76

THE incidents recorded in the previous chapter show how the law of apostasy works in the present day. It is but the natural outcome - the outgrowth of centuries of intolerance toward those who leave the fold of Islam. The earliest apostates, some of whom were converts to Christianity and suffered for their apostasy, were contemporaries of the Prophet Mohammed himself. Their story is preserved for us in two of the earliest records, namely : The Life of the Prophet, by Ibn Hisham (died A.D. 834), and the story of Moslem Conquest, by Al Baladhuri (died A.D. 892). In the latter volume we read of one, "abu-'Amir, who fled from the face of Allah and his Prophet to Makkah and thence to Syria where he was converted to Christianity. Hence the text revealed by Allah: 'There are some who have built a mosque for mischief and for infidelity and to disunite the "Believers," and in expectation of him who, in time past, warred against Allah and his Messenger.' "¹

Another interesting account is that given of Mikyas ibn-Subabah: "Numailah ibn-Abdallah al-Kinani killed Mikyas ibn-Subaba-al-Kinani the Prophet having announced that whosoever finds him may kill him. The Prophet did this for the following reason: Mikyas had a brother, Hashim ibn-Subabah ibn-Hazm, who embraced Islam and witnessed with the Prophet the invasion made on al-Muraisi. Hashim was mistaken by one of the Ansar for a 'polytheist' and killed. Mikyas thereupon came to the Prophet and the Prophet decreed that the relatives of the slayer responsible for the bloodwit should pay it. Mikyas received the bloodwit and became Moslem. Later he attacked his brother's slayer, slew him, and

¹ Futuh Al-Buldan, by Al-Baladhuri, translated by Hitti (New York, 1916), p. 16. On the death of Mohammed many of the Arabs, even in Mecca, apostatized from Islam. On these also the death penalty was mercilessly enforced. Cf. Ibn Hisham, vol. iii, p.104 (Cairo edition).

took to flight, after which he apostatized from Islam, and said:

My soul has been healed by having him lie,
deep in the blood flowing from his veins his clothes soaked,
I took revenge on him by force, leaving it,
for the leaders of banu-an-Najjar, the high in rank, to pay his bloodwit,
Thereby I attained my ambition, and satisfied my ven-vengeance, and I was the first to forsake Islam."¹

But he was not the first to forsake Islam. The earliest convert from Islam to Christianity, and therefore the first apostate, was Obeidallah Ibn Jahsh, who accompanied those that fled from Mecca and went to Abyssinia (Ibn Hisham, vol. i, pp. 76 and iii). The account given by Ibn Hisham, as taken from Ibn Ishak, is fragmentary, but one can read between the lines how important was the early influence of Christianity on Islam, and how Moslems themselves dared to record that the light of Christianity was greater than the light from the new religion: "In regard to Obeidallah Ibn-Jahsh, however, he remained in uncertainty until he became a Moslem; then he fled with the Moslems to Abyssinia, taking with him his wife, Um Habiba bint Abu Sufyan, and she was a Moslem. But after he married her he became a Christian and left Islam, so that finally he perished there, a Christian. Ibn Ishak says that Mohammed Ibn Jafar told him: 'Obeidallah Ibn Jahsh when he became a Christian used to pass by the companions of the Prophet (upon him be prayers and peace) while they were together in Abyssinia, and say to them, We can see clearly, but you are still blinking; that is, we have correct vision and you are groping for sight, and do not yet see clearly. The word he used is applied to a puppy, which blinks when it desires to open its eyes to see things. The other word he uses means to see very clearly.' Ibn Ishak goes on to say that the 'Apostle of God (upon him be prayers and peace) inherited the wife of Obeidallah Ibn Jahsh, Um Habiba ibn Ali Sufyan ibn Harb, and paid 400 dinars dowry for her.' "¹

¹ Futuh Al-Buldan, by Al-Baladliuri, translated by Hitti (New York, 1916),p.67.

² Moslem World, vol. iii, pp. 328-329, quoted from Ibn Hisham, vol. i, p.76.

According to Caetani, Mohammed had advised the emigration to Abyssinia, not to save his people from corporal violence or torture, but because he feared they would yield to pressure and insinuations, and forswear the faith of Islam. Consequently, as only a part of the Moslems were going to Abyssinia, we must infer that Mohammed estranged himself from the disciples whom he did not trust, and from those who would have remained in the fatherland if they had not been disposed to yield to the pressure and reasoning of the Quraish. Hence their escape to Abyssinia was attributed to weakness, and not to abnegation and courage. The later return of the emigrants to Arabia, therefore, confirmed the fact that Mohammed had not been successful: that nearly every emigrant had been converted to Christianity during the long stay in Abyssinia.

Caetani gives the list of names of these emigrants, and goes on to say that these men were of a more elevated spirit than their kinsmen; and animated with a nobler and more sincere religious feeling, could not content themselves with the Quraish's clumsy worship of idolatry, and aspired to find a religion that would better satisfy their conception of the spiritual world. "Do you know," they said to one another, "that your folk do not follow the true faith, and that they have falsified the religion of your forefather Abraham? How can we reverence a stone that does not see nor hear, that can be of no benefit, nor do any harm? Find another faith, because yours is worthless. According to tradition, such were the opinions these men were exchanging among themselves; and since they were all animated by the same desire to discover the real faith, they decided to unite all their efforts to introduce the religion which, through ignorance, had been blotted out by their ancestors. These men subsequently repelled idolatry and abstained from eating the meat of animals that had been killed under the pagan sacrifices. Afterwards they scattered' allover the world in search of al-Hanifiyyah (the religion of Abraham). Ibn Hisham, p.143; Al Halabi, vol. i, pp.169-170.

Although Caetani criticizes the traditions regarding the so-called persecution in Mecca, and denies that there were two emigrations to Abyssinia, he admits the historicity of these early accounts, especially that of Obeidallah Ibn Jahsh.¹

¹ Annali dell' Islam, by Caetani; Introduction, sections 180, 271, 277 ; vol. i, A. H. 7, sections 53, 55, 58, etc.

Not only were there apostates from Islam to Christianity in Abyssinia, but many of the Arabs themselves turned back to their old idolatry after Mohammed's death, and were treated as apostates. War was declared against them to the knife. In Oman many of them were butchered. "Certain women at an-Nujair having rejoiced at the death of the Prophet, abu-Bakr wrote ordering that their hands and feet be cut off. Among these women were ath-Thabja al-Hadramiyah, and Hind, daughter of Yamina, the Jewess."¹ Only by submitting and paying tribute did any of them save their lives. When the Arabs of Bahrain apostatized under the leadership of Al-Hutam, war was made upon them; and one of the Moslem poets celebrated the victory and the death of Al-Hutam as follows:²

The spirit in which the conversion of the neighbouring countries was undertaken is clearly shown in the following lines, ascribed to 'Ali ibn Abi Talib :-

This is in accord with the teaching of the Koran, as far as putting opponents to death is concerned, for in Surah v.27 it is written: "Verily the recompense of those who wage war against God and His Apostle and run after evil in the land is that they be slain or crucified, or that their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides, or that they be banished from the land."⁴

Although it is true that the Islamic ideal of the brotherhood

¹ Al-Baladhuri, p. '55.

² Ibid. p. 128.

³

⁴ Cf. The Mizanu 'l Haqq (Balance of Truth), by the late Rev, C. G. Pfander, D.D., pp.360, 361.

of all believers was a powerful attraction, and that certain privileges were always granted new converts, yet the condition of the Christians did not continue so tolerable under later Caliphs as during the first century. T. W. Arnold admits this, although he is a great apologist for Islam as a religion of tolerance. (Arnold's Preaching of Islam, p.66.)¹ There was no such thing as real equality, either in religious or civil affairs. To abandon Islam was treason, to abandon Christianity for Islam brought high privilege, and even pardon for past offences. In civil affairs the Christians not only paid a special tax, but were subject to many disabilities. Toleration by Moslem rulers was always conditioned on the acceptance of an inferior status. (Compare Shedd's Islam and the Oriental Churches, pp. 131 and 134.)

Non-Moslems, according to law, were obliged to observe the following rules, and they applied to each individual² "He shall not found churches, monasteries, or religious establishments, nor raise his house so high as, or higher than, the houses of the Moslems; nor ride horses, but only mules and donkeys, and these even after the manner of women; draw back and give way to Moslems in the thoroughfares; wear clothes different from those of the Moslems, or some sign to distinguish him from them; have a distinctive mark when in the public baths, namely, iron, tin, or copper bands; abstain from drinking wine and eating pork; not celebrate religious feasts publicly; nor sing nor read aloud the text of the Old and New Testaments, and not ring bells; nor speak scornfully of God or Mohammed; nor seek to introduce innovations into the state, nor to convert Moslems; nor enter mosques without permission; nor set foot upon the territory of Mecca, nor dwell in the Hedjaz district."³

¹ In the interests of the true believers, vexatious conditions were sometimes imposed upon the non-Muslim population (or dhimmis, as they were called, from the compact of protection made with them), with the object of securing for the faithful superior social advantages. Unsuccessful attempts were made by several caliphs to exclude them from the public offices. Decrees to this effect were passed by Al Mutawakkil (547-861), Al Muqtadir (908-832), and in Egypt by Al Amir (1101-1130), one of the Fatimid caliphs, and by the Mamluk Sultans in the fourteenth century." vexatious conditions that is a euphemism indeed, for what Christians suffered for all these long centuries.

² The Law Affecting Foreigners in Egypt as a Result of the Capitulations, by James Harry Scott (Edinburgh: William Green & Sons, 1908), pp.157-158.

³ Siraj-el-Muluk, Boulak Edition, 1289, p.229, the chapter on the " Rules

In Gibbon's History of the Roman Empire (vol. v, p.493), these regulations are referred to in the following terms:

"The captive churches of the East have been afflicted in every age by the avarice or bigotry of their rulers; and the ordinary and legal restraints must be offensive to the pride or the zeal of the Christians. About two hundred years after Mahomet, they were separated from their fellow subjects by a turban or girdle of a less honourable colour; instead of horses or mules, they were condemned to ride on asses, in the attitude of women. Their public and private buildings were measured by a diminutive standard; in the streets or the baths, it is their duty to give way or bow down before the meanest of the people; and their testimony is rejected, if it may tend to the prejudice of a true believer. The pomp of processions, the sound of bells or of psalmody, is interdicted in their worship; a decent reverence for the national faith is imposed on their sermons and conversations; and the sacrilegious attempt to enter a mosque or to seduce a Mussulman will not be suffered to escape with impunity. In a time, however, of tranquillity and injustice, the Christians have never been compelled to renounce the Gospel or to embrace the Koran; but the punishment of death is inflicted upon the apostates who have professed and deserted the law of Mahomet."

These were laws of toleration, but such toleration is the acme of intolerance in its effect on those tolerated. We may admit that early Moslems were more tolerant toward other faiths than their Christian contemporaries, and that the history of Christian Europe has many a page of bitter religious perse-

concerning 'Tributaries." See also U.S.A. Consular Report, 1881, p.32, note. There are in Mount Lebanon men still living who remember when no Christian dared to enter a city of Syria when wearing white or green clothes, for the' Unbelievers were allowed to appear only in dark-coloured stuffs. In Homs and Hamah the Christians, even down to the year 1874, when I was there, could not ring bells outside of their churches; in Beirut the first to put up a large bell were the Capucine monks, and soon after that the American missionaries in 1830 hung a small church-bell upon the roof of their place of worship. In 1876 the prior of the Franciscan monks set up a bell, a thing until then unheard of, over the new church which that order had erected in the city of Aleppo, but owing to the Herzegovinian and Bosnian troubles then raging, and the evident displeasure of the Aleppine Moslems, a large deputation of influential Christians residing in Aleppo begged of the prior to take down the obnoxious metal, telling him that it might be the cause of an onslaught upon all Christians in the city. The prior wisely took it down."

cution; but in the words of Dr. Shedd: "It must also be remembered that what was an advance in the seventh century is a hopeless barrier in the twentieth, and that active persecution in its very nature must run its course and cease, while toleration is capable of permanency and is for that reason far more dangerous. The strong argument is the true argument, and Islam is condemned most conclusively by the fairest judgment."¹

The regulations for Christian minorities laid down in the Hedaya are similar: "It behoves the Imam to make a distinction between Mussulmans and Zimmees in point both of dress and of equipage. It is therefore not allowable for Zimmees to ride upon horses, or to use armour, or to use the same saddles and wear the same garments or head-dresses as Mussulmans; and it is written, in the Jama Sageer, that Zimmees must be directed to wear the Kisteel openly, on the outside of their clothes (the Kisteel is a woollen cord or belt which Zimmees wear round their waists on the outside of their garments) ; and also, that they must be directed, if they ride upon any animal, to provide themselves a saddle like the panniers of an ass. . . . It is to be observed that the insignia incumbent upon them to wear is a woollen rope or cord tied round the waist, and not a silken belt. It is requisite that the wives of Zimmees be kept separate from the wives of Mussulmans, both in the public roads, and also in the baths; and it is also requisite that a mark be set upon their dwellings, in order that beggars who come to their doors may not pray for them. The learned have also remarked that it is fit that Zimmees be not permitted to ride at all, except in cases of absolute necessity; and if a Zimmee be then, of necessity, allowed to ride, he must alight whenever he sees any Mussulmans assembled; and if there be a necessity for him to use a saddle, it must be made in the manner of the panniers of an ass. Zimmees of the higher orders must also be prohibited from wearing rich garments."²

¹ Islam and the Oriental Churches, by William Ambrose Shedd (New York, 1908), pp.136-137.

² Hedaya, book ix, chapter viii: , 'Zimmees' is the spelling here for Dhimmis, i.e. non-Moslems allowed to live in a Moslem state under conditions of tribute."

And here is a modern instance of toleration.

When Dr. St. Clair Tisdall was in Persia near Isfahan, he had a Moslem acquaintance there who dwelt in a neighbouring village. This Persian said to him: "When I was a little boy, some fifty years ago, my parents and I and all the people of our village were Zoroastrians. One day the chief Mujtahid of the city of Isfahan issued a decree, commanding us all to embrace Islam. We petitioned the Prince-Governor of the province, we refused to change our religion, we offered bribes to leading Moslem nobles and 'Ulama. They took our money, but did not help us at all. The Mujtahid gave us until midday on the following Friday to be converted, declaring that we should all be put to death if we did not at that time at latest become Moslems. That morning all the lowest ruffians from the city surrounded our village, each with some deadly weapon in his hand, awaiting the appointed hour to permit him to begin the work of plunder and murder. We waited in vain until it was almost midday, hoping that our enemy would relent. As he did not, just before noon we all accepted Islam, and thus saved our lives."¹

The So-called Ordinances of Omar, or "Constitutional Rights" of the non-Moslem minorities are traditionally said to have been the Covenant adopted by the Christian cities that submitted to the Arab Conquest. But none of the earliest Mohammedan historians give it, and Sir William Muir doubts its authenticity and considers that it contains oppressive terms that are more characteristic of later times than of the reign of the tolerant 'Omar. It reads as follows: " In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! This is the writing from the Christians of such and such a city to 'Omar ibnu-l Khattab. When you marched against us, we asked for protection for ourselves, our families, our possessions and our co-religionists; and we made this stipulation with you, that we will not erect in our city or the suburbs any new monastery, church, cell or hermitage; that we will not repair any of such buildings that may fall into ruins, or renew those that may be situated in the Moslem quarters of the town; that we will

¹ The Mizan 'u Haqq (Balance of Truth), by the Rev. C. G. Pfander, D.D., p.366. Tisdall's revised edition.

not refuse the Moslems entry into our churches either by night or by day; that we will open the gates wide to passengers and travellers; that we will receive any Moslem traveller into our homes and give him food and lodging for three nights; that we will not harbor any spy in our churches or houses, or conceal any enemy of the Moslems; that we will not teach our children the Koran¹; that we will not make a show of the Christian religion nor invite any one to embrace it; that we will not prevent any of our kinsmen from embracing Islam, if they so desire. That we will honour the Moslems and rise up in our assemblies when they wish to take their seats; that we will not imitate them in our dress, either in the cap, turban, sandals, or parting of the hair; that we will not make use of their expressions of speech, nor adopt their surnames; that we will not ride on saddles, nor gird on swords, nor take to ourselves arms nor wear them, nor engrave Arabic inscriptions on our rings; that we will not sell wine; that we will shave the front of our heads; that we will keep to our own style of dress, wherever we may be; that we will wear girdles round our waists; that we will not display the cross upon our churches nor display our crosses or our sacred books in the streets of the Moslems or in their market places; that we will not take any slaves that have already been in the possession of Moslems, nor spy into their houses; and that we will not strike any Moslem, All this we promise to observe, on behalf of ourselves and our co-religionists, and receive protection from you in exchange; and if we violate any of the conditions of this agreement, then we forfeit your protection and you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels."²

¹ It is considered a crime for any one to handle, to read or to learn the Koran until he has himself become a Moslem. This rule is still common in Arabia and other wholly Moslem lands.

² The Constitution of 'Omar. From Arnold's Preaching of Islam, p. 59. Compare also The Book of Religion and Empire, by Ali Tabari (A.D. 847-865), translated by A. Mingana (Manchester University, 1923). This book is by a Christian renegade, and written at a time when religious toleration had changed into persecution at the court of the Caliph, who is called a " Hater of Christians." The writer himself may have turned to Islam as a relief from such regulations as were enforced by his patron, who "forbade the employment of Christians in Government offices and the display of crosses on Palm Sunday; he also gave orders that wooden figures of demons should he fixed on their doors, that they should wear yellow cowls, and a zonarion round the waist, that they should rise saddles with wooden stirrups with two globes

A side light is thrown on the conditions under which Christians lived during all these centuries by the fetwas or religious decisions which exist regarding the appointment of non-Moslems to any office in the Moslem state. Such a non-Moslem is always referred to as a dhimmi, or one whose rights are protected by the payment of tribute. The text of such documents showing the relation of those who are Mohammedans to minorities is given by Goldziher¹ and also by Belin.² A more recent fetwa was discovered by Richard Gottheil in a library at Jerusalem. The manuscript is probably of the twelfth century. In answer to the question whether Christians and Jews may be appointed as official scribes, tax-gatherers, etc., the following reply is given: "To place an infidel in authority over a Moslem would never enter the mind of one who had a 'Sound heart.' He who does so must be either a godless fellow or be ignorant of Moslem law and practice." He attempts to prove that a dhimmi is not even to be used as a scribe, a money-changer or a butcher, etc.; citing passages from the Koran, from traditions emanating from the companions" and the followers," as well as from learned men in preceding generations. The verses cited from the Koran are iv. 143, 140; v.56, 62. From the Hadith a story is told how Mohammed refused the aid of an unbeliever until he had confessed his belief in the new faith. A further Hadith is cited: " Do not obtain light from the fire of idolators," with the usual explanation, "Do not consult them on any point," citing in support of this Koran iii, 114. The story is told of Abu Bakr, how he ordered his followers not to have dealings with idolators who had become Moslems but had returned to their idolatry."³

The history of the Coptic church in Egypt and that of the Nestorian church in Persia is eloquent in its testimony to the martyr spirit of these churches. In Persia Christian women received a thousand lashings with thongs from a bull's hide

behind the saddle, that the men's clothes should have inserted a couple of patches of colour different from that of the clothes themselves, each patch to be four inches wide, and the two patches were also to be of different colors."

¹ Revue des Etudes Juives. vol. xxviii, p.75.

² S Journal Asiatique. 1851, p.431.

³ Feseschrift Ignas Goldziher, von Carl Bezold (Strassburg. 1911), pp.206 and 207.

to make them apostatize, but they remained faithful. In Egypt the Copts were tolerated under Moslem rule, but what this tolerance meant is really one long and sickening account of horrible persecution. As Fortescue says: "During this time enormous numbers apostatized. That is not surprising. It was so easy, during a general massacre of Christians, to escape torture and death by professing Islam. Then it was death to go back. The wonder is rather that any Copts at all kept the faith during these hideous centuries."¹ During the whole period of Moslem rule, with some brief respite under certain governors, there were constant instances of Christian massacre and wholesale robbery of Coptic property. During all this period vast numbers turned Mohammedan to escape massacre; and because it was death to return to Christianity, few had the courage to do it. So the number of Copts diminished steadily.²

"In 1389 a great procession of Copts who had accepted Islam under fear of death marched through Cairo. Repenting of their apostasy, they now wished to atone for it by the inevitable consequence of returning to Christianity. So as they marched they proclaimed that they believed in Christ and renounced Mohammed. They were seized, and all the men were beheaded one after another in an open square before the women. But this did not terrify the women; so they, too, were all martyred." ³

The story of the martyrdom of Geronimo by the Pasha Ali, a Calabrian renegade, deserves notice, partly as a typical instance of older Algerian methods with apostates and partly because of its dramatic sequel. It was about the year A.D. 1536 when, amongst the prisoners brought into Oran by the Spaniards, after a raid on some troublesome Arab tribes, was a boy of about four years old. With the others he was put up for sale as a slave. He was bought by the Vicar-General, Juan Caro, brought up as a Christian, and baptized by the name of Geronimo. During an

¹ The Lesser Eastern Churches, by Adrian Fortescue, p.94.

² What conditions were even in the nineteenth century is made clear by Kuriakos Mikhail in his book, Copts and Moslems under British Control (London, 1911).

³ The Lesser Eastern Churches, by Adrian Fortescue, p.247.

outbreak of plague in A.D. 1542, Geronimo escaped, returned home, and for some years lived as a Mohammedan. In May, A.D. 1559, at the age of twenty-five years, he determined to leave his home, to return to Oran, and once more to adopt Christianity. He was received by his old master, Juan Caro, married to an Arab girl who was also a Christian, and enrolled in one of the squadrons called "Cuadrillas de Campo."

In May, 1569, he was sent from Oran with nine Companions to surprise a village or Douar on the seashore. On this expedition he was taken prisoner by a couple of Tetuan brigantines, and carried to Algiers, to be once more sold as a slave. When a body of slaves was brought in, the Pasha had a right to choose one in every ten for himself, and thus - Geronimo passed into the hands of Ali. Every effort was made to induce him to renounce Christianity once more, and to return to Islam, but in vain. The Pasha was then engaged in building a fort called the Burj-Setti-Takelilt (named afterwards, for some unknown reason, " Le Fort des Vingt-Quatre Heures"), to protect the water-gate, Bab-el-Oued, of Algiers. On September 18th, A.D. 1659, Geronimo was sent for and given the choice of either at once renouncing Christianity, or being buried alive in one of the great cases in which blocks of concrete were being made for the construction of the fort.

But the faith of Geronimo was not to be shaken. The chains were then struck off his legs, he was bound hand and foot, and thrown into the case of concrete. A Spanish renegade called Tamango, who had become a Moslem under the name of Jaffar, leapt in upon him, and with his heavy mallet hammered him down into the concrete. The block was then built up into the north wall of the fort, but its position was noted and remembered by " Michael of Navarre," a Christian and a master mason, who was making the concrete. The facts were collected by Don Diego de Haedo, and printed in his Topography of Algiers.

In A.D. 1853 the French found it necessary to remove the fort. At half-past twelve on December 27th of that year, the explosion of a mine split one of the blocks of concrete and revealed the bones of Geronimo, which had lain in their strange tomb for nearly three hundred years, The block containing

the bones has been placed in the cathedral, but as the relics have obstinately refused to work a miracle, the title of Geronimo to be a saint has not been made good. "Ossa venerabilis servi Dei Geronimi," so runs the epitaph.

A plaster cast taken of the cavity shows the arms of Geronimo still bound, but in the awful struggles of suffocation his legs had broken loose.¹ (See frontispiece).

There is many another tragedy recorded in stone throughout the Near East; many of the churches were changed into mosques, and costly mosaics which once proclaimed the Gospel story are now plastered over with Mohammedan inscriptions. All of these ruins are eloquent though mute witnesses of what centuries of persecution meant to the Christian minorities. Take for example, the cathedral of Famagusta, the key of the kingdom of Venice and one of the most beautiful cities in Cyprus. When the Turks besieged the city in 1571, Braggadino, the brave Christian general, resisted to the utmost. Finally he surrendered to Mustapha Pasha, the Turkish commander, on honourable terms. But the Turk broke his faith, and the handful of survivors were massacred. "According to contemporary historians Marcantonio Braggadino was obliged to witness the murder of his chief officers 'and many times to endure the pangs of death before he was released from life.' For twice and thrice did Mustapha make Braggadino, who showed no sign of fear, stretch out his neck as though he would strike off his head, but spared his life and cut off his ears and nose, and as he lay on the ground Mustapha reviled him, cursing our Lord and saying: 'Where now is thy Christ that He doth not help you?' The general made never an answer, but with lofty patience awaited the end.

"Twelve days after, on a Friday, Braggadino was led, full of wounds which had received no care, into the presence of Mustapha, on the batteries built against the city, and for all his weakness was made to carry one basketful of earth up and another down, on each redoubt, and forced to kiss the

¹ Cf. Cyril Fletcher Grant's Studies in North Africa (London, 1912) pp.239-240.A. Berbrugger's Geronimo, le Martyr du Fort des Vingt-Quatre Heures a Alger (Algiers, 1859).

ground when he passed Mustapha. Then he was led to the shore, set in a slung seat and a crown at his feet, and hoisted on the yard of the Captain of Rhodes, hung like a stork, in view of all the Christian soldiers on the port. Then the noble gentleman was led to the square, the drums beat, the trumpets sounded, and before a great crowd they stripped him and made him sit amid every insult on the grating of the pillory. Then they stretched him on the ground and brutally flayed him alive. With an incredible courage this amazing man bore all with great firmness. . . never losing heart, but ever with the sternest constancy reproaching them for their broken faith, with never a sign of wavering he commended himself to his Saviour, and when the steel reached his navel he gave up his. . . spirit to his Maker.

"The martyr's skin was then stuffed with straw and paraded in the streets on a cow, while the red umbrella under which the living Braggadino had ridden out to hand the keys in state was held over him in mockery. Finally it was sent to Constantinople as a trophy. On its way the gruesome object was hung on a ship's yard and paraded round the Turkish littoral as a spectacle."¹

Under the Ottoman Turks, however (1517-1882), conditions for Christian communities became somewhat better, and they flourished as far as it is possible for Christians to flourish under Moslem government. But that this theory of government was one of rule by the sword is evident not only to one who studies the history of minorities, Jewish and Christian, in the Ottoman Empire; but it is also evident from the very inscriptions we find on the royal swords of all this period. In the Arab Museum at Cairo there are many specimens of beautiful swords. One of them (No. 3595) dates from the sixteenth century, and bears this inscription, after honorific titles :- "Abu Nasr Tuoman Bey, Father of the poor and of Moslems; Slayer of unbelievers and polytheists; Reviver of justice throughout the world!" Another, dating from the eighteenth century, belongs to a Turkish dynasty and has an inscription with similar references to the use of the sword against unbelievers. Throughout the entire Moslem world,

¹ "A Tragedy in Stone," in The Near East, October 11th, 1923.

with the exception of such lands as China where Islam made no sword conquest, a wooden sword is in the hands of every preacher at the Friday service in the mosques. This emblem is typical of Islam. It is the visible symbol of that law for the infidel and the apostate which has never been abrogated in all the history of Mohammedan States except under Akbar in India.

We are often assured by educated Moslems of the present day that the treatment of Christian and Jew in Turkey for all these centuries was one of tolerance, and that the minorities lived in peace with their Moslem neighbours. But the treatment of their dead is proof to the contrary. The following account of an historical document is from an authoritative source.

"In what the Turks no doubt regard as the happier days of a century ago non-Moslem subjects of the Sultan met with scant respect from the Faithful during their lives; and when they were unfortunate - or fortunate! - enough to shuffle off this mortal coil, Moslem scorn still pursued them. When such an one died it was necessary to obtain special authorization to bury him in Turkish soil; and this had to be procured by the Church, or head of the religion to which he had belonged. It would be thought that such permission would be accorded it in terms free from offence, but in point of fact the representatives of the Padishah seem to have gone out of their way in order to make them as brutal as possible. Below we give specimens of such authorizations, translated from the Turkish of three actual letters issued by the authorities, sanctioning the burial of an Orthodox Christian, of an Armenian, and of a Jew, respectively. These were discovered by a correspondent, among some treasured souvenirs of an old Constantinople family. They contain expressions which are highly objectionable; but we reproduce them, in order that our readers may be able to estimate more correctly the spirit which actuated the 'Proud Osmanlee' of those days, and which is doubtless responsible for much of the hatred felt for him to-day by the peoples who were formerly under his rule.

"It will be observed that the date of the Letter of Authority to the Armenian Priest is missing; but our correspondent informs us that the letter may be regarded as having been

written at about the same time as the other two, or between the years in the Turkish Calendar 1223-1239 (A.D. 1808-1824).

"The following are translations from the three letters:"To the Greek Priest. - O Thou, whose cloak is as black as the devil, and whose garment is the colour of tar, detestable monk, fat, filthy, and crafty priest, who art deprived of the grace of the Holy Jesus Christ, take notice:

"Authorization has been accorded to dig a grave and to hurl inside the repulsive putrid flesh (which even the earth shrinks from) of the infidel Constantin, who belonged to thy race and has just died. - The 21 Chaban 1223.

"To the Armenian Priest.- Thou who wearest the crown of the devil, who art clothed with a garment of the colour of tar, fat, cunning, and filthy priest, and deprived of the divine pardon, here is the object of our present communication:

"The infidel, Kirkor, who belonged to the detestable herd that constitutes thy filthy race, has just died. It is true that the earth does not wish to have this pig's carcase; but in order to prevent its stink from infesting the Mussulman quarter, I order thee to dig a grave immediately, to throw it inside, and to beat down, without ceasing, the earth with which thou shalt cover up this blasphemous pig's hole.

"To the Jews.- O thou, Rabbi of the traitorous nation, which denies the coming of Jesus Christ, and does not recognize Holy Moses, take notice:

"One of the individuals of the encumbering herd of thy community established at Salonika has just rendered his soul to the pitiless devil, and thus plunged it into the flames of Hell."The venerable Chery authorizes thee, traitorous Rabbi, to find, somewhere, a latrine, which you will fill by throwing into it his stinking carcase.- The 15 Redjeb, 1239."¹

Such was the regard paid to minorities, dead or alive, by Islamic authorities at the beginning of the 19th Century!

In how far the Armenian persecutions, deportations and massacres were due to the spirit of Jihad may be disputed, ² but no one can read the official documents on the treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire without coming to the same conclusion reached by Viscount Bryce in the preface of a

¹ " Correspondence from Turkey," in The Near East, Nov. 24th, 1921.

² It is not disputed by many who have studied the history of Islam. Cf. Schulthess, Die Machtmittel des Islams (Zurich, 1923).

Blue Book on the subject: "The vast scale of these massacres and the pitiless cruelty with which the deportations were carried out may seem to some readers to throw doubt on the authenticity of the narratives. Can human beings (it may be asked) have perpetrated such crimes on innocent women and children? But a recollection of previous massacres will show that such crimes are part of the long settled and often repeated policy of Turkish rulers. In Chios, nearly a century ago, the Turks slaughtered almost the whole Greek population of the island. In European Turkey in 1876 many thousands of Bulgarians were killed on the suspicion of an intended rising, and the outrages committed on women were, on a smaller scale, as bad as those here recorded. In 1895 and 1896 more than a hundred thousand Armenian Christians were put to death by Abd-ul-Hamid, many thousands of whom died as martyrs to their Christian faith, by abjuring which they could have saved their lives. All these massacres are registered not only in the ordinary Press records of current history but in the reports of British diplomatic and consular officials written at the time. They are as certain as anything else that has happened in our day. There is, therefore, no antecedent improbability to be overcome before the accounts here given can be accepted. All that happened in 1915 is in the regular line of Turkish policy. The only differences are in the scale of the present crimes, and in the fact that the lingering sufferings of deportations in which the deaths were as numerous as in the massacres, and fell with special severity upon the women have in this latest instance been added. The record of the rulers of Turkey for the last two or three centuries, from the Sultan on his throne down to the district Mutassarif, is, taken; as a whole, an almost unbroken record of corruption, of injustice, of an oppression which often rises into hideous cruelty. The Young Turks, when they deposed Abd-ul-Hamid, came forward as the apostles of freedom, promising equal rights and equal treatment to all Ottoman subjects. The facts here recorded show how that promise was kept. Can any one still continue to hope that the evils of such a government are curable? Or does the evidence contained in this volume furnish the most terrible and convincing proof that it can no

longer be permitted to rule over subjects of a different faith?"¹

The Armenian massacres were the disgrace of the 19th century no less than of the 20th. Each quarter of a century has been marked by one infamous butchery. In 1822 fifty thousand defenceless Christian subjects were murdered on the island of Chios. In 1850 ten thousand Nestorians were butchered in the Kurdish mountains. In 1860 eleven thousand Maronites and Syrians were murdered in the Lebanon and Damascus. In 1876 followed the Bulgarian atrocities in which the American Consul-General estimated that the number of Bulgarians killed by the Turks was at least fifteen thousand. In 1892 there was a slaughter of Yezidees at Mosul; and of Armenian and Cretans there were other butcheries in 1867 and 1877. In 1894 fanaticism and intolerance again broke out. The first blow fell at Sassoun, where ten thousand Armenians were slain. There were eleven massacres in 1895, and the scenes of Sassoun were repeated elsewhere. "At Birejik the soldiers found some twenty people, men, women and children, who had taken refuge in a cave. They dragged them out and killed all the men and boys, because they would not become Moslems. After cutting down one old man, who had thus refused, they put live coals upon his body, and as he was writhing in torture, they held a Bible before him and mockingly asked him to read them some of the promises he had trusted." The British Blue Book (1896), is a chapter of horrors; one ghastly story of rape, pillage and massacres. Those who are sceptical whether Islam was propagated by the sword have only to study the history of the Armenian massacres to see that the spirit of intolerance and hatred of unbelievers and the law of Islam bidding them to humiliate Christians and bring them low still prevails.

In reply to those who assert against all evidence that these Armenian massacres were political and not due to religious hatred, hear what Dr. Johannes Lepsius says in his report of the massacres of 1914-1918.²

¹ The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915-1916. Documents presented to viscount Grey of Falloden by viscount Bryce.I

² Quoted in Armenia: A Martyr Nation, p.269. Cf. the original work by Dr. Johannes Lepsius, Deutschland und Armenien, 1914-1918. Sammlung

"What are the Armenian massacres then? Without question their origin was political; or to state it more exactly, they were an administrative measure. But facts go to prove that, considering the character of the Mohammedan people, whose very political passions are roused only by religious motives, this administrative measure must and did take the form of a religious persecution on a gigantic scale. Are we then simply forbidden to speak of the Armenians as persecuted on account of their religious belief'? If so, there have never been any religious persecutions in the world; for all such without exception have been associated with political movements, and even the death of Christ was nothing but a political event, for political motives turned the balance at His condemnation.

"We have lists before us of 559 villages whose surviving inhabitants were converted to Islam with fire and sword; of 568 churches thoroughly pillaged, destroyed and razed to the ground; of 282 Christian churches transformed into mosques; of 21 Protestant preachers and 170 Gregorian (Armenian) priests who were, after enduring unspeakable tortures, murdered on their refusal to accept Islam. We repeat, however, that those figures express only the extent of our information, and do not by a long way reach to the extent of the reality. Is this a religious persecution or is it not?...

The whole doctrine of Jihad, or religious war in Islam, indicates the spirit of intolerance which, although denied by modern Moslem writers, is at the very heart of Islam. Among modern apologists, Jihad is regarded as a war in defence of Islam. That this is not correct has been conclusively shown. Professor D. B. Macdonald says that Islam must be completely made over before this doctrine can be eliminated. (See article, Djihad, in the Encyclopedia of Islam). The verse often quoted to prove the tolerance of Islam, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," preceded and was abrogated by the verse of the Sword. And the command in ii. 186-7 to fight against

diplomatischer aktenstücke. (Potsdam, '919.) This work of over 540 pages is based on official documents, and gives many cases of forced conversion to Islam and of the application of the principles that underlie the law of apostasy. E.g. pp.35-37, 387, etc., etc.

those who fight, but not to transgress by attacking first, was, according to Zamakhshari and others, abrogated by the command, "Fight against all the idolators." (See Zamakhshari in loco and article on Jihad by W. R. W. Gardner in The Moslem World. Vol. ii.)¹

The Turkish massacres, whatever may have been their immediate cause, were carried on in a spirit of religious hatred. Mr. Trowbridge, in describing the massacres at Adana, April 1909, says, "The fact that Mohammedan teaching was essentially at the root of this massacre is evidenced in many ways; for example, by the fact that shops belonging to Turks were chalk-marked 'Islam' the night before the massacre, so as to save them from pillage and burning. I have a photo-graph of one of the shops so marked in Turkish lettering. But the most signal proof is in the conspicuous part which the mullahs and muftis took in the outrages.

"Not only a spirit of intolerance and persecution, but the example of religious assassination has worked like a leaven in Moslem life and thought. Much is made in these days of the new religion of the Bab and its offspring, Bahaism; but even this religion, which is a decided advance compared with the old Islam, does not scruple at religious assassination. In an article on this subject (Moslem World, Vol. iv, p 143), the late Rev. S. G. Wilson sums up the evidence as follows: "Sayid Kamil, a Bahai of Shiraz, said to Prof. Browne with a look of supreme surprise, 'You surely cannot pretend to deny that a prophet, who is an incarnation of the Universal Intelligence, has a right to inflict death, openly or secretly, on those who stubbornly opposed him. A prophet is no more to be blamed for removing an obdurate opponent than a surgeon for an amputation of a gangrenous limb.' This opinion prevailed among the Bahais. At Yezd they said, 'A divine messenger has as much right to kill and compel as a surgeon to amputate.' The Bahai missionaries maintained that, 'A prophet has a right to slay if he knows it necessary; if he sees that the slaughter of a few will prevent many from going astray, he is justified in commanding such slaughter. No one can question

¹ That the Koran itself teaches such warfare is clearly shown by Obbink, De Heilige Oorlog (Brill, Leiden, 1901).

his right to destroy the bodies of a few that the souls of many may live.' A Bahai acquaintance of Dr. Frame, of Resht, told him 'without any appearance of shame, that he paid so much to have a persecutor removed.' In connection with all the above facts, it must be kept in mind that religious assassination has been freely practised since the beginning of Islam, and that the prophet Mohammed gave it the sanction of his example on numerous occasions."

In spite of all these laws and this spirit of intolerance it is remarkable that there were, nevertheless, throughout all the centuries conversions from Islam to Christianity. Although these conversions were not common, yet we find in the Greek orthodox church a regular ritual adopted for the acceptance of Moslem converts who apostatized from their religion and entered or re-entered the fold of the church. One of these formulas of abjuration is given by Prof. Edouard Montet in the original Greek with translation.¹ It is from a manuscript supposed to date 1281 A.D., but the text itself goes back to the ninth century. The ritual as given includes an anathema on the Saracens, Mohammed and the Caliphs, the Koran, the Moslem paradise, Moslem pilgrimage to Mecca, and other doctrines. One paragraph of this ritual is significant: "J'anathématise toutes les ordonnances de Moamed, dans lesquelles, insultant les Chrétiens, il les appelle des négateurs, des faiseurs de compagnies et d'associations, et il excite les Sarrasins á les hair et á les massacrer, appelant voie de Dieu la guerre contre les Chrétiens et nommant les Sarrasins qui muerent dans une telle guerre des fils de Dieu dignes du paradis." Which shows that the new convert from Islam rejected the old method of propagandism, at least in his open and public confession.

Various instances of conversions are given, although they are scanty, both in the Christian and the Moslem records. In one case a Moslem is said to have been converted by the miraculous vision of a lamb in a Christian church at the time of the Eucharist. He was imprisoned by the Khalifa Harun ur Rashid and after two years was executed, a martyr to his

¹ Etudes Orientales et Religieuses, by Edouard Montet (Geneve, 1917), pp. 205-228.

faith.¹ Two other stories in Bar Hebraeus may be quoted to illustrate the incidents that would often be connected with conversions. They are such as would be frequent whenever the country was disturbed, and rare when the government was strong, and might easily be paralleled by modern instances. One is that of a girl living in the twelfth century (1159 A.D.) in the neighbourhood of Mosul, who was betrothed to a Christian. Her father, born a Christian, had apostatized to Islam, the rest of the family keeping their faith; and in consequence, opposition was made by the Moslems to her marriage to a Christian. The Maphriana, who authorized the marriage ceremony, was arrested, and the girl, of course, was brought before the authorities. She persisted in the profession of faith in Christianity. Finally her firmness and that of the Maphriana, who had been imprisoned for forty days, triumphed in so far that she was not compelled to accept Islam; but she could not remain in her home, and ended her days as a nun in Jerusalem.²

How conversions to Islam took place in Algiers in 1678 is vividly related in quaint English by Joseph Pitts, the Exeter sailor boy who was taken prisoner by pirates and was the first European to visit Mecca.

"We returned back to Algiers in some small time; and a little after that, he carried me into Camp with him; and it so happened, that his two Brothers, being Spahys, or Troopers, were with him in one and the same Tent. His younger Brother would be frequently (behind his Back, and sometimes before his Face) perswading me to turn Mahomaten, and to gain me, made me large Offers; but I little regarded them. "The eldest Brother, who was my chief Patroon, lain I found, was not very fond of my turning; for he would often threaten me, that if I did turn Turk, and did not learn my Book well, he would beat me soundly. But when his younger Brother, who had been so often tampering with me, saw that no Arguments nor Offers would prevail, he began to lie very close to his Brother to force me to turn; and as an Argument, would often tell him, 'That he had been a Profligate and debauch'd

¹ Bar Hebraeus, Syr. Chron. p.132.

² Shedd, Islam and the Oriental Churches, pp. 149, 153.

Man in his time, and a Murderer; and that the Proselyting me would be some sort of an Atonement for his past Impieties; and flatly told him, that otherwise he would never go to Heaven.' Whereupon (as guilty Men are willing to lay hold on every pretence to Happiness, though never so slight, and groundless) the eldest Brother endeavoured to perswade me; and finding that would not do, he threatened to send me hundreds of miles into the Country, where I should never see the Face of any Christian. But finding all these Methods to be ineffectual to the End they drove at, the two Brothers consulted together, and resolved upon Cruelty, and Violence, to see what that would do. Accordingly, on a certain day, when my Patroon's Barber came to trim him, I being there to give Attendance, my Patroon bid me kneel down before him which I did: He then ordered the Barber to cut off my Hair with his Scissars : but I mistrusting somewhat of their Design, struggled with them; but by stronger Force my Hair was cut off, and then the Barber went about to shave my Head, my Patroon all the while holding my Hands. I kept shaking my Head, and he kept striking me in the Face. After my Head, with much ado, was shaved, my Patroon would have me take off my Clothes, and put on Turkish Habit. I told him plainly I would not: Whereupon I was forthwith hauled away to another Tent, in which we kept our Provision; where were two Men, viz., the Cook and the Steward; one of which held me while the other stript me, and put on me the Turkish Garb. I all this while kept crying, and told my Patroon, that although he had chang'd my Habit, yet he could never change my Heart. The Night following, before he lay down to sleep, he call'd me, and bid me kneel down by his Bed-side, and then used Entreaties that I would gratify him in renouncing my Religion. I told him it was against my Conscience, and withal, desired him to sell me and buy another Boy, who perhaps might more easily be won; but as for my part, I was afraid I should be everlastingly damn'd, if I complied with his Request. He told me, he would pawn his Soul for mine, and many other importunate Expressions did he use. At length I desired him to let me go to bed, and I would pray to God, and if I found any better Reasons suggested to my mind than what I then had,

to turn, by the next Morning, I did not know what I might do; but if I continued in the same mind I was, I desired him to say no more to me on that Subject. This he agreed to, and so I went to Bed. But (whatever ail'd him) having not Patience to stay till the Morning for my Answer, he awoke me in the Night, and ask'd me what my Sentiments now were. I told him they were the same as before. Then he took me by the Right-hand, and endeavoured to make me hold up the Fore-finger, as they usually do when they speak those Words, viz., La Allah ellallah, Mohammed Resul Allah (which initiates them Turks, as I have related before) but I did with all my might bend it down, so that he saw nothing was to be done with me without Violence ; upon which he presently call'd two of his Servants, and commanded them to tie up my Feet with a Rope to the Post of the Tent; and when they had so done, he with a great Cudgel fell a beating of me upon my bare Feet. And being a very strong Man, and full of Passion, his blows fell heavy indeed; and the more he beat me, the more chafed and enraged he was, and declared, that in short, if I would not turn, he would beat me to Death. I roar'd out to feel the Pain of his cruel Strokes; but the more I cry'd the more furiously he laid on; and to stop the Noise of my crying, would stamp with his Feet on my Mouth; at which I beg'd him to despatch me out of the way; but he continued beating me. After I had endured this merciless Usage so long, till I was ready to faint and die under it, and saw him as mad and implacable as ever, I beg'd him to forbear, and I would turn. And breathing a while, but still hanging by the Feet, he urg'd me again to speak the Words. Very unwilling I was, and held him in suspense a while; and at length told him, that I could not speak them. At which he was more enrag'd then before, and fell at me again in a most barbarous manner. After I had received a great many Blows a second time, I beseech'd him to hold his Hand, and gave him fresh hopes of my turning Mahometan; and after I had taken a little more Breath, I told him as before, I could not do what he desired. And thus I held him in suspense three, or four times; but at last, seeing his Cruelty towards me insatiable, unless I turn'd, through Terrour I did it, and spake the Words as usual, holding up the Fore-finger of my

Right-hand: And presently I was had away to a Fire, and care was taken to heal my Feet, (for they were so beaten, that I was not able to go upon them for several Days) and so I was put to Bed."¹

The story of Henry Martyn's earliest Moslem convert is illustration of the swift application of mutilation according to the law of apostasy: "Sabat and Abdallah, two Arabs of notable pedigree, becoming friends, resolved to travel together. After a visit to Mecca they went to Cabul, where Abdallah entered the service of Zeman Shah, the famous Ameer. There, an Armenian lent him the Arabic Bible, he became a Christian and he fled for his life to Bokhara. Sabat had preceded him there, and at once recognized him on the street. 'I had no pity,' said Sabat afterwards. 'I delivered him up to Morad Shah, the King. He was offered his life if he would abjure Christ. He refused. Then one of his hands was cut off, and again he was pressed to recant. He made no answer, but looked up steadfastly towards heaven, like Stephen, the first martyr, his eyes streaming with tears. He looked at me, but it was with the countenance of forgiveness. His other hand was then cut off. But he never changed, and when he bowed his head to receive the blow of death all Bokhara seemed to say, "What new thing is this?"' Remorse drove Sabat to long wanderings, in which he came to Madras, where the Government gave him the office of mufti, or expounder of the law of Islam in the civil courts. At Vizagapatam he fell in with a copy of the Arabic New Testament as revised by Solomon Negri, and sent out to India by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in the middle of last century. He compared it with the Koran, the truth fell on him 'like a flood of light,' and he sought baptism in Madras at the hands of the Rev. Dr. Kerr. He was named Nathaniel. He was then twenty-seven years of age. When the news reached his family in Arabia his brother set out to destroy him, and, disguised as an Asiatic, wounded him with a dagger as he sat in his house at Vizagapatam."² It is the same story in Arabia, Turkey,

¹ A Faithful Account of the Religion and Manners of the Mahometans, by Joseph Pitts of Exon (London, 1738), pp. 192-196.

² Henry Martyn, by George Smith (London, 1892), pp.226-227.

Afghanistan, Persia, Algiers, India-no mercy for the Apostate and no equality or liberty for Christian minorities.

As we look back upon these centuries of persecution of our fellow Christians the Nestorians, the Armenians, the Greeks and the Copts we realize the truth of our unity in Christ, and come to a similar conclusion as that reached by Adrian Fortescue, the Roman Catholic historian: "In a land ruled by Moslems there is at bottom an essential solidarity between all Christians. These other Christians too are children of God, baptized as we are. Their venerable hierarchies descend unbroken from the old Eastern Fathers, who are our Fathers too. When they stand at their liturgies they adore the same sacred Presence which sanctifies our altars, in their Communions they receive the Gift that we receive. And at least for one thing we must envy them, for the glory of that martyr's crown they have worn for over a thousand years. We can never forget that. During all those dark centuries there was not a Copt nor a Jacobite, not a Nestorian nor an Armenian, who could not have bought relief, ease, comfort, by denying Christ and turning Turk. I can think of nothing else like it in the world. These poor forgotten rayahs in their pathetic schisms for thirteen hundred years of often ghastly persecution kept their loyalty to Christ. And still for His name they bear patiently a servile state and the hatred of their tyrants. Shall we call them heretics and schismatics? They are martyrs and sons of martyrs. The long bloodstain which is their history must atone, more than atone, for their errors about Ephesus and Chalcedon. For who can doubt that when the end comes, when all men are judged, their glorious confession shall weigh heavier than their schism? Who can doubt that those unknown thousands and tens of thousands will earn forgiveness for errors of which they were hardly conscious, when they show the wounds they bore for Christ? When that day comes I think we shall see that in their imperfect Churches they were more Catholic than we now think. For there is a promise to which these Eastern Christians have more right than we who sit in comfort under tolerant governments : Qui me confessus fuerit coram hominibus, confitebor et ego eum coram Patri meo."¹

¹ The Lesser Eastern Churches, by Adrian Fortescue (London, 1913).

The Law of Apostasy
Answering Islam Home Page