Against the law of the Saracens

By Fr. Riccoldo da monte di Croce, O.P.
Florence; c. 1243-1320

Furthermore

(61) Furthermore, there is nothing in the Christian faith so difficult as the incarnation of God, namely, that that man is God [1] . And this was most difficult to persuade the world. Wherefore both the Romans and other pagans persecuted the Christians for this reason for 300 years continuously and generally; and they delayed receiving the faith and the gospel because it was said that that man was God. Not because many men and women had not already received gods and goddesses, but because Christ was called God without the permission of the Romans, which they themselves forbade that no one should be called god without the authority of the senate [2] . And also because this God did not suffer a partner; for if they received this God, they were forced to abandon all other gods; which was also against the agreements of the provinces, and the law and custom of the Romans.

(71) How then could the Christians, to their own damnation and detriment to the faith, and to the provocation of the Romans and worldly princes, have added this most arduous and less persuasive thing to their scriptures and gospels? For all agreed that this law was most holy and most reasonable, except this alone which completely exceeds reason, namely, that that man was thus truly God and suchlike. Therefore, if the Christians had changed anything about the gospel, they would have rather removed what was arduous and less persuasive from the beginning, so that more would come to the faith, and added something persuasive, than the other way around.

(80) Moreover, how could Christians agree with the Jews, from whom they are divided by such ancient hatred that they corrupt the Scriptures, and especially by adding this in which they do not agree? [3] For the Jews neither say that Christ is God nor a good man. Wherefore in this respect Christians agree more with the Saracens, who say that Christ was at least a most holy man.

(86) Furthermore, before the coming of Mohammed, the Christians were divided into the most diverse sects, and especially the Eastern ones into Jacobins and Nestorians. But the Nestorians are most in agreement with the Saracens, and Mohammed commanded that they be honored singularly. And how could the Nestorians have agreed with the Jacobins to change the gospel, | 190r | who are divided by such hatred that they kill each other? [4] And yet I have read and found that the gospel is absolutely the same with both, as with us [5] .

(93) Furthermore, why would Christians have removed the name of Mohammed from the gospel, since he himself so highly commended Christ and his mother and the gospel, as to say in the Koran that in the gospel of Christ there is "direction and perfection," and they did not remove from it the name of the devil, nor the name of Pilate who scourged Christ, nor the name of Judas who betrayed him? [6]

(98) Furthermore, why would Christians have added in the Gospel that Christ truly died and was crucified, when it seems more honorable to men that he was not crucified, nor does it seem to be proper to him since he is truly God, as is stated in the Gospel? And how does it seem consequent that they should have added so two different things about themselves, namely, that he is truly God and truly dead?

(104) Moreover, given that they could have put it in all books, but who could persuade men and write it in the hearts of nations that they should believe this? And yet this was persuaded to the whole world, so that princes and tyrants, philosophers and the wisest men, accepted it from unlearned and poor men; so that even the caliph of Baldacco died a Christian, and a cross was found around his neck to testify to the fact that he himself, the lord of the Saracens, died a true Christian. And therefore the Saracens judged him to be sequestered and buried by other caliphs. And this tomb and place I saw in Baldacco with my own eyes [7] .

 (112) Therefore, it is established in every way, both by the authority of the Koran and by valid and open reasons, that the Gospel is invariable and not altered or corrupted. Therefore, since Mohammed commends the Gospel above all other books, and after it the Old Testament, the Muslims are compelled to accept the authority of the Gospel and the Old Testament [8] .

(118) Furthermore, in the Koran, in the chapter Elmeyde , which is interpreted as "table", it is said that "the family of books is nothing at all unless they fulfill the law and the gospel". The family of books is the Saracens, as he shows there; whence he says: "unless they fulfill the law and the gospel and what has been revealed to you". But that which has been revealed is taken to be the Koran, which has been revealed only to the Saracens, as they themselves say. Therefore they are bound to have the law of Moses and the gospel as well as the Koran, and to observe it as well [9] .

(125) This | 190v | same is shown in many places in the Koran, namely that the family of the books are the Saracens, according to the intention of Mohammed [10] . For it is said in the chapter Elnesa , which is interpreted "women", towards the end, that the Saracens should not waver in their law; whence it is written there: «O family of the books, do not waver in your law and do not say anything but the truth about God» and all the other things that are there. This same, namely that the family of the books are the Saracens, is shown expressly in the chapter Lem , at the end of the book [11] .

(131) But if they absolutely wish to say that the old law and the gospel are corrupted, let them show that they are whole and uncorrupted, and we will accept them; and especially if they show it uniformly in all languages, as we have shown them [12] .

(135) It is therefore clear that the Koran is not the law of God because the Old Law and the Gospel, which Muhammad testifies to be the law of God, do not attest to it but are contrary to it.

 

[1] On faith well [= whence?] and to prove the incarnation of God add. another hand marg. s .

[2] Cf. EUSEBE DE CESAREE, Histoire ecclesiastique II, 2, trans. Rufinus, p. 111, 10-12; and SC 31, p. 53 note 4.

[3] Cf. Contrarietas alpholica III, Paris BN lat. 3394, f. 241r, 16-21: «Or how the Christians and Jews, who are most opposed to each other, or even these or those, spread throughout the whole world by the decree of the Cornish [?], everywhere falsified the sacred scriptures and the falsifiers themselves before God in hatred of Mahomet, so that either a codex would be secretly made and remain intact or a public book would be published, and the histories of the nations would not be hidden». RAYMOND MARTIN, Explanatio simboli apostolorum [1257], ed. JM March, «Anuari de l'Institut d'Estudis Catalans», Barcelona 1908, pp. 453, 44-51: «Wherefore could these nations not be gathered from the ends of the world to change the Gospel, since they are of diverse customs and languages, and under diverse princes and kingdoms, and if it had been done, it could not have been hidden. Likewise, there is emulation between Christians and Jews especially concerning the Scriptures; and therefore, neither should Christians be silent about the corruption of the Jews, nor should Jews conceal the corruption of the Christians. But since they are at odds about the understanding of the Scriptures, it is clear that they will not be able to agree on the corruption of the Scriptures. Therefore, since they certainly agree on the law of Moses and the prophets, it is clear that the law of Moses and the prophets are not corrupt.

[4] Sur les conflits entre Jacobites et Nestoriens, cf. JM FIEY, Jalons pour une histoire de l'Eglise en Iraq , CSCO, Louvain 1970, pp. 113-143; E. PLATTI, La grande polemique antinestorienne de Yahvâ b. 'Adî , CSCO, Louvain 1981, vol. 427 and 428

[5] Riccoldo a pu voir chez tous les chrétiensde Mésopotamie la même version syriaque de la Bible (la Pshitta ).

[6] Cf.RAYMOND MARTIN,  Explanatio simboli ..., p. 455, 17-20; 23-27: «If anyone says that the books are corrupted in this, that the name of Mahomet is removed from them, we answer that there is no reason why his name should be removed: because if he was to be good, it was useful to know his name, so that, when he came, he would be received as good and of whom it had already been prophesied [... ]. But if he was to be evil, it was necessary to know his name and manners in the same way, so that when he came, by his knowledge he would be avoided... Hence, just as the name of the antichrist has not been removed from the books, nor the name of the devil, in the same way neither would the name of Mahomet have been removed from them, if it had been written there».

[7] Peut-être le caliph al-Mustadî (1170-1180) qui fut favorable aux chrétiens? Cf. JM FIEY, Les chrétiens sous les Abbassides , CSCO, Louvain 1980, pp. 246-251; Encycl. de l'Islam , 1 a ed., "al-Mustadî". Marco Polo alludes to the same thing (cf. Il Milione , ed. Benedetto, c. 29/30, pp. 20-22). G. LE STRANGE, Baghdad during the Abbasid Caliphate , Oxford 1924, p. 87. Riccoldo knows Bagdad well; cf. L. MASSIGNON, La passion de Hallaj , t. 2, Paris 1975, pp. 70, 77, 170; al-Mustadî fut interré au Qasr 'Isâ à Bagdad, lieu marque par la dévotion à Hallaj et identique au ribât Ikhlâtyia (= de l'Arménienne).
 

[8] Cf. Heart ​19,30; 28,52; 29,46; 3,3,65; 57,26; 48,29; 9,111.

[9] "Therefore they... also observe" added Riccoldus marg. d .

[10] For Raymond Martin, “Family of books” designates in the Qur’an the Jews and the Christians; cf. RAYMOND MARTIN, Explanatio simboli ..., p. 454, 56-57: “Item in cap...: Donec statueritis legem et Euangelium, in nichilo estis. Ibi loquitur Dominus christianis et íudeis, ut dicunt sarraceni”; cf. Encycl. de l’Islam , 2nd ed ., “Ahl al-kitâb”, DANIEL, pp. 56-57. Is it the Greek translation of the CLS that influenced Georges of Trébizonde on this point? (AT KHOURY, Georges of Trébizonde , POC (1970), 248; cf. supra Introduct . III, 4 = “Memorie domenicane” 17 (1986) pp. 51 ff.).

[ 11] Heart 98,1.5. Nous avons peut -étre l'origine de "l'erreur" au sujet de la "Familia Libri": cette sourate Lem , verse 7, parte des récompenses de "ceux qui auront cru, et accompli les oeuvres pies, ceux-là sont le meilleur de humanité" (BLACHERE, p. 660), or ces récompenses, "Jardins d'Eden sous lélenches couleront les ruisseaux, où ils resteront, immortels en éternité" sont des récompenses propres aux "Musulmans" que l'on peut dès lors classer parmi la deuxième catégorie des Ahl al-kitâb , les bons, ceux qui auront cru et qu'évoque le verset 7 en liaison avee le verset 1, lequel distinguishing bien deux groupes de "Familia Libri". (Cetre sourate Lem , semble ne pas avoir été identifique par NIONNERET DE VILLARD, p. 116, et par DANIEL, p. 336, note 29).

TH. E. BURMAN, How an Italian Friar Read His Arabic Qur'an , "Dante Studies" 125 (2007) 95.

[12] add. Riccoldus marg.  s., and underline : «Note that in no closet of the Saracens or study did I find the gospel».

Ask Riccoldo that he should show him "I have not corrupted the Gospel." Il semble avoir visité plusieurs bibliothèques musulmanes et elles étaiten déprenes des Ecritures "corrupted" et "incorrupted". Sa demande, légitime, rappelle celle que fit dans un contexte analogue le Patriarche Timothée I au Caliph de Bagdad (H. PUTMAN, L'Eglise et l'Islam sous Timothée Ier , Beyrouth 1975, p. 272). Une Bible est toutefois signalée dans une bibliothèque musulmane à la méme époque, à Damas (Y. ECHE, Les bibliothèques arabes, publiques et semi-publiques en Mésopotamie, en Syrie et en Egypte au Moyen-Age , Damas 1967, pp. 297-298). In the opposite sense, Riccoldo says in the Itinerarium , XXXIV (= ed. JCM Laurent , Peregrinatores medii aevi quatuor , Lipsiae 1873 , p. 139,25), that in the Libraries of Baghdad and Mosul(?), no other gospel was ever shown to him than the one in the hands of the Christians. = Liber peregrinationis , Berlin, Staatsbibliothek lat. 4°.466, f. 22ra : « For in Baldacco and in Mensis there was a study from ancient times, where in the archives of the Saracens the most ancient books are preserved, which they showed to us. And yet they could not show us another gospel except as it is with us ».