Friends,

I have a question that I have been wondering about for some time. On another thread Robert said that before Islam took over in the Middle East most Arabs were Christian. My question is this, What constitutes an Arab?

I have seen requests by Assyrians, Maronites, and Syriac Orthodox that they not be called Arabs because while Arabic is their common tongue, they consider themselves Syriac in ethnicity.

On the otherhand, the Orthodox of the Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem Patriarchates, the Melkite Catholics, and Latin Catholics of the Jerusalem Patriarchate all identify themselves as Arabs.

I know current custom tends to identify most Arabic speaking Middle Easterners as Arabs. However, is this correct? When did Copts and Syrians cease to be Copts and Syrians and start to be Arabs? When they adopted Arabic as their language? While Arabic speaking Islamic Middle Easterners share a common language, religion and culture do not the Christians of the Middle East preserve a distinct culture (and in some cases language) that should be distinguished from the Arabic and Islamic dominant culture. Why do the Melkites and Orthodox wish to identify themselves with a culture that is almost 99% Islamic.

Historically, Arabs were pagan tribes that originated in the Arabian Peninsula. They spread and conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. Is not the true ethnicity of Arabic speaking Christians Syrian, Coptic, Lebanese, or Palestinian? I believe true ethnic Arab Christians were very few before the conquest of Islam.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

For what it's worth, the few Coptic Orthodox that I have had contact with do not consider themselves Arabs, but descendants of those Egyptians conquered by Arabs. I guess people can define themselves, and it would be interesting to hear their own voices here.

Glory to Jesus Christ,
Lance you ask an excellent question as to what constitutes an Arab. The responses are many and come from many perceptions. For me it has been the bonding of the Arab people in relations to language, cultural values, customs and traditions. The Arabs maintain a wide diversity of backgrounds and beliefs in relation to their neighbors. Despite the religious differences, they can bond very well. Opening the conversations on religion can be a bag of mixed nuts & raisins.
Please note that the Arab culture came before Islam. In fact the Arabic culture was influenced by the Judeo-Christian religions. As Islam developed it added and greatly impacted the Arabic culture. It has its pros and cons. Arab Christians have their roots meshed with the history of Islam. Their histories and destinies have been intertwined & may continue to be.

Islam was the vehicle that forced Arabization where it encountered non-Arabs as well as resistance(i.e. Copts, Assyrians). It's no surprise that Arabization came into conflict with the Persians and the Kurds(non-Arab Muslims). It's possible many Middle Eastern Christians identified themselves as Arabs & that many Arabs have always been historical Christians that date back to Pentecost (Act 2:11). This also becomes very complicated in cases of intermarriages between various geographical groups and tribes throughout the centuries. It is most likely inconceivable to accept the belief in a pure racial concept of any particular group of peoples.

As for the Copts have never ceased being Copts. The Syrian Christian has not ceased being a Syrian Christian. Some if not many take offense in being referenced to as Arabs. I know of an Egyptian within the OCA who serves as a deacon that refuses to be called an Arab but speaks excellent Arabic. He has a great respect for Arab Christians but not for Islam. That may be due to the persecution of the Copts since he is originally a Copt.

The Melkites and the Orthodox identify with the Arabic culture that is shared with the Muslims because of their intertwined histories. Culture has been & can be the interaction of great relations between the two religions. Sharing the same language, moral values, music, foods, political views, and entertainment.

Last but not least, the Arab Christians were many prior to Islam. It's sad to hear people who do not an ounce about the history of the Arab Christians and the tribal societies they existed within. Arab Christianity seems to hidden in the shroud of a forgoten past that was enveloped by the coming of Islam. Unfortunately, little study has been done. This area of study can be of great significance and reveal the essence of Christianity it had on the Arabs and on Islam. Prior to Islam, the Arab Christians had their own divine liturgy, parts of the Gospels in Arabic, Arab Bishops, Martyrs, and Saints.
May I suggest the readings of Professor Irfan Shahid who has written about the lives of the Arab Christians prior to Islam. They are three volumes entitled "Byzantium and the Arabs in the 4th" & 5th" & 6th Century".
Here is a link to his books & many more http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/arabic/shahid.htm
There is also another interesting book written by an Anglican Bishop Kenneth Cragg entitled "The Arab Christian". His style of writing can be difficult to read & to understand.

Knowing the history of Arab Christianity will aid our understanding of the development & experiences of Muhammed, the Quran, and Islam. If people only knew of Muhammed's Christian background, his first and some of his wives were Christians, the Christian marriage ceremony with Khadija, his nearest friends and relatives were Christians like Buhaira and Waraqa Ibn Nawfil, the poetry he enjoyed from the well-known and respected Arab Christian King 'Imru al-Qays, the Greek & Syrain Christian words in the Quran, his travels into Palestine, Jordan, & Syria, the Churches no longer in existence (i.e. Hira & Najran) and monastaries (i.e St. Catherine)in the desert he attended, the icon of the Virgin and Christ child in the Ka'ba in Mecca that Muhammed permitted, etc.

Very few people in the world have gone to explore the roots of Arab Christianity and beginning Islam. Assertions like all Arabs were pagans historically before Islam is lacking truth and substance. Dismissing the knowledge & history of the Arab Christians prior to Islam is offensive if not outright distasteful. A careful analytical research of the subject can attest to its rightful place in history. This should be the beginnings for any dialogue with Islam and the West.

Now I say this in all good humor, but wouldn't you think we would have better sense than to raise the national question as to Arab Christians in a RUTHENIAN forum? I mean, talk about the blind leading the blind (not to mention asking for trouble)!!!!

Blessing to everyone at new years, particularly those who have siblings of different nationality than their own!

K

Just to add to what Robert has said...

Many of the things we may think of as being distinctively Islamic in origin are actually Christian. The form of prayer, for example, where the great metany is used came from Christian prayer. The call to prayer from the towers was actually found much earlier in Christian times as a way of celebrating what came to be called the Liturgy of the Hours! In fact, even the tones sung by the chanter were derived from Christian tones (many of which were actually popular tunes).

In my limited experience the peoples in my Melkite parish come from Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Jordan. All consider themselves to be "Arabs."

Edward, deacon and sinner

FrDeaconEd is right on the money. The Islamic prayers & bodily prostrations, chanting tones, the hours of prayer, the architecture of the mosques with the domes & minarets, fastings, and much more are derived from an ancient form of Christian monasticism. It is interesting to note these marked ancient Christian qualities. Is it any wonder that the Eastern Churches can relate to Islam far more better and with more deeper appreciation than anyone else? God-willing, the Eastern Churches will serve Christ more meaningfully when freedom of religion is a known fact in the Islamic world. My feeling is many, many Muslims would convert to the Christian faith longed for in the Eastern Church without the fear of the sword, and would relate far better to Orthodoxy.

Rum,

Very insightful. I have one question. While much is copied by Muslims from Eastern Chrisitianity they are nevertheless Iconoclasts. Can the Truths of Christianity cut through this resistance?

Dan Lauffer

"While much is copied by Muslims from Eastern Chrisitianity they are nevertheless Iconoclasts."

Correct, but it must be remembered that this strain existed in Eastern Christianity as well, and Muhammad was likely exposed to it, and seems to have been heavily influenced by it. Some of the more modern biographies of Muhammad indicate that he likely had contact with fringe, heretical Christian groups during his commerical journeys from the Hijaz to Palestine -- more than he did with the 'orthodox' Church -- and in light of what ended up in the Qur'an this seems quite plausible to me.

Brendan

Hi Dan,
Brendan took the words out of my mouth. Iconoclasm was a serious issue that needed to be dealt with. The Jews did help foster divisions in Eastern Christianity. The coming of Islam only soldified the Jewish position on imagery.

I believe the resistance given by Islam on imagery and iconography can be conquered. Muslims do not mind the imagery of Quranic writings hung in a glass frame in their mosques and homes. They certainly do not mind having a miniture replica of the Ka'ba. They do venerate by kissing that Black Stone enshrined in the Ka'ba. They believe Allah's grace can sanctify matter in this regard. In the same breath they can and do deny Allah's grace on His creation. It's no surprise they do not believe in the grace of Baptism but they believe in John the Baptist as a prophet(Yahya which is not his proper name in Arabic). But going back to imagery and veneration, Islam believes the Quran is full of divine grace and is venerated with their kisses. What they really find difficulty accepting is divine/human imagery. For a human to paint the imagery of another human is divine violation and reserved soley for the Divine. They have difficulty knowing that Allah created us in his image and loves us as His children. They cannot accept the idea of an intimate relationship with a God as Father because of the inherent Gnosticism in Islam. Matter is contaminated if not outright possessed with evil that our God is not capable of cleansing it via santification. This can lead to another topic on why they deny the role of God's Holy Spirit in His creation and the denial of the Incarnation.
If true imagery was that evil then Allah shouldn't have given us eyes to see with nor should He have given us the sense of creative imaginations. They do not know the understanding of imagery as known and understood in Orthodoxy.
First, we have to know how to diffuse the heresy of Gnosticism and Nestorianism in relation to imagery. Then we can proceed to better relate our truths to Muslims.

I recall once my Muslim friend's family were hesitant about having family pictures on the walls of their house. Now they have tons of pictures. Once the Muslim father instructed his son not to pursue art drawing(he was a good artist) because he would be usurping God's role! I pray that we act & live like godly people and stop the Muslim foolish ideas of hijacking God's role.

Try this with some Muslims: ask them of a picture of someone they love. Once they hand it over to you, tell them you are going to rip it to pieces because it is imagery prohibited in Islam. Remember to act like you are going to rip it but don't rip it(lol). Watch for their reactions. Begin to explain how we as Eastern Christians feel the same with our iconography. I hope this helps.

I can not answer for the Arab Christians although I suspect that I am part Arab. My Coptic friend see's himself as a mix of ancient Egyptian, ancient Greek and ancient Roman and not an Arab. His language is a mix of ancient Egyptian and Greek. I have known Assyrians, Christian Syrians, Caldee's, Lebanese and Berbers. I have heard them all express that they are Arab speaking but not Arab People. They seem to see themselves as the native people of an area occupied and invaded by Arabs. They are the equivlent of the Native American Poeples but treated much worse by the Arabs.

Friends,

Perhaps I should have phrased my question differently. I am aware that Coptic and Syriac Orthodox/Catholics, Assyrians/Chaldeans, and Maronites do not consider themselves Arabs. I am also aware that Islam borrowed much from Christianity. I guess my question boils down to: Why do Melkites and Orthodox of the three Middle East Patriarchates identify themselves as Arabs when historically it is most likely that most of them were not Arabs but were orignally Copts and Syrians who were Byzantinized?

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Bles you all:

The Eastern Roman Empire did not Byzantinize it's people. It was a slow evolutionary development. Remember the Middle East and Egypt became part of the Greek world under Alexander and then the Roman Empire moved in. I suspect that the Romaoi Empire (we don't use the phrase Byzantium) was a golden age that was recalled by the subject Peo0ple of the Middle East. Why did one group become Arabs and the others did not? I do not know the answer for that question.

The blood of Christ changes the world.

Lance,

The Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox were, originally, Syriac Christians. However, because Antioch was such a pivotal city both politically and economically, they eventually adopted the Byzantine liturgical traditions. As this happened the Syriac history was less and less remembered. Thus, a new identity was derived. This identity focused more on language than past culture. The common written alphabet was the Arabic alphabet, and as Arabic and Persian/Farsi drifted more and more apart, so too did the identifying characteristics of the people. They began to be called "Arabs" because of their lingustic base, not because of the commonality of their homelands. Thus, in large part, the identity as "Arab" was externally imposed, yet willingly adopted for it provided a commonality that transcended political bounds.

Edward, deacon and sinner

The Middle East has endured much Arabization & Islamization. The Middle East is a melting pot of peoples like the U.S. and the Roman Empire. One begins to speak and understand the language of their geographical presence. God only knows who is historically Arab and mixed with non-Arabs in the Middle East. Today the same applies in North & South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. My roots are traced from my paternal side of the family to the Ghassasnids in the 6th century. Ghassasnids were an Arab Christian tribe that lived in southern Jordan and had formed an alliance with the Byzantine Empire. The women in the history of my families are taken in marriage from blood-related Arab Christian tribes. Sometimes an alliances have been drawn from unrelated tribes that developed good relations. My paternal great grandmother is originally and historical from Bethlehem. Was she historically an Arab? Many would say yes. Could Arab nationalism or the Turkish occupations bonded us much closer under our Arabness and due to our status as dhimmis? Perhaps. Every Tom, Dick and Harry claim to be Arabs. Maybe due to their genealogies that have traces of Arab and non-Arab roots.

The Arab Orthodox and Melkites have by all means the right to call themselves Arabs and accept an Arabic culture they feel comfortable within whether or not they may be historical Arabs, Syrians, and etc. The Arabic language is a very important factor in dialogue with one another and with the Arab Muslims. It is the current language of their time which has also tied them to their past.