[1] Iraqi
Christian visitors or immigrants in the West are often
surprised by the question “When did you convert to
Christianity?” Their indignant response is usually
“We have always been Christian!” Indeed,
Christianity had arrived in Iraq before it arrived in Britain
or anywhere in northern Europe. Today the number of Christians
in Iraq surpasses half a million (573,918 according to the 1997
edition of World Church Handbook, quoted in the book
under review on p. 181).
[2] The
author, Suha Rassam is a Catholic of the Chaldean rite, born in
Mosul. A medical doctor, she had been an Assistant Professor of
Medicine in the University of Baghdad. After coming to England
in 1990 she worked in London hospitals until her retirement
when she took an MA in Eastern Christianity at the school of
Oriental and African Studies in the University of London. In
this she is following in the footsteps of her distinguished
ancestors. During the heyday of medieaval Arab civilization
many famous Christian physicians had written works about
history and theology, or conversely, many theologians had
produced works about medicine. But, as far as I know, Rassam is
the first woman to combine the two disciplines.
[3] Her book
presents a history of Christianity in Iraq from the very
beginnings until our own time. (The last date in the chronology
is 10 April 2005, recording the appointment of Mr.
Jaʿfari as Prime Minister). According to
tradition Christianity was first preached in Iraq by the
Apostle Thomas on his way to India and his fellow-Apostle, St.
Thaddeus. Or maybe even earlier? In his Prologue to the book
Monsignor Mikhael Al Jamil mentions the three Magi who had
visited the Infant Jesus in Bethlehem. Could they have been
Iraqis? The Magi were Zoroastrian priests, presumably ethnic
Persians, but Iraq was at that time part of the Iranian
(Parthian) Empire. Could they have brought back the news of the
Saviour, Saoshyant foretold by Zarathushtra?
[4] The
Parthian Arsacid rulers of Iran and Iraq, nominal Zoroastrians
were quite tolerant of other religions. The situation changed
in 224 AD when they were overthrown by the Sassanids, ardent
Persian nationalists, determined to restore the ancient culture
of Iran without the foreign influences accumulated since the
conquest by Alexander 500 years before. Christianity, as a
foreign religion, was perceived as a threat, especially during
the constant wars between Zoroastrian Iran and Christian
Byzantium. The harshest and longest persecution in the history
of Iraqi/Iranian Christianity took place during the forty years
(339-379) reign of Shah Shapur II. The Chaldean church in
Montreal is dedicated to its numerous victims, Les Saints
Martyrs d’Orient. The situation improved when the
Church of the East declared itself independent of Byzantium and
Rome (like in our times the Chinese Catholic Patriotic
Association in Communist China).
[5] During
the 5th and 6th century Middle Eastern
Christianity gradually divided itself into three mutually
hostile groups, accusing each other of heresy. Ostensibly the
conflict was over a formula expressing the human and divine
nature of Christ, but cultural differences played their part.
The so-called Melkites or “Royalists” (from Syriac
malkâ, Arabic malik,
“king”) accepted the doctrine promoted by the
Byzantine Emperor (and the Pope), as defined by the Council of
Chalcedon. The West Syrian or Syrian Orthodox Church (better
known as Jacobite after its famous preacher Jacob Baradeus) was
accused of denying Christ’s true humanity. Finally the
East Syrian Church or Church of the East, best known as
Nestorian for accepting the doctrine preached by Nestorius,
Patriarch of Constantinople, condemned by the Council of
Ephesus, refused to accept the term Theotokos (Mother
of God), insisting that Mary was the Mother of Jesus the Man
only.
[6] Rassam
takes us through all those controversies showing us that most
of them were simply misunderstandings. The disputants had been
trying to apply Greek logic to issues which belonged to faith
more than to philosophy. Indeed, in 1994 the
“Nestorian” Church of the East and the Catholic
Church have issued a joint statement expressing their agreement
about the two natures and one Person of Christ. Better late
than never!
[7] But to
the majority of the faithful (of any denomination) more
relevant than abstract questions of theology are such
discernible signs as the liturgical language, Communion under
both species or in the form of bread only, the direction of the
sign of the Cross, left or right, married clergy versus
celibate clergy (or bearded clergy versus clean-shaven clergy),
Gregorian versus Julian calendar, baptism by sprinkling with
water or by immersion, the mystery of the Mass behind a screen
or curtain or openly facing the congregation, segregated or
merged seating of men and women in church, the presence or
absence of icons... (The Church of the East rejects any
pictorial representations as staunchly as Islam or some radical
Protestant Churches in the West). Rassam has little to tell us
about those relatively trivial (or perhaps not so trivial)
matters.
[8] She
strongly objects to the use of the terms
“Nestorian” and “Jacobite”
traditionally applied to the Church of the East and the Syrian
Orthodox Church by outsiders as incorrect and even offensive.
Nestorius was not even a member of the Church which goes by his
name! Likewise she proposes the term “Oriental Orthodox
Churches” for the so-called “Monophysite”
Churches (another incorrect term thrust upon them by their
opponents) which include the Syrian Orthodox Church and its
sister Churches in the Middle East to distinguish them from the
Chalcedonian “Eastern Orthodox Churches” of Eastern
Europe which follow the Byzantine tradition (p. 63). This may
work very well in English which provides us with the synonyms
“Eastern” and “Oriental”, but what
about other languages? In French we can say Les Eglises
Orthodoxes Orientales, but what alternative do we
have?
[9] Yet the
term “Nestorian”, while incorrect, does have an
illustrious history. Most of us have heard of the
“lost” Nestorian Christianities in the heart of
Asia. Persecuted or harassed in the Iranian Empire the Church
of the East had sent missionaries to India, to Central Asia and
China. Today some 20 million Christians in the Indian State of
Kerala use Syriac as their liturgical language. Nestorian
Christianity has disappeared from Central Asia and China by the
14th century, but some of its traces remain: The
Mongolian language is still written in a Syriac-derived script
in Inner (Chinese) Mongolia, as it was written in Outer
(independent) Mongolia until the introduction of Cyrillic in
1941.
[10] The
Arab Muslim conquerors were welcomed by the Iraqi Christians as
liberators from the oppressive Iranian rule. Under
sharica law Christians, Jews and
Sabi’ans, followers of monotheistic religions mentioned
in the Koran, were given certain rights as dhimmis
(“protected persons”). Under the ‘Abbasid
Caliphs, when Arab Islamic civilization had reached its apogee
Christians became particularly appreciated as translators of
Greek philosophy into Arabic and as physicians. Suha Rassam
quotes a story by Jâhiz about a medical doctor Asad bin
Jani who complains that he has no patients because he is a
Muslim, not a Christian (p. 83). Sounds eerily familiar: In
pre-War Poland Jewish doctors were perceived as more competent
than their Polish Catholic colleagues. The joke went that every
anti-Semite made an exception for his doctor. Understandably
Christian success had created resentment. Even such leading
intellectuals like Jâhiz and Tabari found it necessary to
write anti-Christian polemics.
[11] At
the time of the Arab conquest the overwhelming majority of
Iraqi Christians spoke Syriac. Gradually they began to change
their language from Syriac to Arabic although they continued to
attend Syriac churches. Today Syriac-speakers are a minority,
even among the Christians of Iraq. Rassam’s Mosul family
had always been Arabic-speaking, at least as far as her
great-grandmother could remember. Our author speculates that
she may be descended not from Chaldeans who had lost their
language, but from Arabs who had converted to Christianity
before Islam (p. 128, n. 6). She does not mention any
Kurdish-speaking Christians.
[12] The
Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258 was of course a catastrophe
for the Arabs, but, paradoxically enough it put Christians in a
position of advantage compared to the preceding period. For all
their barbarity the Mongol rulers had one great virtue:
complete religious tolerance. Indeed many of them were members
of the Church of the East. Jizyah, the special tax
which the dhimmis had to pay in lieu of military
service and all other legal disadvantages affecting Christians
were abolished. The year 1287 saw the first attempt at
reconciliation between the Church of the East and the Catholic
Church. The Patriarch Yahballaha III sent his Bishop, Bar Sauma
to Rome with letters from the pro-Christian ilkhan of
Iran, Argun Khan proposing a Mongol-Christian alliance. Perhaps
fortunately no military alliance materialized, but Bar Sauma
was warmly received by the Pope and allowed to participate in
all church ceremonies like a Catholic Bishop in good standing.
The Christian-Mongol “honeymoon” ended in 1295 when
Argun’s son and successor, Ghazan converted to Islam. The
sharica was reinstated, including all
restrictions on the dhimmis.
[13] Iraq
was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1534. The Ottomans
governed their recognised non-Muslim minorities through the
millet system. Millet, derived from Arabic
milla (“sect”) means “nation”
in Turkish. Each “nation” was given a large measure
of inner self-government with the Patriarch or leader holding
civil as well as ecclesiastical authority with the
responsibility of collecting taxes for the Ottoman
Government.
[14] The
origins of the Chaldean “Uniate” Catholic Church
can be traced to 1552 when a rival Patriarch of the Church of
the East, John Sulaqa asked for and was granted recognition by
the Pope. The Patriarch Shimʿon VIII
Dinkha, recognised as head of his millet had him
thrown in prison by the Ottoman authorities. The union lasted
on and off with the two lines of Patriarchs exchanging their
positions until it became permanent in 1830 when John VIII
Hormiz was given by the Pope the title “Patriarch of
Babylon over the Chaldeans”. The Chaldean Catholic
Millet was recognised by the Ottoman authorities in
1844. Today the Chaldean Catholic Church forms the largest
Christian community in Iraq. The Iraqi Christians are perfectly
justified in their proud boast “We have always been
Christian”, but they stand on less firm ground when they
claim “We have always been Catholic”.
[15]
Meanwhile the Church of the East, much reduced in numbers found
refuge in the almost inaccessible Hakkâri Mountains in
southeast Turkey. Its faithful, claiming descent from the
ancient Assyrians displayed the war-like qualities of their
ancestors. No Ottoman military or tax collector dared enter
their territory. The chiefs of their seven tribes bore the
grandiose title Malik (“King” in Arabic).
Over the seven Kings stood the Patriarch of the East whose
office had become hereditary from uncle to nephew in the Mar
Shimʿun family. Their virtually independent
state bore a remarkable resemblance to Montenegro, unconquered
by the Turks and likewise ruled by hereditary (uncle to nephew)
Orthodox Bishops.
[16]
During the First World War, the Assyrians, encouraged by
Russian and British agents, openly rebelled against their
nominal Turkish overlords. Driven out of Turkey into Iran whose
declared neutrality was respected by neither party they
captured the largely Assyrian city of Urmiyé. They held
their own against Turkish, Iranian and Kurdish attacks until
August 1918 when they decided to trek south to British-occupied
Hamadan. Some fifteen out of sixty thousand perished on the
way. The British, who had by that time occupied most of Iraq,
removed them to Baʿqubah where they trained
the wild mountain guerrillas into a modern army. The so-called
Assyrian Levies ranked among the toughest soldiers in the
British Empire, equal to Sikhs and Gurkhas. Their loyalty to
their British allies would cost them dearly.
[17] By
1920 the British liberators of Iraq had outstayed their welcome
and an uprising broke out in the South. It was put down,
largely with Assyrian help, but the British were forced to
grant self-government to Iraq with Faysal I as King. Formal
independence followed in 1932. Rassam greatly admires King
Faysal for his lack of prejudice against religious minorities.
She quotes him with approval (p. 134): “I do not want to
hear that this country contains Christians, Jews or Muslims
because we are all Semites [emphasis added by the
reviewer] forming one nation called Iraq...” True, the
Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Jews and the Arabs are Semites,
but the Kurds are not. Rassam does not comment.
[18] With
Iraqi independence the British disbanded the Assyrian Levies,
hated by the Arab Muslim population. Fearing the worst, the
Assyrians refused to surrender their arms. A clash with the
Iraqi Army became inevitable. King Faysal, very ill, tried to
avert the tragedy, but was ignored by his Prime Minister,
Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, a Fascist who would stage a pro-German
coup d’état during the 2nd World War.
Meanwhile his government created a general panic by
exaggerating reports about the strength of the Assyrian rebel
forces and the danger they represented. Unable to hold their
own against the Iraqi Army the Assyrians were massacred in the
summer of 1933. King Faysal died soon afterwards. The Patriarch
of the East, Mar Eshai Shimʿun was expelled
from the country and not allowed back until 1970. Needless to
say, the Assyrian problem did not make life easier for the
other Christian communities in Iraq.
[19] In
1958 the Iraqi Monarchy was overthrown and a Republic
proclaimed. In 1968 power was seized by the
Baʿath (“Renaissance”) Party,
an Arab nationalist party founded by a Christian Arab political
philosopher, Michel Aflaq. Its secular nationalism appealed to
many young Christian Arab intellectuals. “A sense of
belonging to the country as an Arab, an Iraqi and a Christian
was encouraged but only through being a
Baʿathist” (p. 149). Saddam Hussein
succeeded Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr as President in 1979. Whatever
his misdeeds as a ruthless dictator he never perpetrated nor
permitted any iniquity against the Christians. He appointed
many Christians to high positions including the Deputy Prime
Minister, Tariq Aziz. If Christians suffered under his regime,
it was not specifically as Christians but like all Iraqis.
[20] Like
every historian who has drawn her narrative down to her own
time, Rassam is forced to make a comment about the current
situation. She has little sympathy for the American-led
invasion, as is shown by her use of the term
“occupation”, a term the self-proclaimed
“liberators” of Iraq would protest against. She
quotes with approval the joint statement of the Bishops of
Mosul of all denominations (p. 190): “...We ask the
occupying forces and all foreign armed people to leave the
country.” The “foreign armed people” are
Muslim volunteers come to Iraq to fight the Americans. They
have carried out indiscriminate killings, not only of Americans
and the new Iraqi Army and Police, but of ordinary Iraqis,
Christians and Muslims. They have carried out bomb attacks
against Christian churches which have been condemned by all
Iraqi Muslim religious leaders, Sunni and
Shiʿa. Since the book was published
Shiʿa and Sunni mosques have also been
destroyed by bombs, so that now all Iraqis, Christians and
Muslims are in the same desperate situation. The last chapter
“Iraq under occupation and transitional rule” does
not make happy reading, but the overall message of the book
need not be pessimistic. Iraqi Christians (and all Iraqis) had
survived persecution, foreign invasion, civil war in the past
and this could be the ultimate lesson from history.
[21] The
bibliography consists of two sections: “Publications in
English” (p. [198]-202) and “Arabic publications
and translations” (p. 202-3). There are no French works
listed, not even J.M. Fiey’s monumental Assyrie
chrétienne, although Rassam had learnt French in
L’Ecole de la Présentation, a girls’ school
in Baghdad directed by French nuns and indeed she mentions Fiey
in note 32 on p. 75 without giving the title of his book. The
Arabic titles are given in English translation only, without
the Arabic original, neither in transliteration nor in the
original script. Now suppose I want to look up Al-Kaisi, Abd
al-Majid Hasib, The Political and Military History of the
Assyrians in Iraq in a library catalogue? I have to
translate it back into Arabic Târîkh
al-Athûrîyîn al-Siyâsî
wa-al-‘Askarî fî-al-‘Irâq
(?) and hope that this is how the title goes in the original,
but how can I be sure? There are glossaries of Syriac and
Arabic terms (p. [194]-197), but no index, which would have
been very useful.
[22]
Syriac and Arabic names in the text are spelt phonetically, not
according to any exact transliteration, as we would expect in a
book written for the general public. However there are many
typos, no doubt the fault of the English printer, e.g., the
name Bakr is spelt Bakir, both in the case of the Caliph Abu
Bakr (p. 73, n. 18) and of President Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr (p.
148).
[23] An
unfortunate slip of the pen occurs on p. 173: In enumerating
the Chaldean churches outside Iraq the author counts “two
in Iran”. Maybe she means the two Archdioceses, Tehran
and Urmiyé. As to parish churches, there are in Sanandaj
(the former See of the Archbishop of Tehran), in Salmas, in
Kermanshah, in Hamadan, and in Ahvaz.
[24] The
fourteen pages of black-and-white photographs will give the
Western reader a direct feeling of Iraqi Christian culture,
although they do not give full justice to the rich
ecclesiastical architectural heritage of Iraq.
[25] The
book fills a much needed lacuna. Most educated Westerners have
heard of the Copts in Egypt, the Maronites in Lebanon, but the
presence of the Chaldeans and other Christian groups in Iraq is
largely unknown. Although the book is written with the general
reader in mind, the Orientalist scholar will find much useful
information in it. Its scope extends beyond its stated subject
matter. Iraq is not an island, geographically or figuratively
speaking, and Iraqi Christianity is placed within a wider
context. We learn about the history of the Christian Church and
its Christological controversies of interest to theologians,
about the history of the Middle East, and of the neighbouring
countries, Iran, Syria and Turkey. I believe that the history
of a religious or ethnic minority throws a new perspective on
our view of the society in general. (“Black
Studies” teach us something not only about the history of
Black people in North America, but also about American and
Canadian history as such). The author’s references to her
personal experience as an Iraqi Christian add a lot to the
charm of the book. There are those who believe that a scholarly
work has to be dry and impersonal, excluding any
“anecdotal” material to be truly
“academic”. This reviewer does not share that view
and would recommend the book to all readers interested in Iraq
and the Middle East.