The Conversations of Gregory Palamas Dur

Then those who fear the Lord spoke with one another, and the Lord listened attentively;
A record book was written before him of those who fear the Lord and esteem his name.
Book of Prophet Malachi (3:16)
So (you believers), say, ‘We believe in God and in what is sent down to us and what was sent
down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and all the Tribes, and what was given to Moses, Jesus and
all the propehts by their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them...’
Surah the Cow (2:136)
They also say, ‘No one will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian.’ That is their own
wishful thinking. (Prophet) say, ‘Produce your evidence, if you are telling the truth.’
Surah the Cow (2:111)
INTRODUCTION.
In this thesis work, I would like to explore interreligious encounters of the prominent
Byzantine theologian, monk, Doctor of Hesychasm and the Archbishop of Thessalonica, Saint
Gregory Palamas.
The person of Gregory Palamas in the Byzantine Church of the fourteen century is
comparable to the great theologians of the thirteen century in the Latin Church. Nevertheless,
Gregory Palamas, and his theological achievements are not well known among the faithful of the
Latin tradition. A humble monk, skillful theologian, capable diplomat, and interreligious debater,
Gregory Palamas, saw the military misfortunes of his Byzantine Empire, and even his personal
capture as providential acts of God, who in love for the Turks, wanted to bring the light of
Christian faith to them.
Palamas’ debates with the Muslim Turks occurred in Anatolia, on the border with the
European continent at the time when the civilization of Byzantium was on a steep decline and the
Ottoman Empire was on the rise. These encounters can hardly be called dialogues. More likely,
they were debates attempting to examine the truths of core Christian beliefs. Palamas was
directly questioned and challenged by his opponents. Sometimes, however, in the course of his
1
reply to the challenged presented by the Muslim opponents, he managed to present equally great
challenges to his Muslim audience. Palamas was in captivity waiting to be ransomed. Due to his
great reputation of being a true man of God, he was granted reasonable honors, which he
exploited in order to enlighten his Muslims interlocutors and help the needy Christians in the
recently occupied territories. The dialogues or debates took place almost seven centuries ago, but
the issues that were debated are still quite pertinent and are widely discussed even today.
Another interesting point regarding these dialogues is the fact that they were conducted with
the Western Asian representatives of Islam, who was greatly influenced by Sufism, and an
Eastern Orthodox Christian representative. These were live debates conducted in person between
the representatives of two parties who had a lot in common as to tradition and practice,
something which brought fervor into the debates. In spite of many difficulties, the debates were a
success since they and their outcome were recorded in all the major historical works on
Christian-Muslim dialogue. It is hoped that this review of the dialogues, as well as the main
theological issues which discussed would represent justly and comprehensively the atmosphere
and the outcome of these spontaneous interreligious encounters between Gregory Palamas and
his captors, the Muslim Ottomans.
2
CHAPTER I. GREGORY PALAMAS-PROMINENT BYZANTINE THEOLOGIAN OF
THE FOURTEEN CENTURY.
1.1 Doctor of Hesychasm, Teacher of Orthodoxy, Archbishop of Thessalonica-St. Gregory
Palamas and His Political and Diplomatic Mission.
Every second Sunday of the Lenten liturgical season is reserved for commemoration of St.
Gregory of Palamas, bishop, monk and Doctor of Hesychasm. He is remembered as a great saint
and the teacher of orthodoxy. He was born in 1296 in Constantinople, the capital city of the
Eastern Roman Empire, also known as Byzantine Empire. He was a monk, who eventually
became a prominent ecclesial leader engaged in diplomatic missions, living through many
political and ecclesial controversies. One such great ecclesial controversy, which happened on
the background of the civil war, was his dispute with another monk-Barlaam of Calabria.
Palamas was even briefly imprisoned by the Patriarch of Constantinople John XIV (Calecas).
Subsequently, in February 1347, the Synod of the Byzantine Church approved the Palamite
doctrine, and in July 1351, he was proclaimed the teacher of orthodoxy. Thus, his teachings were
solemnly upheld and approved in the conciliar decision of the Byzantine Church. Gregory of
Palamas became archbishop of Thessalonica in 1347. He died in Thessalonica on November 14,
1359 and was canonized in 1368, as a saint in the Orthodox Church during the reign of the
patriarch Philotheus I (Coccinus) of Constantinople, who was a disciple.
Palamas was the eldest son out of five children in a noble Byzantine family from Asia
Minor1. His father, Constantine Palamas, was a senator in the court of the Byzantine Emperor
Andronicus II Palaiologos. Gregory received his liberal education at the Byzantine Imperial
University under the patronage of the Emperor and became friendly with of one of his peers, the
1
Emmanuel Cazabonne, “Gregory Palamas (1296-1359): Monk, Theologian and Pastor,” Cistercian Studies
Quarterly 37 (2002): 304.
3
future emperor Andronicus III. Gregory’s principal instructor was the “rector” of the Imperial
University-Theodore Metochites, the Great Logothete, a great sage and leader of the humanists.
When Palamas reached adulthood, he ended his secular studies and used them as a basis for the
study of the “true philosophy” of Christianity. At the age of twelve, Gregory became influenced
by the mystically minded metropolitan Theoleptus of Philadelpheia. Philotheus I (Coccinos),
Patriarch of Constantinople from 1354 to 1355 and again from 1364 to 1376, in his Encomium
mentioned that Gregory of Palamas was initiated into hesycastic prayer technic by the
metropolitan Theoleptus, who was his first mentor in the spiritual life. 2 Palamas, similarly to his
spiritual patron metropolitan Theoleptus, rejected dedication to the profane wisdom, since both
believed that it was transitory and begot irrational desires, which eventually was becoming an
opposition to prayer and spiritual experience. 3 Instead, metropolitan Theoleptus was focused on
the divine light, which shines only in pure minds. This mystical position (not emotional
individualism, but continuous communion with the Spirit, who dwells in the Church) 4 was
further developed by Palamas in his defense against the more rationalistic position of Barlaam of
Calabria. Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople was also mentioned by Palamas as his
spiritual master who taught him the hesychastic method of prayer.5 In the year of 1316, at the age
of 20, Palamas decided to enter the monastery after refusing the secular favors coming from the
Emperor. He entered the monastery at Mount Athos together with his two younger brothers
Macarius and Theodosius. During the three-year period of his initial strict monastic regimen, his
2
Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas, (trans. G. Lawrence. 2nd ed., Leighton Buzzard, Beds, UK: St.
Vladimir Seminary Press, 1974), p. 17.
3
Sinkewicz, Robert. Theoleptos of Philadelpheia. Monastic Discourses. (Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of Medieval
Studies, 1992), p. 38.
4
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. (2nd ed., Fordham, NY: Fordham
University Press, 1983), p.14.
5
Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 20.
4
monastic spiritual instructor was Nicodemus, a hesychast of Vatopedi monastery 6. As a monk,
Gregory lived at the Great Laura of St. Athanasius on Mount Athos. Palamas believed that
monastic way of life excluded from the life of a monk many non-sinful and even divinely
approved activities, such as eating meat, entering into marriage.7 He firmly believed that the
vocation and mission of any monk, who is just not an ordinary Christian, but rather like a
prophet whose calling transcends the genuine values of this world, ought to be the proclamation
of the Kingdom of God of the world to come with complete and exclusive concentration on
God8. Consequently, these basic yet profound principles became widely accepted in the Eastern
monastic practice. Due to the understanding of genuine Christian experience as being “beyond
nature,” Palamas strongly defended the illumination of mind by the grace of God as a result of
being in communion with God.9 He was concerned with the danger of concocting a false concept
of God, “by examining the nature of sensible things…a conception truly not worth of Him (God)
and appropriate to His blessed nature.”10
Frequent Turkish incursions forced Palamas to leave the holy mountain of Athos and settle
in Thessalonica. There he was ordained a priest in 1326 at the age of thirty, just it was required
by the ecclesial law for the priestly ordination at that time 11. For a short time in Thessalonica,
Palamas became a member of the spiritual circle of the disciples of Gregory the Sinaite.
However, he soon retired to the hermitage on the mountain Beroea or Veria (Βέροια), now
6
7
8
9
John Meyendorff, introduction to The Triad, by Gregory Palamas. (Trans. N. Gendle. New York, NY: Paulist Press,
1983), p. 13.
10
Palamas, Gregory. The Triads. (trans. N. Gendle. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1983), p. 26.
11
5
located in northern Greece. There he lived in solitude as a hesychastic monk: the week days
spent in solitude and on the weekends, he was meeting with others, celebrating the Eucharist and
engaging in spiritual conversation. In 1331, Palamas returned to the holy mountain as the leader
of the hesychasts. It is important to note that in traditional Byzantine monasticism a switch from
cenobitic life to hermitic life was acceptable. At that time, Palamas became a respected and
renowned ascetic and writer, who wrote a treatise On the Presentation of the Virgin to the
Temple. In it he defended the historic character of the event. He was also involved in attempts to
achieve unity of the Church during the reign of the Emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos with
his Apodictic Treatises on the procession of the Holy Spirit, defending the traditional Byzantine
position of the monarchy of the Father.12 It is important to remember that for the Eastern
Christians, theological truth or the orthodoxy of belief was intimately linked with personal
salvation, thus questions of doctrine were treated very seriously.
1.2 Theological Conflict with Barlaam of Calabria
While stationed at the monastery of St. Sabas on Mt. Athos, Palamas faced his first major
theological opposition as he became involved with the controversy over the theology of a certain
Barlaam, a Greek orthodox monk from Calabria. The latter was a prominent and renowned
scholar in Byzantium, who held a chair at the Imperial University in Constantinople. 13 This
conflict was quite long. The first theological-doctrinal controversy took place between 1337 and
1341. Here Barlaam proposed his rather simple theological argument stating that God’s absolute
transcendence made it impossible for the human limited reason to come to knowledge of the
12
13
Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory and Orthodox Spirituality. (trans. A. Fiske. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir Seminary
Press, 1974), p. 86.
6
divine, except indirectly and through created means. 14 He was distancing himself from the
intellectual realism of Western scholasticism, and encountered the mystical realism of the
Eastern monks.15 In his defense of the dialectic knowledge of God (drawing conclusions upon the
already revealed premises) Barlaam saw secular education as necessary for a true knowledge of
God. He accused the monks of the earlier condemned heresy of Messialians (Bogomils), with
their doctrine of contemplation through prayer the essence of God with one’s bodily eyes16.
Indeed, at first glance, it might have looked rather similar, since the hesychastic monks claimed
that through the regimen of prayer and contemplation they are able to see the divine light, which
is uncreated. Thus, Barlaam of Calabria opposed Palamas and even petitioned for his
condemnation. The early attempts to settle the conflict had failed, and Palamas answered the
accusations of Barlaam in his collection of three treatises or the Triads for the Defense of the
Holy Hesychasts (υπερ των ιερως ησυχαζοντων). In them he provided the theological foundation
for monastic prayer aiming at theosis, which is based on the possibility of one’s participation in
17
the life of God by partaking in the sacramental life of the Church and contemplative prayer.
Later on, endorsed by the entire Anthonite monastic community, his treatise known as the
Hagioritic Tome became a fundamental manual of the monks. Palamas held that we know of
God’s existence not by logical demonstration nor by philosophical quest, but by faith and
illumination18. Therefore, in order to attain knowledge of God, one has to be pure of heart, which
can be achieved “by purifying his active power by works, his cognitive power by knowledge,
14
Geanakoplos, Deno. Interaction of the “Siblings” Byzantine and Western Culture in the Middle Ages and Italian
Renaissance (330-1600). (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976), p. 102.
15
Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory and Orthodox Spirituality, p. 89.
16
John Meyendorff, introduction to The Triad, p. 9.
17
18
7
and his contemplative power by prayer.” 19 Palamas acknowledged the transcendence of God in
divine essence which is unknowable and immutable, whereas the divine energies or activities
could be experienced in God’s graces.20 These energies of God are uncreated and knowable in
Christ. Thus, they provide for all the baptized Christians the ability to know God and to be
saved.21 This was a distinction between divine nature (essence) and divine operations (activities).
Divine light, the light the Holy Spirit, is an uncreated divine energy which sanctifies a human
being. It is the same divine uncreated light which was seen by the three apostles of Jesus (Peter,
James and John the brother of James) on the high mountain. This light is also seen by the
practicing hesychasts. It is not an illusion, but rather the self-communication of God as uncreated
gift of deifying grace which enables human deification (theosis). Yet, it is not a physical light,
but the radiance of the divinity of the Lord, which is visible, but nonmaterial. 22 Palamas defended
contemplative mental prayer, which gave a human being a possibility to achieve union with the
divine, while insisting upon the fact that the whole human being is engraced-body, soul and the
spirit.23 Therefore, Palamas, following the tradition of Byzantine monasticism, defended the role
of the human body in prayer. This was criticized by Barlaam who called the hesychast monks
omphalopsychites, those whose soul is in their navel, due to a specific posture during prayer
aimed to achieve greater concentration.24 Psychosomatic prayer methods were brilliantly
19
Papademetriou, George. Introduction to Saint Gregory Palamas. (New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1973), p.
31.
20
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological and Social Problems: Collected Studies. (London,
UK: Variorum Reprints, 1974), p. 81.
21
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p.76.
22
Palamas, Gregory, p. 34.
23
24
8
defended by Palamas by appealing to the Incarnation of the Lord in the physical body and the
Eucharist which is the material resurrected body and blood of the Lord, and salvation includes
the whole human being, body and soul, which was in harmony with the patristic view of a human
being as created to stand between the world of the physical and the spiritual by being one
indivisible whole. Palamas refuted Barlaam’s humanist inspired negative theology and his
victory in the hesychast controversy brought about a victory for contemplative monasticism. In
spite of close contact with the ideas of Neoplatonism, Byzantine monasticism rejected dualism
and embraced the Biblical concept of the psycho-physical unity.25
Palamas’ conflict with Barlaam was twofold. At first, it touched upon the difficulty of the
Filioque in light of the desired union of the separated Western and Byzantine part of the Church,
at the time when two Papal legates, who were Dominican friars, came to the court of the
Byzantine emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos in 1333-1334.26 Barlaam argued for the inability
to argue decisively, since God is unknown and the doctrine of procession should be left to the
domain of private theological opinions, thus undermining Orthodox position.27 Palamas saw this
position as shallow because, if God had revealed Himself in the past to the Fathers by
illuminating them, as Barlaam himself argued, then the same God reveals Himself also to the
Church at a later time in history through the theologians who elucidate the mystery of the Trinity
with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.28
The second and greater part of the dispute between Barlaam and Palamas was fundamentally
a conflict between humanists and mystics. It touched upon the ability to see the divine things, in
25
26
Robert Sinkewicz, “A New Interpretation for the First Episode in the Controversy Between Barlaam the Calabrian
and Gregory Palamas,” Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980): 491.
27
28
9
which Barlaam reduced grace to the natural gift shown in the philosophical and logical abilities
of a human being. Palamas replied that it is by the transformative actions of the Holy Spirit of
the human thought that one can arrive at the sure knowledge of God. Palamas and his followers
condemned the study of pagan Hellenic literature by the monks 29. In Palamas’s teaching, the task
of Christian living was not an exercise in abstract philosophy, but a communion with the living
God or communion with the divine energies of God, given by God to human beings. God is a
living God, who is not to be limited or entered into preconceived philosophical categories 30. For
Palamas the effect is created grace and not energies which is expressed by divine light. A human
being created in God’s image and likeness, possesses a unique potential “of reaching the divine”
and enjoying “the direct knowledge and experience of his creator”, which would surpass only
purely intellectual (philosophical) quest.31 After the Fall, the likeness of God was lost, but the
image of God was not destroyed. Likeness of God is the condition of attaining union with God
by the grace of God. Latin theologians were hesitant to accept Palamite theology, even though
the conflict between Barlaam and Palamas was an internal conflict of the Byzantine Church. For
the Latin theologians, grace was seen as created, unlike the uncreated energies/grace in
Palamism,32 which ensured a preservation of the Western concept of divine simplicity of God as
pure act. Barlaam also rejected the distinction of the Godhead in essence and energies, as being
against the simplicity of God. Palamas agreed that there is no participation of any creature in the
divine essence, since such a union of a creature with the divine essence would create infinite
hypostases which would be tantamount to polytheism. However, for Barlaam, the saints can have
29
Nicol, Donald. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1972), p.68.
30
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p. 77.
31
32
Gill, Joseph. Byzantium and the Papacy 1198-1400. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979), p. 204.
10
a vision of the divine essence in the life of the world to come, whereas, according to Palamas, the
saints in heaven do not see the essence of God, which is incomprehensible, but only the divine
activity or manifestation of God, since God expresses Himself to creatures in his energies, which
are common to all three hypostases of the Holy Trinity. 33 The beauty of the glory of God, the
light of God, which is uncreated, can be seen by the saints.
The spiritual part of the dispute, perhaps, rooted in Platonic spiritualism, touched upon the
psychosomatic monastic methods of prayer, which were rejected by Barlaam. It was difficult for
Barlaam to accept that a human body can participate in prayer and also be affected by the divine
grace. For Palamas, the body was the dwelling place of the soul, and the dwelling place of God.
The human body must also be purified by prayer as it stands before God. After all, the
incarnation and resurrection of Christ gave the ability for human nature to participate in the
divine.
Nevertheless, Barlaam demanded the hearing, appealing to the Patriarch of Constantinople
as the guardian of dogma and requested the condemnation of the writings of Palamas as heretical
or Messalian. In his defense on the ability to see God, Palamas, referring to the writings of St.
Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, distinguished between God’s essence and God’s
energies or divine, and therefore uncreated light of the divinity seen by the saints, the same light
which was beheld at Transfiguration of Jesus, seen by the hesychasts.34
1.3 The Civil War in the Empire and Gregory Palamas
The first civil war in fourteenth century Byzantine Empire began in 1321 and lasted until
1328, and caused Andronikos II Palaiologos to abdicate the imperial throne. His grandson
Andronicus III Palaiologos took over the throne. Ironically enough, his death thirteen years later
33
Papademetriou, George. Introduction to Saint Gregory Palamas, p. 43.
34
Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, p.122.
11
caused the second civil war in the Empire. However, even during the reign of Andronicus III
Palaiologos, Turks continued to capture Byzantine territories. In 1329, Nicaea became occupied
and in 1337 Nicomedia was taken. On June 10, 1341, in the Hagia Sofia Cathedral Church the
synod was gathered, presided by the Emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos, who was trying to
bring about reconciliation to the opposing parties. The synod dismissed the charges of Barlaam
against Palamas and the monks, and simultaneously condemned the errors of Barlaam, such as
“reducing theology to the level of intellectual wisdom and discursive knowledge.” 35 However,
the Emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos died suddenly without signing the final decisions of that
synod. Hence, the seemingly quickly resolved and reconciled conflict later reappeared
invigorated, even after Barlaam had returned back to Italy and became the bishop of Gerace,
Calabria in the Greek Uniate Church.36 The late Emperor’s son John V Palaiologos, who was
nine years old, became the new Emperor. Since he was a minor, his mother, Anne of Savoy
became a regent, and the two opposing parties were formed. Regency of the adolescent Emperor
was claimed by his mother Anna of Savoy (1306–1365) and the Patriarch John XIV, surnamed
Calecas, who was the Patriarch of Constantinople from 1334 to 1347. However, at the same time,
regency was claimed by the lifelong companion of the late Emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos
John Cantacuzenus. The Patriarch of Constantinople John XIV together with megaduke Alexis
Apocaucus, a former protégé of Cantacuzenus, formed a subdivision against the “great domestic”
John Cantacuzenus, the right hand of the late Emperor, trying to get rid of him. John
Cantacuzenus was a competent Byzantine ruler, who knew Latin and Turkish.37 As the new civil
war was starting in the Byzantine Empire, John Cantacuzenus, allied himself with Umur of
35
36
Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of
the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986). p.
142.
12
Aydin38 and the Emir of Bithynia Orchan, son of Osman, the founder of the Osmanli dynasty. 39
Meanwhile, his opponents made treaty with Venice. During the civil war, Anna of Savoy
extended a trade agreement with Venetian Republic and the crown jewels of the Empire were
transferred to the Venetians.40John Cantacuzenus was following in the footsteps of the late
Emperor Andronicus III, who believed that Muslim allies were more reliable than the Italian
allies.41 As a result of this military alliance, John Cantacuzenus invited the Turkish Muslim
troops to Europe. He would later apologize for this. In the course of the civil war, John
Cantacuzenus became the father in law of the Emir Orchan, after his daughter Theodora had
married the emir without a church blessing in 1346.42 Moreover, after the end of the civil war,
John Cantacuzenus also became the father in law of the Emperor John V Palaiologos. The civil
conflict between John VI Cantacuzenus and the three regents of John V Palaiologos was already
the second civil war in the declining Empire.
Following the tradition of his spiritual mentors Athanasius I and Theoleptos of Philadelphia,
Palamas took an active political position in the second civil conflict. Palamas condemned the
rivalry in the entourage of the late Emperor Andronicus III Palaiologos. He and the monks
supported John Cantacuzenus in his attempts to take over the throne, and opposed the Patriarch
who was one of the regents. From this point on, the controversy over the theology of Palamas
37
Donald Nicol, “The Byzantine Church and Hellenic Learning in the Fourteen Century,” Studies in Church History
(The Church and Academic Learning) 5 (1969): 51.
38
Nicol, Donald. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453, p. 203.
39
40
Nicol, Donald. The Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits, 1250-1500. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994),
p. 90.
41
42
13
became a political controversy.43 The place of Barlaam was taken by his former opponent, as
well as the opponent of Palamite theology, monk Gregory Akindynos. At first, being a disciple of
Palamas from Mt. Athos, Akindynos unsuccessfully tried to become an arbiter between Barlaam
and Palamas. Later he became politically engaged with the anti-Palamite theology, after
receiving support from the Patriarch John XIV (Calecas). Akindynos opposed the theological
formulations of Palamas, rather than the practice of hesychasm as did Barlaam. 44 Gregory
Akindynos, who was not as bright as his predecessor in opposing Palamism, mainly objected
against the division between the divine essence and energies. 45 He insisted that the of the Light of
Tabor was created.46 In his interpretation, if one had a vision of the divine, it had to be a vision of
God’s essence, or it would be a vision of its created manifestations. Palamas in his dispute with
Akindynos defended his stand on the distinction between the essence of God and divine energies.
In so doing, he was protecting simultaneous transcendence of God and immanence of God “in
the free gift of communion in the Body of Christ.”47 Consequently, Gregory Akindynos found
himself in opposition to Palamism. He opposed the teachings of Palamas and Barlaam and
sincerely believed that he was defending the authentic faith tradition. 48 After his death, the anti-
Palamite opposition was joined by later condemned monks Nicephorus Gregoras and Prochoros
43
Gill, Joseph, p. 201.
44
45
Sinkewicz, Robert. Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. A Critical Edition, Translation and
Study. (trans. and edited by R. Sinkewicz. Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988), p. 54.
46
Sinkewicz, Robert. Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. A Critical Edition, Translation and
Study, p.53.
47
48
Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 88
14
Cydones, who translated some of the works of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.49 His
younger brother, Demetrios Cydones, who also learned Latin and preferred the logical and
intelligible Thomism over Palamism, was the leading Byzantine statesman after the end of the
civil war with John Cantacuzenus. Eventually, he translated the Quran from Latin into Greek,
which was previously translated by the Dominican friar Ricoldo da Monte Croce.50 The anti-
Palamites were not Latinizers, but rather were coming from the humanist influence of their
time.51 For example, Nicephorus Gregoras lamented over the lack of knowledge among the
clergy.52
At first, Patriarch John XIV tried to secure the noninvolvement of Palamas and the monks in
this civil conflict. Palamas refused to align himself with the Patriarch, so Patriarch John XIV
arrested and imprisoned Palamas on a politically motivated ecclesial charge in the spring of
1343. Palamas was banished to Heraclea, where he remained in the monastery. After that, he was
excommunicated in September of 134453 together with all his companions, such as Isidore
Buchiras, the future Patriarch of Constantinople. Instead, the theological teachings of Gregory
Akindynos, who saw Palamas even more erring than Barlaam, were accepted until their later
final condemnation in 1351 All of this was done to prevent providing any support for John
Cantacuzenus, an opponent of the Patriarch John XIV in the civil conflict. However, promotion
of the teachings of Gregory Akindynos by the Patriarch became a point of conflict between the
patriarch John XIV and the Empress Ann of Savoy.
49
Nicol, Donald. The Reluctant Emperor. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 145.
50
Nicol, Donald. The Reluctant Emperor, p. 146.
51
Gill, Joseph, p.204.
52
Donald Nicol. “The Byzantine Church and Hellenic Learning in the Fourteen Century,” p. 52.
53
15
Gregory Palamas was imprisoned until 1347, when the Empress Anna released him. She
needed his help in negotiating the truce with John Cantacuzenus. 54 After his liberation, Palamas
became a chief negotiator between Anna of Savoy and her fifteen years old son, crowned
Emperor John V Palaiologos, and their victorious rival John Cantacuzenus. Palamas, joined by
Andronikos Asen, the father-in-law of John Cantacuzenus, were successful in their diplomatic
mission and the civil war which continued for about six years, came to the end. 55. The
compromise was reached and Palamas was able to complete the task of political reconciliation
within the Empire, the task which he failed in 1341, when he opposed the political rivalry, which
caused the civil war. The diplomatic agreement signed on February 8, 1347, secured with the
help of Palamas, prevented reprisals against the former rivals, political prisoners were to be
released and hatred was to be forgotten. 56 John Cantacuzenus was crowned co-emperor in 1347
on the feast day of St. Constantine and St. Helen by the successor of Patriarch John XIV. Several
months before that, the Patriarch John XIV was deposed by the synod, presided over by the
Empress of Savoy. Monk Isidore Buchiras, a disciple of Palamas, became the new Patriarch of
Constantinople-Isidore I Buchiras on May 17, 1347, after John Cantacuzenus victoriously
entered the city of Constantinople. The final victory of Palamas’ teachings became a firm reality.
In 1347, Palamas was named the Archbishop of Thessalonica, being one of the 32 new bishops
promoted by the newly crowned co-Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus. All of these newly
proclaimed bishops were supporters of Palamas and his theological teaching. 57 Starting from
54
55
56
57
16
May, 1347, the recognition and confession of Palamite theology was required of the newly
ordained bishops.58
Officially, the teachings of Gregory Palamas were solemnly approved by the overwhelming
majority of the metropolitans and bishops present at the synod of 1351 in Constantinople, which
upheld the theology of Palamas and declared them orthodox and produced the tome condemning
anyone who rejected the teachings of Palamas. This official synodal document was signed by
both ruling Emperors and was placed on the altar of the Hagia Sofia Cathedral on August 15,
1351.59 The synod had decided that there is a distinction between essence of God and the
energies (divinities) of God. Both are of divine origin, thus both are uncreated. This distinction is
not creating any complexity in God, as these are not two separate essential realities. The energies
of God are always united to the divine essence and subsist in it, therefore the energies are neither
accidents, nor do they exist independently.60 On the other hand, divine essence, which is
incommunicable and beyond any understanding, surpasses the divine energy. Real revelation of
the divine life was found in the divine energy, the uncreated light of God, in which a faithful
human being could partake and be divinized. This was due to a fact that the Old Testament was
preparing the New Testament revelation, and the New Testament was preparing the way for
revelation of mysteries in the prayer.61
The new Patriarch of Constantinople Callistus I, a successor to the pro-Palamite Patriarch
Isidore I, together with the synod, declared Palamas the teacher of orthodoxy. The anti-Palamite
metropolitans were deposed and his opponents were quickly silenced and condemned. Although,
58
59
60
61
17
Palamas tried to be faithful to Patristic tradition in his defense of the hesychasm by coming out
with his teaching on the energies of God, even some monks, like Procorus Cydones wrote against
it. He opined that hesychastic theology jeopardized the unicity of the Godhead and possibly lead
to polytheism.62 Palamas saw his theological innovation as a genuine development (αναπτυξις).
He was an interpreter of the spiritual experience of hesychasm in the context of the mystical
traditional Patristic theology during the challenging age of spiritual renewal and all his writings
were addressing the problems of that time.63.
It took almost three years (until 1350) for Palamas to take his assignment as the new
archbishop of Thessalonica. This was because the city, in the course of the recent civil war
earned a semi-independent status, similar to that of the Italian city states. Only after John VI
Cantacuzenus restored the imperial rule in the Macedonian capital, was Palamas installed as the
archbishop of the second biggest city in the Empire. The Zealots who ruled the city of
Thessalonica during the civil war were in staunch opposition to John Cantacuzenus. They
supported the teachings of Gregory Akindynos, an anti-Palamite and anti-Cantacuzenus
Patriarchal theologian. However, at the same time, they did not oppose the hesychasts. The
Zealots positioned themselves as defenders of the poor and middle class of the city against the
aristocracy.64 Thus, initial difficulty of accepting Palamas as the new archbishop stemmed from
his allegiance to John VI Cantacuzenus. At first, the Zealots requested not to mention John VI
Cantacuzenus in the liturgy as the condition of taking over the seat of the archbishop in
Thessalonica. Palamas did not go along with this proposition, and waited until the beginning of
1350 to enter the city. Despite his support for John VI Cantacuzenus, Palamas as the new
62
63
64
18
archbishop did not shy away from preaching against the injustices under imperial rule and did
not see the survival of the Empire as the most important task. Moreover, the hesychasts had an
established record of opposition, on spiritual grounds, to the enrichment of the coenobitic
monasteries.65 Previously, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athanasius I (1230-1310), allowed for
sequestration of ecclesiastical property to meet the state needs by giving it to soldiers in order to
prevent a speedy invasion of the Turks. 66 This practice continued during the rule of Andronicus
III Palaiologos and John VI Cantacuzenus.
Archbishop Gregory Palamas was a good shepherd of his flock. He preached on the mystery
of Christ, stressing from the beginning of his ministry the oneness of God, faith, baptism and
communion, regardless of political affiliations. His support of John VI Cantacuzenus, who was
the only ruler capable to hold the Empire together, was aimed at prevention of a greater evil for
the citizens of the disintegrating and declining Empire. Another problem he had to deal with the
same royal court which had previously imprisoned him, because Emperor John V Palaiologos
and his mother Anna of Savoy were living in Thessalonica since 1351. In the spring of 1353,
John V Palaiologos tried to restart the civil war against John VI Cantacuzenus, because of the
attempted coronation of his son Matthew by Cantacuzenus. Later, in the end of 1354, during
Palamas’ captivity in Asia Minor under Muslim occupation, John VI Cantacuzenus was deposed
by John V Palaiologos. John VI Cantacuzenus retired to the monastery, where he, the father-in-
law of the Turkish Emir of Bithynia Orchan, wrote a treatise of defense of Christianity against
Islam and four Orations against Muhammad.67 In the 1370s, during his rule, the Byzantine
65
66
67
19
Emperor John V Palaiologos had acknowledged the suzerainty of the Turkish ruler since early
1370s.68
Even before that, the Empire was already greatly impoverished and pillaged by the civil war,
and was destroyed by the Turkish and Serbian armies. The Black Death took away as much as
two thirds of the population of Constantinople. By the mid-fourteenth century, Turkish Muslim
armies had conquered the richest provinces of the Empire in Asia Minor, and the Italian cities
exercised commercial control of the Empire from within.69 As the Empire grew weaker and
weaker, the Church was gaining greater influence. Byzantines believed that this world is just a
prelude to the next world. In order to gain share in this future world one had to hold firm to the
true faith. As affairs in the Empire were getting more and more difficult, Byzantines turned to
concentration on the intellect and spirit, devoting themselves to the things which mattered in the
world to come. Yet imperial princes and magnates never stopped their political intrigues for
power.70 The spiritual and intellectual vanguards of the Church were the monks, who promoted
spiritual and liturgical renewal and became the best shepherds of the Christian flock, not only in
Byzantium, but also in the neighboring lands.71
Hence, Gregory Palamas, already the archbishop of Thessalonica, was asked once more to
conduct a diplomatic mission. He enjoyed respect and trust of John’s V mother Anna of Savoy,
and simultaneously he was in good graces with the senior co-Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus.
The political tension between the two Emperors caused opposition between the deposed
Patriarch Callistos, who refused to crown Matthew Cantacuzenus in Constantinople, and
68
Runciman, Steven. The Last Byzantine Renaissance. (Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1970), p. 12.
69
Speros Vryonis, “The Byzantine Legacy and Ottoman Forms,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24 (1969/1970): 266.
70
Runciman, Steven. The Last Byzantine Renaissance, p. 3.
71
Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas, p. 26
20
Philotheus of Herakleia, the newly elected Patriarch of Constantinople in November of 1353. 72
Both of them were spiritual disciples of Palamas. Archbishop Gregory Palamas enjoyed the
respect of the faithful due to his honest and open pastoral ministry and support of the poor
classes, who favored the return of John V Palaiologos to Constantinople from Thessalonica.
Once again, Palamas was trying to secure peace in the Empire. However, divine providence took
his noble intentions to the higher level by giving the saintly Archbishop a unique chance to be
the witness for Christ among the Turkish Muslims. He considered the most barbarous among the
barbarians, and who were triumphant at the time.73
1.4 What is Hesychasm?
The turmoil in the Byzantine Empire over the theology and practice of hesychasm, shook the
Empire, but gained a decisive victory for Christian mysticism and orthodox belief. Let us briefly
examine the practice of hesychasm. The term hesychia comes from the Greek word for quietness,
and is aimed at meditative contemplation. Hesychasm (ἡσυχασμός) is the prayerful way of
silence and withdrawal which aims at overcoming distractions and tensions of a hermit monk
starting from St. Anthony the Great in Egypt. St. John Climacus developed this tradition of the
silence based prayer by making a distinction between physical or outward withdrawal from the
noisy world and the inner silence of a monk. By making a withdrawal from earthly visions and
forms, a monk becomes internally disposed to concentrate on God. Thus, a hesychast practitioner
does not recite a prayer, but a prayer is in him. A practitioner of hesychasm, through the spiritual
exercise of being in quietness, attains a vision (thea) of the divine light and the glory of God,74a
vision of God’s presence manifested in divine energies. Such silence is practiced by the means of
72
73
74
21
repeating the Jesus prayer, also called the prayer of the heart. This is a well-recognized method
of prayer for the monks to help them maintain the vigilance (νηψις) of prayer-fixing one’s eyes
on the middle of the body, control of breathing combined with the prayer of Jesus. Even though,
it was initially secondary to monastic spirituality, and received sharp criticism from the Barlaam
of Calabria, it received a lot of attention. Hesychasts were often accused of the heretical
tendencies, such as preference for “pure prayer” rather than the established communal prayer
regimen of a monastery. They spread and insisted upon strict ascetic practices, and even showed
contempt for the richly decorated churches. Gregory Palamas was careful not to put in opposition
one’s individual spirituality to the sacramental and liturgical life of the church as a community of
faithful. He followed the precepts of his teacher, metropolitan Theoleptus of Philadelphia, who
preached about liturgical renewal and insisted that a genuine hesychastic monk is dedicated to
his community.
Another important feature of hesychasm is that a monk has a prophetic mission in the world
for the people. Palamas viewed monks, as persons with a spiritual glimpse of the uncreated light
of divinity, and compared them with the Old Testament prophets, to whom the mysteries of
Christianity were revealed.75 Hesychasm was a defense of the claim of Christian wisdom against
profane humanism, starting with inner perfection of a faithful combined with life of the
sacraments and in accord with the social witnessing to the Gospel values, thus being far from
esoteric mysticism. Tendency towards seclusion among the hesychasts was not a sign of some
kind of esoteric spirituality, but an expression of intimacy based on the unique relationship
between man and God established by the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Palamas insisted on the fact
that uninterrupted prayer is accessible to any Christian and not only to the monks. In the view of
75
Mango, Cyril. Byzantium: the Empire of New Rome. (New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons Publishers, 1980), p.
123.
22
humanists, God was impenetrable and inaccessible Essence. In practice, they downplayed the
union of God and humanity. They did not value God’s action among humanity by regeneration in
the sacrament of baptism. On the contrary, the hesychasts saw everything in human activity in
the sphere of God’s action connected with the idea of complete collaboration or synergy between
the divine and human activities, thus proclaiming the Christian humanist ideal. From the
practitioners of hesychasm, emerged the best works of the Eastern Byzantine Christian
mysticism authored by Gregory Palamas and Nicholas Cabasilas.76
Hesychasm was not a completely new phenomenon, but rather used previously existing
traditions of prayer with a new emphasis. 77 It was a form of spiritual revival in the Byzantine
Church of the thirteen and fourteenth century. The spiritual teachers of Gregory Palamas were
leading this revival. Theoleptus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia did so in spirituality and
ecclesiology, and Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople lead it in the social and practical
realm.78 Sound and firm theological grounding inspired monks and monastic communities long
after the death of Palamas and even after the fall of the Empire. St. Paisy Velichkovsky (1722-
1794) was a Ukrainian orthodox monk in the eighteenth century, who was a member of the
Anthonite community of Mt. Athos and a proponent of the tradition of hesychasm in Ukraine and
Wallachia. He translated many writings of Palamas into Slavonic, so they could be read and
studid among the Slavic hesychastic monks.
1.5 Brief Comparison of Hesychasm and Islamic Prayer of Dhikr
76
Runciman, Steven. Byzantine Civilization. (New York, NY: Meridian Books, 1956), p. 243.
77
McGuckin, John. The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture. (Oxford, UK:
Wiley-BlackWell Publishing, 2011), p. 353.
78
Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, p. 63.
23
The practice of the hesychasm is similar to the Muslim devotional prayer practice called
dhikr. Dhikr means remembrance or the most silent recitation of the most beautiful names of
God (al-asmâ’ al-husnâ), which reflect the divine qualities or divine attributes. It had become the
main form of worship of God and a source of meditation for the Sufis, the dedicated Muslim
faithful, who embraced the mystical branch of Islam. It can be done in private or in public, alone
or together as a community of believers. The purpose of the prayer was to bring closer together
the worshipper and God, thus having a purifying effect on the former. Dhikr Allah is a
continuous remembrance of God and a reminder of His oneness. The Sacred Scripture of Islam –
the Quran is also called al-dhikr, meaning that the Quran itself is the reminder of God. Surah the
Cow (2:152) says: “So remember Me; I will remember you. Be thankful to Me, and never
ungrateful.”79 Just as the prophets were proclaiming the divine message of God to humanity, so
human beings respond to it by expressing the awareness of God by following the proclaimed
truth. The main goal of dhikr is to keep and remember God in thought, word and activity. 80 Dhikr
is a direct form of worship, a call to every person, created by God in order to conform to the
reality of God. It is a practice of voluntary return to God.

The dhikr is the principal method of Sufism.81 There are many similarities between the
Christian prayer of hesychasm and the Sufi prayer of dhikr. Hesychasm is a prayer of the heart,
the center of the corporal human being. The Sufis talk about the eye of the heart. Praying dhikr is
beyond ritual obligatory daily prayer of salat (namaz). Ceaseless prayer of dhikr by the Sufi
mystic creates a spiritual atmosphere for a feeling of divine presence. 82 The stillness of
79
M.A.S. Abdeel Haleem, trans., The Qur’an. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 17. Unless otherwise
stated, quotes from the Qur’an are taken from M.A.S. Abdeel Haleem translation.
80
William Chittick, “On the Cosmology of Dhikr” in Paths to the Heart: Sufism and the Christian East, edited by
J. Cutsinger. (Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2002), p.49.
81
Vitray-Meyerovitch, Eva de. Rûmî and Sufism. (Tran. S. Fattal. Sausalito, CA: The Post-Apollo Press, 1987), p. 98.
82
Vitray-Meyerovitch, Eva de, p. 98.
24
hesychasm can be compared to the annihilation (al-fanā) or to mystical subsisting in God (baqā)
and theosis can be loosely compared to the concept of union (ittihād), which is the goal of dhikr.
Another major similarity is the concept of divine light. Hesychasts experience God in the light,
which is uncreated, divine light. A practitioner of hesychasm distinguishes the gradation of light
from the sensible light to the uncreated divine light.

In Islam, a similar practice, based on well-established philosophical tradition, can be found
in the Sufi mystical tradition of seeking knowledge through light emanating from God, stemming
from the Quranic text of the Surah the Light (24:35) “God is the light of the heavens and earth…
light upon light-God guides whoever He will to his Light; God draws such comparisons for
people; God has full knowledge of everything.” 83 This concept was further developed by a Perian
scholar and mystic of the twelve century, who was a descendant of the first Islamic caliph Abū
Bakr, and the founder of the Suhrawardiyya Sufi order, Abū ˀl Najīb ˁAbd al Qāhir al
Suhrawawardī, the Sheikh Al-Ishrāq.84He was a prolific writer and authored numerous treatises
in Persian and in Arabic. Also, he started a new philosophical tradition of Illumination (ishraq) in
Islam with his famous work Hikmat al Ishraq (the Philosophy/Wisdom of Illumination), where
the author wrote about accessing knowledge not from a union with the Active Intellect, but rather
by mystical illumination.85 In his quest for illumination, he developed the experiential steps of
illumination. The philosopher, the seeker of knowledge had to start from abandoning the world,
then he would have to attain certain visions of a divine light (al nūr al ilāhī) and eventually
83
Esposito, John, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, s. v. “Hikmat al Ishraq” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
2004), p. 111.
84
Knish, Alexander. Islamic Mysticism. (Boston, MA: Brill, 2000), p. 192-3.
85
Ziai, Hossein. Knowledge and Illumination: A Study of Suhrawardī's Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq. (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press,
1990), p. 143-145.
25
arrive at the unlimited and unbound illuminationist knowledge (al ˁilm al ishrāqī),86resulting in
obtaining “an idea of the light of God (mithāl min nūr Allah).”87 The followers of Suhawardī are
found in Iran even to this day.

Gregory Palamas preached that whoever participated in the divine energy becomes himself
in some way enlightened, as the prayer of the heart eventually leads to the divine light. 88 Sufis in
Persia and Central Asia had developed the symbolism of light (al-nur) into the concept of
illumination. Just as in hesychastic prayer, dhikr can be prayed individually by the Muslim Sufi
mystic. Moreover, there is a form of a prayer of repentance “I ask forgiveness of God the
Immense, apart from whom there is no other god, He the Vigilant, the Living” which ought to be
repeated when practicing dhikr, similar to a Jesus prayer of the Eastern Christian monks.89
Hesychasts involved their bodies in the prayer practice and for that they were criticized by
Barlaam of Calabria. The experienced hesychasts passed on to their disciples the breathing
techniques and preferred body postures suitable to the fruitful hesychastic prayer. Similarly, in
the Sufi orders, were the masters or sheikhs who also taught the correct form of practicing dhikr
to their disciples, besides a generic form of this prayer practice which could be practiced
spontaneously. Al-Rumi, a famous Persian Sufi mystic from the thirteen century created a form
of dhikr with the circular movement of the body, connected with spiritual music in order to
approach the Creator and adore Him. He insisted that for a praying Sufi mystic, in his invocation
of God, a practitioner’s entire being ought to become prayer. 90 The Dervish (Poor) Order of
Mawlawis still practice this particular form of prayer within the context of a religious ceremony
86
Ziai, Hossein. Knowledge and Illumination: A Study of Suhrawardī's Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, p. 34.
87
Ziai, Hossein. Knowledge and Illumination: A Study of Suhrawardī's Ḥikmat al-Ishrāq, p. 157.
88
Seyyed Nasr, “The Prayer of the Heart in Hesychasm and Sufism,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31 (1986):
201.
89
90
26
known as sama which is done outside the mosque. It is undeniable that prayer of the Divine
Names (dhikr) with its breathing techniques and specific postures of the bodily organs, was
widespread in the world of Sufi Islam. 91 Abū Hāmid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazālī, a
prominent Muslim Persian theologian of the eleventh century warned against the practice known
as sama, as being too centered on human senses, just as Barlaam of Calabria accused the monks
who practiced hesychasm of being the followers of the heretical teaching of Messalianists or
Bogomils. Yet, he also said that “Dhikr is, in its reality, the progressive power of the Named, on
the heart…”92
Despite the similarities, there is an important difference between the prayer of hesychasm
and dhikr. Christian prayer invokes Jesus Christ, God incarnate; the Word made flesh, the full
and complete revelation of God the Father. Hesychastic prayer is focused on quietness and
passivity and detachment of mind which ought to bring in the presence of Christ, the Truth of
revelation. It is a powerful statement of human sanctification, because after the incarnation of
Christ, divinization of a human being would involve not only a human soul but also a human
body. The Christian hopes for salvation are with the body and in the body, due to the incarnation
of Jesus. For Christian monks, these physical postures and techniques were secondary to the
sacramental mysticism and the theology of grace. Stemming from the Patristic tradition, the
Jesus prayer ought to be imageless and dispassionate, without involvement of human
imagination. Since, Islam rejects the incarnation, when praying dhikr, a Muslim faithful does not
invoke God in the same way. Hesychasm emphasizes divine love and the grace of Christ, as the
Sufis emphasize the knowledge of God by illumination through the Muhammadian “grace” (al
haqīqa al muhammadiyya). For them, seeing Muhammad, the “Light of Allah” (Nur Allah) in
91
Denny, Frederick. An Introduction to Islam. (2nd ed., New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1994), p. 260.
92
27
their waking state is part of training, besides the fact that Muhammad ought to be imitated in
word and deed.93 In Christianity, the divine Messiah redeems the world; whereas Islam is the way
of absorption of the world by God. 94 A Muslim Persian mystic Sahl al-Tustari held that Allah
created Muhammad from the divine light before creating anybody else, including Adam, because
Adam was created by God from the Muhammadan light. 95 This is somewhat reminiscent of the
Christian Arian theology of Jesus. Thus, there are profound similarities of practices and insights;
however the important and fundamental difference is not to be omitted lest we fall into
syncretism and oversimplification.

Surprisingly enough, the hesychasts and even the poor classes of the declining Byzantine
Empire, did not have a great worriment about the obvious triumph of the Muslim Turks who
were the carriers of the Sufi Islamic practices. Palamas also reflected that widespread, although
not unanimous, attitude. In his letter of reflection written after his captivity in the Muslim lands,
Palamas stated that “this world rests in evil and that evil men and servants of this low world are
those who dominate the greatest part of it, who dislodge their neighbors by force and with
weapons” and “they (the Turks) are little, if any, different from those previous ones (i.e. the
idolaters).”96 After all, in Byzantine piety, it was understood the greater share of power and
victory in this sinful world belongs to the evil men, and the occupation is the result of sinfulness
of the Byzantine Christians, and as such it was just and inevitable. 97 At the same time, the
occupation of the imperial lands by the Turks was viewed as an opportunity to reveal the Gospel
93
Knysh, Alexander, p. 252.
94
Schuon, Frithjof. The Transcendent Unity of Religions. (Trans. P. Townsend. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1975), p.
104.
95
Baldick, Julian. Mystical Islam. An Introduction to Sufism. (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1989), p.38.
96
Daniel Sahas, “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims,” Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 25 (1980): 414.
97
Runciman, Steven. The Last Byzantine Renaissance, p. 3.
28
to the most barbarous of the barbarians. 98 Nevertheless, after the occupation of most of the
Byzantine territories, in the first part of the fifteen century the Ottomans went out and conquered
other Christian lands and acquired Bulgarian, Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Wallachian
subjects. Some of them remained Christian, but others, like Albania and Bosnia became
predominantly Muslim. Sufi orders, Bektashi, Naqshbandis, Qudiris and even more radical
Hamzevis, were instrumental in converting to Islam the local Christian population in the Balkans
to Islam.99 Bektashis, who incorporated many of the Christian beliefs, successfully converted
many of the areas which were previously only superficially Christianized. Thus, many people in
Albania and Bosnia initially converted to Bektashism, rather than to the official version of Sunni
Islam in the Ottoman Empire.100

Gregory Palamas was careful not to sacrifice or compromise on anything from the deposit of
the orthodox faith in order to get political and military support for the declining Empire.
Meanwhile, many of his opponents, the contemporary humanists, were looking at ways to save
the Empire at any cost. The Archbishop of Thessalonica did not regard a potential fall of the
Empire as the end of Christianity. For example, the anti-unionist Patriarch of Constantinople
Philotheus, a contemporary of Palamas, noted in his writing that Muslim occupiers were more
tolerant toward Orthodox Christians than Latin Christians in Cyprus. 101 Mutual respect between
the hesychasts and the Muslims caused a greater sympathy to the Muslims then to their Latin
brothers in Christ. Moreover, contemporary Western Latin philosophers saw a contradiction in
hesychasm. They thought that the light seen by the hesychast is divine, then it had to be
98
99
Schwartz, Stephen. The Other Islam. (New York, NY: Doubleday Press, 2008), p. 107.
100
Albert Doja, “Spiritual Surrender: From Companionship to Hierarchy in the History of Bektashism,” Numen 53/4
(2006):456.
101
29
inseparable from the divine essence without any further distinction. 102 Palamas and his followers
firmly believed that the theological description of hesychasm was mere expounding of the
richness of the Patristic tradition; thus they practiced and taught that the navel gazing
contemplation technique with the prayer of Jesus, might result in perception of the light of God,
divine uncreated energies.
CHAPTER II. GREGORY PALAMAS-PRISONER, EVANGELIZER AND APOLOGETE
AMID THE TURKISH MUSLIMS.

2.1 General Background Behind the Captivity of Palamas
A decisive Turkish victory near Manzikert, in Byzantine Armenia on August, 1071 set in motion
the process of the gradual Turkification of Anatolia. Turkish forces were slowly occupying
Byzantine territory and coming closer to the capital of the Empire-the legendary city of
Constantinople, the New Rome. Unavoidable theological clashes of Eastern Byzantine
Christianity and Islam were finding their reflections in the dialogue like treatises prepared by the
Byzantine scholars, who examined the dogmatic and liturgical issues. The Dialexis (dialogue) or
102
Runciman, Steven, The Last Byzantine Renaissance, p. 46
30
the text of the apologetic debate of Gregory Palamas with the Chiones survived in a Greek
manuscript until our times. It is a report of the of interreligious encounter, recorded by the ear-
witness to that encounters, as they occurred in 1355, perhaps later edited by Palamas. It was not a
written treatise prepared on the subject of the Islam and the Muslim faith with imaginary and
prospective opponents. These debates took place in the recently occupied Byzantine territory by
the Turkish Muslims. One of these debates was initiated by the grandson of the Emir, and the
other debate was organized by the Turkish Emir Orchan himself. The third debate with the
Muslims, which took place in Nicea, was spontaneous, but intense and sincere with the
participation of their spiritual leader, called Tasimanes (ο τασιμανης) in the presence of other
Christians.103
Palamas could not have selected the topics of the debates. Neither did he control the flow of
the discussions. His opponents were not generic or imaginary, but rather he was opposed by the
real cradle Muslims as well as with the converts to Islam, who wanted to defend their newly
acquired faith, simultaneously being commissioned by Emir to do so. The dialogue took place at
the time of relative peace between the Turks and the Byzantines. Thus, it represented an
exchange of ideas in the time of peace. Also, this dialogue was preserved because it was a
dialogue between the dignitaries, the Byzantine Christian Archbishop who had connections to the
Byzantine imperial court, and the party which was representing the Emir, the local Turkish
Muslim ruler. The text of Palamas’ letter to his local church in Thessalonica survived in the four
different manuscripts, while his public disputation with the Chiones (Dialexis), summoned by the
Emir Orchan of Bithynia, was taken from a seventeenth century manuscript found in the
National Library at Athens in Greece104.
103
104
Daniel Sahas, “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims,” p. 410-411.
31
In the summer of 1354, Palamas was travelling on board of the imperial warship from the
island of Tenedos in the Aegean Sea to Constantinople. He was conducting his second internal
diplomatic mission, trying to prevent another clash between the young Emperor John V and the
senior co-Emperor John VI Cantacuzenus, However, the ship was forced by the wind to land
near Gallipoli on the European side of the straits of Dardanelles, where, the Archbishop of
Thessalonica and his entourage became prisoners of the Muslim Turks. The Turks, who were the
allies of John Cantacuzenus, occupied Kallipolis (Gallipoli), the city of beauty in East Thrace in
the European part of the Byzantine Empire on March 2, 1354, after a major earthquake hit the
city .105 This was the first major territory occupied by the Osmanli Emirate in Europe and later it
became their base for the capture of Constantinople and the Balkans.106
Palamas was captured on March of 1354 and was held as a prisoner for ransom. 107
Immediately after the capture, Palamas’ books, deemed heretical, except for the Psalter and the
Gospel, were thrown out into the sea by the order of Sulayman, the leader of Palamas’ captors. 108
The Archbishop spent his time in captivity in the Asiatic provinces of Bithynia and Mesothenia,
as it could be detected from his letter to his flock in Thessalonica. 109 After the initial capture near
Gallipoli, Palamas was taken to Bithynia, a northwest region of Asia Minor on the southwest
shore of the Black Sea. His captivity lasted a little longer than a year. During his captivity
Palamas was taken to different towns, former Byzantine locales, where he was welcomed by
105
Daniel Sahas, “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims,” p. 409.
106
Thomas David and Alex Mallett, ed. Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Vol. 5 (1350-1500).
(Boston, MA: Brill, 2013), p. 166.
107
G. Georgiades Arnakis, “Gregory Palamas Among the Turks and Documents of his Captivity as Historical Sources,”
Speculum 26 (1951):104.
108
Thomas David and Alex Mallett, p. 44.
109
32
Christians who continued to live there. He visited Pegae, Brussa, Nicaea and Lampsacus. The
imperial ambassadors, such as Mavrozoumis, who was a Byzantine heteriarch, and whose
position was similar to that of a consul general, provided the captives with funds and he local
Christians petitioned Muslim authorities for their needs. Palamas was honored by his captors and
treated accordingly, after he and his entourage was separated from the rest of the prisoners. 110 In
Bithynia, he met with the local Christian community of Latin Christians. While in captivity
Palamas developed an interest towards learning about Islam and discussing it with the Muslims.
While in captivity Palamas wrote a pastoral letter to his flock in Thessalonica, another personal
shorter letter to a friend, monk David Dysopatos, providing the description of his theological
disputes with the Muslims. The letter to his friend is an abridged version of the letter to his flock
in Thessalonica. Palamas’ opponent on the theology and practice of hesychasm, Nicephorus
Gregoras proclaimed that the captivity of Palamas was a sign of divine punishment for his
support of pro-Turkish policies of John VI Cantacuzenus. He also remarked that the debate
organized by the Muslim Emir was intended to expose the “new monstrosity” of hesychasm. 111
He noted that the teachings of Palamas were indeed worse than the religion of Islam, because
while the Muslims (barbarians) denied the Incarnation of Christ, they at least believed in one
God, whereas Palamas in his teachings “divided the Holy Trinity up into thousands of uncreated
energies.”112 On the contrary, Palamas saw his capture as divine providence, because staying with
the Turks would allow them to learn the truth about Jesus Christ. 113 The ransom for the release of
110
p. 106.
111
Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Religious Dialogue between Byzantines and Turks during the Ottoman Expansion,” in
Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter, edited by B. Lewis and F. Niewohner. (Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz,
1992), p. 293.
112
Thomas David and Alex Mallet, p. 44.
113
Thomas David and Alex Mallet, p. 103.
33
Palamas was eventually paid, either by John Cantacuzenus, who abdicated and became a monk,
or by the Serbs, and the Archbishop of Thessalonica was allowed to return home in August of
1355.114 This was done to facilitate a quick return of Palamas to Constantinople, so that he might
defend his theology once more as the anti-Palamites and Nicephoras Gregoras condemned in
1351, were making a comeback on the political and religious scene in Constantinople.115
2.2 Who Were Palamas’ Captors-the Turks?
Who were the Turks? Palamas called his Turkish captors Achaemenidae, which could be
seen as rather a strange title. This title of the Osmanli Turks came from the old enemies of the
Empire, namely the Persians, who used to seriously threaten the eastern borders of the Roman
Empire. Persian rulers from the Sassanid dynasty claimed to be descendants of the great
conqueror Alexander III of Macedon. Thus, they claimed all the territory which he captured
during his military campaign. The founder of the new dynasty was Ardashir I or Artaxerxes,
giving the name to this new Persian force. The Achaemenidae became the major enemy of the
Byzantines until their fall to the Islamic conquest. There was a religious connotation to this many
hundred years long conflict. The Persians revived the old pagan religion of Zoroastrianism. They
captured Jerusalem in 614 , which was controlled by Byzantium at that time, destroyed the
Church of the Holy Sepulture and took away the true cross as a trophy. Besides it being a
struggle between two great empires, it was also a religious battle between the believers in God
and the unbelievers or pagans. The Byzantines saw themselves as the force of faith, similarly to
the Arab Muslims during their first conquests in the seventh century. The Sassanid Empire
collapsed in 651, as it had been conquered by the Arab caliphate, which was under the rule of
Uthman ibn Affan, the third of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (d. 656), and the successor of the
114
115
Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas, p.108.
34
legendary caliph Umar (d. 644). The last rulers of the Sassanid dynasty escaped to the east and to
the north of Persia. This was the geographical area from where the Seljuk Turks originated.
Seljuk Turkish force was a product of the family of Seljuk, coming from central Asia. As Seljuks
achieved mutual understanding with the Turkish ghazis, who were a Muslim militia of fighters
against Christian infidels and heretics, they caused a lot of military trouble to the Byzantines.
The Seljuks conquered a lot of their territory and established the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, a
medieval Sunni Muslim state on the territory of the recently captured Byzantine Anatolia. The
Byzantines attached the old and familiar name to the new conquerors.
However, by the fourteenth century , the unbelieving force of nomads-the Seljuks, who used
the shamanic practices, became already nominally Muslim. The Seljuks were Islamized in the
tenth century , although it was nothing more than “a thin coating over old tribal shamanism, …
tribal shamans becoming Muslim bābās while retaining their older characteristics.” 116 Muslims
were the minority; the central capital of the influential Muslim Caliphate was located far away in
Baghdad. The major shift of power was taking place in the middle of the thirteenth century, thus,
established Muslim authorities could not exercise enough supervision over orthodoxy of the
newly acquired Muslim lands. Even the family of the Turkish rulers was hardly orthodox
Muslims for many centuries, finding their religious leaders and consulters among the sectarian
and mystical spiritual circles.117
Yet, Osman’s predecessors, the Seljuk Turks found themselves the rulers of the territory,
which was predominantly Christian. The Seljuk Turks had already adopted the Persian culture.
They had also absorbed a lot of practices and institutions from their Byzantine neighbors. A lot
of Islamic practices were of Eastern Christian origin, as they were previously borrowed and
116
Speros Vryonis, “The Byzantine Legacy and Ottoman Forms,” p. 260.
117
Elizabeth Zachariadou, p. 295.
35
adapted by the Arabic conquerors of Syria and Egypt in the seventh century. 118 All their lives and
practices were well adapted to their nomadic and tribal lifestyle. One major adaptation was a
practice of Sufism, which did not require a strict mosque attendance and regimented prayer.
Instead of adherence to the Muslim formal legal teachers, the missionary activity on behalf of
Islam was done by the dervishes who followed the Sufi Muslim ascetic path (tariqa), and
devoted themselves to study and life of pious contemplation while exercising special forms of
devotion. Hājjī Bektāsh Walī, a Muslim mystic from Anatolia and a founder of the Bektashi
Order, gave three sources for spiritual growth, one of which is seeking God in one’s heart
(haqiqa). He wrote a book entitled The Garden of Mental Reflection, which was quite popular
among the local Muslims. In popular mind, he became associated with the Anatolian bishop, who
became a Christian martyr in the second century, St. Charalampus (Χαράλαμπος).
Dervishes used music, dance, poetry and the vernacular Greek and Turkish language119. They
persistently taught heretical forms of Islam, partially coming from their shamanic believes with
an adaptation to a tribal society and enjoyed the support of the local population. 120 Sufis took the
person of Jesus and embraced him as a great master, who was concerned with the divine things,
detached from the worldly attachments. For them, Jesus exemplified intimate closeness to God
actualized in prayer and compassion, a complete example of a contemplative saint, perfect in
poverty, meekness and surrender.
Dervishes, who had a questionable status in Islam in regards to their doctrine and practices,
became the preachers of the new faith to the former Byzantine Christian and Jewish subjects.
118
119
Speros Vryonis, “Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29 (1975): 63.
120
İnalcik, Halil. The Ottoman Empire; the Classical Age, 1300-1600. (trans. N. Itzkowitz and C. Imber. New York, NY:
Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 186.
36
Presenting a low level syncretism of Muslim and Christian elements, and making use of their
mystical liturgy with music and dance (same), they contributed heavily towards the numerous
conversions of Christians who resided in rural areas. Even the leaders of the Bektashi order, the
bābās (masters/preachers) were celibate, being reminiscent of the Christian monks, which was a
repudiated practice by the Muslims.121 At beginning of the expansion of the future Ottoman
Empire, Bektashi order was an indispensable instrument of Islamic enculturation of the newly
acquired peoples, since they propagated syncretic “mixture of Sufism, Shīˁism and Turkic folk
beliefs.”122 It is likely that their success among the conquered local inhabitants, who trusted the
Bektashis, was not only due to their works of corporal mercy, but also because of their syncretic
and even semi-Christian beliefs and practices. For example, the Bektashi order held a secret
belief that Alī (the martyred cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad), Muhammad and God (Al
Haqq-the True Reality) form a trinity.” In their spiritual quest they sought entrance into the
presence of God. Tthey practiced a confession of sins to their spiritual leader and their ritual of
initiation with distribution of cheese, bread and wine was quite reminiscent of the Christian
liturgy of the Eucharist.123 The Bektashis were the chaplains of the Janissaries. 124 The Janissaries
(yeniçeri), who were the Ottoman elite troops for centuries regarded Hājjī Bektāsh, the founder
of the order, as their patron, until their disbandment in 1826 125 After the disbandment of the
Janissaries, the Bektashi also suffered a devastating blow from the Ottomans.
121
Schwartz, Stephen, p. 107.
122
123
124
Schwartz, Stephen, 138.
125
Knysh, Alexander, p. 278-279.
37
Famous mystic Rumi was discussing mystical love with his all classes of the fellow citizens,
including non-Muslims. He was also visiting the monastery of St. Chariton in the vicinity of
Konia, in Central Anatolia. His Muslim followers continued to do the same. Reportedly, some
Christians and even Jews, without formally leaving their respective religions, were becoming
members of the dervish order of Mawlawi.126 It was founded in 1273 by the followers of Al-
Rumi.127 Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī, the apostle of love, together with his followers were
representatives of the new phenomenon of “Christianized Islam.”128
Another group of Muslim warriors on the borders of the Muslim lands were the Ghazis. They
were bound by the rules for living a virtuous life with mystical inclination as it was understood
in Islam. They distinguished themselves by wearing a special white cap. A title of Ghazi was
given to a worthy individual in a ceremony by the Mawlawi sheikh, so Osman received his
Ghazi sword at the ceremony conducted by Sheikh Edebali, a head of akhi fraternity. He was
Osman’s spiritual consulter. The sheikh hosted a gathering for dervish groups in his house which
Osman, who was the father of Orchan and the founder of the Ottoman dynasty, often attended.
Starting from the time of Orchan, there was a firm connection between the military advances of
the Osmanli Emirate and the spiritual and social ministry of the order of dervishes. Dervishes
were highly respected and promoted under the power of Ottomans (Osmanli dynasty), as they
dominated the spiritual life of the western frontiers of Islam. 129 They were establishing hospices
(zaviyes) in the newly conquered lands, thereby establishing the infrastructure for the future
Turkish villages. These new buildings, including the mosques, were built by Christian masons
126
Speros Vryonis, “Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor,, p. 66.
127
128
129
İnalcık, Halil, p. 55.
38
and architects.130 On the newly conquered territory there was an order of heterodox Muslim
dervishes-the Torlaks, the followers of Torlak hu Kemal, a dervish of Jewish origin. 131 Torlak can
be translated as an unbroken colt, or figuratively, it could be interpreted as wild youth. 132 He as
well as Badral-Bin and Burklud je Mustafa preached that there was harmony between Islam and
Christianity, promoting a proto-communistic worldview.133 Torlak specifically indicated that
those who denied that Christians prayed to Allah were themselves infidels; thus, in some way,
they accepted the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. 134 In the beginning of the fifteen
century, he managed to organize a popular uprising against the Ottomans, which brought about
consequences in realm of religious affairs. 135 Before the fifteen century, a Turkish poet, named
Yunus Emre, described eloquently the religious situation in the Ottoman Empire by writing that
“his soul enters a mosque and prays with the face on the ground at one moment and at another
moment enters a church and reads the gospel and feels as a monk.”136
In this diverse religious and unstable political situation, the founder of the Ottoman dynasty,
Osman I, capitalized on the consequences of the Mongolian invasion and declared the
independence of his emirate from the Seljuk Turks in 1301. The Ottomans saw themselves and
their Emirate as a community of Ghazis, whose purpose was military conquest devoted to
130
Reynolds, Gabriel. The Quran and Its Biblical Subtext. (London, UK: Routledge, 2010), p. 194.
131
Kohen, Elli. History of the Turkish Jews and Sephardim: Memories of a Past Golden Age. (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 2007), p. 153.
132
Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 208.
133
Lewis, Bernard, p.104.
134
135
Hanif, N. Biographical Encyclopedia of Sufis; Central Asia and Middle East. (New Delhi, India: Sarup and Sons,
2002), p. 90.
136
39
purification of the world from polytheism as found in Christian Trinitarian teaching. 137 Their
army, headed by the supreme commander, the Emir, constituted the ruling class. As a result,
many Islamic warriors who served in the Emir’s army found wives for themselves in the newly
conquered territories creating a lot of mixed interreligious marriages. In this milieu, Osman’s
successor and his son Orchan became a Great Emir, who replaced the sultanate al Rum. Later on,
his son, Murat, assumed the title “Sultan-I azam” or the most exalted sultan, which was
previously used by the Seljuks. Orchan organized the debate between Palamas and Emir’s
representatives the Chiones, after Palamas had a very successful and friendly discussion with his
grandson Ismael.
In June of 1355, Palamas found himself in the summer residence of the Emir Orchan in
Brussa, where he met with the grandson of Emir Orchan, named Ismael. After it was captured by
the Turks, it was declared the Muslim holy city which caused the expulsion of the Byzantine
Christians and the transformation of the Christian churches in the city into mosques. 138 Brussa
was also nicknamed “a city of theologians,” due to activities of the Akhi fraternity, part of the
Akhi movement, connected with the Sufis.139 The Akhi movement united the Turks of the newly
occupied Byzantine territories, contributed to the social welfare and provided guidance to the
Muslim youth, because among the Muslim youth the Akhi movement was analogous to the ghazi
movement of the adult Muslims.140 Ismael’s grandfather, Emir Orchan reigned during the years
1326–1362 , being the second Great Emir of the rising future Ottoman Empire, known at that
137
Wittek, Paul. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. (trans. E. Kara-Mikhallova, J. Hussey and P. Charanis. London, UK:
Royal Asiatic Society, 1963), p. 40.
138
Papademetriou, George, ed. Two Traditions, One Space: Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. (Boston,
MA: Somerset Hall Press, 2011), p. 56.
139
Wittek, Paul, p.48.
140
Ahmen, Nazeer. Islam in Global History: From the Death of Prophet Muhammed to the First World War.
(Concord, CA: Kazi Publications, 2000), p.347.
40
time Osmanli Emirate, which was equivalent to a principality. The Great Emir (Prince) Orchan
was an active participant in the civil war of Byzantium and the son-in-law of the senior co-
Emperor, John VI Cantecuzenus, a friend and supporter of Gregory Palamas.
Emir Orchan of Bithynia, being a ruler of the nomad people, preferred staying in the tent
rather than in a palace. His manners were simple and he was quite accessible to his people. 141 The
Greeks freely associated with the Turks who showed the attitude of tolerance.However, the
proselytizing pressure to convert to Islam was always present. Despite this quite democratic
spirit, Brussa was the town where the mosque was built with an inscription which reflected the
strategic attitude of the house of Osman, despite its modest beginnings. The father of Osman
commanded the ghazi warriors for the Seljuk Sultans.142 The inscription on the mosque in
Brussa, the capital city of the Ottoman emirate built by Orchan in 1337, read: “Sultan, son of the
Sultan of the Ghazis, Ghazi, son of Ghazi, marquis of the horizons, hero of the world.”143 This
spirit of toleration and acceptance of their Christian and Jewish subjects and their religious
convictions stemmed from pragmatism required by the survival of the recently established
Muslim Emirate, which relied heavily on the services of non-Muslims. Christians were
surrounding the Emir; his army included a few Christian generals and many soldiers. 144 It is
important to note that Muslim conquerors had borrowed heavily from the faith of their Christian
subjects. This included the adoption of the cults of popular Christian saints (St. Nicholas-Sari
Saltik) and even accepting infant baptism of Muslim children to rid of demons (vaftiz).145 Orchan
141
G. Georgiades, Arnakis, “Gregory Palamas Among the Turks and Documents of his Captivity as Historical
Sources,” p. 113.
142
143
Wittek, Paul, p.15.
144
145
41
was a son of a practical and rather democratic ruler Osman, who shared his war booty with his
warriors. He was also a grandson of a heterodox Muslim sheikh. Probably, this helped Orchan to
become quite lenient in religious matters of his subjects.
2.3 The First Dialogue of Palamas with Ismael, grandson of the Emir Orchan
Towards the end of Palamas captivity, Emir Orchan’s grandson Ismael invited Palamas for a
meal on a Friday to a hilly place near Brussa, where he held an outside discussion with the
Archbishop in the presence of some Turkish dignitaries. Palamas gave a summary of this event in
the above mentioned letter to his local church in Thessalonica. He described Ismael as a well-
educated, Greek speaking young man, whose personality was a combination of thoughtful
consideration and youthful spontaneity.146 The topics of their discussion were usual topics of
basic Muslim-Christian dialogue. They discussed the divinity of Jesus Christ and the
prophethood of Muhammad, inquired into the reasons behind the Christian worship of the cross,
examined the person of the Virgin Mary mother of Jesus and her importance, as well as looked
into other Christian practices. Ismael, who had an interest in comparing Christian and Muslim
religious practices, asked Palamas different questions about his abstention from meat and the
Christian practice of giving alms.147 When talking about the practices dictated by his faith,
Palamas intended to explain to his opponent that almsgiving had to originate from and be a
consequence of one’s love toward the one, true God. He said the “the true almsgiving is the one
which derives from the love towards the true God...”148 Consequently, if one genuinely loves
God, he or she becomes truly benevolent. For Ismael, it somehow meant that one ought to love
146
p. 110.
147
Papademetriou, George. Two Traditions, One Space: Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Dialogue, p. 57.
148
42
the Muslim prophet Muhammad, since he commanded the practice of almsgiving to his
followers. When discussing the topic of acceptance of the prophet Muhammad, the Archbishop
had to be careful. He was a prisoner of and was talking to someone who did not believe in Jesus
Christ as the Son of God, the divine Messiah. In his further discourse, Palamas presented to
Ismael a proper Christian understanding of the voluntary character of Jesus’ crucifixion, and
explained to him that the suffering of Jesus in the flesh did not affect his divine nature by
emphasizing "the matter of the impassibility of the divine nature."149 When discussing the cross,
Palamas gave the reasons why it would be worthy of veneration. He explained that the cross was
the insignia and banner of Christ’s victory, the unique symbol of Christ’s passion and
resurrection. Therefore, an act of veneration of the cross would be analogous to the veneration of
the insignia of their ruler by the subjects of the Emir. 150 Nevertheless, Ismael predicated his
argumentation upon popular and erroneous Muslim beliefs regarding the Christian idea of the
sonship of God. Ismael stated that “at any rate, you believe that God has had a wife, for you
proclaim that He gave birth to a son.”151 Ismael treated this elaborate Christian concept in a mere
natural, physical and human sense. In his response, Palamas presented the most compelling
argument, supporting his line of reasoning with some of the teachings found in the Quran. Using
the Muslim’s own beliefs about Jesus Christ, Palamas reminded his opponent that “the Turks say
that Christ is the word of God, and that he was born from the virgin Mary, whom we glorify as
Theotokos.”152 The proof for this audacious claim could be found in the Surah the Family of
Imran (3:45) where it was written that “the angels said, ‘ Mary, God gives you news of a Word
149
150
151
152
43
from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, who will be held in honour in
this world and the next, who will be one of the brought near to God” 153 and in the Surah the
Women (4:171) where the divinity of Christ was denied and the Christians were incorrectly
accused of tritheism, yet Jesus was described as the spirit of God: “…and do not say anything
about God expect the truth: the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, a spirit from Him.” 154 Moreover, in
the Surah the Cow (2:87) it is stated that “…We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and
strengthen him with the Holy Spirit…”155
Palamas concluded his argument with the statement that Mary, the mother of Jesus, gave
birth to the word of God in the flesh, and “much more it is so with God, Who, in giving birth to
His own word, incorporeally (being Himself incorporeal) and in a God-like manner, has had no
wife, nor did He need any.”156 Therefore, Mary did not need a husband, as Ishmael had
erroneously presumed. Immediately, after Palamas provided Ishmael with a proper Christian
understanding of the Holy Trinity, their discussion was interrupted by a sudden rainstorm.
While conversing with Ishmael, whom he described in a positive tone, the Archbishop had
spoken persuasively and defended the truths of the Christian faith brilliantly. This prompted
Ishmael’s grandfather Emir Orchan to organize another debate and present Palamas with more
competent opponents.
2.4 The Second Public Debate of Palamas with the Chiones
The second debate between Palamas and the Chiones took place in July of 6363 A.M. of the
official calendar of the Byzantine Empire, which counted years from the foundation of the world
153
The Qur’an, p. 37-38.
154
The Qur’an, p. 66.
155
156
44
(annus mundi). It corresponded to the year 1355 of the Gregorian calendar. The debate was
witnessed by the Greek physician, Taronites, who previously was summoned to treat Emir
Orchan.157 Taronites recorded this dialogue in his text known as the Dialexis (the public
discussion). It is likely that Palamas had added some material to the text recorded by the Greek
physician.158 The dialogue was held in Greek with some help of interpreters. Palamas called his
opponents, summoned by the Emir, the Chiones.
The written report of the Archbishop’s dialogue with the Chiones, given in his letter to his
local church in Thessalonica, begins with assigning a resolute characteristic to his opponents-the
Chiones, who were called “atheists” already in the title of the discourse.159 Palamas also
described the Chiones as “men, who were taught by Satan, had studied nothing else but
blasphemies and shameful things towards our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God.”160
2.5 Who Were the Chiones?
Why such harsh words against the Chiones (Χιóνες)? Perhaps, because Palamas was
adamantly opposed to religious converts who were looking after personal convenience and
expediency.161 Who were these Chiones? Scholars disagree to their true identity. Dr. George
Georgiades Arnakis, a graduate of the University of Thessalonica and a professor of history at
the University of Texas, described the Chiones as members of the religious militant missionary
group-the Akhiyan, a union of learned Muslim religious activists, representatives of the Akhi
157
G. Georgiades Arnakis, Gregory Palamas Among the Turks and Documents of His Captivity as Historical Sources,
p. 109.
158
159
160
161
Daniel Sahas, “Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) on Islam,” The Muslim World 73 (1983): 9.
45
movement.162 They were very influential in Brussa at that time. The members of the Akhi
religious society highly valued and tried to practice a lifestyle and spiritual qualities which they
perceived to be foundational elements of Christianity. They believed that these elements helped
Christianity to become a worldwide religion. However, in their view, the contemporary
Christians rarely practiced any of that. Hence, many Anatolian Christians joined the new religion
propagated by the Akhi, which might have been reminiscent of Christianity.163
Dr. Paul Wittek, a prominent Austrian orientalist and historian of the Ottomans, thought that
the name Chiones derived from the word-title hodja, which in turn derived from the Persian
word for wisdom or knowledge. Thus, in his opinion, the Chiones were the learned Muslim
theologians.164 Dr. Speros Vryonis, Jr., the American Hellenic Institute Foundation (AHIF) Senior
Fellow for Hellenism and for Greek and Turkish Studies, stands in partial agreement with Rev.
Dr. John Meyendorff, the Dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in the United
States. He describes the Chiones as Byzantine converts to Judaism or Byzantine Judaizers, who
later became Muslim. Rev. Dr. John Meyendorff, a prominent scholar of Gregory Palamas, used
reasonable arguments from the text of the dialogue itself to show that most likely, the Chiones
were Christian renegades who became Jewish, in their attempt to position themselves closer to
Islam.165 These arguments are presented below. However, Dr. Daniel Sahas professor emeritus
from the University of Waterloo, and Dr. Elizabeth Zachariadou, former professor at the
University of Thessalonica in Greece, viewed them as being Jews who converted to Islam. 166
162
G. Georgiades Arnakis, “Gregory Palamas, the Χιóνες , and the Fall of Gallipoli,” Byzantion 22 (1952): 307.
163
p. 114.
164
G. Georgiades Arnakis, “Gregory Palamas, the Χιóνες , and the Fall of Gallipoli,” p. 305.
165
166
46
Currently, this view appears to enjoy the wider consensus of the scholars.167 In the text of the
debate it was mentioned that Chiones “wise and reputable men” in the eyes of the Emir, were
delegated by the Emir to conduct the interreligious debate with the accomplished theologian and
the Christian Archbishop. They might have even been the official astrologers (kahin) of the Emir
Orchan.168 However, the fact that they were native Greek speakers suggests that most likely they
were recent converts, who found Mosaic Law as a mean of assimilating themselves to the
Islamic society of their conquerors. They adopted the Mosaic Law and gave up their previous
religious faith, probably Christianity. Therefore, the Chiones were most likely the former
Christians, who chose to become followers of Mosaic Law as a way of fitting better into Islamic
Turkish society.169 Palamas identified them as Jews and clearly not as Turks. 170 The Chiones, in
their eagerness to please the new Muslim ruler, insisted that they were the Turks and Muslims.171
Apparently, the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine lands produced a new interreligious social
phenomenon. Followers of Judaism, who resided around the synagogue Etz-Hayyim, enjoyed
special privileges in the capital city of Brussa.172 Many Christian faithful were trying to secure
their social acceptance and privileges by abandoning their Christian faith. However, these former
Christians also refused to accept Muslim faith and rejected the new sacred text of the Quran.
They preferred to stay with the familiar sacred texts from the Christian Bible, namely the
Hebrew Scriptures.
167
168
Kohen, Elli, p.180.
169
170
171
172
47
2.6 Review of the Arguments from the Second Public Debate
The dialogue of Palamas with the Chiones was a twofold dispute. The opponents of the
Archbishop were the Muslims and the Chiones, who were not cradle Muslims, but rather former
Christians, who embraced Judaism due to the new social and political realities. Consequently,
Palamas had to address the connection of the old Law of Moses and the new law of Christ, as
well as address the Muslim belief in Muhammad. It is important to note that the officials of the
Emir were controlling the course of the debate, and for Palamas’ side this discussion was
essentially apologetic.173 Palamas saw the Chiones as atheists, and his view of them was reflected
in the title of the report of the public debate.174
From the beginning, the Chiones did not want to have a theological debate with the
Archbishop from Byzantium, even though the Great Emir commissioned them to do so. As a
result of their resistance, a compromise was reached. The Chiones had to have a discussion with
the Archbishop, but it was agreed that the Emir was not to be present. Perhaps, they were afraid
to demonstrate their lack of profound knowledge of the Muslim faith, despite their great
reputation.175 Perhaps, the Chiones were afraid that this debate with the Archbishop might
demonstrate that a position of theological-social compromise adopted by the Chiones was
inconsistent. Thus, their newly acquired societal status would be in jeopardy.
The representative of the Great Emir, a certain Balabanglik (Palapanis), who was a close
associate of the late Emir Osman, attended the debate accompanied by the Emir’s officials
(archontes). In his discourse, Palamas successfully demonstrated that the law of the Old
Testament led to the law of the New Covenant, and in doing so, he seriously questioned a direct
173
Papademetriou, George. Two Traditions, One Space: Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Dialogue, p.60.
174
175
48
linkage between the Law of Moses and Islam. This linkage served as the first basic argument of
the Chiones, who claimed that the Turks (the Moslems) adhered to the same divine
commandments which were brought down by Moses.176 If the outcome of the debate was to be
taken seriously, it would lead to a folding of the social privileges claimed by the Chiones, since
they became Turks in order to identify themselves with the new rulers without actually becoming
Muslims. They presented their embrace of the Mosaic Law and the commandments of Moses as
equally valid loyalty to Islam, since Muslim Turks held sacred the same commandments. That
was their first opening statement in their debate with the Archbishop Gregory Palamas.
In his response to the Chiones, Palamas clearly stated that Turkish officials were biased
judges, who were sitting in on the debate, supporting his opponents. The Archbishop also
eloquently noted his place in the debate, stating that he was a captive and humbly stressing that
“who am I, compared to the height and greatness of the catholic and apostolic Church of my
Christ, trying to defend her.”177 He wanted to make clear that he had no approval or authorization
of the Church to conduct this debate; therefore, it was a private debate of Gregory Palamas with
the Muslim representatives. Palamas also distinguished between a Christian-Muslim dialogue
and a debate with the Chiones, which was essentially, in his view, a debate with the Jews, who
were opposing the Christian beliefs. After making that distinction, Palamas started his response
with the basic review of the precepts of the Christian Trinitarian faith, noting the parallels with
the Muslim beliefs. He pointed out that logically it would be impossible to hold that the eternal
and unchangeable God had ever been without Reason (Logos) and Wisdom (Sophia),
consequently Wisdom and Reason had never been separated from God.178 If so, then the Reason
176
177
178
49
(logos) or the Word of God is without beginning and eternal, just like God is without beginning
and eternal. After that Palamas stated to his Muslim audience that “...there is no word ever
without spirit, something you, too, Turks confess.”179 Palamas reminded the Turks that they
believed that Jesus is the word of God, and the word of God could not have been without the
Spirit. Therefore, the Word of God (logos) could never separate from the Spirit of God. He
concluded with a brilliantly clear summary on the orthodox understanding of the Trinity by
stating “thus God has both, word and spirit, which are with Him and in Him without beginning
and without separation. God was never, nor will He ever be, without Spirit or word. Therefore,
all three are one and one the three.” 180 If all there are one, then Christian belief in Trinity is not
polytheism, but strict monotheism, since Christ is the word of God in unity with the spirit of God
as it was agreed upon earlier. Using the analogy of the sun and the sun rays, Palamas illustrated
that Trinitarian belief in the Word of God and the Spirit of God did not negate the oneness of
God.181 Even though, Palamas’ knowledge of Islam might have been limited, he used simple
logical syllogisms everyone could follow, regardless of one’s faith. The logical arguments
presented by the Archbishop caused noisy protest from his opponents. When defending the
Christian position, Palamas avoided traditional terms, which caused much opposition from the
Muslims, and applied an analogy from the natural world, using a different language while
transmitting the same basic message of the oneness of God in the Holy Trinity. The sun-light-
heat analogy was not original to Palamas, as it was used before in the interreligious dialogue
between the patriarch of the Church of the East Timothy I and the third Abbasid caliph Al-
179
180
181
50
Mahdi.182 The dialogue took place in the 781 in Baghdad, the capital of Abbasid caliphate. Even
though, the patriarch (katholikos) did not belong to the Orthodox Church and formally was
regarded as a Nestorian heretic, his explanation of the core truth of Trinitarian faith and Palamas’
explanations were identical.
After presenting such a coherent logical argument, Palamas examined the claim of the
Chiones, by stating that Moses in the Decalogue wanted to show that God has the word and the
spirit by quoting from the most well-known Jewish prayer of the Shema, which originated from
the book of Deuteronomy (6:4-9). Palamas reminded the Chiones that it was commanded to the
Israelites in the book of Deuteronomy (6:5) to “love the LORD, your God, with all your heart,
and with all your soul, and with all your might.” “The word of God made mention of Lord three
times,” two times the Lord is mentioned and one time, it was mentioned that the Lord is God.
Therefore according to one of the fundamental teachings of Moses in the Torah the Trinitarian
belief (three are one and one is three) was present. 183 Palamas also quoted a few of the creational
texts from the first two chapters of the book of Genesis, where it was not recorded that “God
said” (1:3) and when creating man “God blew” (2:7). Then, Palamas quoted the word of the
prophet king David, highly respected by the Jews, Muslims and the Christians alike, from Psalm
33:9 “God has said and everything was made” and from Psalm 148:5 “...for God commanded
and they were created.” Using this as a firm base for his further argumentation, Palamas insisted
that in the Hebrew Scriptures it was evident that God has the word, “for there is no speech
without the word” and “also all created things were made by means of it.” 184 If so, then this word
182
Maria T. Penelas, “Two Oriental-Christian Apologetic Texts in a Maghribi Codex ,” in Eastern Crossroads: Essays
on Medieval Christian Legacy, edited by J. P. Monferrer-Sala (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007), p. 282; 299.
183
184
51
of God had to be uncreated, as it existed before all created things. If this word is uncreated, then
it has to be divine, since only God is uncreated.
After that, Palamas started to address the divinity of the spirit of God, quoting the Genesis
text of the man’s creating and making him alive in the book of Genesis (2:7) and also quoting the
text from the book of Job 33:4 “for the spirit of God made me.” Since it was evident that only
God can create human beings, then the creative Spirit is both divine and inseparable from God.
The chronicler of the debate recorded that the Archbishop in his response went into explanation
of the mission of the spirit of God from the prophets, but he was interrupted by those who
controlled the flow of the debate. However, Palamas’ opponents did not object to his arguments,
stating that “this is what we also maintain” and agreed that the Archbishop’s arguments were
truthful and “it could not be otherwise.”185
As this dialogue was unfolding, the person of Christ was discussed. Palamas eloquently
presented his position regarding the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, the Word of God. At that
moment, the discussion focused on the mystery of Incarnation. For the opponents of Palamas it
was inconceivable that the human womb could have held the Divine Logos. Palamas reminded
them about the incorporeality of God and stated that “being incorporeal He is able to be
everywhere, beyond everything and in one single thing. He can fit even into the smallest possible
thing that one can imagine.”186 Basing their understanding on the Quranic text from Surah the
Family of Imran (3:59) “in God’s eyes Jesus is just like Adam: He created him from dust, said to
him, ‘Be’, and he was," they questioned Palamas how was it that a human being, Jesus of
Nazareth, the Christ, born of a human woman, was confessed to be God by the Christians. It was
a stumbling block to the Muslims, who rejected the divinity of Jesus. Palamas began his
185
186
52
argument from an acceptable position for the Muslims describing man’s relationship to God and
addressing man’s sinful nature and God’s justice, mentioning that David said that everyone who
was conceived of woman was a sinner. After that, Palamas quickly pointed out the necessity of a
sinless man, who needed to redeem the sinful humanity. Doing it differently, although possible to
God, who is the Almighty, would violate the justice of God and man’s free will, given to
humanity by God. Delving further into the identity of this sinless man, Palamas began to prove
that this sinless man was also divine, because the only man, who was sinless, was the Word of
God, who became a human being, in the person of Jesus Christ. Palamas continued to prove his
point by the fact of Christ’s resurrection and ascension. He mentioned “the testimonies of the
prophets which showed that Christ was also God … who was witnessed to as having become
man from the virgin and suffered for us and risen, and everything else.” 187 This irritated the
listeners who interrupted the Archbishop’s presentation and quoted to him the interpretation of
the Surah the Family of Imran (3:59), insisting that Christ was made, just like Adam was made.
Palamas dealt eloquently with this postulate by further analyzing it. His analysis revealed that if
Muslims simultaneously believed that Christ was created by the Word of God (Allah) and held
that Christ was the word and spirit of God (Allah), then it is would mean that any created thing
by the Word of God would also be the word and spirit of God, which is an obvious nonsense.
Palamas challenged his listeners by presenting his sound logical conclusion “that the word of
God is not co-eternal with God Himself.”188
At this moment, the Chiones interrupted the response of the Archbishop once more by
appealing to the official representative of the Emir, Palapanis and abruptly moved to the most
touching question in any Christian Muslim dialogue, namely the acceptance of Muhammad as
187
188
53
prophet by the Christians. Their argument was one of reciprocity. If Muslims believed in and
accepted the prophet Jesus (‘Īsā), so highly esteemed by the Christians, then the Christians
should accept the prophet Muhammad. Obviously, this question was lacking deeply theological
basis, but rather reflected the basic understanding of most Muslims who were living among
Christians in the Asia Minor. The Ottoman rulers who found themselves in these lands populated
by the Christians were politically motivated to implement practical religious syncretism in their
attempt to reconcile Jesus Christ with Muhammad. The Muslim Turks had to establish their new
Islamic state and promote their religion of Islam among the people who were very different in
their culture, lifestyle and beliefs. It brought about a certain level of religious tolerance, which
was a fertile ground to syncretic religious exchange through the dialogue of life. For a period of
time in the fourteenth century in Osmanli Anatolia religious toleration was permitted and Islamic
orthodoxy was not strictly imposed due a certain weakness of the young Turkish Osmanli state.
At the beginning of their occupation, the Osmanli permitted some free religious thinking and
expression, perhaps hoping to convince the former Byzantine local population to accept Islam as
superior. However, sixty years later, in 1416, this attitude of toleration of syncretism would help
support a rebellion against the Ottoman rule, known as the revolution of Bedr el-din of 1416. The
rebellion was led by the Sheikh Bedreddin, a Muslim Sufi theologian who had a Christian parent,
after which Osmanli policy of allowing public expression of different religious views, which had
been a fertile ground for interreligious dialogue, has discontinued, beginning from the sixteen
century.189 However, even in 1355, Palamas did not support this kind of syncretistic approach in
the area of interreligious relationships. Therefore, Palamas clearly explained to his Muslim
audience that he and the faithful Christians did not believe in Muhammad’s preaching, because
of a strict scriptural directive against any possible accepting Muhammad’s preaching. He stated
189
54
that accepting the preaching of Muhammad (loving Muhammad) would be tantamount the
betrayal of the teaching of Jesus and rejection of Jesus as the divine teacher. 190 Palamas quoted to
his opponents the texts from the Gospel of St. John the Apostle (5:43-44): “I came in the name of
my Father, but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.
How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that
comes from the only God?” Originally, this text was addressed to the Jews who rejected Jesus’
teaching, even though Moses wrote about the future coming of the Messiah. Also, Palamas
quoted a text from Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (1:8-9): “but even if we or an angel from
heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one
be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel
other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!”
This response of the Archbishop was especially difficult to hear for the Muslim listeners,
since they believed that indeed it was angel Gabriel (Jibril) who brought down the final and
complete divine revelation of the Quran to Muhammad. Palamas stressed that “he who does not
believe in the words of the teacher cannot love the teacher himself.” Thus, he emphasized that if
the teaching of Muhammad was completely unacceptable, then Muhammad could not be
honored as a prophet. At this point, not only Chiones, but also Turks got involved in the debate
and appealed to the fact that circumcision is commanded in the Sacred Scripture venerated by the
Christians. However, they did not follow this prescription. Palamas pointed out that this
prescription was a sign of the old law which was transferred through Christ. But even if one were
to accept these prescriptions from the law given to the Hebrews, then one had to accept and
follow the rest of these prescriptions, such as: keeping the Sabbath, celebration of the Passover,
sacrifices offered by the priests, and veneration of the Temple, which are mentioned together
190
55
with the circumcision.191 However, the same prescriptions, which were given along with the
circumcision, were not followed by the Muslims, who appeal to the fact that circumcision was
clearly prescribed. While attempting to show that these prescriptions did not hold the authority
they once had because of the new law of Christ, Palamas was interrupted once again. The
Chiones presented another argument from the Mosaic Law which, unlike circumcision, did not
prescribe an action but rather forbade an action. The opponents of Palamas criticized Christian
practice of venerating images inside the Christian churches, appealing again to the fact that God
had instructed Moses, quoting form the book of Exodus (20:4) as well as in the book of
Deuteronomy (5:8): “You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in the
heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth.” Therefore, the iconic
decoration of the Christian Churches seemingly presented a case of a clear and direct violation of
God’s command against representations. Palamas, being an eloquent and capable theologian,
explained a few basic facts about the veneration of the icons. He pointed out that Moses himself
made representations, hinting that if one had to follow the logic of the Chiones, then Moses had
to be found guilty of violating this command, since he made the icons of the heavenly Cherubim
and placed them inside the sanctuary. 192 The Turks agreed that Moses indeed had done that. Also,
Palamas used an analogy found in the ordinary life of any believer to illustrate his point. He
193
stated that “friends are venerated by each other, but they are not made gods.” Even though
everyone respects his friends, this kind of respect would be quite different than divine worship.
At the end, Palamas explained that no one among the Christians ever venerated icons as divine,
but rather saw them as instruments which could elevate a faithful person to the glory of God. In
191
192
193
56
fact, Palamas made a distinction between veneration (proskynesis) of something or someone and
adoration (latria) of God. The opponents of Palamas were not much interested in the
explanations given to them by him or his apologetic arguments. The only points which impressed
the Turks were the facts about Moses making representations of the celestial reality and of the
Cherubim and placing them in the inner most sacred place. The Turks were unsure about these
facts, so they had to seek verification and confirmation, probably asking the Chiones, who knew
the text of the Torah quoted by Palamas, as well as the text of the Quran. After these facts about
Moses were confirmed to be true, the Turks started to leave. As noted by the eyewitness, who
wrote the minutes of the debate, the Turks greeted the archbishop with respect. 194 The Chiones
were leaving as well, but one of them physically insulted the Archbishop by punching him in the
eye, for which the offender was rebuked by the rest of the listeners and taken to the Emir. 195
Palamas agreed to this public debate with the Chiones, who represented the Emir, knowing
in advance that the manner in which this debate had been set up was highly unfavorable to his
position. It was also inadequate to facilitate any possible mutual agreement. Palamas, being a
prisoner, could not have refused to participate in the debate. He agreed out of the respect to the
request of the Emir.196 This public Christian-Muslim exchange occurred in the Muslim lands
organized by the Muslim Emir. Yet, many of the points discussed during the debate were points
of contention between Christianity and Judaism, with the exception of the status of the
prophethood of Muhammad. Nevertheless, it was an informative debate or rather it was a series
of questions put to Palamas by his opponents to which he had to respond truthfully, but
diplomatically. Palamas used this debate as an opportunity to inform the Turkish conquerors
194
195
Kohen, Elli, p. 179.
196
57
about the religion of their newly acquired subjects, the Byzantine Christians. After a quick
Turkish conquest of the former Byzantine lands, the majority of the population of the new
Turkish Emirate was Christian. There were also Jews who were living side by side with the
Christians. For example, in Nicea there was a Jewish community engaged in trade. 197 Even after
the Muslim occupation, the majority were still Christians, who continued practicing their faith.
The dialogues of Palamas happened “on the crossroads of the two worlds” of the vanishing
Byzantine Basileia with its Christian Byzantine Imperial Orthodoxy and the Ottoman Emirate
slowly but surely rising to become the Ottoman Empire (Muslim Sultanate), which was a major
shift in the last millennium.198
2.7 The Third Debate of Palamas with the Muslims in Nicea
In July 1355 , after the petition of the Greek Emir’s physician Constantine Taronites was
granted, Palamas arrived in Nicea, which had been recently captured by the Turks. 199 There,
Palamas had another opportunity to meet with the Christian community. He stayed at the
monastery of St. Hyacinth (Hyakinth).200 Still being a captive, awaiting for his own release,
Palamas assisted in the release of Konstas Kalamaris, also a captive, who later accompanied
Palamas during his captivity.201 Palamas enjoyed a relative freedom of movement in Nicea.
Palamas inquired about many things, while touring the city, and engaged in private conversations
with the Muslim Turks. Unfortunately, there was no record of these conversations as they were
conducted orally. However, the outline of one such public interreligious dialogue in Nicea has
197
Elizabeth Zachariadou, p. 292
198
G. Georgiades Arnakis, “Gregory Palamas Among the Turks and Documents of his Captivity as Historical
Sources,” p. 116.
199
200
201
58
been recorded. It occurred on the occasion of the Muslim funeral, which Palamas had an
opportunity to observe, near the eastern gate of the city. The funeral was led by the Tasimanes.
Tasimanes probably was a danishmand , which means a sage, religious scholar or perhaps a
Turkish name for the high priest-bas-imam. 202 In order to enjoy a shade falling from the city gate
on a hot day in July, Muslims, who were returning from the funeral, sat in close proximity to the
Christians, who also were resting there. Palamas was present there as well. After a person who
spoke both languages had been found, a discussion began. The previous debate with the Chiones
was conducted in Greek with a simultaneous translation for the Turks present. This time Palamas
was speaking with the help of an interpreter. He praised the funeral rite, because he noticed that
the Muslims prayed to God on behalf of the deceased person. Tasimanes responded that Muslims
in their prayer were asking God to forgive the sins of deceased person “for his own sins
committed in his soul.”203 Palamas used this as a starting point for his argument in this
interreligious discussion. First, Palamas gave a traditional description of the mercy of God as
judge of all people, and pointed out that even in accordance with Muslim belief, it would be
Christ who would judge every human race at the end. 204 Immediately after that, the Archbishop
made an astonishing conclusion. He suggested that Muslims during their funeral rite were
actually sending their prayers and exclamations to Jesus, since, according to the Muslim belief,
Jesus would be the final judge of every human being. He went further, stating that this Muslim
invocation to the merciful judge was indeed an invocation to the divine Christ. Palamas based
this bold conclusion on several premises. First was the fact that Muslims believe that Jesus
would be the judge of the Last Day or the Day of Resurrection. In Surah the Gold Adornments
202
Thomas David and Alex Mallett, p 105.
203
Daniel Sahas, Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims,” p. 426.
204
59
(43:61) it is written that “the (Quran) gives knowledge of the Hour: do not doubt it. Follow Me
for this is the right path,”205 and the Surah Maryam (19:95) “and they will each return to Him on
the Day of Resurrection all alone”206 states that everyone will come to Allah to be judged without
any intermediary defender or protector. Then, Palamas reminded the Muslims about the words of
Abraham, one of the highly respected prophets (ulul azm) and messengers of God in Islam.
Besides that, Abraham was the first Muslim according to the Surah the Family of Imran (3:67)
“Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. He was upright and devoted to God, never an
idolater…”207 Palamas quoted to the Muslim audience a verse from the book of Genesis (18:25)
where Abraham addressed God as the judge of the whole world. Also, Palamas referred to the
words of Abraham from the book of Genesis (18:25) as well as citation from the book of Prophet
Daniel (5:21) “...the Most High God is sovereign over human kingship and sets over it whom he
will," where Abraham and Daniel confirmed that God will be sole and sovereign judge the entire
world.208 Consequently, if Christ were to judge humanity, then, according even to the Muslim
belief, the one who would judge the entire world have to be divine. The judgment on the Day of
Resurrection belonged to Christ and, it was a divine judgment coming from God. Therefore, a
logical conclusion was that Christ had to be divine in unity with God. For the Christian
Archbishop, there was no difficulty with such conclusion, because divine Jesus was never
separate from God, by being the Incarnation of the Word of God the Father. However, in order to
assist in better understanding of the controversial conclusion about Jesus’ divinity, based on the
Islamic beliefs about divine judgment on the Day of Resurrection, Palamas presented to his
205
206
207
208
60
Muslim audience an analogy of the sun and its brightness, pointing out that “the brightness of the
sun is no different than the sun, so far as the light is concerned.” 209 Palamas used this analogy to
illustrate the essential unity of God the Father and divine Christ. He already used this analogy
before, during his second debate with the Chiones.
Palamas’ interpretation and application of traditional Muslim beliefs caused some frustration
among the Tasimanes. There was a short pause following such a clear and persuasive argument
presented by the Christian Archbishop. After that, the Tasimanes gave a traditional Muslim
response. They said that “Christ, too, is a servant of God," reiterating a fundamental Muslim
belief which denies the divinity of Jesus. Their reply touched upon the degree of acceptance by
the Muslims of the Mosaic tradition and the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Tasimanes affirmed
that the Muslim faithful accept all the prophets, including Christ. They also accept all four books
sent down by God, such as Torah (Tawrat) handed down to Moses, the book of Psalms handed
down to David (Zabur), the one gospel handed down to Jesus (Injeel), and the Quran which was
handed down to Muhammad. Similarly, to the encounter with the Chiones, at the crucial point of
the debate, the Muslim opponents, indirectly acknowledging the prominent and perhaps
exclusive place of Jesus, even in Islam, challenged Palamas with the acceptance of Muhammad
as the prophet, based on reciprocity argument. Muslims asked Palamas why Christians did not
accept either Muhammad as a prophet or his book, the Quran, which came down from heaven.
The response given by Palamas was different from his previous response to the Chiones. This
time, Palamas claimed that Muhammad lacked the necessary qualifications to be recognized as a
prophet of God. He stated that it was customary for every faith community to authenticate one’s
claim of being a true prophet. Moreover, such authentication happened either by the claimant’s
209
61
works and deeds or by the testimony of the trustworthy persons about the claimant. 210 Palamas
discussed Moses and his miracles as proofs of his divinely inspired mission, and then he talked
about Jesus Christ. Palamas recalled miracles performed by Jesus, but more importantly, he
stressed that Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin and ascended into heaven, remained there
immortal and would be the judge of the living and the dead on the Day of Resurrection. Palamas
emphasized for his opponents that these were the beliefs about Jesus, which the Muslims held, as
these beliefs were familiar to the Muslim majority. Thus, Palamas concluded Moses and Jesus
had plenty of verifiable proofs to support their authentic prophetic status, whereas Muhammad
lacked both types of verification for his claim to be the prophet of God. This was because
“Muhammad was not witnessed to by the prophets, nor that he did anything unusual or
worthwhile leading to faith.”211 Hence, acceptance of Muhammad and his teaching was
unacceptable.
This bold statement made Tasimanes even more uncomfortable. They went into offensive
mode to defend the prophethood of Muhammad. Since they accepted the general verification
criteria for any prophet mentioned above, they started to blame the Christians for the absence of
any reference to Muhammad in the Sacred Scripture. They reflected the Quranic teaching found
in the Surah the Rank (61:6) “Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘Children of Israel, I am sent to you by
God, confirming the Torah that came before me and bringing good news of a messenger to
follow me whose name will be Ahmad.’ Yet when he came to them with clear signs, they said,
‘This is obviously sorcery.’”212 They invoked the Muslim doctrine of tahrīf or corruption of the
sacred revealed texts by the Christians in order to hide the coming of Prophet Muhammad. This
210
211
212
62
was a serious accusation towards the Christians, so Palamas spent a lot of effort refuting this
charge. First, he explained that if a Christian were to take anything out of the sacred texts, he or
she would be cutting himself or herself off from Christ, whom any Christian confessed to be the
Son of God. Hence, any altering of the sacred text of the Gospel, which is the written word of
God, by the Christians would be equivalent to cutting themselves off from God. Then, Palamas
pointed out that the sacred texts of the Christians existed in various dialects and languages.
However, none of these texts in different languages had any indication or reference about
Muhammad. After that, Palamas presented evidence coming from the opponents of Byzantine
213
orthodox Christianity. He used example of the Christian heretics, who might have been
known to the Muslim Turks. Even though, there were disagreements on many serious points
between Byzantine orthodox Christians and the heretics, there was never any hint that in their
texts was any mention of coming of Muhammad. That was the way Palamas dealt with the
charge of corruption of the Sacred Scriptures by the Christians. Also, he examined other
misconceptions which the Muslims held. The Archbishop brought to the attention of his Muslim
opponents the fact that there was never a single written Gospel (Ineei). Also, he pointed out that
there was an integral unity between the Gospel texts and the prophetic texts of the Hebrew
Scripture. Palamas summarized that even if one were to believe that the Christians had corrupted
their own sacred texts, they certainly could not have corrupted the texts of the Hebrew prophetic
books. He emphasized that “if there were anything good about Muhammad written in the Gospel
it would have also been written in the prophets," but a stern warning against the false teachers
and false prophets could be easily found in the Christian sacred texts, for example in the letter of
St. John (1 Jn.4:3):” every spirit which does not confess that the Lord Jesus Christ has come in
213
J. P. Monferrer Sala, “Somewhere in the ‘History of Spain’. People, Languages and Texts in the Iberian Peninsula
(13th-15th centuries),” in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, edited by T. David and A. Mallett
(Leiden, NL: Brill, 2013), p. 71.
63
flesh, is not of God.”214 This was a direct refutation of the divine origin of Muhammad’s
prophethood and his teaching.
Palamas also reminded his audience about the deeds of Muhammad as a testimony against
his prophetic claim. The Muslim opponents of Palamas referred to their tremendous military
successes as a definite heavenly sign of God’s approval and assistance. For them, rapid military
success aimed at the defense or expansion of Islam backed by worldly power was a visible proof
of authenticity of the Muslim religion and the teaching of Muhammad. In fact, even Christians,
who were living under Turkish Muslim occupation, asked Palamas “why God had abandoned our
nation (the Christians).”215 Even later, in the end of fourteen century, during Christian-Muslim
dialogues conducted by the Manuel II Palaiologos with the Persian Muslim scholar, he had to
address the same false conviction that the military successes of Islam had to do with the veracity
of Muslim religion. In his response, the Byzantine Emperor stated that “history, with the
continual rise and fall of kingdoms, does not allow conclusions to be drawn concerning the truth
of religion, since military and political success in not the result of moral superiority and
orthodoxy but rather the result of a rational ability to weight up advantages and disadvantages
and of ambition and daring.”216 For example, Emir Orchan the successor of Osman, who was the
founder of the Osman dynasty, during his reign conquered most of Byzantine Asia Minor and
even entered into European continent, where Palamas had been captured. Palamas challenged
this popular, frequently used by the Muslim apologists, Muslim belief regarding the military
success of Muhammad serving as a definite sign of divine blessing and favor. On the contrary, he
showed that Muhammad’s military advances were hardly a sign of godliness, since through his
214
215
216
Thomas, David and Alex Mallett, p. 320.
64
military successes, Muhammad had to be advancing the will of “him who from the beginning
was the destroyer of man.”217 Palamas compared the great conquests of Muhammad to the
military successes of Alexander the Great, who was hardly a man of God. He asserted that
similarly to Alexander the Great, Muhammad resorted to violence, conquered by war and sword
allowing licentious things.218 Then, the Archbishop suggested that the preaching of Jesus had
embraced the whole universe, winning over the enemies without resorting to violence. On the
contrary, “Muhammad marched from the East and he progressed victoriously to the West. He did
so, however, by the means of war and the sword, with pillage, enslavement and executions, none
of which has its origin in God, the righteous One.”219
Although, the argument, presented by the Muslims regarding quick and successful Muslim
military conquests as proof of divine favor and veracity of Muhammad’s teaching, was false and
Palamas had demonstrated it, the Muslim argument was not completely without merit. The
Byzantines viewed Muslim advances as proof of the presence of the divine signs, but that these
were of a negative nature. First, they explained successful Muslim advances as punishment for
the presence of the heretics, as the Turks began their conquest with the provinces where Syrians
and Armenians resided. Subsequently, when the Turkish conquerors entered the provinces of
Anatolia inhabited predominantly by the Greek population, great military successes of the
Muslim armies were seen by the Byzantine Christian inhabitants as punishment for the sins
committed, “due to the wickedness of the latter (Greeks) and God’s desire to punish them.” 220
Hence, the Byzantines viewed the conquests by the Muslim as a sign of God’s involvement,
217
218
Daniel Sahas, “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims,” p. 428-429.
219
220
Speros Vryonis, “Byzantine Attitudes toward Islam during the Late Middle Ages,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine
Studies 12 (1971): 268.
65
allowing chastising of the errant Byzantines. Palamas also saw Muslim conquests as action of the
divine providence giving Christians opportunity to preach and witness to the Gospel of Christ
among their new Turkish neighbors. Thus, both the Turks and the Byzantines agreed that quick
and successful Muslim conquest surely was an instrument of divine action, but drew quite
different conclusions out of their shared strong belief in divine providence of human history.
The discourses of Palamas made the Tasimanes very uncomfortable, and the Christians, who
were present there, asked Palamas to end the discussion. Nonetheless, this dialogue ended on a
very positive note. One of the Muslims, who was present during this heated discussion, remarked
that “there will come a time when we will agree with each other.” 221 Palamas responded with the
statement of hope that it would happen soon.222 Later, he recalled that in saying that he meant
that everyone would come to acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Lord.223
2.8 Summary and the Final Thoughts of Palamas
During the third debate in Nicea, challenges posed by the Muslim side were quite different
from those which were mentioned in the previous public debate of Palamas with the Chiones.
The Chiones tried to demonstrate an inconsistency in the application of the scriptural teaching by
the Christians, which also led to the rejection of Muhammad as a prophet. This line of argument
might have been more suitable in a heated Jewish-Christian debate. But in a purely Muslim-
Christian dialogue another serious issue had been discussed, the issue of altering the sacred text
so as to intentionally delete any reference to the coming of Muhammad as the prophet, who
would bring the final revelation of God.
221
222
Thomas, David and Alex Mallett, p. 105.
223
66
The leaders of the Muslim Turks had a high ranking religious representative of the rival
religion, the Christian Orthodox Archbishop of Thessalonica as their captive. They were looking
forward to use this opportunity in order to attempt to demonstrate the unequivocal superiority of
their religion. The debate turned out to be a matter of apologetical presentations. During the
debates, Palamas defended the core Christian beliefs and demonstrated their reasonableness
based on proofs found in the Quran and Muslim doctrine of faith. In his defense of the core
Christian beliefs, Palamas began with a clarification of Christian beliefs about Christ for the
Muslim audience. He assumed that Muslims already knew Christ, but simply did not follow
Christ’ teaching correctly or fully.224 He always attempted to show some commonalities between
the beliefs of the two religions. Palamas testified that once his opponents proved weak in the
religious debates, they used the fact of the captivity as proof of the ineffectiveness of the
Archbishop’s Christian faith.
During the first dialogue with Ishmael, which was the most diplomatic of the three
discussions, Palamas simply explained that acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet would be
impossible due to mere non-acceptance of his teaching. Ishmael was more interested in Christian
understanding of one’s relationship to Jesus, rather than Christian refusal to accept Muhammad.
In the third dialogue, Palamas reflected widely accepted attitudes of the Byzantines towards
Islam with reference to the conquest and conversion to Islam by means of the sword. Palamas
also voiced the widespread belief among his contemporaries, Byzantine theologians and
apologists, who asserted that the sword was given to Muhammad and his followers by Satan,
since God had to be just and merciful.
During his captivity, Palamas had a chance to give a mission to the distressed Christians who
found themselves under the new Turkish Muslim rule. In Palamas’ Letter to his Church, which
224
Daniel Sahas, “Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) on Islam,” p. 13.
67
was most likely finalized after his return to Constantinople, he gave a summary of his personal
reflections and experiences during his stay in the occupied territories. There he presented a much
less plausible view estimation of his captors, the Turks, describing them as “impious and god
hated and all abominable race-boast that they dominate the Romans on account of their own faith
in God.”225
Also, Palamas gave his own religious analysis of the phenomenon of Muslim faith. He saw
Muslims as confessing or at least accepting that Christ was “the word and the spirit of God, born
of a virgin, and that he did and taught like God, that he ascended into heaven and he was going to
judge the entire world.”226 Thus, if Muslims knew Christ in this way, concluded Palamas, yet
they refused to honor him as God-Man, then they exchanged the truth for falsehood by accepting
the teaching of a mere mortal man – Muhammad. Palamas explained his point by stating that
there cannot be a comparison between a “man, mortal and buried, Muhammad that is, rather than
the God-man, the ever-living and eternal Word. Who, although he tasted death in flesh, yet he did
so in order to abolish death, and become ruler of the eternal and inviolate life, a life which the
passion, death and resurrection of a mere man could never provide.” 227 Palamas concluded that
“God gave them up to a base mind to passions and dishonorable deeds.” 228 He wrote: “they live a
reproachful, inhuman, and God-hated life… indulging in slavery, murder, plundering, rape,
licentiousness, adultery, and homosexuality.229 Most importantly, Palamas sharply criticized their
225
226
227
228
229
68
conviction “that God gives them His consent.” 230 In his fervent criticism of the Muslims, whose
lives he witnessed for more than a year, he especially condemned the fact that their immorality
was fueled and reinforced by their conviction that God granted them his consent. However,
besides his recollection of the gruesome realities and misfortunes, the Archbishop reminded his
flock about the divine providence which guides the world, whose “wisdom is inscrutable.” 231
Palamas’ flock was witnessing a steady decline of their Christian Empire through destructive
civil wars, which brought hardship and aided in no small way the spectacular success of the
Muslim conquerors.
Towards the end of his letter, the Archbishop of Thessalonica brought forward two important
warnings for his flock. First, he warned them against the dead faith which would be without good
works, for such dead faith would not welcomed by the living God. Then he warned his flock
against the duplicity of the Muslim beliefs which he just encountered. 232 After all, in Palamas’
assessment, they confess fundamental truths about Jesus Christ and yet they categorically fail to
confess the divinity of Christ. He compared them to heretical Christians, who would confess the
divinity of Jesus but failed to apply rightly these correct beliefs in his or her life. For Palamas,
such illogical behavior would be quite similar to the behavior of the Muslims. In his article, Dr.
Daniel J. Sahas pointed out one fundamental misunderstanding regarding this statement found in
Palamas’ letter. He noted that Palamas did not pay enough attention to the fact that although the
statements favorable to the Christian position were found in the text of the Quran, the actual
interpretation and understanding of their meaning, had to be done “within the framework of
230
231
232
69
one’s own tradition and for one’s own apologetic purposes.” 233 Thus, it would not be surprising
that Muslims had arrived at quite different conclusions regarding the divinity of Jesus. Islamic
interpretation of the Quranic description of Jesus as a word of God, would suggest that Jesus
came into being independently of secondary causes, meaning without a human father. 234 Jesus
took his origin directly from Allah, from the power of Allah, thereby becoming a possessor of the
spirit (ruh).
On the Byzantine scale of heresies and assessment of non-Orthodox religions, the Muslim
faith and teaching of Muhammad were even much below Judaism. 235 Muslims were looked at as
adepts of a false religion promulgated by the pseudo prophet Muhammad. Yet, Palamas
conducted the debates with respect and genuine desire of the Muslim conversion to the
acknowledgment of divinity of Jesus Christ. The Byzantines mentally associated the Muslim
Turkish conquerors with the pre-Islamic Persian pagan conquerors. Palamas urged his flock to
look beyond the obvious and appreciate the fact that the believing Christians would have a
chance to witness the truth of the Christian faith to the Turks, who were unbelievers in the eyes
of the Byzantines, as they were “mixing with each other, going about their lives, leading and
being led by each other.”236
233
Daniel Sahas, “Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) on Islam,” p. 20.
234
O'Shaughnessy, Thomas. Word of God in the Qur'ān. (Rome, VA: Biblical Institute Press, 1984), p. 16.
235
Speros Vryonis, “Byzantine Attitudes toward Islam during the Late Middle Ages,” p. 276.
236
70
CHAPTER III. THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE MAJOR ISSUES BROUGHT
UP IN THE DIALOGUES.
3.1 Person of Muhammad ibn Abdullah and Christian Attitudes Towards Him
In the abjuration ritual which dates back to the eight century and was used in the liturgical rite
of orthodox Christianity for conversion from Islam, a convert had to reject and anathemaze
Muhammad and each of his relatives by name together with all the caliphs up to Yazid, the third
Caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate, who had a Christian mother. 237 Also, the rite required to
anathemise the God of Muhammad, who does not beget and is not begotten. 238 This last and
perhaps most theologically antagonistic anathema was eventually replaced through the initiative
of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus.239 It stirred a controversy between the ecclesial
hierarchy and imperial court. As a consolation to the imperial church hierarchy another anathema
of Muhammad was added, condemning Muhammad and all his teaching. But, the common
monotheism of both religious traditions was reaffirmed.
It was a logical development of the Byzantine view of Islam as a great heresy. Hence,
Christians and Muslims believe and worship the same supreme God or Allah, despite all the
differences and deviations. Allah reveals in creation and in the sacred texts, as well as through
237
Thomas, David and Barbara Roggemma, ed. Christian Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 1
(600-900). (Boston, MA: Brill, 2009), p. 822.
238
Daniel Sahas, “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review,
vol. 36 (1991): 57.
239
Craig Hanson, “Manuel I Comnenus and the “God of Muhammad”: A Study in Byzantine Ecclesiastic Politics” in
Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam. A Book of Essays, edited by Tolan, John. (New York, NY: Garland Publishing,
1996), p. 55.
71
the acts of history. He has revealed three “books”- the universe, the human self or the soul, and
the sacred scripture, the word of God. Everything is created by words uttered by God, so to know
things is to know the divine word. Arab Andalusian Sufi philosopher Ibn Arabi described the
breath (spirit) of God as untouched and unarticulated, connected to the Divine speech, and the
underlying substance of the entire universe.240 The Quran states that there is more to God’s
revelation than the sacred text of the Quran, since all the words of God could not possibly had
been be recorded. This is stated in Surah Luqman (31:27) “if all the trees on earth were pens and
all the seas, with seven more seas besides, (were ink), still God’s words would not run out: God
is almighty and all wise”241 as well as Surah the Cave (18:109) “say (Prophet), ‘If the whole
ocean were ink for writing the words of my Lord, it would run dry before those words were
exhausted’-even if We were to add another ocean to it.”242
The difficult problem of how can the transcendent and eternal divine word enter into a
limited by time and space human existence and keep existing in this created temporal and spatial
continuum was the problem addressed by Palamas in the hesychasm controversy, when he
discussed the uncreated divine light. Mu'tazila school of Islamic theology also denied any
connection between man and inscrutable God, rejecting the anthropomorphic attributes of God.243
This theological path advocated by Mu'tazilates has been rejected, since the text of the Quran
provided a lot of anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah and Muslim believers needed to have
some approach to inscrutable God, since “the anthropomorphic dimension is not easily replaced
240
William Chittick, p. 53.
241
242
243
Robert Haddad, "Iconoclasts and the Mu'tazila: The Politics of Anthropomorphism," Greek Orthodox Theological
Review 27 (1982):290.
72
by abstract essence.”244 The Muslim religion resisted the concept of incarnation, yet painted
Christian icons of Incarnated Word (Jesus) unacceptable in Islam were replaced with the written
image of the word of God found in every published text of the Quran. Christian worship spaces
are decorated with crosses and icons depicting Jesus from Gospel scenes. Famous Islamic
worship spaces, such as the seventh century Muslim mosque of the Dome of the Rock (Qubbat
as-Sakhrah) had been richly decorated with the quotes form the Quran.
On a larger scale, it is a key question about any divine revelation as such, which Christianity
answered by understanding and accepting the person of Jesus Christ, the Incarnated Word of God
(the Logos) as the final and complete revelation of God. Islam categorically rejected this claim
by switching its full attention and religious dedication to the divine text of the Quran, the word of
God revealed in the text. Just as Jesus is the Word of the eternal and transcendent God who
entered human history through His incarnation, similarly the Quran is the Word of Allah
(supreme God), which entered the human history and became the sacred text in Arabic language.
There are certain basic concepts and presuppositions, familiar to most Christian and Muslim
believers respectively, which would allow each religious tradition to approach and evaluate the
other. Consequently, Muslims compare their Quran to the Bible, whereas Christians tend to
compare Jesus of Nazareth to Muhammad. While attempting to look favorably on the person of
Muhammad, a Christian faithful has to realize a few key points. Muhammad, the last and final
prophet of God was fully human individual, who never claimed any divine qualities for himself.
Muhammad was the greatest prophet with world wide appeal and jurisdiction. He did not sin,
due to the gift of God’s grace (lutf), but he was in need of repentance, like every human would
be, since his prophetic role was due to his divine election. 245 Even Muslim scholars compare him
244
Robert Haddad, "Iconoclasts and the Mu'tazila: The Politics of Anthropomorphism," p. 292.
245
Goldziher, Ignaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), p. 188.
73
with the person of the prophet Moses. They view Muhammad as the dispenser of the newly
updated religious law and final revelation and as founder of the new faith community, which
created a whole new civilization. All these monumental events for Islam took place about six
hundred years after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Muslim challenge to accept Muhammad as a prophet was pointed not only towards
Christians, but also towards Jews. For Muslims, a prophet/messenger is someone whose mission
is to deliver the divine message and assure that it would be applied. 246 However, it would be
insufficient to acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet or a messenger of God, one amongst the
others. Acceptance of the prophetic claim of Muhammad ibn Abdullah had to accompanied by a
complete acceptance of the fact that he was final, and therefore, universal, extremely clear
prophet and messenger of Allah (rasūl Allāh), who was the seal of all the prophets (khātam al-
nabīyīm) with universal jurisdiction. Hence, Muhammad’s prophesy was applicable even to those
people who already followed the teachings of Moses and Jesus.247 Acceptance of Muhammad as
a prophet by the Christians would require major changes of their doctrine and faith tradition. It
would be incomparable to the Muslim acceptance and acknowledgment of Jesus (Isā ibn
Maryam) as a prophet and messenger of God. Therefore, after more careful examination, a
reciprocity argument does not work. In Muslim understanding and interpretation, the prophetic
teaching of Jesus had selective application. It was limited to a specific time and location.
Whereas Muhammad’s prophetic message has overarching timeless application, demanding
acceptance and obedience from everybody. Again, this is a very sharp difference in the degree of
reciprocal acceptance of Muhammad by the Christians requested by the Muslims, mentioned
246
Troll, Christian. Dialogue and Difference: Clarity in Christian-Muslim Relations. (trans. D. Marshall. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 2009), p. 118.
247
Troll, Christian. Dialogue and Difference: Clarity in Christian-Muslim Relations, p. 118.
74
explicitly in the third dialogue of Palamas. This reciprocity argument was also brought up in the
dialogues with the Chiones and with Ishmael. There are more than ninety verses (ayat) on Jesus
in the Quran. However, Muslims categorically deny that Jesus is divine. This crucial conviction
is reflected in the text of the Quran, 248 simultaneously denying that the person of Jesus was any
kind (partial or full) of divine revelation to the world. At best, Jesus was a moral leader and
teacher of mercy, love and peace. However, the Muslims do not deny the messianic claims of
Jesus.249 They accept the fact of his miraculous conception as it is evident in the Surah the
Ornaments of Gold (43:59) “be he is only a servant We favoured and made an example for the
Children of Israel.”250 They also claim that Jesus was a creature, who simply proclaimed a
particular message from God, contained in his book, the Gospel (Injeel) given to him into his
heart by God, as it is mentioned in the Surah Maryam (19:30) "…he said: I am a servant of God.
He has granted me the Scripture; made me a prophet."251
In Islam, the message of Jesus had been emphasized, not his personality. Consequently,
Jesus was a custodian and a proclaimer of the prophetic message of Allah. The divine message
about an exclusive worship of Allah, was venerated and not the person of Jesus. The disciples of
Jesus, son of Mary (al-Hawarieen-those who wear white garments) were given a title God’s
helpers.252 By Christian standards, this would hardly be considered as acceptance of Jesus.
Muslims view the life of Muhammad as an excellent example of a perfect submission to God.
Muhammad was the mediator of the divine law, so the prophet’s Sunna (the practices of
248
The Qur’an, Surah 3:59; Surah 4:171, p. 39; 66.
249
The Qur’an. Surah 4:171-2, p. 66.
250
251
252
The Qur’an. Surah 61:14, p. 371.
75
Muhammad that he taught and practically instituted) is the implementation of divine revelation
by way of his example. The life of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, preserved in the authentic
compilations (Sahih Sittah) of the Hadith (report of the deeds and sayings of Muhammad),
would be an excellent model for any believer in Allah. The most respected collection of the
Hadith, containing over seven thousand pronouncements was compiled in the ninth century by
the Persian Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhārī two hundred years after
Muhammad’s death.253 Next to it in authority would be the collection of Sahih Muslim ibn al-
Hajjāj. These two collections form together the Sahihayn. Sunan Abū Dawūd and at-Tirmidhī
formed the collection which reflected the practices of Muhammad (kutub sunna), and Sunan an-
Nasa'i and Sunan ibn Mājā (sometimes replaced by the collection of Muttawā of Mālik ibn Anas)
included the sayings of the companions of Muhammad.254 These six collections are recognized as
the authentic six collections of the Hadith, known as al-kutub as-sittah. There is some similarity
with the Christian practice of following the example of Jesus, the divine Messiah, but it would be
unacceptable for a Christian believer to follow any example of Muhammad, who rejected the
revelation of the Word of God in Jesus. Similarly to the preservation and continuation of the
Christian traditions and customs which originated in the early apostolic Church, Muslims also
follow the traditions of the Sunna, or the customs and rituals practiced under the supervision of
the prophet Muhammad.255 Therefore, acceptance of the Sunna is equal to the acceptance of the
exclusive prophetic role of Muhammad. Yet, the apostles of Jesus of Nazareth had a privilege of
being prepared for their ministry by the one, who was always intimately united with God the
253
M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, “The Qur’an and Hadith” in The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology,
edited by Tim Winter, pp. 19-32 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 22-24.
254
The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, 3rd edition, edited by Cyril Glassé (London, UK: Stacey International, 2008),
s.v. “Hadīth,” p. 177.
255
Goldziher, Ignaz, p. 37.
76
Father in the hypostatic union. Therefore, the apostles had a unique opportunity to learn directly
from the divine source of wisdom and knowledge, without any further need for additional
message or pronouncement by any other future prophet, messenger or mediator between God and
humanity. As it is written in the Surah the Ant (27:65) “say: ‘None in the heavens and the earth
knows the Ghaib (unseen) except Allah, nor can they perceive when they shall be
resurrected.’”256 This limitation was also applicable to Muhammad, who had a limited
knowledge of a mere human being, except for what was revealed to him.257
A parallel between Jewish rejection of Jesus and Christian rejection of Muhammad was
mentioned indirectly in the dialogues by Palamas himself, when he was explaining the basic
precepts of orthodox view and acceptance of Jesus by the orthodox Christians. Palamas pointed
out that Jesus was mentioned by the Hebrew prophets who foretold of his coming; therefore,
Jews could go back to their sacred scripture and find these texts referring to Jesus’ coming. Thus,
Palamas explained to his opponents that since no reliable reference to the coming of Muhammad
found in the Christian sacred texts, Muhammad’s claim to prophesy and his teaching as final
revelation were to be dismissed. In their apologetic response, the Muslims usually quote from the
Quran, which in the Surah the Heights (7:157) “who follow the Messenger-the unlettered
prophet...” which refers to Muhammad, but the actual word used to describe his condition as
illiterate (ummi) prophet could also mean “gentile.”258 It could also mean what Muhammad was a
non-Jewish prophet, who came from the Arab tribal community. Some traditions hold that
Muhammad signed (wrote with his own hand) the treaty of al-Hudaybiya in 628 or provided
256
257
Goldziher, Ignaz, p. 188.
258
77
written secret orders before the battle of Badr.259 Most likely, Muhammad, being an efficient
caravan manager, most probably was literate and cultured as much as any average merchant in
Mecca.260
The same Quranic verse of the Surah the Heights (7:157) gave a reference to the Gospel text
of St. John the Evangelist, asserting that Muhammad’s prophetic mission was predicted earlier
and referenced in the Gospel of St. John the Apostle (14:26) “...the Counselor, the Holy Spirit
whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your
remembrance all that I have said to you,”261 because of its mention about the coming of the
Paraclete (παρακλητος)-counselor or helper.262 However, this text is about the Holy Spirit, and
not about another human prophet. Besides, the mission of the Paraclete would not become a
replacement for the mission of Jesus, but rather the mission of the Spirit would be at the initiative
of Jesus directed by God the Father. 263 Muhammad was not a Paraclete. He was not a spirit of
God, but a mere human being, a slave of Allah. Unlike the Paraclete, Muhammad would not have
a capacity to uncover the unfathomable depths of the revelation of Jesus. Muhammad relied
solely on the recollection of some Jesus’ deeds and words. The mission of the Paraclete would go
above and beyond simple transmission of the divine message.264 The Muslim exegetes argue
solely on the Quranic style textual evidence found in the Surah the Ranks (61:6) and claim that
259
Watt, W. and R. Bell. Introduction to the Qur'an. (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1970), p. 35-36.
260
Ibid, p. 36-37.
261
Hahn, Scott. The Gospel of John: Revised Standard Version. (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2003), p. 46.
262
Eisenbeis, Walter. A Translation of the Greek Expressions in the Text of "The Gospel of John, a commentary by
Rudolf Bultmann". (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1982), p. 130.
263
Ridderbos, Herman. The Gospel of John. A Theological Commentary. (Trans. J. Vriend. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), p. 510.
264
Ridderbos, Herman, p. 511.
78
the word in St. John’s Gospel text should not be paracletos (advocate, helper), but periklutos,
which would mean “the highly praised one,” the meaning of the name Muhammad. 265 Such
interpretation is far-fetched, because in numerous manuscripts of this text, an alternative spelling,
suggested by the Muslim exegetes, was never to found. 266 Also, the Austrian scholar Aloys
Sprenger suggested that a proper translation of the Muhammad from the local Arabic dialects
would be not “the praised one”, but “the one longed for,” since Muhammad hoped to be accepted
by the Jews as their messiah.267 Even though this linguistic theory has been challenged, the fact
that Muhammad sought recognition from the local Jewish tribes of Arabia was never put into
question.
Muhammad did not perform any miracles. This point was used by Palamas to explain why
Muhammad’s claim to prophecy was not accepted by the Christians. This argument was used
before by the ninth century Melkite bishop of Harran Theodore Abū Qurrah when addressing the
same challenge about acceptance of the prophethood of Muhammad. 268 The Hebrew prophets
were performing many miracles in order to demonstrate the divine initiative behind their
ministry and divine source of their message. There were many miracle workers at the time of
Jesus’ ministry, but the fact that miracles, especially the healing miracles, would be performed by
the Jewish carpenter from Nazareth during the Roman occupation of the Promised Land would
leave a great impression on those who experienced them and heard of them. Palamas mentioned
this in his discourse when describing the person of Jesus to the Muslims, calling Jesus: “the only
265
Renard, John. Islam and Christianity: Theological Themes in Comparative Perspective. (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 2011), p. 37.
266
Renard, John, p. 37.
267
Reynolds, Gabriel. The Qur'ān and Its Biblical Subtext. (London, UK: Routledge, 2010), p.190.
268
Daniel, Sahas, “The Formation of Later Islamic Doctrines as a Response to Byzantine Polemics: The Miracles of
Muhammad,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 27 (1982): 312-313.
79
sinless Word of God becomes a son of man, is born from a virgin, is witnessed to with the voice
of the Father from heaven, is tempted and fought by the devil, defeats the tempter, shows and
confirms through deeds, words and great miracles…”269
The story of Muhammad’s miracle performance was quite different. Although, it was not
mentioned in the text of dialogues, Islamic doctrine ascribes the miracle of recitation of the
Quran as one of Muhammad’s miracles mentioned in the Surah the Spider (29:51) “do they not
think it is enough that We have sent down to you the Scripture that is recited to them?”270 The
Muslim doctrine asserts that an illiterate man could not have written such a book without a
miracle being involved as it is written in the Surah the Heights (7:157) “who follow the
Messenger-the unlettered (ummi) prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and
in the Gospel-who commands them to do right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good
things lawful to them and bad things unlawful...”271 He did not write it like the inspired writers of
the Gospel texts, but merely heard it from above and transmitted it. Besides these Quranic
passages, there were traditions which ascribe other miracles to Muhammad, such as splitting of
the moon, running of water from his fingers enough for an army to drink and the weeping with a
camel like voice of the wooden pillar where Muhammad preached. 272 Even tough, these stories
were a part of continuous narration (mutawatir), which would make them worthy of believing in
the Muslim faith tradition; still the main and the only major and widely accepted miracle
attributed to Muhammad was his recitation of the Quran.
269
270
271
272
Nursi, Said. The Miracles of Muhammad: The Testimony of History. El Cerrito, CA: Risale-i Nur Institute of
America, 1976), p. 202.
80
Muhammad should not be simply compared to Jesus regardless of the immediate temptation
to do it. Even the Quran, as the Word of Allah, should not to be compared to Jesus, Divine Word
Incarnate, fully divine and fully human. The Quran strictly speaking reveals only the path to God
and guidance as to the will of Allah, whereas God is inscrutable. Palamas would agree as to the
unknowable essence of God, but he would insist on the ability to know and experience of the
divine energies. The same tension could be found among the Muslim scholars dealing with the
tension between God’s essence (dhāt) and attributes (sifāt) in light of God’s unity (tawhīd) and
transcendence (tanzīd).273 Moreover, the text of the Quran was given in order that the will of God
would be known to assure proper submission to the divine will, rather than being the story of
liberation salvation and redemption of the people of God. Nevertheless, there are similarities
between the character of Muhammad and Jesus of the Quran and Islamic tradition, because both
were major prophets, both had a clear divine message to be delivered, both were rejected by the
Jews, and both were together with their followers and disciples perfectly submitted (muslimūn)
to the will of Allah.274
Keeping in mind the above mentioned arguments, Christians should honestly attempt to treat
the person of Muhammad fairly. Muhammad was a great statesman and a gifted religious leader
who took the tribes of Arabia from their backwardness and polytheism. Due to the Quranic text
being so greatly venerated, the Arabic language was developed to become a worldwide language
and Islamic culture flourished. Muhammad’s main message was his insistence of unconditional
monotheism, that there is only one God (Allah), who is single and transcendent creator, sustainer,
ruler and judge of the Universe. On the basis of his insistence on monotheism among his
273
Nadel El-Bizri “God: Essence and Attributes,” in The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology, edited
by T. Winter, pp. 121-140 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 121.
274
Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991), p.37.
81
polytheistic tribal people, one can correctly call him a figure who followed in the footsteps of the
prophets, who would bring the light of acknowledgment of one, true God among the Muslims. 275
Another, important point regarding Muhammad would be the fact that he demonstrated, despite
all of his errors, that one could not be ambivalent and unresponsive to the fact of existence of the
true God, the creator and the sustainer of the Universe. God, proclaimed by Muhammad was not
simply one (singular) and remote, but a fully engaged ruler of his creation. In pre-Islamic
pantheon, the highest god of that pantheon was not concerned with the universe and its
inhabitants, therefore each tribe had a deity to be feared, simultaneously hoping for protection
from that deity. Muhammad insisted on the loyalty to the law of the true God which would
surpass any tribal loyalties and traditions. This was a moral revolution initiated by Muhammad
among the Arabian tribes with an emphasis on social justice rather than on vengeful tribal justice.
He insisted on charity to the poor with no usury as a form exploitation of the underprivileged.
Muhammad did a lot to humanize the family practices and restored the dignity of women, which
was lost in the tribal pre-Islamic society. Indeed, these were monumental steps comparable to a
great man of God. However, these achievements would put Muhammad in the category of great
social reformers, who changed their communities and societies forever. It is not what the title
prophet means for the Muslim mind, and therefore, such a positive view of Muhammad could
become even offensive to the Muslims.276
Every Christian should be aware of Muhammad’s social reforms and acknowledge them.
“Christians need to assess in the light of their own faith what is acceptable or even exemplary
and admirable in the life and teaching of Muhammad, and, conversely, which aspects of his life
275
Küng, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 123.
276
Troll, Christian. Dialogue and Difference: Clarity in Christian- Muslim Relations, p. 120.
82
and teaching appear questionable, unacceptable, and indeed in need of redemption.” 277 The text
of the Quran encourages the Christians do just that in the Surah the Table Spread (5:47): “so let
the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it. Those who do not
judge according to what God has revealed are lawbreakers.”278
It is also crucially important to remember that despite all the grandeur and wealth of the
Christian Byzantine Empire, there was no complete Arabic translation of the New Testament.
Thus, his religious fervor was nourished by the Christian controversies and oppressive
attitudes.279 Muhammad was a descendant of the most honorable family Hashem in the tribe of
Koreish, and brought up by his uncle Abu Talib ibn Abdul-Muttalib. His uncle took Muhammad
to Syria when he was twelve. Legend has it that when they stopped in Bosra on the road from
Mecca (Makkah) to Damascus, a Christian monk Buhayrah or Nestor, who claimed to possess
esoteric knowledge, approached the caravan and acknowledged a future prophet, pointing to a
mark on Muhammad’s body as a physical sign of a prophet. 280 Later, during his business travels
as a caravan manager, he had many opportunities to inquire about Eastern Christianity from the
Syrians, in the Empire of Ghassanids, They were Arabic speaking Christian tribes, allies of the
Byzantines, who were the guardians of the trade routes. He also had an opportunity to hear the
bishop of Najran preach on the Gospel. Muhammad was a sincere inquirer, but he did not receive
any sound exposure and decent explanation of the Christian religious teaching, regardless of
many such opportunities during his visits of the Christian lands. Instead of receiving the light of
the Gospel truth regarding the Trinity and God’s reconciliation of the humanity to Himself
277
278
279
Ovey, Mohammed. Muslim-Christian Relations: Past, Present, Future. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999), p. 61.
280
Nasr, Seyyed. Muhammad, Man of God. (Chicago, IL: KAZI Publications, Inc., 1995), p. 14.
83
through the incarnation of His Logos, Muhammad received distorted and disturbing partisan
concepts and ideas, which he rightfully rejected.281 Many of these false or heretical ideas,
together with Muhammad’s negative reaction to them, are found in the Quran.
Muhammad, who was acting somewhat similar to a Biblical prophet-reformer, insisted on
the unconditional loyalty to higher universal divine law. This might put him in the category of
the Old Testament prophets for the Christians.282 However, this would not be satisfactory to the
Muslims either, since they see Muhammad surpassing Jesus and all the previous prophets. The
earliest Muslim apology in the presentation to the Negus of Abyssinia, who gave shelter to the
first Muslim converts, but who also wanted to hear about the precepts of faith and practice of
early Islam, found for himself a strong connection between early Islam and teaching of Jesus.
Thus, early Muslim disciples were viewed as authentic believers worthy of his protection.283
Also, Muhammad, similar to Joshua, David and Saul, engaged in the conquest of Mecca and the
establishment of a new state composed of consolidated Arabian tribes based on his monotheistic
vision. The difficulty would be in his reaction towards a rejection of his message. Even though
his readiness and encouragement to use violence against the unbelievers or polytheists was
comparable with the tradition of the Hebrew prophet Elijah, Elijah slaughtered the priest of Baal
on Mount Carmel to prevent corruption of Israel’s faith in Yahweh. This was recorded in the first
book of Kings (18:40) “Then Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Let none of them
escape!” They seized them, and Elijah brought them down to the Wadi Kishon and there he
281
Muir, William. The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources. (Edinburgh, UK: J. Grant Publishing, 1923), p. 22
282
283
Vincent Cornell. “The Ethiopian Dilemma: Islam, Religious Boundaries, and the Identity of God“ in the Neusner,
Jacob. Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims Worship the Same God? (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2012), p. 86.
84
slaughtered them.” 284 It would be in sharp contradiction with the tradition of the non-violent,
peace restoring Messiah Jesus of Nazareth.
In his commentary on this episode with Elijah, Ephrem the Syrian emphasized that it was
only Elijah who killed the false prophets in order to protect the Israelites. 285 Elijah did not force
the supporters of Baal to convert, but rather he was mindful of a possible retribution as a result of
their humiliation. On the contrary, in Islam one’s submission to the will of God is twofold. The
first part is a personal or religious conversion to Allah, and the second part is a political
submission to the rule of the Islamic Empire.286 There is a subtle difference between an attitude
of one’s free response in love to the words of God’s prophet found in the Biblical tradition, and
the success of the prophet due to fear of punishment coming from the prophet in case of
rejection. Muhammad offered the Christian monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai a letter of
protection assuring their religious freedom.287 However, upon review of Quranic treatment of the
prophets, it becomes clear that the text of the Quran tended to omit any mention of those
prophets who maintained their integrity and suffered for their divinely inspired message for the
people, but rejected the use of violence proclaiming by their suffering that it is better to fail
worthily then succeed unworthily. 288 Islamic doctrine denied a possibility of a failing prophet like
Jeremiah, because a definite success of any prophet on a mission of God would be guaranteed by
God. Moreover, lack of success in one’s earthly life could be seen as a part of immature
284
Robinson, J. The First Book of Kings. Commentary. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 214.
285
Oden, Thomas, ed., 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), p.111.
286
Cragg, Kenneth. Muhammad and the Christian: A Question of Response. (London, UK: Darton, Longman, and
Todd; 1984), p. 47.
287
Prophet Muhammad's Charter of Privileges to Christians-Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery.
http://st-katherine.net/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=65 (accessed July 16, 2014).
288
85
spirituality. Thus, lack of political ambitions in the ministry of Jesus was not seen positively by
the Muslims. Thus, it had to be explained by the involvement of the Roman Imperial power. 289
The full power of Jesus in the world to come was not appreciated by the Muslims, who saw it as
their duty to submit this world to Islam, and assure a complete victory of the Muslim prophet in
this world. Some Muslim scholars believe that if not for the military power, Christianity would
have remained a religion of oppressed and persecuted. 290 In the view of Islam, Muhammad had
perfected the mission of Jesus by his military engagement in spreading the message of Islam in
the world.
Another point would be particularly interesting for Christians. After receiving his first
revelation, Muhammad was in doubt regarding their authenticity, so he turned to his older wife
Khadijah, who brought Muhammad to her learned cousin Waraqah ibn Naufal, who was a priest,
possibly a Nestorian. The tradition says that he assured Muhammad that he was God’s envoy to
his people. A cousin of his wife Khadijah, Waraqah ibn Naufal, who was said to have translated
the Gospel, knew Hebrew and died a Christian. He advised Muhammad during the early stages
of his mission and warned him that his message would not be well received. 291 If one were to
take this traditional story seriously, one should see that Waraqah saw a need for the light of the
true God shining in the darkness of Arabic polytheistic and immoral society, and hoped that
Muhammad would be a bearer of that light, perhaps like a charismatic reformer or illuminator of
his people. Soon after, Waraqah died and could not have approved or disapproved further
developments in the life and actions of Muhammad. Thus, this episode could not be an example
of a learned sincere Christian accepting the fullness of the message of Muhammad. The early
289
290
Cragg, Kenneth. Muhammad and the Christian: A Question of Response, p. 46.
291
Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991), p.24.
86
Meccan pronouncements of Muhammad were very close to the Biblical accounts, and were
hardly distinguished among the myriad of heretical interpretation of Judeo-Christian revelation
in Arabia. Just like Waraqah, Muhammad’s wife Khadijah, who encouraged her husband and
became a first convert, also died soon after Muhammad received his first revelations.
In summary, the best way for a Christian believer to describe the mission of Muhammad
would be using a quote by the Nestorian patriarch Timothy I from the eight century, who stated
in front of the caliph Al-Mahdi that: “Muhammad walked in the path of the prophets.”292
3.2 Christian Trinitarian Beliefs and the Muslim Reaction
(Acceptance of ‘Īsā Ibn Maryam al-Masīh by the Muslims)
In the Eastern Christian Trinitarian theology the monarchy of the Father in the Holy Trinity is
strongly emphasized. The Son and the Holy Spirit do not derive their existence from the common
essence, but from the hypostasis of the Father, from whom the divine essence is conferred. The
Father (unbegotten) is begetting the Son (divine Word) and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father. This does not mean the Spirit is in isolation from the Son, because the Father is the Father
of the Son. Besides, the Father is never without the Son, but there are different relationship
between the Father and the Son and between the Father and the Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father alone, in a complete simultaneity of origin with the Son. 293 The three persons of
the Holy Trinity are of the same substance, even though the sole source of unity is located in the
Father. This might be close to Muslim concept of Tawhid. Gregory Palamas, noticeably
maintained that the Holy Spirit “has the Father as foundation, source, and cause,” but “reposes in
the Son” and “is sent – that is, manifested – through the Son.”294
292
Ovey, Mohammed. Muslim-Christian Relations: Past, Present, Future, p. 63.
293
La Due, William. The Trinity Guide to the Trinity. (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), p. 64.
87
In the Holy Trinity, each person (uqnûm), including the divine Word, the Logos, is of the
same divine nature. Thus, all three persons possess the same divine qualities. Since all three
divine persons are believed to be eternally distinct, it causes the Muslims to perceive this as three
different divine realities. This happens due to a linguistic difficulty. The common Arabic word
for nature-tabîa carries a connotation of a created nature and the Arabic word for person-shakhs
brings about the idea of a visible form. Thus, all meaning is immediately lost in translation,
distorting completely any traditional explanation of the Trinity.295 Also, the names of the persons
of the Trinity, cause the Muslims, who are unfamiliar with the language of divine revelation from
the text of the New Testament, to understand them directly, accusing Christians of a terrible and
unforgivable sin of assigning partners to God-shirk, mentioned in the Surah the Women (4:48)
“God does not forgive the joining of the partners with him: anything less than that He forgives to
whoever He will, but anyone who joins partners with God has concocted a tremendous sin.” 296
The Quran categorically rejects the Christian symbolic terms in regards to the relationship
among the divine persons of the Trinity, by stating in the Surah the Sincerity (112:3) that, “He
begot no one nor was He begotten.” Consequently, the Christians are seen as idolaters or
associators (mushrikûn), who are not only God’s enemies, but also they form the opposition to
the believers, who form the umma.297 All this denunciation of the Christians is due to lack of a
correct understanding of the authentic Christian doctrine. The Christian Trinitarian view of God
is completely distorted by the Muslims, so they believe that Christians worship God, Jesus and
294
Papadakis, Aristeides. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus
(1283-1289). (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), p. 194.
295
Troll, Christian. Muslims Ask, Christians Answer. (trans. D. Marshall. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2012), p. 45-
46.
296
297
Troll, Christian, Dialogue and Difference: Clarity in Christian-Muslim Relations, p. 110.
88
Mary, as stated in the Quran in the Surah the Table Spread (5:116), “When God says, ‘Jesus, son
of Mary, did you say to people, “Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God?”?’he will
say, ‘May you be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say-if I had said such a thing
You would have known it...”298 This distorted understanding of the role of Blessed Virgin Mary
in the Christian doctrine, recorded in the Quran, probably was a reflection of beliefs the popular
fifth century Collyridian sect. This sect worshiped Mary as goddess, thus worshipping her as
divine.299
The Muslims have a serious problem with the concept of the Holy Trinity and Divine Logos
as the Son of God the Father. Palamas in his explanation defended the monotheism of the Holy
Trinity with a natural example of the sun, heat and light. The modern Arab Christians use other
similar metaphors of water, ice and stream in order to explain and defend the authentic Christian
doctrine of one God, who revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 300 Islam has much
greater problems with the Divine Logos Incarnate, God becoming man. This goes against the
Muslim view of God, who is utterly transcendent, always being above and beyond the creation.
Any direct involvement with the creature, such as taking upon human nature as in the incarnation
of Jesus, would be denied and dismissed by the Muslims and declared to be sin of the associating
partners to God (shirk). Muslims accuse Christians of the cardinal sin of association. They think
that Jesus has been deified by the Christians, rather than recognized as being the divine Messiah.
Since Islam does not share any of the messianic concepts of Judaism, it has no fundamental
problem with the title of Jesus as the messiah. Islam rejects a universal dimension of messianism
298
299
McGrath, Alister. Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. (New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009), p.
225.
300
Troll, Christian. Muslims Ask, Christians Answer, p. 54.
89
of Jesus, therefore the title al-Masīh as a honorary title of Jesus (‘Īsā), carries a very different
meaning in Islam.301 However, the fact that the Christians believe that Jesus was a divine messiah
is interpreted as an attempt to overemphasize the person of Jesus and deify him by putting him
on the same level with God, thus committing the sin of association, letting Jesus share in God’s
being.302 Such a popular Muslim view lacks the understanding of Jesus, the Word of God
Incarnate, which existed before the ages and all of creation. The theologians call it a pre-existent
Christ, without diminishing Jesus’ true humanity.303
The prominent eleventh century Muslim Persian philosopher Al –Ghazali (d. 1111), who
lived during the Islamic Golden Age, in his review of the Gospel text of St. John the Evangelist,
noted that that all the words and titles, which would indicate divinity of Jesus, had to be
understood metaphorically.304 Sufi theologian of the twelfth century Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi
presented the most challenging proposal to the Muslims and perhaps more favorable to the
Christian position on Jesus as Divine Logos Incarnate. Al-Arabi (d. 1240) stated that one and the
same Reality could take many forms, and it should not be limited to the forms of one’s belief. 305
Jesus of Nazareth a Jewish sage and a historical figure was seen differently after the event of the
Pascal mystery and the Pentecost. Jesus after his resurrection was seen as a savior of the human
race, who conquered death by death and granted everybody a new life with God. In Islam, the
concept of Tawhid and personal submission to the revealed will of Allah made the salvific nature
301
Cragg, Kenneth. Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. (London, UK: G. Allen & Unwin, 1985), p. 104-105.
302
Adelbert Davids and Pim Valkenberg, “John of Damascus. The Heresy of Ishmaelites,” in The Routledge Reader in
Christian-Muslim Relations, edited by Mona Siddiqui. (London, UK: Routledge, 2013), p. 27.
303
Cragg, Kenneth Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration, p. 204.
304
Cragg, Kenneth. Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration, p. 46.
305
Reza Shah-Kazemi, “Do Muslims and Christians Believe in the Same God?” in the Do We Worship the same God:
Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue, edited by M. Volf. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company,
2012), p. 107.
90
of Jesus Christ unnecessary. Islam rejects the death of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection.
Thus, Islam would also reject any dogmatic conclusion which would follow from these two
events. The status of Jesus is Islam is: he is a human being, with some miraculous qualities,
because he was a great prophet, messenger and the servant of God, who did not die but was taken
to heaven and will come again at the end of times to reign and condemn his wayward followers,
destroy all crosses and eventually die. By being a genuine great prophet chosen and
commissioned by Allah, Jesus was the most noble and distinguished person, who was exalted
beyond the lowly earthly pleasures proclaiming the entrusted divine message. 306 However, he
was neither the greatest nor the final prophet with universal appeal. Thus, under more scrupulous
examination, Muslims do not accept Jesus fully, but rather partially or rather they accept their
version of Jesus, so called Islamic Jesus partially based on Quranic Jesus- Īsā Ibn Maryam al-
Masīh. It is true that the Muslims accept his humanity and sinlessness, praise him for his genuine
love and concern for the poor, and see him as a true ascetic mystic. 307 The Muslims accept the
virginal conception and Jesus’ birth as a divine initiative, calling him the son of Mary and “God’s
word.”308 At the early stages of Islam, traditions coming from Syria and Palestine, viewed Jesus
as the one who forgives sins, and give rise to the apocalyptic traditions connected with the Day
of Judgment.309 Muhammad was not without sin, as it is stated in the Surah Muhammad (47:19),
“So (Prophet), bear in mind (know) that there is no god but God, and ask forgiveness for your
306
Sweetman, James. Islam and Christian Theology: A Study of the Interpretation of Theological Ideas in the Two
Religions. Part I, vol. 1. (London, UK: Lutterworth Press, 1945), p. 182.
307
Cragg, Thomas, Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration, p.48.
308
Cragg, Thomas, Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration, p.32.
309
David Cook, “New Testament Citations in the Hadith Literature and the Question of the Early Gospel Translations
into Arabic,” in The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam, edited by E. Grypeou, M. Swanson, and D.
Thomas. (Leiden, NL: Brill, 2006), p. 189-190.
91
sins and for the sins of believing men and women…” 310 whereas, according to the Islamic
tradition, Jesus and his mother Mary were without sin. 311 Nevertheless, in Islam, Muhammad,
who was the greatest and final prophet with universal appeal, “”enjoys the prerogative of a more
exalted power of intercession,” since the power of intercession was granted to the prophets of
Islam.312 Islam accepts that Jesus is the Word of God and the Spirit of God, but categorically
denies his partaking with the essence of God. This was the main point repeatedly emphasized by
Gregory Palamas. Several centuries before Palamas, another great Byzantine monk and
theologian St. John Damascene, insisted that taking away the Spirit and Word of God (denying
their divinity) would be mutilating God. “If one takes Word and Spirit away from God, God
becomes an inanimate object, like a stone or a piece of wood.” 313 All the prophets received the
word of God through revelation or divine communication, but Jesus Christ is the word of God.
Indeed, Jesus is a “word” from God and a “spirit” of God, as Quranic text in Surah The Cow
(2:87) states: …“We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy
Spirit...”314 Despite all of Quranic texts about Jesus as God’s word and spirit, a possible divinity
of Jesus as a consequence of these qualities is not accepted because to Muslims it would imply a
plurality of gods.315 According to Islam, Tawhid, the assertion of God’s unity, the universal truth
brought down by every prophet in his message, including Jesus. It would require unconditional
310
311
Ayoub, Mahmoud. The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II: The House of 'Imran. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press,
1984), p.94.
312
313
Adelbert Davids and Pim Valkenberg, “John of Damascus. The Heresy of Ishmaelites,” p. 27.
314
315
Brown, John. The Darvishes; or, Oriental Spiritualism. (London, UK: Frank Cass and Company, 1968), p. 258.
92
rejection of any claim to divinity of Jesus, even though Jesus’ mother Mary had been deemed
worthy of receiving God’s spirit and God’s word.
There is partial acceptance by the Muslim faithful of some beliefs about Jesus and Mary
which strongly echo the Christian doctrines. Perhaps, this is a reflection of the direct and indirect
partial knowledge of the heretic versions of Christianity. A good example is a story about baby
Jesus giving life to birds made from clay found in the Surah the Family of Imran (3:49) and in
the Surah the Table Spread (5:110). This Quranic story about Jesus’ childhood finds its parallels
in the apocryphal second century text known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. 316 In many cases,
the text of the Quran criticizes and rejects not the authentic Christian beliefs regarding Jesus, but
rather perceived beliefs, which are distorted, and as such would be condemned by the Christians
as well. For example, when the Quran portrays Christian worship of Jesus, as “a physically
divine figure” it depicts them as idolaters or polytheists, and the relationship between God the
Father and Son of God viewed as physical human like relationships.317
Besides, the condemnation of the distorted or pseudo-Christian beliefs in the Quran, there
also exists a direct rejection of the authentic Christian beliefs, such as the denial of the
crucifixion of Jesus. The text of the Quran states that it appeared as if Jesus was crucified. This
was interpreted that someone looking like Jesus died on the cross instead of Jesus, and Jesus
escaped the gruesome death of the cross. Jesus’ death, which was crucially important in the
Christian faith and theology, became a stumbling block not only for the Jews, but apparently for
the Muslims as well. The difficulty lies in the fact that Jesus, a sinless man, a faithful servant, a
major prophet and a messenger of Allah, the word of Allah, had to suffer unjustly a terrible and
316
Hock, R., trans, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas: With Introduction, Notes, and Original Text Featuring
the New Scholars Version Translation. ( Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995), p. 107.
317
McGrath, Alister, p. 226.
93
shameful death. That was completely unacceptable, since Allah provides guidance and protection
to those who faithfully submit to the will of Allah. If so, then Jesus could not have died on the
cross and this Muslim conviction found fertile ground in the surrounding pre-Islamic culture of
various heretical teachings, such as Sethian gnosticism, which was influential in Arabia. 318 Even
though, Islam affirms Jesus’ miraculous birth (under the palm tree with dates) and ascension to
heaven while being alive, as it rejects his passion and death, as stated in the Surah the Women
(4:157), “and said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’
They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them;
those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition:
they certainly did not kill him.”319 Jesus will return again or descend to earth. Similarly to what
Quran is teaching about Jesus, previously a docetic gnostic leader, Basilides, and his followers
taught among other things, it is was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified, and was made to look
like Jesus, and substituted for Jesus on the cross.320 Even more so, the Quran talks about the fact
that the person who was indeed crucified was made to look like Jesus, while Jesus escaped this
terrible lot and returned back to Allah unharmed. Shortly before the birth of Muhammad,
Byzantine Emperor Justinian, trying to keep peace in the Empire, supported and promoted the
teaching of the anti-Chalcedonian sect Aphthartodocetae, whose followers insisted that Jesus’
body was always incorruptible and he only seemed to have the natural qualities of human flesh
and blood.321 The sect had its influence in Syria and Persia in the sixth century.
318
McGrath, Alister, p. 226-227.
319
320
McGrath, Alister, p. 228.
321
Meyendorff, John, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p. 158-159.
94
Apostle Paul of Tarsus celebrated Jesus’ death of the cross as our victory, and the cross itself
as the throne of Jesus. On the contrary, the Muslims see Jesus’ rescue from the crucifixion as the
proof of authenticity and divine approval of a prophet. Jesus was a prophet, who perfectly
submitted to the will of Allah. He was willing to carry his mission to the end, even leading to the
death on the cross. Still, in Muslim view, Jesus’ crucifixion was averted through divine
intervention. Even gospel texts unequivocally confirmed that Jesus could have asked and
received the divine protection, but remained totally faithful to his redemptive mission. 322 The
New Testament accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion ended with the glorious resurrection of Jesus on
the third day in a new glorified state. The event of Jesus’ resurrection showed the power of
Almighty God, the Father, who raised Jesus.323
On the contrary, Islamic understanding of the mission of Jesus did not require the death of
Jesus, but rather the overabundant power of Allah which was manifested in the miraculous
rescue from Jesus’ death on the cross. The Quranic text from the Surah the Family of Imran
(3:55) provides a short summary of the Quranic understanding of resurrection and ascension of
Jesus: “God said, ‘Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to Me: I will purify you of your of
the disbelievers. To the Day of Resurrection I will make those who follow you superior to those
who disbelieved. Then you will all return to Me and I will judge between you regarding your
differences.”324
Islam understands prophesy as guidance, instruction, warning and exhortation. The prophets
were sent to teach their respective communities how to submit to the will of God in the best way,
322
Mk. 14:36; Lk. 22:42-43; Mt. 26:53-54; Jn. 18:11. The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm (accessed July 11, 2014).
323
Acts 5:30. The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) http://www.usccb.org/bible/acts/5 (accessed July
11, 2014).
324
95
informing the people about their responsibilities and duties as slaves of Allah. In Christianity,
God goes far beyond the spoken word of the Law of Moses and pronouncements of the Hebrew
prophets by becoming the Word incarnate. The incarnate Word of God suffered for the people to
bring remedy to the sinful humanity. Islamic doctrine insists that Christ had been created by the
command of God (amr), just like Adam was created from dust by the divine creative will,
without involvement of the human father, as recorded in the Surah the Family of Imran (3:59)
“In God’s eyes Jesus is just like Adam: He created him from dust, said to him, ‘Be’ and he was.”
This doctrine of Islam simultaneously rejects and partially accepts some of the Christian claims.
This Quranic statement confirms unequivocally that Jesus was fully human, which would be an
authentic Christian claim, although, there is a major difference. The Muslims believe that Jesus
was a created human being. Christians believe in the hypostatic union (ittihād) of the divine,
therefore uncreated nature and human nature, in the person of Jesus human nature and divine
nature. Both, Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus was without sin. 325 Muslims venerate the
mother of Jesus, having the whole chapter of the Quran named after her. The Quran calls Jesus
the Word of God, but it does not mean the revelation of God, since the Quran is the eternal and
uncreated word of God. However, in Islam, the word (kalima) of God is not divine. Usually it
means a decree or ordinance, which could be a source of blessing and judgment as a sign of
divine sovereignty and majesty as well as the word of revelation. Islam recognizes several divine
words, such as word of creation, word of revelation and word of command and guidance. 326 The
divine covenant with God’s word of guidance points towards the affirmation of Divine Oneness
(tawhid) by humanity. Like the Blessed Virgin, Muhammad was the ground for the reception of
325
Mahmoud Ayoub, “The Word of God In Islam,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 31(1986): 72.
326
Mahmoud Ayoub, “The Word of God in Islam,” p.76.
96
the word of God. They both were influenced, although in different ways, by the Spirit (Al-Ruh)
of God.327 The divine Logos entered into our lives by incarnation (hulūl) in the person of Jesus.
The divine word of the Quran had entered our realm by becoming the sacred book of Islam.
In both cases, the Word of God became operative in human history, subject to human influence.
The Quran became a sacred text, as it was communicated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel for
the period of twenty two years. Muhammad’s claim of illiteracy became to be seen as positive
proof of original purity of the Quranic message, since the text transmitted by Muhammad could
not be contaminated by the human wisdom. The current text of the Quran had been formalized
already after the death of Muhammad by the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan,
who reigned (644 – 656). About two centuries later, the prominent school of Muslim theology
Mu’tazila, which operated in the center of the Abbasid caliphate, viewed the Quran as being
created, rather that coeternal with God. It argued that such a position would be more in support
of uniqueness, unity and singularity of God.328 For them, the word of God had to be created,
therefore not being a part of God. Otherwise, acceptance of the Quran as the uncreated word of
God would be confessing the two eternal principles or beings. Therefore, it would result in denial
of monotheism.329 Perhaps it was an attempt on their part to fight similarity with the Christian
idea of the divine word being incarnate in Jesus. The doctrine of Mu'tazilaties was reminiscent
to the Arian teaching in early Christian theology.
If one were to follow the traditionally accepted Muslim teaching that the heavenly Quran is
the Word of God and the earthly text of the Quran is the Word of God manifested in history,
then it might correspond to the Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) understanding of the
327
Schuon, Frithjof, p. 112.
328
Denny, Frederick, p. 182.
329
Robert Haddad, "Iconoclasts and the Mu'tazila: The Politics of Anthropomorphism,” p. 289.
97
Eucharist. Christians are encouraged to participate in the Eucharistic liturgical celebrations and
partake in the mystery of the Eucharist. In a similar way, Muslim obligatory ritual prayer consists
of the internalization of the Quranic verses by making them a part of one’s being through
repetition, remembrance and prayerful recital, reflecting the way of communion of God and man
in Islam.330
Jesus is the most theologically charged prophet of the Quran. His ascension was sign of
God’s approval of his ministry, rather than his resurrection after crucifixion. According to
Muslim belief, Jesus’ followers went opposite to His teaching as recorded in the Surah the Table
Spread (5:77), “Say, ‘People of the Book, do not overstep the bounds of truth in your religion
and do not follow the whims of those who went astray before you-they led many others astray
and themselves continue to stray from the even path.’” 331 During his legendary night journey to
heaven (isra), Muhammad met Jesus, son of Mary and John (the Baptist) son of Zachariah. Jesus
and John the Baptist were staying on the second heaven, whereas Abraham, allegedly the first
Muslim, was staying in the eternal heavenly mansion on the seventh heaven. This legendary
account, cherished by all Muslim faithful, provides a short summary of who Jesus is to Islam. On
average, if one puts aside eschatological beliefs, Jesus could be seen like John the Baptist, a mere
preacher of righteousness to a particular community. The word of God became rather a nickname
or a title given to Jesus as a reflection his activity as a great prophet, transmitting divine
revelation to the Jews. This was similar to how Ezra had been called the Son of God in the Surah
Repentance (9:30) “the Jews said, ‘Ezra is the son of God,’ and the Christians said, ‘The Messiah
is the son of God…”332 Christian insisted on the deep consequences of the unique title of Jesus
330
Mahmoud Ayoub, “The Word of God In Islam,” p. 75.
331
332
The Qur’an, p. 118-119.
98
“Word of God” in the Quran. In order to address this theological difficulty, Muslim theologians
went so far as to divide Allah and Allah’s word, as separate entity, and Allah’s spirit as a
separate, non-divine entity, separating the being of Allah from the his own spirit.
3.3 Muslim Concept of Tahrīf
In the texts of Palamas debate, there was a mention of the important Islamic concept of
tahrīf or corruption of the divinely revealed message. Muslims claim that Islam is not a new
religion. Muhammad did not claim any originality, but rather his mission was one of
clarification, since Muhammad perfectly continued to spread the message which Abraham,
Moses and Jesus taught previously. Revelation of God was given to Abraham, to the prophet and
interlocutor Moses in Tawrat (Torah), to David-Zabur (Psalms of David) and to the Hebrew
Prophets. Christians received authentic revelation of God given to Jesus in the Injeel (single
Gospel). Previous prophets and messenger of Allah were bringing to their people the same divine
message, which would eventually be corrupted by the community of their respective followers.
Muhammad’s prophetic message was aimed at the return to this original unaltered religion after
major distortions had occurred.333 In the Quran Jesus was presented as himself attempting to
correct his wayward followers, namely the Christians, who supposedly distorted his prophetic
message. This alleged corruption caused many false religious teachings to appear. Supposedly,
the Quran corrected these errors by refuting many incorrect teachings, such as the Incarnation
and the Trinity.
The true religion of Islam was that of Abraham, who was neither a Christian nor a Jew
according to the Quran. Thus, the People of Book (Jews and Christians) had twisted and
concealed, forgot and shifted the words of the divine revelation as the Quran insisted on in the
333
Khalid Blankinship, “The Early Creed” in The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology, edited by Tim
Winter. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 33.
99
Surah the Family of Imran (3:71, 78).334 In the Surah Family of Imran (3:84) it states: “Say
(Muhammad), We (Muslims) believe in god and in what has been sent down to us and to
Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes. We believe in what has been given to Moses,
Jesus, and the prophet from their Lord. We do not make a distinction between any of the
(prophets). It is to Him that we devote ourselves.”335 Yet, there were apparent differences
between the text of the Quran and the Bible. According to the Quran, the message of Jesus was
reminiscent of the prophetic message of Muhammad. Jesus announced Muhammad’s coming, as
found in Surah the Ranks (61:6). However, it is not supported by the Biblical texts.
The Muslim theological concept of tahrīf (from Arabic-alteration or distortion, a verbal noun
coming from harrafa-"to change the letters")336 has been used by the Muslims for apologetic
purposes. The Muslims had to explain why there is a disparity between the perfect unaltered
divine word which is found in the text of the Quran, coming from the eternal Guarded Tablets in
heaven, and previously recorded divinely revealed texts of the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament)
and the New Testament writings. Indeed, the Muslims believe that Jews and Christians had
received authentic revelation from Allah; therefore their sacred texts are authentic, since they
contain Allah’s revelation. The divine word is permanent and the divine revelation found in the
Quran is uniquely reliable. Therefore, there should be no differences in the revelation recorded in
the sacred texts preserved by Jews and Christians with that of the Muslims. Obvious differences
334
Gabriel Reynolds, “On the Quranic Accusation of Scriptural Falsification (tahrīf) and Christian Anti-Jewish
Polemic,” The Journal of the American Oriental Society, 130/ 2 (2010): 195.
335
336
Arthur Jeffery, “Ghevond's Text of the Correspondence between 'Umar II and Leo III,” The Harvard Theological
Review, 37/ 4 (1944): 280.
100
in the text are explained by the corruption of Jewish and Christian sacred texts, which did not
correctly reflect the revealed divine message.337
Besides the differences in the sacred texts, the concept of tahrīf attempted to defend the
authenticity of Muhammad’s claim to prophesy, and his position as the seal of all the prophets,
even though originally he was seen as the prophet to the people of Mecca and to the Arabs. 338
However, if Muhammad was to come into the world and his mission was to channel this final
divine revelation of Allah, which would surpass and correct any previous authentic divine
revelation, then his coming had to be mentioned before in the authentic sacred texts.
Muhammad’s claim was supported by the concept of tahrīf, putting the blame on Jews and the
Christians for the absence of any reference to Muhammad in the sacred scriptures due to their
corruption. The Quran in the Surah the Cow (2:42), “do not mix truth with falsehood, or hide the
truth when you know it”339 clearly accused the Jews and the Christians of concealing the truth
about the coming of Muhammad, which supposedly was to be found in their sacred texts. The
text of the Quran does not quote earlier scriptures, as it is unnecessary and dangerous due to
corruption of the sacred texts. Rather, the Quran makes allusions to the Biblical stories while
mentioning characters found in the Biblical narrative. This reflects a general attitude of Islam
towards non-Islamic knowledge, including the non-Muslim sacred texts, which was formulated
by the second Rightly-Guided Caliph of Islam Umar ibn Al-Khattab (d. 644). He said that if the
other texts are in agreement with the Quran, then they are redundant, but if they are in opposition
337
338
Watt. William Montgomery. Islam and the Interpretation of the Society. (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press, 1961), p. 259.
339
The Qur’an, p. 8.
101
to the Quran, then they are dangerous and had to be destroyed. 340 Muslims are forbidden to listen
to the pronouncements of the Jews and Christians, so that they would not reject any authentic
message which is still left in their texts, while simultaneously they would be shielded from any
possible acceptance of the errors of Jews and Christians as a result of the corruption 341.
Therefore, tahrīf is a very serious accusation aimed at Jews and Christians, accusing them of
corruption and falsification of the sacred texts and obscuring the revelation of Allah.
The doctrine of tahrīf was an early Muslim doctrine but it was never formulated precisely.
Although, there two main traditional ways of understanding of it which had prevailed in Islam.
Primary understanding of tahrīf was that this corruption had happened as a result of deliberate
perversion by the community (al-tahrīf al-lafzi) which received this revelation. Supposedly, the
Jews and Christians had changed their sacred texts in such a way as to remove the description
(na’t) of Muhammad. Since, these communities did not want to legitimize the claims of
Muhammad, they were also charged with withholding some relevant verses from their sacred
texts. Also, according to a ninth century Christian convert and Muslim Persian scholar Ali ibn
Sahl Rabban al-Tabari, the faith communities were responsible for the alteration of the statues of
God, thus making that which was lawful unlawful and vice versa.342 The text of the Quran gave
an example of such tampering with the sacred text in the Surah the Family of Imran (3:187),
where a deliberate falsification of the sacred text (tahrīf al nass) was done in order to advance
one’s worldly concerns in an attempt to dominate the ignorant. Thus, by withholding divine
revelation given to the People of the Book (ahl al kitāb), and changing it for their own worldly
340
Watt, William Montgomery, p. 3.
341
342
McAuliffe, Jane. Qurʾānic Christians. An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), p. 168.
102
purposes, they deprived themselves of this great treasure. Consequently, they did not become
Muslims, since they relied on the deliberately corrupt texts. It is described in the Surah the
Family of Imran (3:77), where the Quranic text addressed those “who sell out God’s covenant
and their own oaths for a small price will have no share in the life to come…” 343 Al-Tabari
insisted that these faith communities were guilty of altering the statues of God (ahkām).344 These
actions were equal to the rejection of the divine gift and favor. Therefore, those guilty of tahrīf
were in total opposition to those who submitted themselves to the revelation of God by becoming
Muslims and recognizing the prophetic authority of Muhammad. Abū Muhammad ʿAlī ibn
Ahmad ibn Saʿīd ibn Hazm, a prominent Andalusian Muslim scholar of the eleventh century ,
born in Cordoba, also accused the Jews and Christians of deliberately tampering with the sacred
texts, stating that the Tawrat (Torah) was not authored by Moses, but rather by Ezra, who
distorted the original divinely revealed text. 345 Another technique used by Ibn Hazm to
demonstrate the corruption of the sacred texts was to show that the Bible could not be trusted,
because it contained many contradictions.346
There is another accepted concept of tahrīf among the Muslims. Rather than making a direct
accusation of tampering with or withholding divinely revealed message recorded in the sacred
texts, Muslims talk about "false exegesis" of the authentic Biblical passages. It is called tahrīf al-
ma’āni, a serious accusation against the Jews and Christians of misinterpretation of their sacred
texts. It could have occurred through manipulation of the authentic text, in pursuit of imitation of
something which was not inspired by God. There were several Muslim scholars who upheld the
343
The Qur’an, p.40.
344
McAuliffe, Jane, p. 168.
345
Brann, Ross. Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century
Islamic Spain. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 56.
346
103
integrity of the sacred texts of the People of the Book, such as Al- Ghazali (1058-1111 ), and in
most recent times, Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Abduh, 347 who followed this more
nuanced understanding of tahrīf. Al- Ghazali, an authoritative Muslim theologian of Persian
origin, wrote a book, called Al Radd al Jamīl (Admirable Rebuttal), and aimed against Christian
beliefs, based on his encounter with the oriental Christians during his Sufi travels. He did not
directly use the concept of tahrīf in his disputes, but rather referred to Christian texts as authentic
to prove his own point.348 He indicated that insistence on the divinity of Jesus is due to Christian
poor understanding (misinterpretation) of the sacred text, which ought to be read metaphorically
in these places where it refers to the divinity of Christ.
The concept of tahrīf is complemented by another accusatory concept of wrong transmission
(tawatur) or faulty chain of custody of the sacred text. Consequently, it caused a corruption in the
preservation of the revealed message. It demonstrates a major difference between Christians and
Jews in their respective understanding of the authorship of the sacred text. In Islam, Muhammad
was not a human author of the Quran, but only a transmitting and reciting tool in the hands of
Allah. Muslim accusations against Christians fail to appreciate the fact that the sacred texts of the
New Testament were indeed written by human authors, who were inspired and guided by God’s
Holy Spirit. Christians hold that a human author is also an authentic author of the sacred and
divinely revealed text. There are four canonical Gospels, not because of any corruption or breach
of custody in preservation of the original divinely revealed message, but because there were four
different human writers addressing four different audiences living in four different environments.
Thus, these divinely inspired human authors of the sacred texts presented their vision and put
forward somewhat different description of the events.

347
Zebiri, Kate. Muslims and Christians Face to Face. (Oxford, UK: One World Publications, 1997), p. 14.
348
Cragg, Kenneth. The Arab Christian. A History in the Middle East. (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1991), p. 86.
104
While accusing the Jews and the Christians of corruption of their sacred texts, the Muslims
insisted that transmission of the divine word by Muhammad was flawless, even though it was not
written down by him. Those who heard Muhammad’s oral revelations also had transmitted them
flawlessly to form the written text of the Quran. Muslims also believe that there was only one
Gospel (Injeel), which was given to Jesus by God. Jesus brought down the Gospel (Injeel) to his
people, but they corrupted it (by improper preservation and faulty transmission of the original
text). This corruption caused four different versions of the alleged original divine text. The
Quranic text mentions this one correct and unaltered gospel text in the Surah the Table Spread
(5:46) “We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent
before him: We gave him the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already
revealed-a guide and a lesson to for those who take heed of God.” 349 This might be a reference to
some gospel like text which might have been in circulation at the time. This original single Injeel
was believed to have been lost and consequently it was replaced by the corrupt (fasad) sacred
text 350of the canonical Gospels found in the New Testament today.
Even though, the concept of tahrīf provides easy answers to the complicated questions about
the preservation of sacred texts and their meaning and application, it is hardly sustainable after
more attentive examination. It would be contrary to the purpose and piety of any faith
community to distort, omit or alter any revelation of God contained in the sacred texts. Also, it
was never explained by the proponents of tahrīf how it became possible for Jews and Christians
to agree unanimously upon sacred text alterations and implement them so successfully in the
reality of the ancient world. The sacred texts existed in various languages and dialects, yet none
of these texts had any indication or reference to Muhammad. Indeed, it would be difficult to alter
349
350
Waardenburg, Jean. Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 65.
105
every single manuscript in every language it had been written. There were various Christian
heretical groups and sects who used the Bible as their sacred text. These various heretical
Christian groups disliked the mainstream Christian Churches, seeing them as corrupt, because of
the alleged abandonment of the true teaching of Jesus. Even in the sacred texts, preserved by
these heretical groups, there was never any mention or hint of Muhammad’s coming.
The last argument which puts into question this widely accepted concept of tahrīf is the
argument mentioned of the eight century letter written by the Empror Leo III the Isaurian to the
Umayyad caliph Umar II. Even though the authenticity of this letter has been debated, perhaps,
due to the fact that the Emperor was favoring iconoclasm while defending orthodox Christianity,
this document is one of the earliest testimonies of Byzantine-Islamic engagement in the
interreligious dialogue.351 In his correspondence addressed to the caliph Umar, the Byzantine
Emperor brought to the attention of his opponent the fact that more than once the Muslims used
authoritatively passages from the Old Testament and the New Testament when proving their
position, but they would simultaneously claim that the Bible was corrupted, if the Biblical text
might be used to disprove their position.352
The Muslim theological concept of tahrīf hindered any meaningful search for the truth,
which tahrīf supposedly guarded. The concept of tahrīf was the most popular line of defense for
the Muslims. Based on a canonical hadith, which discouraged the Muslims to seek the wisdom of
the people of the book, it confirms that Muhammad, the Muslim prophet presented his followers
with the latest and most authentic report about God, which was not distorted. 353 Today, it causes
351
Arthur Jeffery, “Ghevond's Text of the Correspondence between 'Umar II and Leo III,” p.269.
352
Arthur Jeffery, “Ghevond's Text of the Correspondence between 'Umar II and Leo III,” p.281.
353
Gabriel Reynolds, “On the Quranic Accusation of Scriptural Falsification (tahrīf) and Christian Anti-Jewish
Polemic,” p. 189.
106
Muslims to forbid public reading among the Muslims of the Christian sacred scriptures and
deprives Muslims of any possibility of learning the Bible, while continuing to demand that Jews
and Christians stop insisting on their alleged errors. Yet, the text of the Quran makes claims
about the Christian beliefs, which were and are false today, such as claiming that Christians
believe in the three gods, as mentioned for example in the Surah the Table Spread (5:116).
3.4 Various Other Issues Mentioned in the Dialogues.
There were a few items mentioned briefly in the texts of the dialogue. One of them was the
role of Jesus at the end of times. According to the Muslim belief, Jesus would descend in the
Holy Land during the rule of the Mahdi. Al-Mahdi “rightly guided one” would not be a prophet.
However, he would be divinely appointed and inspired by God, similar to a Muslim messianic
figure.354Jesus would destroy al-Masīh al-Dajjal, a false messiah. The Muslim tradition, based on
the hadith, holds that the al-Mahdi would resemble the prophet, perhaps, in character. 355 At the
last days, Jesus would appear suddenly, and with Jesus’ appearance, the doors of paradise and
hell would become open.356 The Sunnis believe in the end of time type figure, but it is not an
essential belief for them, neither do they hold that that figure would be named Al-Mahdi. 357
However, according to the belief of the Twelver Shi'as, al- Mahdi, the descendant of Muhammad
and the twelfth righteous Imam (Muhammad ibn al-Hasan) who now is in occultation, would
offer the leading place to Jesus, who would rather refuse this place and worship as a Muslim.
These traditional beliefs about al-Mahdi had no proof from the text of the Quran. Instead, the text
of the Quran hinted at the unique role of Jesus in the end of times. There is allusion to Jesus’
354
Marcia Hermansen, “Eschatology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology, edited by T.
Winter. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 315.
355
The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, s. v. “Eschatology,” p. 143.
356
Ibid, p. 144.
357
Leirvik, Oddbjørn. Images of Jesus Christ in Islam. (London, UK: Continuum, 2010), p. 41.
107
death in the Surah the Women (4:159), “there is not one of the People of the Book who will not
believe in (Jesus) before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection…” 358 at the beginning of the
end times. It is important to note that Jesus, who escaped his crucifixion did not die, but rather
was taken to heaven, where he would stay until his descent (nuzul) to fulfil his eschatological
mission at the end times. Islamic eschatology envisions that at the end, all religious communities
would become one community of Islam, which would be a complete acceptance of Jesus’
teachings, as found in the Quran, by the People of the Book.359 According to the Surah the Gold
Adornments (43:61), “this (hu) (Qur’an or Jesus) gives knowledge of the Hour: do not doubt it.
Follow Me for this is the right path…”360 Thus, Jesus would be the sign of the last hour. 361
Knowing of the future is a divine prerogative. Some Islamic traditions interpret this verse from
the Quran as a foreknowledge of the last hour of the end times.
A lot of traditions and Muslim beliefs do not come directly from the Quran, but rather from
the Hadiths. Jesus in Islamic eschatology became a symbol of resistance to any kind of
corruption of the truth and moral compromise. At the dawn of the Day of Resurrection, Jesus will
assist in the establishing the rule of justice by killing the Dajjāl, breaking all the crosses,
eliminating the jizyah tax on the non-Muslim, who possess the Dhimmi status, and decimating all
Christians and their worship places. Moreover, Jesus will inaugurate the period of peace for the
united community of believers (umma), who will submit to the will of Allah, living in an
exclusively Muslim way.362 This is also complimented by the famous pronouncement of the
358
359
Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity, p. 78-79.
360
361
Marcia Hermansen, “Eschatology,” p. 317.
362
Smith, Jane and Yvonne Haddad. The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection. (Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1980), p. 69.
108
prophet of Islam-Muhammad, who insisted that the son of Mary ‘Īsā (Jesus) would descend
amongst you people as a just ruler.
According to the traditional but perhaps not very reliable Hadith, on the Day of Final
Judgment, Jesus would sit for twenty years on the pulpits of Jerusalem as a fair judge of the
people.363 This belief was brought up by Palamas in his defense of Jesus’s divinity. The same
belief was acknowledged as an authentic Muslim belief by the opponents of Palamas. In Islamic
tradition, Jesus, after completing his mission, will die to prove his humanity and will be buried in
Medina, next to Muhammad. It is quite possible that a lot of traditional beliefs about Al-Mahdi
originated as a reaction to the prominent role of Jesus in the events of the Last Days, providing a
Muslim answer to the void, based on the Hebrew and Zoroastrian beliefs about a return of a
righteous king.364 Although, elaborate Al Mahdi beliefs were not supported by the Sunni tradition
of Islam, they still viewed Jesus as a true Messiah, who will oppose the false messiah (the
Dajjāl) of the last times.
Palamas asked his audience to reflect on the traditional belief among the Muslims regarding
Jesus as final judge. After all, in accordance to the Islamic teaching, judgment is an exclusive
privilege of Allah. The final consummation of Islam would come not through the prophet of
Islam, but through Jesus. Muhammad is dead and buried in the tomb awaiting the final hour or
the Day of Judgment, but Jesus is alive in heaven, waiting to fulfill his final mission. Jesus would
bring the final victory to the true faith and establish the reign of righteousness.
The subject of the eschatological figure of Jesus created a lot of different interpretations and
explanations. The Muslims generally agree that when Jesus would return, he would kill the pigs,
363
Khalidi, Tarif, ed. The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2001), p. 33.
364
Arthur Jeffery, “The Descent of Jesus in Muhammadan Eschatology,” p. 116.
109
destroy all the crosses, cancel the special tax (jizyah), but leave the alms giving, and condemn his
own followers, the Christians. Yet, the same tradition holds that Jesus would be a judge of the
Muslim community, and even Muhammad’s “Caliph to govern you.”365 It might be a mere
reflection of an early tradition of Muhammad’s dealing with al-Sayyid and al-Āqib, who were
two chief Christian monks of Najran. They told Muhammad that they were in full submission to
the will of Allah even before him. In his response, Muhammad indicated that their worshipping
of the cross, eating swine and insisting that God had a Son would have prevented them from
being muslims.366 Nevertheless, the later Islamic tradition systemized seven major events of the
end times. Four major events out of seven traditional expected events have a close connection
with the second coming of Jesus.367
The first dialogue between Palamas and Ishmael started with a question about the practice of
almsgiving (zakat). In Islam, it is required of every Muslim believer. It is mentioned in the
Quran, being perceived as an act of purification from selflessness while supporting members of
the family and community, who were less fortunate. 368 Being one of the pillars of Islam it is an
important part of the submission to the will of Allah and reception of the prophetic teaching of
Muhammad, who spoke of zakat as redistribution of goods for the benefit of the poor and of the
community.369 Zakat is usually mentioned together with the required ritual daily prayer salat.
365
Arthur Jeffery, “The Descent of Jesus in Muhammadan Eschatology,” in Papers on New Testament and Related
Subject Presented to Honor Frederick Clifton Grant, edited by S. Johnson. (New York, NY: The Macmillan Company,
1951), p. 111.
366
Ayoub, Mahmoud. The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II: The House of 'Imran, p. 184.
367
Arthur Jeffery, “The Descent of Jesus in Muhammadan Eschatology,” p. 114-115.
368
369
Sedq, Bahis. The Quran Speaks. (Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing, 2013), p. 64.
110
This mandatory almsgiving had been commanded. It was not a free response to God’s love and
concern for a neighbor.
As for the discussion regarding icon and cross veneration, it created a lot of confusion even
among the Christians. It seems that Christians violate a precept of their own sacred text, besides
mentioning any relevant prohibitions found in the Quran. This is a very controversial issue even
in the Byzantine Empire, called the iconoclastic crisis. However, the cross was venerated even in
the iconoclastic churches, which rejected the veneration of the icons. Yet, Muslims objected to
the veneration of the cross most vigorously. Even in the eschatological tradition of Islam, Jesus,
after his second coming would destroy all the crosses.
Why so much rejection of the cross veneration? It could examined from two points of view.
The first is a rejection of the Jesus’ death on the cross by Muslims. It would make the cross a
silly article, and its veneration would be idolatrous. This is simple misunderstanding between
two faith traditions always requires proper explanation of the Christian belief about the cross and
the Pascal mystery of redemption. The second view, classically used to defend the veneration of
the cross would be comparing it to the veneration of Ka’ba stone in Mecca by the Muslims. This
veneration of a material thing is not seen as idolatry because of the special meaning of this stone
for the Muslims, which would make it permissible to venerate it. A traditional report of the
cleansing of the Ka’ba shrine, known as the “House of God” in Islam, had survived and it
mentioned how Muhammad took out from the shrine for immediate destruction, all the idol
images and statues of pagan gods, but preserved the images of Jesus and his mother Mary.370
The cross and the icons have to do with the symbolic representation of Jesus Christ, the
Divine Word Incarnate. Muslims, on the other hand, portray their Divine Word, the text of the
370
Aslan, Reza. No god but God: the Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. (New York, NY: Random House, 2005),
p.106.
111
Quran, in the mosques, just like cross and icons of Jesus decorate most of the Christian churches.
Also, through the centuries of Christian-Muslim military conflicts, the cross might have become
a representation of the Christian power, against which the Islamic forces were fighting, so it
would be natural for them to have an aversion to the cross as an article of veneration.
FINAL CONCLUSION.
From the very beginning, Eastern Christianity saw Islam as a new heresy of Ismailites. This
position was confirmed by St. John Damascene. Islam sees Christian doctrine as extreme
exaggeration (ghuluw) because of Christian insistence of the Holy Trinity and divinity of Jesus.
Islam demands submission to the will of God by following the Muslim way of worship and daily
living. It also calls for a fair dialogue with Christians, perhaps remotely hinting at the fact that
due to human nature, many serious differences in worshipping one true God had emerged. The
text of the Surah the Stories (29: 46) instructs the Muslims to “argue only in the best way with
the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly.” 371 Eastern Christians were
always in close contact with Islam and its leaders, sometimes using Muslim forces to
counterweight influence of their coreligionists. It might have been a good tactical move for a
particular battle, but always carried grave consequences for posterity.
Many passages, found in the text of the Quran as condemnatory against Christians, do not
argue against the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, but refute heretic anthropomorphic
understandings of God. Islam stresses divine transcendence and inscrutability. These are
important and valuable themes in Eastern Christianity as well. One example of a successful early
dialogue might be found in Muhammad’s praise of the desert monks recorded in the Quran.
371
112
Despite the fact that they were monks, even though monasticism was seen by the Muslims as an
unnecessary human invention, and their belief in the Holy Trinity, it was not held against them.
The text of the Quran in the Surah the Table Spread (5:82) states, “…and you will find the
nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because
amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.” Christian monk’s humility,
holiness of living and compassion invoked a positive response from the other. It was more
efficient than eloquent argumentation of the theologians and insistence on orthodox doctrinal
formulations, which could be nothing more than dead faith, against which Palamas warned his
flock.
Gregory Palamas was a great theologian, the archbishop of the great city of Thessalonica,
and a high ranking statesman in Byzantium who was captured as a regular prisoner for ransom.
His captors were the people who regarded the Quran as the sacred text, revealed by God. Yet, in
the text of the Quran, Byzantines are mentioned positively in the Surah the Romans (30:3-5),
“they will reverse their defeat with a victory in a few years’ time-God is in command, first and
last. On that day, the believers will rejoice at God’s help…” 372 God would be on the side of
Byzantines assuring their victory, because they know and worship the true God and their victory
would be certain. Interestingly enough, it was a reference to the military campaign of Heraclius,
the Eastern Roman Emperor, who was victorious over the neo-Persian Empire of the Sassanids,
straining both Empires and making the Arab Muslim conquest possible. War and state interests of
the Eastern Roman Empire, the main Christian power in Asia, was brought down by its own
intrigues and a dissonance between that what was preached and the real life. Universality of the
Gospel message in many cases was substituted by the imperial universality of the Christian new
372
113
Rome and its powers. Quite possibly, it contributed to the permanence of the Muslim conquest
and promotion of Islam as a main religion of the Middle East and Western Asia.
The Byzantines had an attitude of fundamental rejection of Arabic paganism with a hope of
conversion to the orthodoxy of faith. The latter was an attitude of St. Gregory Palamas. He made
a great contribution to it by his involvement in the interreligious debates in Muslim Anatolia.
Perhaps, the seeds of Palamas had produced result in Turkey with the Gülen movement, which
was started by a contemporary prominent Turkish Islamic scholar and preacher Fethullah Gülen.
Despite many problems, his movement, which is also called Hizmet ("the Service"), is focused
on education and interreligious dialogue. Fethullah Gülen has met with the Pope and the
Patriarch of Constantinople, proposing a different path for his fellow Muslims towards peace
based on mutual understanding and respect.
114
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmen, Nazeer. Islam in Global History: From the Death of Prophet Muhammed to the First
World War. Concord, CA: Kazi Publications, 2000.
Arnakis, G. Georgiades. “Gregory Palamas Among the Turks and Documents of his Captivity as
Historical Sources.” Speculum 26 (1951): 104-118.
Arnakis, G. Georgiades. “Gregory Palamas, the Χιóνες, and the Fall of Gallipoli.” Byzantion 22
(1952): 305- 312.
Aslan, Reza. No god but God: the Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. New York, NY:
Random House, 2005.
Ayoub, Mahmoud Mustafa. “The Word of God In Islam.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review
31(1986): 69-78.
Ayoub, Mahmoud M. The Qur'an and Its Interpreters, Volume II: The House of 'Imran. (Albany,
NY: SUNY Press, 1984.
Baldick, Julian. Mystical Islam. An Introduction to Sufism. New York, NY: New York University
Press, 1989.
Blankinship, Khalid “The Early Creed,” pp. 33-54 in The Cambridge Companion to Classical
Islamic Theology, edited by Tim Winter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
115
Brann, Ross. Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in Eleventh- and
Twelfth-Century Islamic Spain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Brown, John Porter. The Darvishes; or, Oriental Spiritualism. London, UK: Frank Cass and
Company, 1968.
Cragg, Kenneth. The Arab Christian. A History in the Middle East. Louisville, KY: John Knox
Press, 1991.
Cragg, Kenneth. Jesus and the Muslim: An Exploration. London, UK: G. Allen & Unwin, 1985.
Cragg, Kenneth. Muhammad and the Christian: A Question of Response. London, UK: Darton,
Longman, and Todd; 1984.
Cazabonne, Emmanuel. “Gregory Palamas (1296-1359): Monk, Theologian and Pastor.”

Cistercian Studies Quarterly 37 (2002): 303-324.
Chittick, William, C. “On the Cosmology of Dhikr,” pp. 48-63 in Paths to the Heart: Sufism and
the Christian East, edited by James S. Cutsinger. Bloomington, IN: World Wisdom, 2002.
Davids, Adelbert and Pim Valkenberg, “John of Damascus. The Heresy of Ishmaelites” in The
Routledge Reader in Christian-Muslim Relations, edited by Mona Siddiqui, pp. 18- 32. London,
UK: Routledge, 2013.
Denny, Frederick M. An Introduction to Islam. 2nd ed., New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1994.
Doja, Albert. “Spiritual Surrender: From Companionship to Hierarchy in the History of

Bektashism.” Numen 53/4 (2006): 448-510.
Eisenbeis, Walter. A Translation of the Greek Expressions in the Text of "The Gospel of John, a
Commentary by Rudolf Bultmann". Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1982.
116
El-Bizri, Nadel “God: Essence and Attributes,” pp. 121-140 in The Cambridge Companion to
Classical Islamic Theology, edited by Tim Winter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
2008.
Esposito, John L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
2004.
Geanakoplos, Deno John. Interaction of the “Siblings” Byzantine and Western Culture in the
Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (330-1600). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1976.
Gill, Joseph. Byzantium and the Papacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979.
Gioia, Francis, ed. Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church from
the Second Vatican Council to John Paul II (1963-2005). Boston, MA: Pauline Books & Media,
2006.
Glassé, Cyril, ed. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam. 3rd edition. London, UK: Stacey
International, 2008.
Goldziher, Ignaz. Introduction to Islamic Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1981.
Griffiths, Paul J. An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.
Haddad, Robert M." Iconoclasts and the Mu'tazila: The Politics of Anthropomorphism." Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 27 (1982):287-305.
Hahn, Scott. The Gospel of John: Revised Standard Version. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press,
2003.
Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel, trans. The Qur’an. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Haleem, M.A.S. Abdel. “The Qur’an and Hadith” in The Cambridge Companion to Classical
Islamic Theology, edited by Tim Winter, pp. 19-32. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2008.
117
Hanif, N. Biographical Encyclopaedia of Sufis; Central Asia and Middle East. New Dehli, India:
Sarup and Sons, 2002.
Hanson, Craig L. “Manuel I Comnenus and the “God of Muhammad”: A Study in Byzantine
Ecclesiastic Politics,” pp. 55-82 in Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam. A Book of Essays,
edited by Tolan, John Victor. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, 1996.
Hermansen, Marcia “Eschatology,” pp. 308-324 in The Cambridge Companion to Classical

Islamic Theology, edited by Tim Winter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
İnalcık, Halil. The Ottoman Empire; the Classical Age, 1300-1600. Trans. N. Itzkowitz and C.
Imber. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers, 1973.
Hock, Ronald F., trans. The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas: With Introduction, Notes,
and Original Text Featuring the New Scholars Version Translation. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge
Press, 1995.
Jeffery, Arthur. “The Descent of Jesus in Muhammadan Eschatology,” p. 106-123 in Papers on

New Testament and Related Subject Presented to Honor Frederick Clifton Grant, edited by S.
Johnson. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1951.
Jeffery, Arthur. “Ghevond's Text of the Correspondence between 'Umar II and Leo III.” The
Harvard Theological Review 37/ 4 (1944): 280.
Khalidi, Tarif, ed. The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2001.
Knysh, Alexander. Islamic Mysticism. Boston, MA: Brill, 2000.
Kohen, Elli. History of the Turkish Jews and Sephardim: Memories of a Past Golden Age.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2007.
Küng, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007.
118
La Due, William J. The Trinity Guide to the Trinity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,
2003.
Leirvik, Oddbjørn. Images of Jesus Christ in Islam. London, UK: Continuum, 2010.
Lewis, Bernard. The Jews of Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Mango, Cyril. Byzantium: the Empire of New Rome. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons
Publishers, 1980.
McGrath, Alister. Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. New York, NY: Harper Collins
Publishers, 2009.
McAuliffe, Jane Dammen. Qurʾānic Christians. An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
McGuckin, John. The Orthodox Church. Oxford, UK: Wile-BlackWell Publishing, 2011.
Meyendorff, John. A Study of Gregory Palamas. Trans. G. Lawrence. 2nd ed. London, UK: Faith
Press, 1974.
Meyendorff, John. Introduction to The Triad, by Gregory Palamas, 3-34. Trans. N. Gendle. New
York, NY: Paulist Press, 1983.
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological and Social Problems:

Collected Studies. London, UK: Variorum Reprints, 1974.
Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. 2nd ed.,
Fordham, NY: Fordham University Press, 1983.
Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Trans. A. Fiske. Crestwood,
NY: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1974.
119
Monferrer Sala, Juan Pedro. “Somewhere in the ‘History of Spain’. People, Languages and Texts
in the Iberian Peninsula (13th-15th centuries),” p. 47-59 in Christian-Muslim Relations. A
Bibliographical History, edited by T. David and A. Mallett. Leiden, NL: Brill, 2013.
Morris, Rosemary. Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843-1118. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1995.
Muir, William Sir. The Life of Mohammad from Original Sources. Edinburgh, UK: J. Grant
Publishing, 1923.
Nasr, Seyyed, H. Muhammad, Man of God. Chicago, IL: KAZI Publications, Inc., 1995.
Nasr, Seyyed, H. “The Prayer of the Heart in Hesychasm and Sufism.” Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 31 (1986): 195-203.
Nicol, Donald M. “The Byzantine Church and Hellenic Learning in the Fourteen Century.”
Studies in Church History (The Church and Academic Learning) 5 (1969): 23-57.
Nicol, Donald M. The Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits 1250-1500. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Nicol, Donald M. The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453. New York, NY: St. Martin’s
Press, 1972.
Nicol, Donald M. The Reluctant Emperor. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Nursi, Said. The Miracles of Muhammad: The Testimony of History. El Cerrito, CA: Risale-i Nur
Institute of America, 1976.
Oden, Thomas, ed., 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Ancient Christian
Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
O'Shaughnessy, Thomas J. Word of God in the Qur'ān. Rome, VA: Biblical Institute Press, 1984.
120
Ovey, NelsonMohammed. Muslim-Christian Relations: Past, Present, Future. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1999.
Palamas, Gregory. The Triads. Trans. N. Gendle. New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1983.
Papadakis, Aristeides. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of

Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289). Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996.
Papademetriou, George C. Introduction to Saint Gregory Palamas. New York, NY: Philosophical
Library, 1973.
Papademetriou, George C., ed. Two Traditions, One Space: Orthodox Christians and Muslims in
Dialogue. Boston, MA: Somerset Hall Press, 2011.
Parrinder, Edward G. Jesus in the Qur'ān. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Penelas, Maria Teresa. “Two Oriental-Christian Apologetic Texts in a Maghribi Codex,” pp. 275-
302 in Eastern Crossroads: Essays on Medieval Christian Legacy, edited by Juan Pedro
Monferrer-Sala. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007.
Renard, John. Islam and Christianity: Theological Themes in Comparative Perspective. Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2011.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said. “On the Quranic Accusation of Scriptural Falsification (tahrīf) and
Christian Anti-Jewish Polemic.” The Journal of the American Oriental Society 130/ 2
(2010):189-202.
Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Quran and Its Biblical Subtext. London, UK: Routledge, 2010.
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John. A Theological Commentary. Trans. J. Vriend. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.
Robinson, J. The First book of Kings. Commentary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1972.
121
Robinson, Neal. Christ in Islam and Christianity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991.
Runciman, Steven. The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Runciman, Steven. Byzantine Civilization. New York, NY: Meridian Books, 1956.
Runciman, Steven. The Last Byzantine Renaissance. Cambridge, UK: University Press, 1970.
Sahas, Daniel J. “Captivity and Dialogue: Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) and the Muslims.”
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 25 (1980): 409-436.
Sahas, Daniel J. “The Formation of Later Islamic Doctrines as a Response to Byzantine

Polemics: The Miracles of Muhammad.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 27 (1982): 307-
324.
Sahas, Daniel J. “Gregory Palamas (1296-1360) on Islam.” The Muslim World 73 (1983): 1-21.
Sahas, Daniel J. “Ritual of Conversion from Islam to the Byzantine Church.” Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 31 (1991): 57-69.
Schwartz, Stephen. The Other Islam. New York, NY: Doubleday Press, 2008.
Schuon, Frithjof. The Transcendent Unity of Religions. Trans. P. Townsend. New York, NY:
Harper & Row, 1975.
Sedq, Bahis. The Quran Speaks. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Publishing, 2013.
Shah-Kazemi, Reza, “Do Muslims and Christians Believe in the Same God?” pp. 76-174 in the
Do We Worship the same God: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Dialogue, edited by Miroslav
Volf. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.
122
Sinkewicz, Robert E. “A New Interpretation for the First Episode in the Controversy Between
Barlaam the Calabrian and Gregory Palamas.” Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980): 489-
500.
Sinkewicz, Robert, E., ed. Saint Gregory Palamas. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. A
Critical Edition, Translation and Study. Trans. R. Sinkewicz. Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, 1988.
Sinkewicz, Robert, E. Theoleptos of Philadelpheia. Monastic Discourses. Toronto, ON:

Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1992.
Smith, Jane I. and Yvonne Y. Haddad. The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1980.
Speros Vryonis, Jr. “Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 29
(1975): 41-71.
Speros Vryonis, Jr. “Byzantine Attitudes toward Islam during the Late Middle Ages,” Greek,
Roman, and Byzantine Studies 12 (1971): 263-286.
Speros Vryonis, Jr. “The Byzantine Legacy and Ottoman Forms.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23/24
(1969/1970): 251-308.
Sweetman, James. Islam and Christian Theology: A Study of the Interpretation of Theological
Ideas in the Two Religions. Part I, vol. 1. London, UK: Lutterworth Press, 1945.
Tolan, John Victor, ed. Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam. New York, NY: Garland
Publishing, 1996.
Thomas, David. “The Bible in Early Muslim Anti-Christian Polemic.” Islam and Christian
Muslim Relations 7/1 (1996): 29-38.
Thomas, David and Barbara Roggemma, ed. Christian Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical
History. Volume 1 (600-900). Boston, MA: Brill, 2009.
123
Thomas, David and Alex Mallett, ed. Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History.
Vol. 5 (1350-1500). Leiden, NL: Brill, 2013.
Troll, Christian W. Dialogue and Difference: Clarity in Christian-Muslim Relations. Trans. D.

Marshall. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009.
Troll, Christian W. Muslims Ask, Christians Answer. Transl. D. Marshall. Hyde Park, NY: New
City Press, 2012.
Vitray-Meyerovitch, Eva de. Rûmî and Sufism. Trans. S. Fattal. Sausalito, CA: The Post-Apollo
Press, 1987.
Waardenburg, Jean Jacques, ed. Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Watt, William Montgomery and Richard Bell. Introduction to the Qur'an. Edinburgh, UK:
Edinburgh University Press, 1970.
Watt, William Montgomery. Islam and the Interpretation of the Society. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press, 1961.
Wittek, Paul. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. Transl. E. Kara-Mikhallova, J.Hussey and
P.Charanis. London, UK: Royal Asiatic Society, 1963.
Zachariadou, Elizabeth A.,“Religious Dialogue between Byzantines and Turks during the
Ottoman Expansion,” pp. 289-304 in Religionsgespräche im Mittelalter, edited by B. Lewis and
F. Niewohner. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 1992.
Ziai, Hossein. Knowledge and Illumination: A Study of Suhrawardī's Ḥikmat al-ishrāq. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars Press, 1990.
Zebiri, Kate. Muslims and Christians Face to Face. Oxford, UK: One World Publications, 1997.
124

The Conversations of Gregory Palamas Dur

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Conversations of Gregory Palamas Dur

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Then those who fear the Lord spoke with one another, and the Lord listened attentively;

Christian faith to them.

his captors, the Muslim Ottomans.

THE FOURTEEN CENTURY.

1.1 Doctor of Hesychasm, Teacher of Orthodoxy, Archbishop of Thessalonica-St. Gregory

Palamas and His Political and Diplomatic Mission.

Palamas became archbishop of Thessalonica in 1347. He died in Thessalonica on November 14,

patriarch Philotheus I (Coccinus) of Constantinople, who was a disciple.

by the mystically minded metropolitan Theoleptus of Philadelpheia. Philotheus I (Coccinos),

Calabria. Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople was also mentioned by Palamas as his

and appropriate to His blessed nature.”10

salvation, thus questions of doctrine were treated very seriously.

1.2 Theological Conflict with Barlaam of Calabria

aimed to achieve greater concentration.24 Psychosomatic prayer methods were brilliantly

and embraced the Biblical concept of the psycho-physical unity.25

with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.28

light of God, which is uncreated, can be seen by the saints.

Nevertheless, Barlaam demanded the hearing, appealing to the Patriarch of Constantinople

which was beheld at Transfiguration of Jesus, seen by the hesychasts.34

1.3 The Civil War in the Empire and Gregory Palamas

the second civil war in the declining Empire.

patriarch John XIV and the Empress Ann of Savoy.

Constantinople-Isidore I Buchiras on May 17, 1347, after John Cantacuzenus victoriously

revelation of mysteries in the prayer.61

The new Patriarch of Constantinople Callistus I, a successor to the pro-Palamite Patriarch

to polytheism.62 Palamas saw his theological innovation as a genuine development (αναπτυξις).

were addressing the problems of that time.63.

supported the teachings of Gregory Akindynos, an anti-Palamite and anti-Cantacuzenus

established record of opposition, on spiritual grounds, to the enrichment of the coenobitic

monasteries.65 Previously, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athanasius I (1230-1310), allowed for

III Palaiologos and John VI Cantacuzenus.

Byzantium, but also in the neighboring lands.71

Patriarch Callistos, who refused to crown Matthew Cantacuzenus in Constantinople, and

barbarians, and who were triumphant at the time.73

1.4 What is Hesychasm?

and is aimed at meditative contemplation. Hesychasm (ἡσυχασμός) is the prayerful way of

mysticism authored by Gregory Palamas and Nicholas Cabasilas.76

leading this revival. Theoleptus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia did so in spirituality and

studid among the Slavic hesychastic monks.

1.5 Brief Comparison of Hesychasm and Islamic Prayer of Dhikr

reality of God. It is a practice of voluntary return to God.

from the sensible light to the uncreated divine light.

found in Iran even to this day.

revelation. It is a powerful statement of human sanctification, because after the incarnation of

Jesus prayer ought to be imageless and dispassionate, without involvement of human

syncretism and oversimplification.

Islam in the Ottoman Empire.100

brothers in Christ. Moreover, contemporary Western Latin philosophers saw a contradiction in

divine uncreated energies.

CHAPTER II. GREGORY PALAMAS-PRISONER, EVANGELIZER AND APOLOGETE

AMID THE TURKISH MUSLIMS.

Constantinople, the New Rome. Unavoidable theological clashes of Eastern Byzantine

National Library at Athens in Greece104.

in Thessalonica. Palamas’ opponent on the theology and practice of hesychasm, Nicephorus

2.2 Who Were Palamas’ Captors-the Turks?

and mystical spiritual circles.117

became a Christian martyr in the second century, St. Charalampus (Χαράλαμπος).

actualized in prayer and compassion, a complete example of a contemplative saint, perfect in

poverty, meekness and surrender.

representatives of the new phenomenon of “Christianized Islam.”128

be translated as an unbroken colt, or figuratively, it could be interpreted as wild youth. 132 He as

Christianity, promoting a proto-communistic worldview.133 Torlak specifically indicated that

Emperor, John VI Cantecuzenus, a friend and supporter of Gregory Palamas.