April 2012

Resurrection is an event and a thought that is it occurred in the journey of Jesus of Nazareth; however, it was an implication. This is articulated in the Paschal hymn, which says: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death.” What is meant by these words is that when death approached Christ, it did not have control over him.  As though there was something beyond the vehemence of the death-event, declaring the triumph of the Savior within the reality of death.

Death is an event explicated in several chapters of the four gospels and similarly Paul emphasized it. In Luke’s narrative: “And there followed him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented him.” (Luke 23: 27) And after he was crucified “he breathed his last.” (Luke 23: 27) The statement “he breathed his last” appears literally in the other gospels with reference to the witnesses and their names. Crucifixion has occurred physically [historically], as if the gospels made use of the journalism of those days [in telling it], regardless whether they believed in salvation or not. The narratives tell about the death of Jesus of Nazareth in agreement proving the accuracy of the present Gospel-text, which had been testified by the people of the first century and they confirmed the event before the completion of the Gospels’ writing.

Jesus of Nazareth had been killed by a provocation of Jewish multitudes and a main Roman juridical sentence so as we could speak of another event and that is resurrection. This event discloses the primary meaning of the death of the Nazarene to his followers. The remaining question is whether resurrection is an event that you could sense. A preliminary answer is that Jesus had been buried in a cave, i.e. above it there was its rooftop, there was no soil above it, and further this vast tomb was seen empty on Sunday morning. According to Matthew’s narrative, the angel said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, who went to see the sepulcher: “Come, see the place where he lay.” Then he said, “He has risen.” Thus, it seems that there is a sensible proof of resurrection based on the non-presence of a corpse in the sepulcher. In the Gospel of Mark, there was a young man in the tomb sitting, who said to the women, “He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.” Here is again a confirmation of the emptiness.

Luke expresses the emptiness of the tomb by saying that Peter was there, “he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves,” hence without a corpse. This is the same testimony given by John.

The Gospels do not claim that Jesus’ body had moved on the third day and went out [of the tomb]; rather they all say that he appeared to his followers. Resurrection is not a sensible [physical] event like crucifixion, in the sense that it is not described physically [historically], however it is an event that we have scrutinized or perceived from the appearances of the teacher to the disciples and to Mary Magdalene in the garden. Thus, it is a different kind of an incident, i.e. a different physical reality. It was a real liberation from a real death. We accept it from the testimony of the witnesses, namely the apostles and the companions, who said that they saw him.

We understand the meaning of His death from resurrection. Crucifixion is an event; however, you need someone to explain it to you. That is to say you need someone to move you from reality to the reason about which was the goal of the cross, namely that we might live through resurrection as Christ lived. In different terms, we are the purpose of resurrection. Nevertheless, this would not be possible without Christ condemning sin in his body, as Basil says. Thus, the Paschal feast has come to tell us that after having new life through Christ, we do not expect anything else since “the time had fully come”, as Paul said. Through the cross we have become the children of God. The earth has turned into heaven and we have been invited to the throne of glory.

No one interpreted the meaning of resurrection and of our receiving its extension, as did Paul. He said, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6: 3-4) Thus, if we do not want to live a new life that would mean that the savior’s resurrection had not concerned us, and we had not received it, rather we have remained in our sins.

For this great apostle, resurrection was not an event that had passed and could be praised. It became a presence in the lives of the believers, so that they might come from its light, its warmth and its endurance. That is why St. Seraphim, the Russian saint, worked out a daily greeting: “O my joy, Christ is risen”. This reminds me with Saint Merdarius, who was a Roman noble. Once, when he was walking in the upper floor in his palace, he heard songs coming up from the street. He looked out from the terrace and saw people singing. He asked the servants about the people and the reason of their singing. The servants told him that those are people from the East, driven to execution, and that they are singing for their belief that through their death they would be united with their savior, who is called Jesus. Merdarius thought in his heart: A religion that makes people rejoice on their way to death, must be a true religion. Therefore, he came down and joined them. Thus, he was baptized by his blood, and we celebrate the feast day of this saint as a martyr.

Whoever shines with spiritual splendor has been risen from sin, as has Jesus been risen. Whenever we look at an icon, in our church, and we rejoice in it, we come at that moment from resurrection. The remembrance of resurrection is the start of the week since every liturgy is a Paschal Liturgy.

First Christians used to put on white clothes whenever a dear person had departed life. That was because of the belief that the person had moved to resurrection and that he/she at death would have a discourse with the Father, as Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, had said.

However, God does not care only for individuals. God desires that resurrection pervades the cosmos, thus, on the last day the cosmos will turn into light. Our teaching is that Jesus’ resurrection had inaugurated the new cosmos and that it would enlighten the matter in it on the last day. Thus, if my statement is true, the matter would not remain materialistic, rather it would enlighten through Christ’s light and each cosmic movement would be part of the Last Paschal.

Then, we comprehend the whole range of our chanting: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death. And to those in the graves He granted life!” To say that the dead will rise and to stop there does not quench our thirst. That must be further explained by saying that the cosmos shall be the clothing of Christ and Christ does not wear other than light.

Translated by Sylvie Avakian-Maamarbashi

Original Text: “القيامة الكونية” –An Nahar- 28-04-2012

I wouldn’t have specified them with an article had they had not been unique. The uniqueness does not make them better or worse than others. I will talk about them as much as possible since they are unknown to the extent that they cannot, due to their few numbers, have ambitions on earth. But here they co-live with others without standing out and without blowing the trumpet.

I was once visiting with the late Maronite Bishop of Beirut Mar Ignatius Ziade when he told me about the difference between the Orthodox Liturgy and the Maronite one. And after he explained the background of the Maronite Liturgy he told me: “You start your service saying ‘Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit’; and this royal proclamation came to you from your living with the Byzantine emperors’”. I did not show any disagreement with him though I know that he was magnifying us a little too much; yet I had realized the depth of what he said. In that course of talk I remember I had told Ghassan Twayni more than once “nous sommes d’empire” meaning that we blend with the existing “empire” in that it is a nation; and we have been through with the Roman Empire, then that of the Arabs, the Mamaleek, the Ottoman and the nation of the Mandate (France) and then we got ourselves in what we dreamt to be the nation of Lebanon.

The way I see things, I think that the Sunnis were right in saying openly that they do not accept the classification of our society according to the sects. And perhaps what made us meet at a certain point, was that we, like them, did not speak of confessionalism because we believe that we are the catholic universal Church or that we are from Her; and that we do not feel good about that “prison of sectarianism” that the constitution of 1926 got us into. But others would hear you at this only if you are allowed to have a trumpet. Perhaps our Liturgy, that transports us to Heaven, harms us making us see all people as heavenly while they themselves want to remain earthly. The problem is that you are not allowed in Lebanon to dream of a country the image of which has not yet descended from Above.

And when on Sunday, we sing “Christ has risen from the dead trampling down death by death”, we think that what is meant by that is that Christ has won victory over His own death and we get overtaken by the hymning that we do not see the deadness of Lebanon and its craftiness. But we insist on seeking the Kingdom ignoring what is around us of the earthliness of this world.

Some of us say “We are of this people and with this people (of the Lebanese people)”. It is good to say that. But isn’t it fair that we expect that they be with us also, and that a little of Heaven be on Earth so that we accept to say that we feel good about bringing in to us a little of this Earth so that we and the others can meet in some place of this world?

Is this world too small for Antoun Saade, Michel Aflak, Costantine Zrayk, Asad Rustom, George Habash and others and also the Evangelicals who presided over the Palestinian movement or their ancestors; these all came from our people. I know that it is useless sometimes to argue, but how much was the protest those people made, a product of the narrowness they sensed in the Lebanese religious identity? There is something wrong in the Lebanese fabric in that it renders some the children of the dame while others the children of the bondwoman. And you might be a prince, but there would be some who insist on making your mother a bondwoman.

Yet I do not intend to complain though I am allowed to express my pain on paper. Except that our Fathers have told us not to scream but advised us to speak quietly so that he who has ears would hear quiet voices. As such you get concerned for your unity with those who are of your religious sect and those who are not. Yet regardless of that even those among us who do not practice their faith will say on Sunday the “Christos Anesti” for forty days and would give each other a holy kiss as Paul says. And for many years I wondered what that quality “holy” (of the kiss) meant until I got to understand that whoever chanted that hymn, or had his mother chant it for him, knows that the other believer is his brother whether he prays every Sunday or neglects that; but still he calls to mind that between Pascha and Ascension Thursday, Jesus ascended in His body to Heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father; that is He gave our Humanity that has been glorified through Christ, the same honor that belongs to the Divinity. Then we are potentially, as the philosophers say, at the right hand of Majesty in the Heavens in the company of the righteous that have gone before us to the Face of the Father.

That is what our Fathers call “the attentive drunkenness”. When you see us on the morning of the resurrection after we have started Matins with “Christos Anesti” carrying the lighted candles kissing each other, you would say: ‘Where do these people come from? Why all this love?”. That is not only love. That is passion. And I would comment on him who asks that question saying: “What’s wrong with that passion? Come join us.

We humans have done nothing good on Earth as St. Basil used to say every Sunday during the Lent season. But our glory – and that is not from us but from God – is that we are always in the presence of God in a state of chanting until the Savior comes back again to this world. But I do not want to leave you dear ones with the impression that this world in not the Lord’s, while we draw this world to Him with His word and not with the provocations of politics. We never accepted to be called a sect. Maybe this comes in the official papers of the government. Since, in the eyes of the people you are placed in a category. But we know the place of those who are righteous among us and those who are sinful. But after that “attentive drunkenness” you move from sin to righteousness which teaches you to sing “Christos Anesti” in full.

St. Basil says in his Liturgy from the letter of Peter, “we are a special people, a royal priesthood and a holy nation.” This is so only because of the Holy Cup which we drink. The sinners are a chosen people not because of any privilege they have, but because the Lord has chosen to give them His mercy and tenderness. Same with the Holy Nation which is also sinful but the Lord sanctifies it with the blood of His Son. The Savior sees us in our brokenness; and when He is lifted up, He lifts us up with Him so that we, as His body, can sit on the throne.

The only witness we have is that, in the flesh, we are the least among the peoples, and that you become their “first” through His call for us. We are the crumbs of this earth, and being as such, we cannot elevate ourselves so that our witness does not get undone. “Flesh and blood do not inherit the Kingdom of God”. And God knows whom to break to make them humble. But if you behold the humility of Christ hanging on the Cross, you weep and kneel down; and that is what we tried to do during Lent. And after that we exalt in our chanting “Christ has risen from the dead trampling down death by death” until humanity rises from its somnolence and becomes one with Truth.

Translated by Riad Moufarrij

Original Text: “الأرثوذكسيون” – An Nahar – 14.04.2012

Islam is unmitigated, it is indescribable from without. “It is only a revelation being revealed” (Sura Al-Najm [The Star], 4). And it is not possible to add to revelation that which is not of its nature. Politics means governance, and the term governance has not appeared in the revealed [Book] in the sense of a state or an administrative organization. Rules of governance are not guaranteed in religion, as Sheikh Ali Abd Al-Razeq has showed that frankly and vigorously. And to me the whole revolt over the Sheikh was because his book has been published in the year 1925, namely one year after Moustafa Kamal’s abolition of caliphate. At that time it sounded as if the scholar Abd Al-Razeq has reinforced Ataturk’s position, and confirmed the abolition of caliphate, to which Muslims were attached. That has sounded as if a sheikh from Al-Azhar, like Abd Al-Razeq, has appeared to judge the delight of Muslims about a rule that had emerged just after the death of the Prophet.

Nothing indicates that the Prophet’s conduct incorporated governance, in its political sense. The people of Medina alone did not make the Umma [nation]. Muslims in the society of Yathrib [the earlier name of Medina] and out of it were God’s Umma. And there were no departments, or what resemble departments, for an administrative structure.  Muhammad, as a person, was the reference for everything in the Umma. The Islamic Umma was a society rather than a governed state. Thus, there is no sense in whatever some learned ones say that ‘Islam is religion and world’. It is a religion in its divine and behavioral senses.

With the death of the Prophet there was need for ordering, thus Abou Bakr was paid allegiance as caliph, and then the other Rashidin Caliphs [rightly guided caliphs], until Umayyads came and the organizational element has been strengthened. Then, the Arab Umma and Islam have emerged simultaneously, since Arabs before Muhammad were not a nation. Arabism as a characteristic has been strengthened as they were faced by the Persian and the Greek Empires. This has enhanced the Muslims’ feeling that they are a state, and the notion of the state was reinforced by the [Islamic] conquests. However, Muhammad’s Islam was not similar to this, since Muhammad has not transmitted other than the word of God, and God has not spoken about Muslims’ politics.

If we come to the modern era we see that the worldly feature, which Arab Muslims have assumed, has been Arabism. Thus, the Hashemite Family in Hejaz has revolted against the Muslim caliphate of the Ottoman Empire, which means that for them Muslims have no political unity secured by the caliph. While Ataturk had officially abolished caliphate, namely he considered that Turks remain Muslims without an international, political system and they believed that civil system, which they adopted, does not contradict Islam. Further, Turks had abrogated Sharia’s legalization of polygamy, without forgetting that Muslims seek inspiration from the welfare of the Umma.

Yet, what does political Islam mean? Muslim countries have known all [ruling] systems. There is the dynasty system [of one family], the monarchal system, the republican system, the parliamentary system and there is a republic which in its constitution does not mention that Islam is its religion. And nothing indicates that Muslims want to identify themselves with the governing systems.

As result, the regulation for Muslims in politics, as sometimes in other than politics, remains based on the welfare of the Umma. And the Islamic Umma [flourishes] through its creativeness, advancement, cultural and economic prosperity, the luminance of its civilization, its peace, safety and its cohesion with other nations or other segments without domination from its side upon it, also without confinement or chaos. The Islamic Umma flourishes through the strive for the emergence of those competent ones in every society, whether Muslims or others, since Muslims benefit from the competent ones regardless their [socio-religious] belonging. And this happens whenever Muslims acknowledge the concept of unity based on diversity.

The Qur᾿an is full of accounts about the human being and the people, since the Lord is aware of the existence of different coexisting worlds, which are productive in all fields for their benefit and the benefit of Muslims. This means the acceptance of Muslims to live truly with all humanity’s spectra. There is great interpretational flexibility in Islam, which has led an Iraqi scholar to recite to me gracious [Qur᾿anic] verses which signify that Christians are not infidels. In the modern era I know Indian religions that claim to be Unitarian, which means that there is no partner [beside God in their beliefs]. Whenever we move into an interpretational phase, which considers Tawhid [Monotheism] an essential element in most world religions, this would help Muslims to perceive themselves living in communities which accept them and wish them good. Then they would view in all people a kind of spiritual coherence. Calling [da῾wa] remains an issue based on freedom and peace. “Whoever wishes, let him believe; and whoever wishes, let him disbelieve” (Sura Al-Kahf [The Cave], 29).

People, from different religions, strive to perceive themselves as citizens who welcome unity and welcome the person who is competent in all areas of life. However, there are some principles which are essential for the modern person, namely that God does not support a religion in order that it rules all people of earth, regardless whether they accept or reject it. Also God has not made anyone in the custody of another; rather God has made every citizen in the care of the other citizen, so that we defend and care for each other and respect all. Human beings do exist regardless their thought, and their lives are precious and beneficial to all, also to those who do not hold the same faith.

These lines in societal thinking are about civil life, and in politics it is referred to as civilian rule. We may disagree since this is a human thing, and we might disagree about the one religion, however the nature of the human subject is freedom, though he/[she] might take council with the Other. We have called the society, which is based on disagreement, democratic and there is no alternative for it other than the system based on police [state] or a despotic regime.

In Great Britain, it took eight hundred years until freedom became the norm of social life and it is established in France only since two hundred years, and similarly in America. Whenever Arabs incorporate themselves in the thinking that has prevailed those countries, administratively and politically, they understand the civil society.

The Muslim scholars and those who strive politically take their religion with great understanding and with the spirit of love for Others, and they build the homeland with high spirituality. Thus, everyone of us might have complete confidence in the Other concerning his/[her] own freedom.

Political Islam is the invention of people. It is the mobilization of those who love power. It is plain that whenever Muslims attain the highest ranks of civilization their political language becomes civil, similar to those great ones of the earth. My Lord has made me one on earth with Muslims since I want to live. I want for them the highest ranks of ascendancy. This would help me to have a dignified life.

Translated by Sylvie Avakian-Maamarbashi

Original Text: “هل من اسلام سياسي” –An Nahar- 07.04.2012