From the papers of father Salib Sourial

Research on

The Al Magmou Al-Safawy of Ibn Al-Assaal As a Judicial Reference

Introduction to the Canons of Ibn Al Assaal

The sons of Al-Assaal are the members of a learned family, both in worldly and ecclesiiastical matters. They were outstanding in the 13th century A.D. They were the contemporaries of the popes of Alexandria; Pope Youannis the 6th (74), Pope Cyril the 3rd, Ibn Laglag (75), qnd Pope Athansius (76). That was in the age of the Islamic State of Ayoub in Egypt. They were influential employees of the State and had their say in the matters of the church as notables. They left us a lot of publications in theology, the creed, the canons, and the Coptic language. Some disputed their origin and a mysterious light was shed on their history. The archpriest Philthaos Ibrahim wrote in 1886 A.D. that they descended from a Coptic origin. Some said that they were from Cedament and that they related to the learned priest Peter the Cedementine .The most famous of the members of this family are: Sheikn safi Ibn Al-Assaal and his brothers; Al-Assaal, and Sheikh Mootaman El-Dawla Abou Ishak Ibn Al-Assaal, who wrote a book on canons which he collected from specifications of the Hlly Scriptures, and some of the church laws. Our main concern here is the book of Al-Magmou Al-Safawy written by Sheikh Safi Ibn Al-Assaal, which elaborate in its cannons . A resume was written by him named " the beginners need in the study of canons."

Al-Magmou Al-Safawy : - This book contains 51 chapters divided into 2 parts:

Part One :

Part Two:

The Magmou Al-Safawi was published recently from manuscripts. Those interested were two : Mark Guirguis who published the book with no commentary. The second was Guirguis Filthaos who commented a lot and made very long margins and pointed out the forged canons, criticized some especially those dealing with marriage, and wrote long footnotes on some of the chapters like the ones on marriage, clergy, bishops, prayers, liturgies, the order of the Last Supper, and the yeast and the bread. He also included in his report what the archpriest Philthaos Ibrahim wrote about the sons of Ibn Al-Assaal's publications.

The Judicial Sources of the Magmou Al-Safawi

Ibn Al-Assaal depended on all the judicial publications he read whether true or false.

1 - The canons of the Apostles:

He depended on the Coptic group that contains 127 canons written in two books, one contains 71 canons and Ibn Al-Assaal gave it a code (Restip), the second contains 56 canons given the code (Rastig). He also depended on the group that contains 83 canons by the Romans. And yet this collection is the same as the second book of the Coptic collection with the exception of the numbering, although Ibn Al-Assaal confessed in his introduction that he translated it from Nestorian and royual into Arabic, and gave it a code Resta meaning that he had put it before the Coiptic collection in numbering. The explanation of these codes is : Res=apostles, T= is taken from Clement whom the apostles have given him the canons, the letters a,b,c, is the nubering of the books, 1st, 2nd, and the 3rd. Ibn Al-Assaal also depended on another collection called " the meeting of Zion" containing 30 canons. And although it was translated, he gave it a code (M) and listed it among his first sources, saying that these canons are found in the Jacobite Syrian collection. He also depended on another forged report attributed to St. Peter and it was said that it was sent to his disciple Clement and was coded (P). He also depended on the canons of Abulides with the code (AB).

2 - The Canons of the Ecumenical Coucils:

He depended solely on the canons of Nicea, and gave it the code of (NIC). A part from this, he added the 84 forged canons Nicea, and gave it he code of (Nicea) to differentiate it from the unimpaired canons as is sound in his introduction produced by the Nestorians. Still he apologized saying it is existing among the Jacobite Syrian canons and added that it is very beneficial.

3 - As to the Regional Councils:

He depended on the Council of Ankara and gave it the code (Ankara), and on the canons of the Council of New Caesarea and gave it the code of (Car), calling it Carthage. We can not see why it was given that name, especially that there was another council by the name of Carthage held in 419 A.D. and another in 257 A.D. reesided by St. Cipreanous concerning the baptism of the heretics. This wrong naming made Ibn Al-Assaal ignore these two councils without making any mention to their canons. He also depended on the canons of the council of Gangara and gave it the code of (AG), and the Council of Antioch and gave it the code of (TCH), and the Council of Laodicea and gave it the code of (LA), the Council of Sardica and gave it the code of (S).As to the canons of the Apostles, he depended very much on the canons of ST. Basil the Great, whether the ecclesiastical canons (106) and which he coded (Bas) or the ascetic canons and which he coded (NS).He said that he took a few of he canons of Dionysius with the code (D) and Gregory (probably the bishop of Nissa and with the code (G) and John of the Golden Mouth, with the code (J) and Timothy (meaning Pope Timothy of Alexandria, (22) with the code (T) and christozolous Pope of Alexandria, and with the code of (ACH).

4 - The Royal Canons:

Ibn Al-Assaal considered them a judicial reference. He said that they are compiled of 4 books. The first Tatisat coded (T), the second coded (MK), the third coded (H), and the fourth coded (HD). He depended almost entirely on the Royal canons in the second part of his book, concerning the dealings as he has done in the first part of his book.

Objections on the Legal Sources of Al-Assaal, and His Uses of Them.

a - He has collected many forged canons along with the unimpaired ones. that made him a collector and not a critic. He was not the scholar who examines his sources, studies and scrutinizes them, introducing only the unimpaired to the people. Among the forged ones are the canons of Zion, the message of Peter to Clement, the 84 canons attributed to the Council of Nicea, this last one is the most dangerous, for he used them without analysis and made fatal mistakes. And it is no excuse that they were found in the Jacobite Syrian canons, for their very existence among these canons is a mistake in itself. He should, as a scholar, have called our attention to ignore them or at least he, himself should have avoided them. Although the contents of these canons are invalid, especially that he knows that the Royalists and the Nestorrians are the ones who produced them. And what makes it much worse, is that he entirely depended on these forged canons in some important information, without having legal support from everybody. As an example, we have the canons concerning the patriarches, the trustees on the financial matters of the church, some points on marriage, all taken from the forged canons. He mentions in the chapter of marriage with a non-believer, it is allowed for a believer to marry a woman who is not a believer on condition that she accepts the faith. But the women believers do not marry non believers lest they change their faith and are forced into accepting their religion. (Nicene canon 57). And every woman who marries a non beliver should denounce her faith. If later on she gives up her marriage and repents, she should be accepted back and should be mixed with the believers and have communion. (Nicene canon 72). And every believer who forced his daughter or sister into marriage or without her knowledge, let him be deposed and forbidden to mix with the believers. (Nicene canon 73). This is a serious subject and the fact that he only mentioned three forged canons, without supporting them from the Bible, or the Fathers explanations, or other ecclesiastical canons, is not right. Another example of forged canons is concerning the memorials on the dead, kaken from the forged epistle of St. Paul to Clement, the memorial days, should be on the 9th, the 12th, the 40th and at the end of 2 months. He mentioned this and did not oppose it but mentioned other canons besides it. He mentioned that in our church the gouaban on the day of the burial, the 10th, at the end of the first month, at the end of 6 months, and at the end of a year. He did not quote the reference to these dates especially concerning the 10th, the end of the 6th months, which have been mentioned in previous canons. So it is forged and it is a knot that needs untying.

b - It is also taken against him that the royal conons were among the ecclesiastical canons taken from official sources. We do not mean by this the financial, commercial or criminal canons. But he deliberately placed these civil canons in canons purely clerical, like the canons pertaining to bishops, monks, marriage, divorce, etc.Even praying on the dead - 6th part of the 22nd chapter pertaining to the dead, attributed to the royal canons, " When a person dies, he should not be buried with the attire of his birth, and should be prayed on as death has sanctified it. " Concerning marriage, Ibn Al-Assaal in the article 16 of the 24th chapter pertaining to marriage, frankly mentioned the canons known as Tatlisaat in its first 11 chapters. The age of marriage, the family's consent, fixing the time for remaining a widow, property contract sale, these depend entirely on one only of the royal canons, it the married are widows, they ought not to have the blessing of marriage, for this is only given once on the first marriage, and becomes permanent. The prayer said by the priest is for forgiveness, and if one of the parties is a virgin, then he is given the blessing alone. This is a customary procedure for all men and women.What is the most serious in this problem, is what he mentioned about divorce. He says that marriage can be broken for 3 reasons; the monasticism of one of the married parties, not living together to have children, and not being able to make life between them happy and possible. These canons are purely royal. He then presented them in detail, like having a sickness that prevents co-habitation, being epileptic, having leprosy, after remaining a prisoner of war for 5 years, the adultery of the wife, if one of the parties intentionally spoils the purity of his partner, if a man commits adultery, - here he mentions two contradictory canons - all these plentiful reasons were mentioned in the Bible. All these canons go back to the traditional canons of the heathen.In an introduction to his book on royal canons, he mentions that these canons were cut short in the council of Nicea presided by Constantine the King.

c - It is also taken against him his neglect of the approved canons. Of all the ecumenical councils, he depended on the council of Nicea leaving out the councils of Constantinople and Ephesus. And in the Regional Councils he left out the councils of Carthage, where the baptism of heretics was mentioned by Cipreanous. Many useful canons were established in the council of Carthage. As to the canons of the Fathers, he ignored the canons of Peter, the last martyr, the canons of St. Cyril, pillar of religion, the canons attributed to St. Athanasius the apostle. The Fathers who lived in his age. He did not mention anything about the canons of cyril, Ibn Laglag, Gabriel Ibn Tarik. And when he mentioned monasticism, he talked about the canons of Basil without mentioning the origin, the canons of Bachomius, he even ignored the canons set by pope Shenouda and the Elders who founded monasticism.It is also taken against him that he deliberately did not included some of the canons for some reason or other. It is known that some of the Fathers fought the idea of putting the bones of the saints in churches as paganism was near their age and not completely demolished, and they feared about the faithful or the new believers from deviating. Ibn Al-Assaal ignored the canons and wrote in the 20th chapter a forged canon and attributed it to the council of Nicea in which he wrote: "Let the bones of the martyrs be placed in churches and monasteries, so that the sick will be healed and blessings will be upon the needy and believers." As for the canon 33 of St. Basil, he voidedfrom it what did not contradict this point of view and left out the rest.

d - May be for this reason and others, it is taken against him that some of his terms do not fully agree with the ogiginal.

The System of Ibn Al-Assaal and Remarks on it.

1 - It is noticeable that he is a collector of canons, for that reason he called his book collection. Actually he is not only a collector for he has sometimes the style of an author. When he talks about marriage, it is written as an article or legal research using his personal style and which he sometimes supports with legal wordings. The subject of alms is also in the form of an article. Even when he talks about confession, this is his own point of wiew and not an ecclesiastical wiew. It is the same when he writes about endowment. (18th chapter).

2 - In many cases he starts his writing with his personal view as an introduction. He goes on by introducing the canons. When he wrote about monasticism, fasts, vows and alms, he made comments or explanations, apart from the texts of the canons. As an example, his writing about the reasons for prohibiting marriages (part 33 & 34 in the 24th chapter), concerning the best man and the relatives, but this is rare.

3 - sometimes he divides the subject into two: copying and itellectually. When he copies he writes down the texts. But when it is intellectual, it is his own explanation and assurances in his own style and logic. That is found in the chapter about the patriarches and the clergy.

4 - He sometimes states canons and does not tell its origin. Here the normal reader asks himself is it written by Ibn Al-Assaal or is it traditional or does it have an old legal origin, canons of prayers (chapter 14) and fasts (chapter 15).

5 - Sometimes we find conflicted canons. That goes to the fact that the canons are approved or non-approved. Sometimes all the canons are non-approved. When he mentions two contradictory canons, he claims that they have no support. In the introduction of his book he apologizes by saying when all canons are contradictory this is normal and usual.

Ibn Al-Assaal makes the mistake of confessing the leadership of the Pope of Rome:

Because Ibn Al-Assaal depended on the forgedf canons attributed to the council of Nicea, he made the mistake of confessing that the pope of Rome is the head of all the patriarches in the Christian world. For in the royal and the Nestorian canons existed a trap, he blundered by saying that these canons were very useful. Ibn Al-Assaal mentioned accordingly two very clear unmistakable canons:

a - The Holy Synod (Hicea 37) ordered that there should only be four patriarches, the evangelists, the heavenly four rivers, the winds, and the elements of the earth. The head is he who sits on the chair of Peter in Rome as the apostles were told. After him comes he who sits in the chair of Mark (Alexandria). The third pope of Ephesus and the fourth is he who sits in the chair of Antioch, who sits also in the chair of Peter. All these four appoint bishops.

b - As for the second canon (Nicea 44), the patriarch holds the position of a father in his home. And as the patriarch has power and sets order on the members of his family, so the pope of Rome has power on all the rest of the patriarches. And like St. Peter, the first who has given the power over all the Christian rulers being heir of Jesus Christ on His people and church.

It is evident that these two canons are full of faults:

1 - As to the number of patriarches, the council of Nicea did not mention that the patriarches in the world should only be four, there is even no wisdom in this. Since the books of the Evangelic are four, and the rivers of heaven are four this does not necessitate that the number of the patriarches should be four. The limitation of four patriarches at the time of the Nicean Council contradicts the third canon of the council of Constantinople that gave the bishop of Constantinople the grace after Rome for its being the New Rome. That same limitation contradicts the collection of the forged canons attributed to Nicea and the 42nd canon which raises the number of patriarches to eight.

2 - The four patriarches were those of Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, and Antioch, which contradicts the 26th canon of Nicea that demands the preservation of the traditions in Egypt, Lybia and the five provinces. The same thing applies to the bishop of Rome. May God preserve the Christian development in Antioch and the remaining parishes. We notice here that the council did not mention Ephesus or appointing a head on the other three, he even mentioned Rome after Alexandria. Does this mean that the council contradicted itself?

3 - From the historical point, the phrase the owner of the chair of Peter in Rome, is a big question mark. It is not at all sure that Peter founded the church of Rome. It is more acceptable that St. Paul founded the church, an opinion proved by the scholars of the Bible.

4 - If even it is proved that St. Peter founded Rome, and that is difficult to accept, we still have two problems. The first is that St. Peter was not the head of the apostles and he had no power over the Christian heads, and he was not the successor of Christ on His people nor church. This is against the teachings of the Bible and the Christian spirit and history. The second problem is the inheritance of the head, St. Peter as head of the church of Rome is not attested to by the history of the church and had no heirs. The proof of this is that after the martyrdom of St. Peter, St. John lived for 30 years and was not under the control of the bishop of Rome. Many historical incidents prove that.What other provinces inherited St.Peter. This forged canon says that St. Peter was also seated on the chair of Antioch. Why shouldn't the bishop of Antioch be the heir to St. Peter, especially that Antioch believed in Christianity before Rome? "And the disciples were called christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26)

5 - And the phrase according to the order to the apostles that appeared in canon 37, we are surprised that it passed unnoticeable for Ibn Al-Assaal that collected all canons both valid and forged. Has there not been a canon saying that the patriarch of Rome is the head. Why was that phrase left with no comment on his part being a scholar?

Remarks on some of the chapters of the book

1 - Before we comment on some of the chapters of the book, we must say that he forgot to write in his book a chapter on deity and creed. Deity represents an important part in the ecclesiastical canons which we cannot disregard. For the councils met for that reason and canons were established to put light on faith and to degrade heresies and to excommunicate those who believe in them, and some to show how heretics deal. Had Ibn Al-Assaal written about this, he would not have disregarded the canons of the councils of Constantinople and Ephesus or of Cyril, the twelve on anathema nor the canons of Abulides and Basil. He even disregarded writing on the rites which were plenty and on ritual prayers. Was not this more important than the commercial dealings with what he wrote about?

2 - The chapter on patriarches., In this chapter he failed miserably. He depended here on all the forged Nicene canons and did not state one approved canon. And as he made the mistake aobu the patriarches, he also made the mistake about Abysinia (canon 42). He stated that a patriarch should not be chosen from among the Ethiopians, for he should be under the rule of the patriarch of Alexandria, and is appointed as their primate. And if by any chance a synod is assembled, he should be seated in the 8th row. The first seven - according to his view are the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Salk, and the country of the Persians or East Asia. The fault in this canon is quite apparent, for at the time of the Council of Nicea Athanasius was still a deacon. And the Ethiopian church was not under the Coptic church until Athanasius became patriarch in the year 330 A.D., after five years of the Council of Nicea. It is, therefore, incredible that a canon was made concerning this when at the time of Abysinian church was not under the Coptic church.What is most amazing is the idea of having there a patriarch or primate and when at that country was in bad need for evangelism, and to become christian. Therefore, we can say that this forged canon was made at a later time and attributed falsely to the council of Nicea. In that chapter we also find other canons that do not adhere to the Christian spirit. (Another forged canon 46). A grant should be given to the patriarch yearly to help him. That was never heard of neither the ecclesiastical canons nor in the history of the poius patriarches and it does not convene with the financial status of the church that states that everyone gives of his own accord. They give their Qourbans to the bishop who blesses them and their offerings and then he gives to the clergy. This canon continues to state that the villages too should give their bishops according to their bearing. Then the priests bring it to the bishop who gives it to the people of the province to do with it what they think best.This continuation of the canon is also faulty. The canon too that states when the bishop gives a complaint against the patriarch another patriarch ought to be present. This is wrong for it is known that only the bishops of the parish have that power so why should a stranger interfere? What is also controversial to the spirit of the law is that a patriarch cannot depose a bishop appointed by his colleague. This is a tather strange action that does not agree with the churches actions. For if anyone complains against a bishop that problem could be solved quietly or a committee can be held to see into the matter of the complaint, or can be presented to a synod but can by no means depose him being the head of the family. Actually, the chapter on patriarches is full of mistakes. He used his logic in explaining things, and it would have been much better had Ibn Al-Assaal dispensed with that chapter.

3 - Monasticism . ;It is taken against him that he depended on two sources; the forged Nicene canons and the ceremonies of St. Basil and overlooked the important monastic canons. As to the contents of the chapter he discussed some of the jobs in the monastery and some of the punishments. He should not have left out the first of the monk in the monastery, his private worship, the way he lives, or the monastic ranks. He even presented texts that were attacked, and some of the jobs of a monk were not complete. (Nicene canon 79 - forged) - The monks should not choose a ruler over them except through a chorescope which is not found in any of the canons of the church as the chorepiscope has no relationship whatsoever with the monasteries, he serves only in the villages.He did not agree that the keeper of the monastery becomes a spy on the monks and tells the ruler of the monastery stories on his monks. This is not done among Chrsistian communities.

4 - The confession . ;In this subject he did not use anything from the canons of the church. It is merely a normal article that holds a vicious intention behing it. He said that confession is a medical treatment that should be achieved through a specialist or else not done at all. And to find a specialist is rare. That made confession among the Copts rare, for the lack of the specialist. He also said that not everyone needs a doctor and not all who need him need him always.We say that this was Ibn Al-Assaal point of view, which is against the belief of the church. for confession is not simply spiritual medicine otherwise the psychologists could have taken confessions. For apart from its being spiritual this is confessing your sins and blaming yourself in front of the priest of God, therefore it was called the secret of repentance. It also includes the prayer of the priest on the head of the confessor to have the forgiveness of our sins. (In this case if the priest has the gift of being and expert, well and good.) But if the priest is illiterate then he has the gift of listening to the confessor and praying for his sins and for gorgiveness. Ibn Al-Assaal should not have been influenced by what has been prevailing in his days, for we are all sinners, and as sinners we need forgiveness, and it cannot exist without repentance and confession. This means that every person needs to confess. And God can help the confessor through a native priest, we cannot then say that if we have no specialist in the clergy then we can do without confession. It would have been better that some of the patriarches who prevented confession in their days had they punished the faulty priests and replaced them by pious ones instead of depriving the congregation of that great secret. We still have to state that as Ibn Al-Assaal failed in the chapter of the patriarches, he also failed in the subject of confession. Although he only wrote few lines not more than half a page still it is destructive and dangerous.

5 - Other remarks : The chapter on baptism is not complete. They could have added a lot of details from the canons of Abulides, the Apostles and St. Basil. In the chapter of the fasts, he mentioned that the week before the 40 days is called the week of Herecleese. this is quite a personal view that can be attacked for there are other reasons for fasting in this week.The chapter on the Holy Books was called the epistles of Macabene (the book of Joseph Ibn Carbon). And he mentioned that the wisdom of it is to teach children. That was mentioned alone and he did not mention Baruch and Tobia.. . . . . . ... . .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . A final remark. In spite of all this criticism, we cannot deny Ibn Al-Assaal the great effort in colle cting all these canons, arranging and distributing them in chapters, articles and phrases and introducing them and writing some remarks on the work. But we also say that Ibn Al-Assaal's work is only a step forward in the subject of the canons of the church and its organization. The church should not stop at this preliminary step but should encourage the development of this study. We ought to learn from the mistakes of Ibn Al-Assaal to enable us to present a batter and more complete work.