Introduction
The relationship between church and state has been the one of main concerns of the state throughout the history of the mankind. The clerical institutions always attempted to manipulate the state for their own benefits. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they failed. Nonetheless, in the majority of cases, they were on the top of the state. Exemplary is the case of Catholic Christian church, which for the centuries dominated the Christian world until the time of Renaissance.
The different picture is drawn, when one speaks about the relationship between state and church in the Muslim world. From the beginning, Islam has not been the clerical religion like Christianity, but the religion had been in the hands of private scholars (ulama). Islam had never known clerical institution as such, except for the Shia branch, which in some degree copied the clerical system of Christianity.
Another question arises, when one speaks about the relationship between Muslim authorities or government and Christian church or clerical institution. Did the Muslim authorities view Christian church as the legitimate representative of particular Christian community or they viewed the latter as the instrument of domination over Christian subjects?
The present paper attempts to answer that question through examination of the relationship between Christian church and Muslim government during the reign of Umayyad caliphs in Islamic lands. The importance of this particular dynasty is explained by the fact that they were first to rule the Muslim society and their attitude towards alien religions was unusually tolerant.
Overview of Umayyad caliphate
The Umayyad (Banu Umaiya) dynasty is the first dynasty of caliphs to reign in Islam; thus, their reign started with civil war and strikingly ended with civil war. The Umayyad caliphate owes its establishment to its first ruler – Mu’awiya b. Abi Sufyan. The latter was the son of Abu Sufyan b. Harb, the arch-enemy of Prophet Muhammad during the period of resistance between Meccan Qurayshites and Medinan Muslims. After the conquest of Mecca by Muslims, Abu Sufyan was appointed as the governor of Hejaz by Muhammed, who valued the former for his leadership talents and organizational skills.
Prior to succession to the throne of caliph, Mu’awiya spent 20 years at the post of governor of Syria, to which he was appointed by second caliph Umar b. Khattab.
There were, overall, fourteen caliphs, who ruled Umayyad state, starting from 41 A.H. /661 A.D. to 132 A.H. /750 A.D. They are: Mu’awiya ibn Abu Sufyan, who was succeeded by his son Yazid, which was next succeeded by his son Mu’awiya II, who died after few months of his father’s death. After the death of the latter, the throne of caliph passed to the second branch of Umayyads – Marwanids, to which third caliph Uthman belonged. The caliphs of Marwanid branch ruled in the following order: Marwan b. al-Hakam b. Abi ‘l-‘As – Abd al-Malik b. Marwan – al-Walid b. ‘Abd al-Malik - Sulaiman b. ‘Abd al-Malik – ‘Omar (II) b. Abd al-‘Aziz b. Marwan – Yazid (II) b. ‘Abd al-Malik – Hisham b. ‘Abd al-Malik – Walid (II) b. Yazid (II) b. ‘Abd al-Malik – Yazid (III) b. al-Walid b. ‘Abd al-Malik - Ibrahim b. al-Walid b. ‘Abd al-Malik – Marwan II b. Muhammad b. Marwan.
The territory of Umayyad caliphate included: Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Palestine, Northern Africa, Southern Italy (Sicily), Spain, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Central Asia. During the rule of Umayyad dynasty, they were engaged in war with Greece, Byzantium, Northern Africa, Central Asia, India, Spain, and Armenia.
The state administration was based partially on pre-Islamic Arab patriarchal customs and partially on Syrian traditions of administration. The full title of caliphs was khalifa-t Allah, literally meaning “deputy of God”; however, later it was modified to mean “successor of the Prophet approved by God”. The caliph was the head of the state; however he was not supreme leader, but first among equals. He could not rule without the consultation with senior members of Umayyad dynasty and it was one of the main distinctions from Abbasid caliphate, which based on Iranian despotic traditions.
The reign of Umayyad dynasty ended in the result of resistance and rebellion of members of Abbasid and Alid families, whose secret activity was overlooked by Umayyad caliphs.
The status of non-Muslim subjects under Umayyad caliphs
The status of non-Muslim subjects in Umayyad caliphate was generally regulated by the treaty of ‘Omar, agreement or agreements made between ‘Omar b. Khattab and conquered population in Syria and Palestine. The treaty of ‘Omar is said to contain the clauses of restrictive and discriminatory character. The number of the clauses ranges from 18 to 45, depending on the sources, which reported them. This agreement is said to have guaranteed the safety for conquered non-Muslim population in exchange for payment of jizya (poll-tax), in the case if they wish to profess their religions and also would grant the status of protected people (ahl al-dhimma) to certain category of non-Muslims. Nevertheless, such proposition, based on criteria of religion, seems to be refuted by Hoyland, who argued that in the first century of Islam and especially during the rule of Umayyad dynasty, the poll-tax system was not based on distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, but was “something that the conquered paid for the upkeep (rizq) of the conquerors in return for protection (dhimma).
Besides, there had been several attempts to reanimate the provisions of this treaty, by several caliphs, especially by ‘Omar (II) b. Abd al-Aziz. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the authenticity of some clauses of treaty are doubted as contradicting to the character and nature of ‘Omar b. Khattab and political situation at that time.
The scope of ahl al-dhimma only extends to the people, which were mentioned in Qur’an as ahl al-Kitab (people of the Book). Ahl al-Kitab would generally include: (i) Jews (Hādū or Yahudi); (ii) Christians (An-Naşārá); (iii) Sabeans (Aş-Şābi’Ina); and (iv) those, who believe in One God and Last Day (Al-Ladhīna 'Āmanū Billāhi Wa Al-Yawmi Al-'Ākhiri). Later, in the course of conquest, the scope of ahl al-dhimma was extended to Zoroastrians (Majusi), which, in the opinion of Muslim jurists, did believe in One God in the beginning, but their religion had been corrupted .
The status of Christian church and its relationship with authorities
One of the central questions of the present paper was whether Christian church was viewed as legitimate representative of Christian community or simply the tool for domination over subjected Christian population. However, such question poses some difficulties.
One of such difficulties is the absence of homogenous Christian ecclesiastic institution, which would have centralised all Christian communities. There had been, at least, three or four separate churches, such as Melkite, Nestorian, Coptic and others. Yet, there had been no unity between them and they often oppose each other, compelling Muslim authorities to intervene into their affairs. Thus, Severus reports that after the death of patriarch Agatho, Theodosius sealed patriarchal office and it remained sealed until the governor of Egypt and the brother of caliph Abd al-Malik, Abd al-Aziz ordered to open it again on the advice of his Christian secretaries, Athanasius and Isaac. Tritton explains it as the religious jealousy rather than tyranny of authorities, since Theodosius was Melkite. Theodosius was opposed when he designated one of his favourites as the successor to John of Samnud. In the council bishops did not approve his candidate but waited until governor gathered council in Cairo and had Isaac appointed as the successor to the John. In Umayyad state administration, the function of governor did not only include the administration of the province but implementation of judicial power and some military functions. The governor had the power to appoint the tax collector; however there were cases when the latter was appointed by caliph himself.
These two examples demonstrate that due to the disintegration of the church, the Muslim authorities would often act the arbitrator between their ecclesiastic affairs. Often Muslim authorities would show its favour towards specific candidate on the advice of bishops as it was with Simon, who was presented to governor Abd al-Aziz and whom the latter approved as the patriarch. Moreover, bishops would often ask the authorities to appoint certain bishops to the administrative posts in the church. Thus, for instance, Athanasius, head of government offices in Alexandria, asked governor to appoint Gregory, the bishop, to the post of the manager of the church and office of patriarch. The necessity of the authorities’ approval in the affairs of church is explained by the disintegration in the church itself, as noted above. However, bishops’ approval would not suffice; this is why ecclesiastic authorities would often seek the approval of Muslim authorities, for it would be binding for all.
Yet, there had been the cases when the Muslim authorities would deliberately intervene into ecclesiastic affairs and hinder the normal functioning of clerical office. Thus, famous Umayyad general and governor Hajjaj prevented anyone from being elected as catholicus after the death of previous catholicus John of Sanya in 76 A.H. On the other hand, Hajjaj had exerted tyrannical over the Muslim population as well. However, the example of Hajjaj tyranny or intervention into church affairs is not exhaustive, often caliph would allow another bishop to be appointed as the patriarch or more, he would do it in return for the bribe. It was practiced by several caliphs such as Walid and Hisham.
From the abovesaid, one may conclude that appointment of patriarch as well as other important ecclesiastic position would often lie in hands of provincial governors, but the caliph served as the final instance when the bishops would disagree with the decision of particular governor. Even though, the right to elect patriarch was nominally the competence of the council of the bishops. However, church authorities would not be often protected from the tyranny of the authorities and the bribes would play its decisive role.
The impact of relationship between church and state on the status of churches and monasteries
Overall, it has been asserted that there had been thirty three Christian churches in use throughout the Umayyad caliphate and besides twenty two of them were “built in early Islamic period”. Also, it is assumed that twelve of them “underwent major rebuilding”, whereas 5 other churches had been “repaired on a humbler scale” and thirteen of them were “remodeled”.
Despite the prohibition of building new churches, some sources report that it was Abd al-Aziz, brother of caliph, who allowed the new churches to be assembled in Egypt. Mednikov explains such ambiguity referring to the fact these reports were delivered in different periods; since in the beginning of his governorship, Abd al-Aziz was accompanied by Bishop Athanasius, who had the great influence on former, because of his intelligence, wealth and scholar knowledge. During Abd al-Aziz’s governorship, Athanasius managed to assemble the basilicas in Eddesse and in two locations in Fustat in Egypt. Such practice clearly contradicts with the provision of treaty of ‘Omar, which prohibited the construction of new churches after Hegira.
One of the significant events, which come to our attention, is the dispute between Abd al-Malik and Christian population in Damascus over the St. John Church. Abd al-Malik attempted to turn the named church to mosque and requested from Christian population to give away the place; however Christians declined his request, basing on the guarantee granted by Khalid b. al-Walid on the immunity of the church. Then Abd al-Malik offered them large amount of money and the right to build the church in any district of Damascus, but they declined and Abd al-Malik did not insist on his request further. This episode indicates that the Christians during Abd al-Malik were not deprived of the right to express their opinion and demand their right.
In contrast to Abd al-Malik, the reign of al-Walid was marked by some negative episodes for Christians. Thus, the church of St. John, over which Christians of Damascus had dispute with Abd al-Malik, had been demolished by al-Walid. Afterwards, al-Walid ordered to assemble new mosque in the place of this infamous church.
The reason for such severe decision was the incident which took place, when Walid went to pray to the mosque, which was next to church. While praying, he was disturbed by the loud prayer of Christian priests in church and as consequence decided to destroy the church and build the mosque instead. His decision was opposed by Christians of Damascus, which presented the guarantee of Khalid b. al-Walid, but it was not taken into consideration by caliph. However, it is reported that al-Walid offered money in amount of 40,000 dinars to Christians and the place in any other location of Damascus. Some sources report that Christian agreed with the decision of Walid and accepted his offer, however Mednikov doubts that, since he suggests that these reports were made by late authors. Besides, he suggests that “if Christians went into agreement with Walid and received the compensation, they would not have the right to complain to Umar II about the forced capture of St. John church”. Other authors report that church was demolished without the consent of Christians. It would be correct to render the last suggestion as true, since the act of demolition was followed by the message of emperor of Byzantium.
The emperor of Byzantium, infuriated by such act of Walid, sent him the message. Therein, he reminded al-Walid that the St. John church was left untouched by his predecessors, and should their decision be accurate, al-Walid was wrong; should Walid make the right decision, his predecessors were wrong. Thus, he challenged the validity of his decision. When al-Walid received this message, he asked advice from the famous jurist as-Zuhri, who recommended him to refer to the decision of Solomon and David about the sowed field and sheep. It seems that the letter of emperor did not have any impact on al-Walid, since his decision remained unchanged.
This act of al-Walid, at first glance seems to be ‘one-time whim’ of caliph; however such suggestion is refuted by the fact that later Walid ordered to destroy ten churches in Damascus. As one of the reasons for such behaviour, Mednikov names the Walid’s desire for the construction of new building and his wish to eclipse magnificence of Christian churches .
Speaking of such behavior of Walid, it would not be correct to relate it to intolerance of al-Walid towards Christians, since his decision was caused by different factors. To support this argument, it is worthy to note that no such measure had been taken against the sacred places of Jews and other denominations. Besides, such case took place only in Damascus and there is no evidence that it was widespread practice in other cities of caliphate. These arguments give us the ground to suggest that the policy of al-Walid, in respect of Christian churches, limited only to those churches which were located in Damascus, since it was capital city of caliphate.
As for the case of St. John church in Damascus, Christians appealed to ‘Omar II over the decision of al-Walid to confiscate the space of church to build the mosque. As the ground for such appeal, they repeatedly presented the guarantee, granted by Khalid b. al-Walid, which they unsuccessfully did during al-Walid’s rule. Umar II took this document into consideration and decided in favour of Christians. Such decision rose the anger of Muslims and Christians asked for the churches of al-Guta, which were captured in the battle, to be given to them instead of St. John
There are, however, other sources, which report that Muslim, themselves, offered the churches in al-Guta as the replacement or that ‘Omar II offered the large amount of money as the compensation for the St. John church. The last report somehow echoes with the similar report about al-Walid, who also offered large amount of money as the compensation. There is no single opinion on this matter; however it would be correct to suggest that ‘Omar II admitted that decision of al-Walid was wrong and the claim of Christians was thorough and proved. There had been also the dispute over some churches in Damascus and al-Guta, because ‘Omar II offered all these churches in exchange for St. John church.
There are two views regarding the attitude of ‘Omar II towards non-Muslims. One of them affirms that overall, ‘Omar II treated them in fair way; however there is evidence that it was ‘Omar II, who ‘reanimated’ restrictive rules of ‘Omar I for non-Muslims. Particularly, he ordered all new churches to be demolished, except those, which were protected by the agreements. There is also suggestion that he ruled that old churches to be destroyed, but this information may not be authentic since he was the one to return all the churches that had been taken from Christians unjustly . Mednikov, however, refutes the suggestion that Umar II ordered all new churches to be destroyed, referring to the fact that Umar II bought the land close to monastery of St. Simon , which supposedly was built after conquest of Muslims. Deriving from these arguments, we may assume that although Umar II ordered some churches to be demolished, it was not for religious but for some other reasons. As one of such reasons, we may name the existence of agreements between Muslims authorities and non-Muslim subjects on granting the immunity to the churches captured.
The situation with non-Muslims radically changed during the reign of caliph Yazid II. It is reported that this caliph ordered to destroy all churches, crosses, icons and statutes in Egypt. Such measures were not the consequence of religious intolerance, but, like the reign of Sulayman, it was direct effect abusive extortions of governors, increase of taxes and resistance of monks.
We cannot, however, attribute such persecutions fully to the reasons indicated above, since they were one of other causes for the rise of religious intolerance among Muslims. Therefore, it would be true to trace the reasons of persecutions to religious intolerance, which was one of the vital factors of these events. This argument is also supported by the fact that Yazid himself disliked Christians since he ordered to return the church of St. John back to Muslims, despite previous decision of Umar II in favour of Christians. Surprisingly, there is evidence, however, that two churches had been assembled in Antiochia during the reign of Yazid II.
Conclusion
It seems to be complicated to draw the conclusion from the information, we have at our disposal. On the one hand, the relationship between church and state had been intricate due to the internal disintegration and disagreement between competing Christian groups. At certain degree, such disintegration affected the status of Christians as whole. If it is so, then the proposition that Christian churches had been the legitimate representative of Christian communities is true.
Another question is impact of relationship between church and state on the status of churches and monasteries. It is seen from the abovesaid that often the demolition of churches was the direct result of conflict between ecclesiastic authorities and Muslim governments, yet the majority of cases show that it was abuse of Muslim authorities and whim of caliphs.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
