noted that Vardan’s primary source for the ninth century was the history of Armenia by John Catholicos (r. 897-925). John identifies his own source for details concerning the origin of the Bagratid kings and events that are not found elsewhere as the writings of Sapuh Bagratuni (d. after 899). ’apuh’s works are now lost, but from the coincidence of their lives, it is not improbable that John knew him personally. See Robert W. Thomson, “Vardan’s Historical Compilation and Its Sources”, Le Museon 100 (1987): 350. Nonnus was imprisoned with the royal family when ’apuh was a young man, and it is probable that they were acquainted, making Nonnus the ultimate source for the Arabic.

[108]189 Van Roey, Nonnus, 10-11.

[109]
118. Marie-Felicite Brosset, Histoire chronologique par Mkhithar d’Airivank, Memoires de l’Academie imperial des sciences de St. Petersburg, 7e serie, t. 13, fasc. 5 (St.- Petersburg: Acad. Imp., 1869), 83. The relevant passage is: “Epicoura (buiblpiinuij) s’efforce d’amener Achot (Un) a la foi de Chalcedoine, mais le vartabeid Bpuret (Pniptn) envoie son diacre Nana (LmOmO), qui triomphe d’Epicoura et explique !’Evan- gile de S.Jean.” As quoted in Van Roey, Nonnus, 11.

[110] N.. AVnian, Tlieo dot Aba-Q٥iaa d Nat (Notts) det آدةei tAienie tad die

[111]aimieaisclie Uebeisetzunig les Kommeitais aim 3(1 nne sEangelti on Nat a, '«S'. Hailes and the Question of the Chalcedonian Armenians,” (Russian) Bizantiskii Vremennik, t. 12 (1905): 1-68. As cited by Van Roey, Nonnus, 16.

[112]        Chronique, III/32-34, IV/496.

[113]        Dionysius of Tell Ma Ire, Patriarch of Antioch, is most well-known for his chronicle, which is now lost. It was an important source for the chronicles of both Michael the Syrian and Gregory Abu ’l-Farag (Bar Hebraeus). Sidney H. Griffith, “Dionysius of Tell Mai e”, ODB: 1/628-629.

[114]        Van Roey, 14-15. Van Roey is suspicious of the report, however, since he believes that it was not Patriarch Cyriacus, but the “Bishop” Abu Ra’itah who sent Nonnus.

[115]        Chronique, III/50, IV/507.

[116]        It seems that Abiram was wearing the pallium and laying claim to the patriarchal seat. Apparently he had also accused several bishops of heresy and even denounced Cyriacus. He and his brother, Simeon, and a third excommunicated monk (probably Philoxenus) appealed to the Muslim governor, 'Abdullah b. Tahir, for a commission and to be given authority. As evidence for his legitimacy, he produced a commission from 'Ali b. Abi Talib which had been given under the authority of al-Ma'mUn. After at least two audiences with the governor, Dionysius was recognized as the legitimate patriarch of Antioch (Chronicon, 82/264-265, 354/198-199). While the bishops had the right of electing their own heads, the final approval remained with the government. Without a commission from the Muslim authorities, a church leader and his followers would have been considered heretics and not received dimm status (Tritton, Caliphs, 80-84). The letter written by Mar Dionysius of Tell Male, which does not mention Abu Ra'itah, explains the consequences of the situation for the church more clearly. Dionysius includes the following in his report: “Because of the terrible accusations against him which were presented to us by the Archdeacon Nonnus, a virtuous and estimable man, we had forbidden Philoxenus of Nisibis from returning to Nisibis before having been judged. We delayed his examination for six years, in the hope that God would provide the solution and an outcome which pleased him, so that by this examination the Holy Church could avoid becoming the object of derision because of him. [But] as he did not cease to stir up trouble and cast division into the village, we convened forty bishops at Ras 'Ayna and pronounced his deposition.” (Chronique, III/65, IV/517). This letter is also reproduced in the anonymous Chronicon 1234, where it is clearly stated that Nonnus was the archdeacon of Philoxenus (Chronicon 1234, ibid.).

[117]        See Griffith, “Theodore Abh Qurrah.”

[118]        The text of Abh l-Barakat ibn Kabar Sams ar-Riy’asah (d. 1324) simply notes that Abh Ra’itah is responding to a Mu'tazili. See the first chapter of his سلبة نى دبي ١لئدمة xJv* ١ran؛٥ed ا0لأ؛ة*’ا’'’)0ا٦ةأح؛د' اهجثاً ااظطعم٠. lumineuse) du Service (de lEglise) (Louis Villecourt, Eugene Tisserant, Gaston Weit, ed. and trans., Patrologia Orientalis, 20/4, no. 99 [Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1928], 654).

[119]        Samir, “Liberte,” 98-100.

[120]        Jean-Maurice Fley, Po ttOtrnsCl stia tisNo ts •٠ R jee toil edesdiocisessytaqtes orientaux et occidentaux (Beirut: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, 1993), 28-29; Giorgio Fedalto, Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis, series episcoporum ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium, 2 vols. [Padova: Edizioni messagero, 1988]), 11/80.1.17.

[121]        Jean-Maurice Fiey, “Tagrit, esquisse d’histoire chretienne,” L'Orient Syrien 8 (1963>١. 313-314:,( reprinted In Commit attis syiiaqiees enl anetl akdes engines 1552, no. X, [London. Variorum Reprints, 1979]).

[122]        JeanMaurlceFIey, Ctatiei ssyiiaq tesso IS lesAbbassides,s t to ttdBagdad (749- 1258),CSCO 420, subsidia tomus 59 (Louvain. Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1980), 41-75, esp. 63-65.

[123]        One line of tradition does associate him with Nisibis, based on the heading found in the Vat. ar. 103 and Sbath 1017 manuscripts of Demonstration, but this is probably a confusion due to his relationship with Nonnus of Nisibis.

[124]        Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/i-ii. Graf states that Michael the Syrian has included Abu Ra'itah among theJacobite bishops (ibid., i). However, this is not the case. One should point out though that Joseph S. Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis Clem- entino-Vaticana mentions “Abibum Episcopum Tagritensem” in his summary of the contents of the Kitab ItiiaJ alAba’ t. 2٠. De sciijttoiib US Syio Monojihisites, 154), but not in the list of the prelates of the city of Takrit (t. 2, 437) (Rome. Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1721).

[125]        “بن حديثة التكريتى اسقف مدينة تكريت مني كرمى سروح؛ لمعروف بادى رايطة KJ- الاب, Georg Grit, “Das Schriftellerverzeichnis des' Abb Ishaq ibn al-'Ass^l)” Oriens christianus, Neue Serie 2 (1912): 212-213.

[126]        See W-AielmRiedek, Alm Earakatfb 1 KabaiDeiKatalgdiCl Istl liScljt. in arabischer Sprache von Abu 'i-Barakat, Nachrichten der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Heft V (Berlin: Weidmannche Buchhandlung, 1902): 666, 703.

[127]        Ignatiybs Afram al-Awwal Bar?awm, كتاب اللؤلؤ المنثور في تاريخ العلوم والآداب السريانية = Histoire des sciences et de ia iitterature syriaque (Him?: Academie Irakienne, 1943, 1956, 1976; rep. Holland: Bar Hebraeus Verlag, 1987), 332.

[128]        Jean-Maurice Fiey, “Habib Abb Ra’itah n’etait pas eveque de Takrit,” pp. 211-214, Acts It dttxtme congrts iitriat Oiial Itds arabcs ا lit 1 ا s (Oosteil ssclm, septembre 1984), ed. Khalil Samir, Orientaiia Christiana Analecta 226 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1986).

[129]’3٥ See for example Haddad, Trinite, n. 2’5.

[130]’3’ Fiey, “Abu Ra’itah,” 2’2.

[131]
132. Ibid., 2’4.

[132]
133. “When Buret (Pmt ), a certain vardapet (a)iaa[iqiut ) in Mesopotamia, heard of this, he dispatched the deacon Nana (LmOmO) , who came and disputed with Apikura (UuiIiIliiuj),” Thomson, Historical Compilation, ’83; Muyldermans, Domination, 60 (Armenian text); and Brosset, Mkhithar dUvank, 83.

[133]’34 “When Nonnus arrived, he saw that Asot was inclined toward the heresy of Pygla [Abu Qurrah]. ASot thought that Nonnus, a young man, could not debate at the same level in his presence, on account of the renown of that man. And when Nonnus demanded a discussion, Pygla refused, under the pretext that it was not dignified for a bishop to debate with young man (because he believed he would be unmasked). However, he was obliged to do so by ASot.” (Chronique, III/33, IV/496).

[134]        Gregorii Barhebraei, Chronicon Ecclesiasticum,Tomus I, ed. Johannes Baptista Abbeloos et Thomas Josephus Lamy (Lovanii: Excudebat car. Peeters, 1872), col. 363: “On account of the terrible accusations brought against him by his archdeacon Nonnus, a virtuous and estimable man, Philoxenus of Nisibis was deposed by forty bishops gathered at the synod in RaS 'Ayna.”

[135]        Fiey, “Abh Ra’itah,” 213.

[136]        Ibid.

[137]        c لآلآلالآ ,سد, W/4h6>.

[138]        Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/91; 130/73.

[139]        Fiey, “Abb Ra’itah,” 213.

[140]        Van Roey, Nonnus, 5.

[141]        Samir, “Creation,” 191.

[142]        Fiey, “Abb Ra’itah,” 214.

[143],44 Robert W. Thomson, “Vardapet in the Early Armenian Church,” Le Museon 75 (1962): 367-382.

[144],45 Thomson, “Vardapet”, 383.

[145]        R. Payne Smith, ed. et al., Thesaurus Syriacus, Tomus I (Oxonii: E Typog- rapheo Clarendoniano, 1879; repr. Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1981), 214.

[146]        The Canons of Henana use the term for those teachers who are of high rank in the School of Nisibis. In some manuscripts it designates those of the highest rank, while in others it is applied to teachers in general. See Arthur V٥٥bus, The Statutes of the School of Nisibis (Stockholm: Etse, 1962), esp. 93, n. 15.

[147]
148. Arthur V&&bus. History of tis llfAistlt^CSCO 266>,SuWir26 Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965), esp. 325.

[148]        Al ؛. WensfnA, 4RM t ItmCieed'.ISsGmesSsai'iHSstoiicalDralojjmimt (Cambridge: University Press, 1932; rep. New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1979), 79.

[149]        Louis Gardet, “'ILM AL-KALAM,” EI2, vol. 3: 1141-1143.

[150]        Although the writings of a few anti-Christian polemicists have been published, including Abu 'Ulman al-Gahiz (158-254/775-868), Abu 'l-Hasan 'All Sahl Rabban at-Tabari (c. 192-c. 250/c. 808-c. 864), and Abu 'Isa al-Warraq (d. 247/861), the general unavailability of these works has obscured their importance for the history of Muslims and Christian thought. A significant contribution has been made by David Thomas, with his translation and commentary in Anti-Christian Polemic (see especially 31-50 for summaries of important early Islamic refutations of Christianity). The series to which this volume belongs promises to make more of these relevant texts available (The History of Christian-Muslim Relations, ed. D. Thomas, T. Khalidi, GJ. Reinink, M. Swanson [Leiden: Brill]).

[151],52 Although a common theme in early Christian apologetic was the refutation of Judaism, the debate generally centered around the interpretation of the Old Testament and showing thatJesus was indeed the Messiah. The Qur’an, on the other hand, while acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah, explicitly rejects the Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity, and presents itself as the revelation which supersedes adl previous revelation. Thus, although Christians and Muslims share certain themes and figures (such as Creation and the Last judgement, Abraham, Moses, Mary andjesus), Muslims refuse evidence contrary to the Qur’an, leaving Christians without recourse to traditional scripture-based arguments. See Sandra Toenies Keating, “Refuting the Charge of Talrif: Abu Ra'itah (d. ca. 835) and His ‘First Risala on the Holy Trinity’,” pp. 35-50, in: Ideas, Images, and Methods of Portrayal'. Insights into Classical Arabic Ltterat ا anil Islam., eA. Sebastian Guenther (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

[152],53 One must be cautious here of attributing too much direct influence in the debate to Christian involvement. Although it is undeniable that important controversies among early Islamic thinkers (such as those over free will, the createdness of the Qur’an, and the attributes of God) bear significant resemblances to similar theological issues in Christianity, some modern scholars have seen these as merely a redux of Christian thought. Others have argued that the Islamic contribution is unique and even that it arose independently from Christian thought. However, the complex interplay between the two religions cannot be reduced to a one-way influence, often making it difficult to correctly identify the origin of a particular question or stream of thought. With this in mind, the following studies are still master works on the subject: Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Kalam (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1976), Seale, Muslim Theology, Richard M. Frank, “The Divine Attributes According to the Teaching of Abu al-Hudhayl alAllaf’ Le Museon 82 (1969): 451-506 and “Remarks on the Early Development of the Kalam,” pp. 315-329, in Atti del terzo congresso di Studi Arabi e Islamici. Ravello, 1966 (Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1967), and Watt, Formative Period. Dimitri Gutas, in Greek Thought, adds an important perspective on the intellectual environment of the early 'Abbasid period.

[153]154 Griffith, “Abu Ratal,” 162-164.

[154]1 Ibid., 165.

[155]
156. The earliest Syriac texts mentioning these debates record the interrogation of the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch,John III (d. 648) by Muslims in 644. He was questioned concerning the authenticity of the Christian Scriptures, along with a Jew, who was asked to show that the Torah had not been distorted. Griffith,

[156]“Disputes,” 257-258.

[157]        Griffith, “Comparative Religion,” 65.

[158]        Ibid., 66-67; Klinge, “Bedeutung,” 375-383.

[159]        See Thomas, “Abu 'Isa al-Warraq,” esp. 3-8.

[160]        Samir, “CRation,” 192.

[161]
181. GAL, S. 1, 338.

[162]
182. Ibid., 339.

[163] Ibid., 338-339.

[164] An edition of these texts with an English translation is forthcoming in a separate volume.

[165],65 Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 130 and 131. See below for a complete list of manuscripts.

[166]        The Proof of tle Christian Religion breaks off in the middle of the argument at the bottom of the page. The final word of the manuscript indicates the original presence of another page.

[167]        The dogmatic florilegium كتاب اعتراف الاياء appeared in the year 1078. It is a compilation of short summaries and citations drawn from theologians recognized by the Coptic church. Georg Graf, “Zwei dogmatische Florilegien der Kopten,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 3 (1937): 345-402.

[168]        This is the Jacobite designation for themselves, as opposed to “Christians of the East”, that is, the Nestorians. See Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/195, n. 2.

[169]        In a private communication, Khalil Samir noted that this letter was addressed to those in Bain, and not Balrayn, as Graf has assumed (Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/xxv). He is almost certainly correct, and the evidence that Bain is known to have been a Jacobite community not far from where Abu Ra’itah lived adds to the probability that they were the recipients of the letter. More will be said about this below.

[170]        The city of Bal n was probably originally in the Nestorian diocese of Bals, which became Monophysite after 605. It was located in the district called •irhan, which was a dependent of Mossul and whose capital was Takrit, Abu Rahyahs home. Jean-Maurice Fiey, Assyit cl til , B Gama, BtAi ana,)؛ Ct Maisan Nestoriens, vol. 2 (Beyrouth: Dar El-Machreq Editeurs, 1968), 138-139.

[171]        Griffith, “Disputes,” 254-255.

[172]        Graf, “Christliche Polemik,” 827.

[173]        Louis Cheikho, ed., “Mimar li Tadurus Abi Qurrah fi Wugud al-Haliq wa d-Din al-Qawim,” Al-Machriq 15 (1912): 757-774, and Michel Hayek, ed., 'Ammar al-Basn, Apologie et Controverses, Orient Chretien 5 (Beyrouth, Liban: Dar El-Machreq Editeurs, 1977).

[174]        Griffith, “Abu Ra’itah,” 167.

[175]        Cf. Heinrich Dorries, “Erotapokriseis,” Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart, 1966): VI/342-370.

[176]        The term risalah (pl. rasa’il ) will be used exclusively to refer to texts falling into the genre described here. These include On the Trinity, On the Incarnation, and Proof. The latter is an extended apology for Christianity in the form of a risalah. The letters to At Msaker, (On the Union and Threefold Praise (I)), have been designated as rasa’il in several manuscripts and by Graf; they are, however, written to a specific person for a particular purpose, and can be identified more properly as epistles.

[177]        Griffith, “Abu Ra’itah,” 167-168.

[178]        Griffith, “Comparative Religion,” 65.

[179]        Griffith, “Abu Ra’itah,” 168.

[180]
183. The particular difficulties for translating Arabic texts from this period have been outlined in Richard M. Frank, “Hearing and Saying What Was Said,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116 (1996): 611-618.

[181]        For a full listing of manuscripts containing Abu Ra’itah’s works, used by Graf, see, Abu Ra’itah, 130/ii-iv and 131/iii-iv.

[182]        Some other translations and editions of Abu Ra’itah’s individual writings have appeared, most notably that of On the Incarnation by Khalil Samir in “Creation”. These have not been incorporated into the present edition, since they do not offer significant changes to Graf’s work.

[183]        Paul Sbath, Al-Fihris: Catalogue de Manuscrits Arabes, Premiere Partie (Cairo: Impr. al-Chark, 1938), 22, nos. 132-138.

[184]        Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 130/ii, n.2.

[185]        Ibid., 130/v-vi.

[186]        Ibid., 130/vi.

[187]        This is Grafs dating, although he does not give reasons for his conclusion. The Sbath catalog assigns it to the 11th c. (Sbath, Manuscrits, 118)

[188]        PavlSbathr, Bibiiotl quedeManuscritsPaulSbath.Catalogue; Tome l-n. Cairo'. H. Friedrich et Co., 1928-. The page numbers given in Graf are incorrect. The manuscript itself assigns a single number for both the verso and recto of each of the 186 sheets, whereas Sbath numbered each page, arriving at a total of 371 pages.

[189]        Ibid., 156.

[190]        Ibid.

[191]        Ibid., 133.

[192]        Hiram MacGuckln Slane, Catalogue des manuscrits ales de la Bibiiotl que Nationale (Paris' Impr. national, 1883-1895), 41ff.

[193]        Graf, AtRa’ital 131/11, Georg, Graf, Cataloguedemanuscritsarabeschrtiiens conserves au Caire, Studi e Testi 63 (Citt del Vaticano' Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1934), 201, n. 534, and Marcus Simaika Pasha, Catalogue of the Coptic and Arabic Manuscrijrts in the Cojrtic Museum, the Patriarchate, . . ,, vol. 2,, fase. 1 fCalro'. Government Press, 1939, 1942), 134. There appears to be an error in the order that Graf gives for Sbath 1001, but I was not able to consult the Catalogue of the Coptic Museum myself to confirm whether the order of these manuscripts coincides with it.

[194]        Described in A. Mai, Scriptorum veteram nova collectio, tom. IV (Romae, 1831). This manuscript could not be found in the Vatican collection in 2001.

[195]        Also edited and translated in: Louis Cheikho, “Un traite inedit de Honein,” pp. 283>-291, 'rn Oriental si eStll.ThieolOTXSieketmsiebtgstenGebirrtstag (2.Mar;e. 1906), Erster Band, hrsg. Carl Bezold (Gieszen: Verlag von Alfred Tpelmann, 1906).

[196]        This manuscript is very corrupt and missing the beginning of the text.

[197]        JoharnesUA, BibiiothccaeBodleianaecodictmmss.oTieittairim.. .catalogts. Pars prima (Oxionii, 1787), 34.

[198]        Slane, Catalogue, 46.

[199]        Ibid., 20.

[200]        Each text title is followed by the abbreviated form used in this edition, and the Roman numeral assigned in Graf’s edition.

[201]        The second half of this is now lost.

[202]        Ms. Bibl. Sbath 1001 labels this the “second” risalah.

[203]        The biblical references are mostly found in Matthew, interspersed with citations from Luke and I Corinthians. See notes in Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/161-163.

[204]        Hodgson, Venture of Islam, I/301-308.

[205]        This is the main underlying theme in the proof found in Demonstration.

[206]        Bulliet, 82-83.

[207]        The ahl al-kitab are mentioned numerous times in the Qur’an, but are defined specifically in 2:62, 5:69, and 22:17. Verses 10:47 and 40:78 explain that to every people a messenger was sent with the revelation of God. These are the prophets of the 11 1-11

[208]        The Sabi’a are referred to in 2:62 and 22:17 among those having a revealed religion. Their identity is disputed, and many groups have claimed to be connected to them. However, the references imply that they were a monotheistic, baptizing community, suggesting they be identified with the Mandaeans or Elchasaites. Some Muslim scholars have argued that it is intended as a category for any religion deemed to be an authentic form of worshipping God. T. Fahd, “SABI'A,” EI2, vol. 7: 675-678.

[209]        Sura 2:256: لا اكراه فى الدين قد تبين الرشد من الغى . . . .

[210] Tritton, Cajls,21--23.

[211] Tritton, Caliphs, esp. 5-36,127-154.

[212],٥ Gutas, Greek Thought, 28-104.

[213]        The litmus test for orthodoxy became the question of whether or not the Qur’an was created. In defense of the absolute unity of God, the Mu'tazilah argued that the Qur’an was created, since there could not be two eternal things (God and His Word) without introducing plurality into the divine being. Traditionalists, including Almad ibn Hanbal, continued to maintain that it was uncreated. This latter view seems to have arisen out of the concern to defend God’s complete omnipotence by insisting that the events recorded in the Qur’an were eternally known, and thus preordained by God. Only in this way, the traditionalists argued, could God’s being be eternally unchangeable and unchallenged by His creatures. If one accepted that God’s Word was created, then God could have created it otherwise, allowing a degree of fluidity and uncertainty in the created universe. There were important political implications to this question. As the eternal, uncreated Word of God, the Qur’an could be used as the basis for the empire, which put its interpreters, the 'ulama’, in a powerful position of authority. Consequently, it was in the interest of the caliph and his supporters to defend its createdness. Watt, Formative Period, 178-179.

[214]        Ibid., 178. An account of the trial of Al mad ibn Hanbal, who was widely recognized as a hero of the Traditionalists, and of the theological issues involved, has been published and translated by Walter M. Patton, in Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and th« Mihna: A Biograjjhqi of th« Imam inclu ling an Account of th« Mohammedan Inquisition called the Mihna, 218-234 A.H. Leiden: EA. BrAl-, 1897١.

[215]        There is evidence in the writings of some Muslim traditionalists that concern over the influence of Christian ideas in some circles was a partial cause for the friction between the Mu'tazilah and other Islamic scholars. See of the conclusions of Sandra Toenies Keating, “The Issue of the Createdness of the Qur’an from the ‘Refutation of the Gahmites’ by Al mad Ibn Hanbal,” Licentiate thesis, Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica, 1995. Cf. “Watt, Formative Period, 242-246; Wilferd Madelung, “The Origins of the Controversy Concerning the Creation of the Koran”, in: Religious Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985f-,or'١-gfna\Ey printed 'rn OrientaiiaHisjjanicasioest liaF.M.Pare.aaoctogenai'io dicta, ed.J.M. Barral, vol. I/1 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1974), 515, 518-520.

[216]        I.e., belief or school of thought.

[217]        Abu Ra’itah implies here and elsewhere that one must follow the laws of God (obedience, humility, chastity, charity) to receive the reward of heaven, and that this reward is something unimaginable. Simply being a member of a religion is not enough, nor should one expect a reward similar to earthly rewards.

[218] S 7 ارادت S 8 (?) انغانة ;انقادة S يعدو

[219]        Note the similarity of الخلفاء الراشدون (“the Rightly-Guided Caliphs”) with اهل الحق المرشدون.

[220]        Cf. Mt 6:19, 26

[221]        Cf. Mt 6:11

[222]        Cf. Mt 7:14

[223] S 1        فايت° S ملكوة        n S 12 اللذات S 13 اماتهم S 14 الى S الداعيين,

[224]passim

[225]        Cf. Lk 17:10

[226]        Cf. Mt 22:30; Lk 20:35

[227]        Cf. Qur’an 37:41-49; 38:49-52; 52:17-24; etc.

[228]1° Cf. 1 Cor 2:9; Is 64:4

[229]        E.g., a reward in the next life that is unimaginable cannot fulfill any earthly desire.

[230]        Text is unclear.

[231]        Cf. Mt 10:10

[232]        Cf. I Cor 1:18-24

[233]        Cf. Mt 26:52

[234]’6 Cf. Mt 5:44

[235] Mt 5:28.

[236],8 Mt 5:32.

[237]        Literally, “at the gate of desire”.

[238]        Mt 19:24.

2’ Mt 5:22.

[239] ء Graf: read 8, صالبيه S 2٥ فايت Graf: read2 تواطؤ, Graf: 22 قتلهم Graf:

[240]read تواطؤ

[241]        Mt 10:9

[242]        Mt 5:39-41

[243]        Mt 10:10; Lk 10:4

[244]        Lk 10:3

[245]        Arabic reads “killed”.

[246]        Cf. Mt 10:40; Heb 13:16

[247] Graf: read 24        تواطؤ S 25 وتحبيرة S 26 الرول Graf: 27 وتوج Unclear.

[248]S 28 نحبيبه Unclear. S 29 وروده Graf: الطاهرات

[249]        Cf. Sura 2:213; 2:253; 57:25; 61:6, etc.

[250]        I.e., in contrast to the explicit promises of the Qur’an.

[251]        Graf: crowned; for توج, not توح

[252]        Text is unclear here.

[253]        It is notable that Abu Ra'itah uses the Qur’anic name for 'Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron according to Ex 6:20. The Qur’anic account of the birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus found in Sura 3 (Al 'Imran), as well as 66:12, identifies her father as 'Imran. However, the father of Moses and Aaron is also called 'Imran, probably the result of confusion between Mary (Maryam) and Miriam. To avoid attributing error to the Qur’an, later exegetes explained this difficulty by claiming that the text means two different men named ' Imran. Abu Ra'itah’s use of the Arabic epithet suggests that he was aware of these references in the Qur’an.

[254]        Cf. Ex 3:8, 17; Lev 20:24; etc.

[255]        Cf. Sura 7:133-141; 43:48-56

[256]        This account bears a strong resemblance to the story of Moses found in Sura 20:9-36, and especially verses 17-20.

[257]        In comparison to the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, etc.

[258]        Arabic pronoun is singular, referring to ‘tribe’.

[259]        Literally, “killed”.

[260]        Or, contemplation.

[261]        Graf: godlessness.

[262]4, Arabic: sunan and sara’i

[263]        Cf. Sura 6:154

[264]        Ex 3:7, 8, 10, 11

[265]        Ex 4:10-12

[266]        Cf. Sura 7:117

[267]        Ex 4:2-4, 6-7; cf. Sura 20:18-21

[268]        Arabic: sunna.

[269]        The heart as the location of the mind.

[270]        Here meant in the figurative, not military, sense.

[271]        Cf., Sura 21:22; 23:93, etc.

[272]5, Text unclear.

[273]        Cf., Sura 4:171; 5:73

[274]        I.e., for the correctness of their own search for truth.

[275]        I.e., ‘one’ refers to the light itself, and ‘three’ refers to the particular number of the sources of light necessary to produce the light.

[276]        Eternal being.

[277]        There is a great deal of similarity between Abu Rr'itah’s explanation of the relationship between the ousia and the hypostaseis and that found in Basil’s Ep. 236.6 {PG 32, col. 884).

[278] Graf: 47        شء Graf: read 48 .مواءي سوان Graf: read 49 .المتجزئ Error

[279]in Graf: تفظيعه.

[280]        Here Abu Ra'itah is reiterating a point he makes elsewhere (On the Trinity 19) that an analogy is only useful from the perspective of the general point it is trying to illustrate, and cannot be taken to be identical in its particulars, as, for example, the analogy of the heavens as a tent does not account for the movement of the celestial bodies.

[281]        I.e., names or designations given to existent things.

[282]        I.e., the specific property (tall, female) is related to the general category (human being) because to be tall or female does not make one less human.

[283]        The ousia is not a plurality, only specific individuals can be many. See Aristotle, Categories 5, esp. 3b34-4b19.

[284]6ا Abu Ra'itah means here that in the analogy “light” refers to the ousia, which is only one, not to the individual sources of the light, which are three. Therefore, it is incorrect to argue the individuals are “gods”, since the divine ousia is one.

[285]        It is unusual for Abu Ra'itah to use the Arabic نطق instead of كلام for “.word” or “speech”. His choice may be meant to imply the philosophical connotations of نطق and its connection to the rational principle of the logos, rather than the Qur’anic Word of God.

[286]        Abu Ra'itah is the only Arab Christian writer from this period known to cite this analogy, which is found frequently in the Fathers, especially, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus and John of Damascus. Haddad, Trot, 122-123.

[287]        To be an individual is to occupy a specific place, which Abu Ra'itah emphasizes here is not a characteristic of God.

[288]        Probably in response to the charge in Sura 57:25-27 that Christians have innovated in their religion.

[289]        Revelation, miracles, punishment, victory and death all occur, according to the Qur’an, by God’s permission (cf. 2:97; 3:49; 2:102, 249, 251; 3:145, 166; 4:64; etc.).

[290]        Interpetation of scripture is a legitimate exercise, when God opens the hearts of the prophets and messengers to its true meaning (cf. a similar idea in Sura 16:106; 29:22; 94:1; 6:125; 20:25).

[291]
6. 8        Moses

[292]        Gen 1:26; that Adam is only a creature, cf. Sura 20:116-123

[293]        Gen 3:22; cf. Sura 2:30-39; 7:19-25

[294]7] Gen ]]:7

[295]        Cf. Sura ]]:69-73; ]5:51-56; 51:24-30

[296]        Gen ]8:]-3

[297]        Abu Ra'itah probably intends a double meaning here, both the inconsistency of human speech, and the Islamic idea that plurality is inconsistent with a definition of ‘God’

[298]        Ps ]]9:89

[299]        Ps 56٠1

[300]        I.e., baptize.

[301]        Mt 28:]9

[302]        Literally, “what was it that prompted God . . . to the Incarnation and the becoming human.”

[303]        This idea is found throughout the Qur’an, as in Sura 24:45: “God creates what He wills, for God has power over all things”.

[304]8, Literally: “if they asked them . . . .”

[305]        I.e., God permits signs and wonders to occur.

[306]        Arabic manuscript is corrupt here.

[307]        Literally “it has received composition into itself’.

[308]        Abu Ra'itah is making a distinction here between the use of words (كلمة) and God’s creative speech (يول). The former is a tool which can be used to construct an argument or express thoughts and ideas; the latter is truly creative, and results in the instantaneous manifestation of God’s will without any intervening time, activity or agent.

[309]        According to the Qur’an, when God determines something, He only has to say “Be!” and it is (Sura 2:117; 16:40; 36:82; 40:68; cf. also 54:49-50).

[310]        Later hand in the manuscript adds “hypostasis”.

[311]        Arabic also: like Adam

[312]        Abu Ra'itah employs the two terms “states” and “aspects” to avoid implying that the divinity and humanity exist as “natures”, as the Melkites maintain.

[313]        That is, since the opposing predicates are attributed to two different aspects and states of the same Messiah simultaneously, it is not necessary to say that there are two different Messiahs.

[314]        Ps 144:5

[315]        Ps 50:3

[316]        Ps 84:7

[317]        Ps 107:20

[318]        Mic 1:2,3

[319]        Bar 3:35-37

[320]        Is 7:14

[321]        Is 9:6

[322]        Gen 49:10

[323]        The issue of the veneration of holy objects, particularly icons and the Cross, has been taken up by several contemporaries of Abu Ra'itah, most notably Theodore Abu Qurrah, see for example, Griffith, Holy Icons.

[324]        Here Abu Ra'itah uses the term جوهر as a common term to mean the substance or material from which something is made, rather than in its philosophical sense of ousia.

[325]        The direction of prayer; for Muslims this is the direction of Makka.

[326]        That is, one who intends to be an open worshipper of Christ, God incarnate.

[327]        Cf. Matt 24:30.

[328]        This is a Qur’anic expression (Sura 2:168, 208; 6:143, etc.).

[329]        Beginning here the manuscript is corrupted.

[330]        Abu Ra'itah is drawing the connection between Muslim worship in the direction of the Ka'bah, which is symbolic of the Divine Presence radiating out throughout the earth, and the Christian veneration of the Cross. In both cases, it is not the object itselfthe Black Stone or the Crossthat is worshiped, but rather the God Who is brought to the mind of the worshipper. As such, the qiblah deserves honor and devotion because it is a sign of God’s presence and care for the world, not because the object itself carries any intrinsic value.

[331]        Mt 24:27

[332]        Cf. Mt 14:19; 15:36; 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:17-19; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:23-26. This is not literally taken from any of the biblical texts, nor is it found in any of the Syriac anaphoras known to date. (Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/189, n. 1)

[333]        Ps 50:13.

[334]        Cf. Sura 2:67. This section has numerous parallels in the Qur’an.

[335]        Ex 16:3

[336]        E.g., after a period of time that had a purpose in God’s plan.

[337] Unclear. S وخلع Graf: 91 ? كمل Added in a later hand. اما١لتورية

[338] The t٢m “abrogation” (ناسخ) would لام to؛ mind ؛the Islamic exegetical principle, based in the Qur’an (2:106, 22:52, 17:86, 13:39, 57:6-7, 16:101), by which certain verses given to Mulammad are “modified” or revoked (منسوخ) by others, often through the later revelation of a more specific directive.

[339] S 93 ومبايدا S 94 ولذاة Here the text ends with a custos, indicating the

[340]continuation on the next page, which is blank in the extant manuscript.

[341]I,8 The Torah.

[342]الرسالة الثانية من ا لثلث رسائل التى قالها فى الثالوث :(3§ Confession) ,

.المقدسة والتجد ٠ ٠ ٠

[343]        There are several reasons to assume these are two different letters. The compiler of the excerpts in the Confessions refers to the risalah to the Christians in Bain as a separate letter, unlike his mention of On the Incarnation. Also, both On the Trinity and On the Incarnation have been given the titles of “first" and “second" risalah followed by their topics. It is doubtful that the risalah to those in Bain would have been designated as the “third". Not only was it obviously written before the other two, it can probably be safely assumed that the style was conspicuously different, since it was composed on a separate occasion for a particular purpose.

[344]        Griffith, “Disputes,” 254-255. Among the numerous examples of this in Syriac is the apologetical text authored by Abu Ra’itah’s protege, Nonnus of Nisibis (Van Roey, Nonntsj.

[345]        Eva Riad, Studies in the Syriac Preface, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 11 (Uppsala: Uppsala University; Stockholm, Sweden: Distributer Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1988), esp. chapters 3 and 5.

[346]        Ibid., 187-207, 214-218.

[347]        Ibid., 208-211.

[348]        Griffith, “Abu Ra’itah,” 169.

[349]        Chronicon 1234, 81/230, 109/180.

[350]        Bo Holmberg argues that this term is also associated with numerous apocalyptic expectations concerning the Muslims. Holmberg, “Ahl/fariq at-tayman—ein ratesvolles Epitheton”, Oriens Christianus 78 (1994): 83-103.

[351]        This distinction between Arabs and later converts was a common one before the 'Abbasid dynasty, and no doubt still existed in the consciousness of the people, even among non-Muslims.

[352]        BvAieT, Co Iistm to Islam.

[353],5 R. Paret, “UMMA,” EI2, vol. 4: 1015-1016.

[354] Gutas has pointed out that the 'Abbasid program to create a common Islamic culture based upon a universal religious and linguistic foundation was particularly

[355]prominent in this period. If this is so, then Abu Ra’itah’s comment may reflect an attempt to counter the endeavor. Gutas, Greek Thought.

[356],7 It is in this period that more formalized creeds reflecting theological and philosophical concerns appear. According to Wensinck, Islamic creedal statements, or ’aqa’ida (singular ’aqida), previous to the beginnings of the 'Abbasid period tended to be very brief and concise, often reflecting the solidification of certain positions concerning particular practices and beliefs. The earliest of these aqa’ida is the Fiqh Akbar, attributed to Abu Hanifah (700-767/81-150), which makes no mention of the unity of God or of any of the questions of attributes. The turn of the ninth century saw the development and expansion of the ’'aqa’ida. The Fiqh Akbar II, which is an extensively developed version of Abu H-nifah’s Fiqh Akbar, to the period of Abu-l-Hasan 'All ibn Ismail al-A؛’ari (260-324/873-935) as an expression of the final rejection of the Mu'tazilah movement by the Islamic community. Wensinck, Creed, esp. chapters I and II.

18 To date I have not found other relevant aqa’ida apart from those published in Wensinck.

[357]        Ibid., 73-74.

[358]        Abh-١-\asa.n 'Abe '-bn IsmMl- Af-Akarl-, Kiteb, Mjl t alsl mttn. wa Itllf al-musallin, ed. Helmut Ritter (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh., 1963), 156.

[359]        Daccache argues that the list of attributes given by Abh Ra’itah bears enough resemblance to the tenets held by the Mu'tazilah that his interlocutors can be identified with them. Daccache, “Abh Ra’ita,” 43-47.

[360]        Watt, Formative Period, 221, 224-225.

[361]        Only three phrases cannot be found directly, but are still known to have been acceptable to Muslim scholars. See my forthcoming article for an extensive analysis of this passage from Abu Ra’itah.

[362]        Harald Suermann argues that Abu Ra’itah may be the first Christian to use Aristotle in engaging Muslims on these topics. See “Trint in der islamisch- chrlstWhen Kontroverse nach Abu Ra’italt,” Tjiitscl ijt ftir Mi.sston.suii.ss ا si a, tn Religionswissenschaft 74 (July 1990), esp. 221-223.

[363]        Keating, “Talrif,” 35-50.

[364]        See the Introduction for a detailed discussion of formal munazarat.

[365]        Van Ess, “Disputationspraxis,” 39.

[366]        Ibid., 27; 40, n.8.

[367]        Griffith, “Abu Ra’itah,”167.

[368]        For a French translation and examination of the questions surrounding the text, see Georges Tartar, Dialogue« fsla 10-61 lien sous le calif« alMa’mtn (813-834)'. Les epitres d’Al-Hashimi et d’Al-Kindi, Etudes Coraniques (Paris: Nouvelles Editions Latines, 1985) and «L’authenticite des epitres d’al-Hasimi et d’al-Kindi sous le Calife al-Ma’mUn (813-834),» pp. 207-221, in: Actes du premier congres international d’etudes arabes chretiennes, ed. Khalil Samir (Roma: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orien- talium, 1982).

[369]        Graf has reproduced a German translation of the text in al-Kindi and identified the passages drawn from Abu Ra’itah’s risalah. Graf, Abu Ra’itah, 131/32-36.

[370]        Daccache, “Abd Ra'ita,” 34.

[371]        I.e., the Jacobite Christian community.