The Time St. Maximus the Confessor was Accused of Aiding the Arab Conquests

Orthodox icon of St. Maximus the Confessor (Image credit: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia)

St. Maximus the Confessor was probably born in Constantinople in 580 and died in exile in Lazica in 662—shortly after having been mutilated by the Byzantine authorities for his rejection of Monothelitism. Maximus is one of Christianity’s most prolific theologians and seeing that he lived during the birth of Islam and the early Arab conquests, I have always regretted that he never wrote some sort of treatise on the Muslim faith. Of course, at this early stage, it may have been nearly impossible for a non-Arabic speaker living in Byzantium to have done so. However, this does not mean that Maximus and Islam did not interact in other ways.

In fact, Maximus was accused and put on trial for allegedly aiding the Arab conquests of Egypt and North Africa. Surprisingly, I had not heard of this episode from the life of the saint until reading about it recently in Byzantium and Islam: Collected Studies on Byzantine-Muslims Encounters by Daniel J. Sahas. Sahas analyzes the trial in some detail in chapter 6, and I highly recommend checking out his book—someone is currently selling it on Amazon Canada for $238.33, so maybe visit a library for this one.

Now Maximus had been a thorn in the side of Byzantine rulers since the reign of Heraclius. For the saint refused to bow the knee when it came to Heraclius and his successors’ promotion of the heresy of Monothelitism, i.e., the belief that Jesus had a single will. In fact, Maximus even openly condemned other imperial policies, such as the forced conversion of the Jews and Samaritans. Moreover, as the Muslim armies continued to have stunning success against the Byzantines on the battlefield, those in Constantinople began searching for scapegoats. Thus, a sakellarios, whom Sahas argues was likely either the imperial secretary Theodore or the general Theodore who was defeated by ʿAmr ibn al-As at Heliopolis, decided to target Maximus.  

In 655, Maximus was tried for treason in Constantinople. When the judge asked the sakellarios what exactly the monk was accused of, he replied, “he had delivered great cities, like Alexandria and Egypt and Pentapolis which were part of our [the Byzantine] borders to the Saracens of whom he claimed to be much in favour and a most close friend.” Later, the sakellarios would also add Tripoli to the list of places betrayed by Maximus. But how exactly did the saint supposedly deliver these areas to the Muslims, even if he was their “most close friend”?

According to the prosecution’s witness, a sakellarios named John, Maximus had interfered with an order sent by Heraclius to John’s master, Peter, general of Numidia. The emperor had requested that Peter advance with an army to Egypt in order to assist in its defence. However, Peter had allegedly written to Maximus, as one would to a holy person, to ask his advice before setting out to Egypt. Maximus is said to have advised the general to disobey the emperor’s order, as God was not with the Byzantines so long as Heraclius and his family ruled the empire. Peter heeded the advice, or so John claims, and hence, Maximus’s role in the loss of Byzantine lands to Islam.

Courtyard of ʿAmr ibn al-As Mosque, Cairo, Egypt (Image credit: Mohammed Moussa, Wikimedia Commons)

Maximus, however, denied having written any such thing, and the prosecution failed to produce any part of the alleged correspondence. Moreover, Sahas provides ample evidence to dispute the charge of treason, including demonstrating that Maximus’s correspondence with Peter happened only after the latter was already in Egypt. Sahas also argues that had Maximus been guilty, the saint would have likely made a “public display” of why he did what he did. Sahas, of course, is right. Maximus devoted his entire life to speaking truth to power, regardless of the personal consequences. So why would he back down in this case?

We also learn in Byzantium and Islam that Maximus had a rather negative view of the Arab conquerors. He was deeply troubled by the conquest of Syria, for instance, and saw Arab expansionism as an impetus for Christian unity. Years before his trial of 655, in language that Sahas calls uncharacteristic, Maximus writes,

For indeed, what is more dire than the evils which afflict the world today? For those who can discern what is more painful than the unfolding events? What is more pitiful and frightening for those who are now enduring them? To see a barbarous nation from the desert overrunning another’s lands as if they were their own, and civilization [lit. the peaceful way of life] itself being ravaged by wild and untamed beasts who are only bearing the mere appearance of human beings.

Despite his extremely negative description of the conquerors, Maximus puts the blame squarely on Christians, claiming that it was their sins that had caused the Arabs to succeed on the battlefield. Furthermore, not reserving his harsh words only for the Arabs, the saint also says that Christians “have attacked each other like beasts.” Sahas believes that Maximus is perhaps referring here to Constantinople’s brutal treatment of Christians whose theological views did not align with the empire’s official doctrine.

In truth, some Christians saw the Muslim armies as liberators to some degree, and often did not put up much or any of a fight against them. Egypt is a great example of this, as those Christians, i.e., Copts, who had rejected the Christological definitions proclaimed at the Council of Chalcedon had been met with persecution from Constantinople. On the other hand, the Arab conquerors, at least early on, had little interest in converting the local population to Islam, and no interest at all in persecuting Christians over their specific Christological views. Of course, Maximus held something very important in common with those Egyptian Christians whom Constantinople persecuted: an unwillingness to accept the emperor’s position as the arbitrator of divine truth. Although Maximus’s Christology was arguably even more opposed to the non-Chalcedonian views of many Egyptian Christians, both were simply viewed as threats to the emperor’s self-appointed religious authority.

What is quite interesting for me about this episode from the life of Maximus is how it shows that things were not as black and white during the Arab conquests as many contemporary Christians often assume. Yes, the Arabs were conquering Byzantine lands, and there are certainly accounts from that period which speak vividly of the invaders’ brutality, even describing the conquests in apocalyptic terms. Yet, for some Christians, Muslim rule was far less oppressive than that of their coreligionists. Although Maximus condemned the Arab armies in no uncertain terms, he was also profoundly aware of the Byzantine Empire’s own corruption, and, therefore, saw the Muslims as an admonishment from God. While it seems that Maximus was innocent of the charge of having aided the Arabs in their conquests, the fact that he was accused of doing so is a clear example of the Byzantine authorities’ inability to see any deviation from the official teachings of the emperor as anything but a treasonous threat to their power.