Ecclesiastical Laws Ibn al-Assal: What Is in His Favor and What Is Against Him
Ecclesiastical Laws
Ibn al-Assal: What Is in His Favor and What Is Against Him
The Sons of al-Assal:
Ṣafī al-Dawla Ibn al-Assal is the most famous Coptic writer who compiled the laws of the Church in the Middle Ages, in his well-known work entitled:
The Ṣafawī Collection of Ibn al-Assal.
The book was composed in the year 1235 AD, during the era of Pope Cyril III, known as Ibn Laqlaq (the 75th Patriarch), and in the time of the Ayyubid state. He stated that he compiled this book at the request of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Church, as a Coptic scholar—indeed, he was the most prominent scholar of his era—and he was one of three brothers known as the Sons of al-Assal.
So who are the three brothers, the Sons of al-Assal?
They are:
a) Muʾtaman al-Dawla Abū Isḥāq
b) Hibat Allāh Abū al-Faraj al-Ḥakīm al-Asʿad
c) Ṣafī al-Dawla al-Amjad Ibn al-Assal, who is the most famous of them.
These three held great positions in the state and also had standing in the Church. They were scholars who excelled in many fields of knowledge:
They were scholars of the Coptic language.
They authored books on Coptic grammar, and also compiled dictionaries for the Coptic language and the five introductions to this language. Among their most famous works in this field are: al-Sullam al-Muqaffā and al-Dhahab al-Muṣaffā, al-Sullam al-Kabīr, and other books. They are considered among those who brought about a revival in the Coptic language and its use. This language had been abolished from government bureaus in the year 706 AD during the reign of al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (of the Umayyad state).
They also have many theological writings:
On the eternity of God, His oneness and attributes, the Trinity and unity, the mystery of the divine Incarnation, the Resurrection, the state of the soul after death, the Book of al-Nayṣara on Christian doctrines, a book on the principles of religion, the Book of the Intellectual Paradise, and an explanation of what is mentioned in the Gospels concerning the sufferings of Christ.
c) They have studies in the Holy Bible:
Including an introduction on the principles of interpreting the Holy Bible, and the ضبط (standardization) of New Testament translations, with comparisons between what appears in them in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, and Arabic. They wrote about the Epistles of Saint Paul the Apostle, his life, faith, and martyrdom. They also have an extensive commentary on the Gospel of John.
d) They have studies and dialogues with the Muslims of their time,
and refutations of those who claimed the corruption of the Gospel. Among their most famous books in this field is al-Ṣaḥāʾiḥ fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Naṣāʾiḥ.
They also have remarks on the debates of Shaykh ʿĪsā al-Nāshī and Imam Fakhr al-Dīn ibn al-Khaṭīb.
e) They have books on the calculation of the Coptic calendar, and books on Church laws.
It is not surprising after all this that the Church entrusted Ṣafī al-Dawla Ibn al-Assal with compiling the laws of the Church, so he collected them in his book al-Majmūʿ al-Ṣafawī. The word Ṣafawī is derived from his name (Ṣafī al-Dawla).
The Ṣafawī Collection:
It was good that he called it “the Collection,” because in this book he was more of a compiler than a scholar; he was not a scholar in the precise sense of the word.
For what is required of a scholar is not only to gather information, but to examine, verify, scrutinize, compare, correct, and distinguish the true from the false, and the official laws from the forged ones. But he did not do this; rather, his book gathers a mixture of sound and spurious material.
The merit of Ibn al-Assal is that he classified and arranged the laws,
and this is something for which he is undoubtedly to be commended. This classification appears very clearly in the first part of his book, which includes (23) chapters.
In the first part of his book he spoke about:
the Church – the divine books – baptism and entry into the faith – patriarchs – bishops – ecclesiastical ranks – monks and nuns – widows and laypeople – the Mass and liturgies – the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper – prayer and fasting – almsgiving, tithes, firstfruits, and vows – endowments – Sunday and Saturday – feasts – martyrs and confessors – apostates – the sick and the dead … etc.
In these chapters he gathered as much as he could of Church laws (whether sound or forged).
As for the second part of his book, it consists of articles that he wrote, not laws—that is, they are not a codex.
It does not prevent that he cited in some of them certain verses or a small number of laws, but they are overall of his own composition, and some of them are purely his own thought. The most important chapter in the second part is that concerning marriage and divorce.
Criticisms of the Ṣafawī Collection:
He included many forged laws.
For example, it is known that the Holy Council of Nicaea issued only twenty canons. There exists a forged collection attributed to the Council of Nicaea that includes 84 canons, which no church recognizes. What happened is that Ibn al-Assal used both collections together, and symbolized one with the symbol (Niq) and the other with the symbol (Nicaea).
He did not alert the reader that these laws are forged, but rather they appear in his book in an ordinary manner, with no distinction between them and others.
He included forged laws attributed to the Apostles,
among them the “Canons of the Upper Room of Zion,” whose symbol with Ibn al-Assal is (ʿ). This collection was also included by Ibn Kabar, and any scholar who examines it can discover its falsity.
He placed the reader before many collections of laws attributed to the Apostles,
among them the canons recognized by our Church [127 canons in two books, one containing 56 canons and the other 71, published by the Patrologia Orientalis collection];
among them the canons of Clement in a collection of books;
among them the aforementioned Canons of the Upper Room of Zion;
and among them a letter from the Apostle Peter to Clement!!
He presented all of them as if they were sound laws, and it is strange that he would mention in the introduction of his book that these are known among the Nestorians or among the Melkites.
The entire fourth chapter consists of forged laws.
It is the chapter concerning the patriarchs, and all of it is from forged laws attributed to the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. This is clear from their numbering: 37, 44, 45, 46, 51, 76, etc. Their contents cannot be acceptable to a scholar who examines information before publishing it.
He says in the fourth chapter [and attributes this canon 37 to the Council of Nicaea, though it is forged] that the fathers of the Holy Council of Nicaea:
“ordered that there be in the whole world only four patriarchs, like the four Evangelists, the four rivers of Paradise, the four winds, and the four elements.”!!
Of course, this talk is unreasonable and cannot be applied practically amid the many churches, and it was never issued by the Holy Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Moreover, what is the meaning of linking the number of patriarchs to the number of Gospels, the four rivers, and the four winds?
Worse than this, he adds to the four patriarchs another principle against the doctrine of his own Coptic Orthodox Church, saying about the patriarchs:
“the chief and leader among them is the one who holds the See of Peter in Rome, as the Apostles commanded”!!
This principle of general primacy was forbidden by the Lord Christ.
It never happened that the Apostles commanded anything of this sort, neither in the Apostolic Canons nor in the Didascalia. The Holy Bible also explains to us that the founder of the See of Rome is Saint Paul the Apostle (Acts 28:30–32), according to the command of the Lord to him to preach in Rome (Acts 23:11).
In arranging the sees, he mentions in this same forged canon:
“and the second is the holder of the See of Alexandria, and the third the holder of the See of Ephesus.”
Whereas Church canons place the See of Antioch immediately after the See of Alexandria. His mention of the See of Ephesus here is because it is in Asia Minor, and by this he intends the city of Constantinople, which had not yet been built at the time of the Council of Nicaea and was not then the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire.
Ibn al-Assal justifies the precedence of the See of Ephesus by attributing to the Council of Nicaea [forged canon 38] that the patriarchate of Ephesus be transferred to the royal city, so that honor may be for both priesthood and kingship together…!!
Then this chapter adds something strange concerning Ethiopia, also attributing it to the Council of Nicaea (in the forged canons, canon 42), saying:
“The Ethiopians shall not have a patriarch over them from among their scholars, nor by their own choice from among themselves.”!!
Knowing that during the convening of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the Church of Ethiopia had not yet been founded.
The one who founded it was Pope Athanasius of Alexandria in 329 AD, and he sent to it the first bishop, Saint Frumentius. Pope Athanasius was a deacon at the time of the Council of Nicaea.
There was no issue before the Council of Nicaea concerning Ethiopia or the appointment of a patriarch for it!!
Among the strange canons that Ibn al-Assal cites about bishops, attributing them to the Council of Nicaea, is:
“If one of the bishops is absent from his see, it shall not exceed six months. If it exceeds that without necessity or permission from the patriarch, and they celebrate the Feast of the Resurrection away from their sees, they shall be removed from the priesthood.”
Among Ibn al-Assal’s errors is his reliance on the laws of kings.
The laws of kings are not ecclesiastical laws and are not binding. It is strange that he says about them that they were “abridged for kings from many sayings in the Council of Nicaea”!!
What does the legislation of Justinian, for example, have to do with Nicaea? And if the source of the laws he used and called the Taptasāt was the Council of Nicaea, why did the council not issue them explicitly?
Among his errors also are the laws of bodily punishments.
He mentioned in the punishment for adultery (chapter 48) the punishment of cutting off noses, shaving hair, and exile. He also mentioned similar things in the punishment for murder (chapter 47), and what he stated concerning the seeker of vengeance (the avenger of blood). This is an Islamic expression that has no relation to Church laws. There is absolutely no bodily punishment such as cutting off noses in Church canons.
He also mentions in the chapter on sorcery a canon that permits killing the sorcerer.
He likewise differentiates in the canons between slave and free, which is against the teaching of the New Testament that says there is no difference between slave and free.
Among his errors is his reliance on his own personal thought
in many chapters, such as chapter 21 on the sick, chapter 18 on endowments, chapter 16 on almsgiving, chapter 11 on laypeople, the benefits of fasting (chapter 15), and most of chapter 14 on prayer.
Among his errors also is what he mentioned about fasting concerning the Fast of Heraclius before Great Lent (chapter 15), and his statement about eating fish in the established fasts, without excepting Wednesday and Friday, for example.
In general, the man has effort, and he also has errors.
His book is considered a study, not a codex of laws.
An article by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, published in al-Kiraza magazine – the thirty-seventh year – issues 9 and 10 – dated April 3, 2009.
For better translation support, please contact the center.
