Ancient UAE Church and Monastery Discovered Dating from Pre-Islamic Times
There is a fascinating article in The National, a newspaper published out of Abu Dhabi. The article describes ancient ruins of a Nestorian church and monastery discovered on an island off the coast of Abu Dhabi. The ruins could date to the 4th century which is pre-Islamic (7th century).
The article is fascinating enough just when considering the finds but it's doubly interesting that the authorities are allowing the discoveries to be published and preserved. These kinds of finds are particularly sensitive in the Kingdom "next door" where freedom of worship is not allowed and the idea of a pre-Islamic "other" religion is not discussed much. The UAE is to be commended for their openness and honesty about the Christian church findings.
Here are some interesting findings related to ancient churches discovered in the countries around here...
4 comments:
"These kinds of finds are particularly sensitive in the Kingdom "next door" where freedom of worship is not allowed and the idea of a pre-Islamic "other" religion is not discussed much."
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here with this post.
Pre Islamic Christian communities in the Arabian peninsula are well documented in Islamic texts.
A Christian monk by the name of Bahira told Prophet Mohammed's uncles to take good care of Mohammed for his arrival was predicted by Jesus Christ.
The cousin of Mohammed's first wife Khadija was a Christian scholar by the name of Waraqah ibn Nawfal - who told Mohammed that he is the fulfillment of Christian prophecies in the scriputres.
During Islamic expansion Christians (and Jews) were guaranteed freedom of religion and they could be tried under their own laws in the pluralism Islamic caliphates provided.
In regards to Christians (and Jews), the covenant of Umar reads: "security granting them protection for their selves, their money, their churches, their children, their lowly and their innocent, and the remainder of their people. Their churches are not to be taken, nor are they to be destroyed, nor are they to be degraded or belittled, neither are their crosses or their money, and they are not to be forced to change their religion, nor is any one of them to be harmed."
Umar himself prayed at the Church of the Sepulchre.
All this demonstrates the being of a Christian community in pre Islamic Arabia.
The status of freedom of worship is totally irrelevant to the historical discourse of Christians in the region. Why are you ignoring 1400 plus years of social evolution of the region with this question? Do you believe human rights are universal - a principle that was largely engineered in the West and by the West?
If Saudi's believe that it was one of Mohammed's wishes that in the vicinity of the two Holy Mosques only Islam be practised, what is wrong with that taking into account Saudi Arabia' sovereignty and history?
Why should soil, which Saudi's consider holy, be dug up in search of Christian churches?
Further, "other" religions are well detailed and known about. The Christians, Jews, Sabian, and Pagans - all these are "other" religions, and all are discussed in the scripture...
Hi LDU,
Longtime since I responded here... The "Christians" you mention who were involved in the life of the prophet certainly were not orthodox in any historical sense because they clearly advocated ideas that were in direct opposition to the apostles chosen by Jesus... those who lived with him and could relay to us what he said and did. The prophecies in the Old Testament point to Jesus and Jesus pointed to the coming of the Holy Spirit; not anyone else 600 years later.
I do believe that God's purposes are best served when people are given the right to freely believe what they want to believe and to worship, within some general societal lawful boundaries, who and what they want.
How is the status of freedom of worship totally irrelevant to the "historical discourse" of Christians in the region.
Sure Saudi is sovereign but they fact is that Christians at one time in history could worship there and now they can't. They have to hide and do things in secret at the risk of arrest or worse. How in the world can followers of Islam be proud of this in any way?
If countries in the West were to suddenly shut down all mosques, Islamic training centers and community centers, etc, you certainly wouldn't hear the Islamic communities around the world saying, "oh well, they're sovereign countries and they can do what they want".
So there was the Father......then some millenia later Jesus Christ.....then 600 years on the Holy Spirit, (hence the Triune God attaining its own completion)?
I would believe as those Christians were closer to the time of Christ, they are more likely to be authentic.
Your comparison of Western countries with Saudi Arabia doesn't hold any water. Absolute monarchies and democracies both enjoy sovereignty. What you expect of a democracy, you can't expect of an absolute monarchy with an influential religious institution. Therefore if Saudi Arabia claimed to be a democracy we could have different expectations.
The Christians in Saudi Arabia mostly embraced Islam. So for 1400 years, there has been no native Christian population in the area. The remaining Christians are working expats. These Christians go into Saudi Arabia knowing they cant build Churches or preach their gospel and their large tax free income packages usually wins over their passion of praying in a church.
So, I dont see where the dilemma is once you compare apples with apples.
Dear LDU,
Forgive the long silences between my replies...
On your comment about the trinity above...
I don't think you understood my comment about God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Just because Jesus came 'in the flesh' 2000 years ago doesn't mean he wasn't pre-existent. Of course we believe the entire Godhead has always existed and will always exist. And in the months following Jesus' death and resurrection when the Holy Spirit was given to all the believers doesn't mean that was the Holy Spirit came into existence then. You also said something about '600 years on the Holy Spirit...'. The idea of 600 years on comes from Islamic interpretation of Jesus' promise of the Counselor who would come. You believe it was to be Mohammad who came 600 years later. We believe it was the Holy Spirit who came less than 2 months after Jesus said those words.
I'm not sure why many of the Muslims with whom I talk always say you can't compare western democracies with Saudi's religious monarchy. They say essentially, they're different, so we can't compare them on religious freedom issues. But this is a non-sensical argument. The question is, what is best and right for people? To force them to believe something or to give them the right to believe what they think is true about the ultimate truths of life like God and the afterlife. Why can't we say that it seems against basic human rights to prevent people from choosing their own religion regardless of their religion of upbringing?
So are we to say that a monarchy can treat it's people they way it wants to and oppress religious minorities by severely restricting their rights to worship? My original post makes the point... The UAE is a model in this region. They are a monarchy. They are sovereign. They have allowed significantly more freedom among minorities religions than any country around them. The UAE itself rebuts your argument.
The Christians in Saudi mostly embraced Islam. If you think that happened because they simply thought, 'oh, wow, Islam... I guess we should just change over to that", then you're extremely naive. In all likelihood, their faith was false and it seemed advantageous to convert or because the government was now Islamic they felt or were actually threatened.
Regardless of what happened then, if a Saudi wants to change his religion he can't for fear of execution either by the State or family. Most people in the world from many different cultures would recognize this as fundamentally inferior to places where their is freedom of religion.
Post a Comment