The Canons of Coexistence: How George I Rewrote Christian Law for Islam’s New World

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

"In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."
By the middle of the seventh century, the dust of conquest had settled over the lands once ruled by emperors. The banners of the Sasanian and the Roman empires—symbols of a world that had seemed eternal—now lay trampled beneath the hooves of Arab cavalry. What had begun as a regional eruption on the fringes of Arabia had become a civilizational upheaval. From the Nile to the Oxus, a new order ruled: one that spoke Arabic, invoked the name of God’s unity, and governed through both revelation and reason.

For the Christian communities of Mesopotamia and Persia, this was no passing storm. The old political order that had both constrained and protected them had vanished. The Zoroastrian court of Ctesiphon, once the axis of East Syriac Christianity, had fallen into silence. In its place rose the Caliphate—an empire without icons or crosses, but not without law. Under its vast and rapid expansion, the Church of the East found itself in an unprecedented position: no longer a tolerated church within a Persian empire, but a faith under the dominion of Islam.

The first generation of East Syrian leaders after the conquest—men like Išōʿyahb III—had responded with letters, diplomacy, and a theology of endurance. They wrote not in the language of rebellion, but of adaptation. Yet, as the decades passed and Muslim rule became the unquestioned reality of the world, adaptation demanded something deeper. Christianity could no longer merely survive; it had to legislate its survival.

It was in this moment that George I, the successor of Išōʿyahb III, emerged. Born into a noble family in northern Iraq and educated at the famous Monastery of Bēt ʿAbē, George inherited a church that was both spiritually vibrant and politically vulnerable. Appointed metropolitan of Adiabene by Išōʿyahb himself, George ascended to the patriarchate around 660 CE, becoming the Catholicos-Patriarch of the East Syrians. His reign would coincide with the consolidation of Umayyad power—a period in which Christian communities were no longer debating whether to resist Islam, but how to live within it.

In the spring of 677 CE, corresponding to May of the fifty-seventh year of the Arabs’ rule, George convened a synod on the island of Dayrin—modern-day Bahrain, then a center of East Syrian Christianity in the Persian Gulf. This gathering of bishops from Beth Qatraye, Hagar, Haṭa, and the neighboring islands would produce one of the most extraordinary documents of the early Islamic era: a set of nineteen canons prefaced by a theological and legal manifesto unlike anything before it in Syriac literature.

In the preface, George speaks in a voice that bridges two worlds. He traces the divine genealogy of law—from Adam to Noah, from Moses to Christ—and places his own synod within that sacred continuum. Yet beneath the theology lies something strikingly new: a consciousness of living under a different kind of empire. The text marks one of the earliest uses of the Muslim Hijra calendar by a Christian author—a subtle but profound acknowledgment of a changed political horizon.

Modern scholars, such as Michael Philip Penn, have noted that George’s insistence on the necessity of law reflects the legal anxieties of the new age. The rise of Islam brought with it a civilization governed by divine jurisprudence—one that demanded from its non-Muslim subjects either their own robust system of law or submission to Islamic courts. George’s synod, therefore, was not merely a theological exercise; it was a legislative act of survival. His canons would define how Christians should judge, marry, dwell, and worship under Muslim sovereignty without dissolving into it.

The Synod of Dayrin, preserved today in manuscripts scattered from Rome to Baghdad, thus stands as one of the earliest Christian legal responses to Islam’s ascendancy. Its prologue breathes the tone of scripture and revelation, yet its purpose is entirely practical: to give structure, discipline, and dignity to a community now living beneath the Crescent.

This blog post will explore that moment—the world of George I, the synod he convened, and the vision he articulated. It will examine how the Church of the East transformed its understanding of law, authority, and coexistence in a world ruled by the Caliph, and how the patriarch of the Church of the East crafted a theology of order amid the uncertainties of empire.

Before the formalization of the dhimma, before jurists codified coexistence, and before later polemics painted Islam in rigid colors, George I and his bishops were already building a framework for Christian endurance—a canon for life beneath the Caliphate.

This is the story of a patriarch who did not resist history, but rewrote his place within it.

🧭 SECTION I — Setting the Stage

1️⃣ “A Church on the Edge of the Desert: The World of George I”

Rajab, 57 AH — May 677 CE. The fifteenth year of Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān’s caliphate.

The Persian Gulf shimmered under the same sun that once gilded the palaces of Ctesiphon — but the empire that had ruled from those halls was gone, swept aside by the tide of the new Arab polity that called itself the Ummah. 🕋➡️⛪
In this new world, on the island of Dayrin (modern Bahrain), the Catholicos George I of the Church of the East gathered his bishops. The date was written not in the old Seleucid reckoning, nor in the Julian year of Rome, but in the novel era of the Arabs — “the fifty-seventh year of their rule.” 📅 This alone was revolutionary. The Church had begun marking time not by the kings of Persia, nor by the years of our Lord, but by the Hijra — the migration of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to Yathrib. A sign, perhaps, that Islam’s calendar had already conquered where its armies need not.

⚖️ From Ctesiphon to Dayrin: From Empire to Exile

George I — “the son of rich and noble parents” — had risen from the northern hills of Iraq to the patriarchal throne of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the ancient capital of the now-vanished Sasanian Empire. His teacher, Isho‘yahb III, had fought desperately to keep the East Syrian Church united during the Arab conquests; George inherited that same fractured realm and its chaos.
By 677, he had ruled as Catholicos for sixteen years (since 660/61 CE). But unity was dissolving faster than he could bless it.

The bishops of Bet Qatraye — the “land of the Qataris,” stretching along Arabia’s eastern coast — had declared themselves independent from the patriarchate.

Some entire Christian villages had converted to the religion of the conquerors.

Others, still nominally Christian, were drifting into Muslim courts and adopting Arabic law.

So George did what all embattled patriarchs do: he called a synod. ✝️🕊️
He sailed down from central Iraq, crossing the waters once patrolled by Persian fleets, to meet the bishops of this rebellious province — Thomas of Bet Qatraye, Isho‘yahb of Dayrin, Sergius of Trihan, Stephanos of the Mazonaye (Oman), Pousi of Hagar (modern Hofuf), and Shahin of Hatta (modern Qatif). They gathered not in the great basilicas of the Tigris, but on a lonely island, surrounded by date palms, salt breezes, and the call to prayer echoing faintly from the Arabian mainland. 🏝️📯

⚖️ A New World Order — and a New Kind of Law

When George sat with his bishops, he knew he was presiding over a Church that no longer ruled men’s bodies — only their souls. The Sasanian “King of Kings” was dead, his throne empty. The new masters of the world, the Arabs, ruled through justice. Their qāḍīs (judges) were gaining a reputation for fairness, swiftness, and incorruptibility.
Where the old clerics had bartered verdicts like relics, the sharīʿa promised clarity.
Where Sasanian law had tied man to caste and confession, the Qurʾān bound all men to God’s will.
And where Christian canons had been flexible, local, and moralistic — Islam was codifying law as revelation itself. ⚖️📖✨
So George I opened his synod with the words:

“The times and the frailty of man… demand that we renew the canons of our fathers and add what necessity requires.”

That sentence — simple, almost weary — is one of the most extraordinary in the history of Eastern Christianity. It is the first Christian acknowledgment that the times themselves had changed — that Islam’s legal order had forced every other faith to define its own. The Church could either develop a robust canon law or watch its flock drift into Muslim tribunals.
As Michael Philip Penn put it:

“With the rise of Islam and its insistence that non-Muslims in the Islamic Empire either have their own robust system of civil law or become subject to Islamic law… this preface’s focus on the necessity of law is a direct reaction to the postconquest legal environment.”

💥 Translation: The Muslims were organized. The Christians weren’t. Time to fix that — fast.

🕋 The Shadow of Muʿāwiya

When George convened the Synod of Dayrin, Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān sat in Damascus — the first true Caliph of Empire, ruling both Arabs and non-Arabs in peace after two civil wars. To Christians, he appeared as a stabilizing, even providential figure. Syriac chroniclers later recalled his reign as a time of “rest and prosperity” — ironic words for an era in which their very legal existence was being rewritten.
But Muʿāwiya’s government, though Arab at the top, depended heavily on subject elites — Christian scribes, Zoroastrian administrators, and Jewish accountants. He allowed these communities “to govern their own internal affairs” — a policy of benign pragmatism that, intentionally or not, challenged them to create coherent, autonomous systems of governance.
So when George I wrote canons in 677, he wasn’t defying the Caliph — he was taking advantage of this freedom. 🏺
The Arabs didn’t need to coerce him into adaptation; their very stability did.
Where the Sasanian kings had ruled by decree, Muʿāwiya ruled by delegation — leaving each community to police its own.
And in that vacuum of imperial authority, George seized the moment to turn Christianity into a legal society again — one with rules, courts, and binding discipline.

⚖️ From Empire to Ecclesia: The Invention of “Christian Law”

In his canons, George introduced a phrase almost unheard of in the Syriac tradition before him: nāmosā krēsṭyānā — Christian Law.
Not simply divine teaching (mīlta d-āllāhā), not moral exhortation, but law — civil, enforceable, public.
As Lev Weitz writes:

“George I asserted the complete authority of Christian law over the public act of marrying… reformulating that foundational institution of social reproduction as an exclusively Christian one.”

💍➡️💒 This was revolutionary. By insisting that marriages, disputes, and inheritance among Christians be judged only under Church law, George was copying the structural logic of Islam — where religion defines law, and law defines community.
He was, in essence, creating a Church-shaped Ummah.

🌅 The Scene Set

So picture it — the year 677 CE:

The call to prayer rises from the harbors of Basra and Hajar.

The banner of Muʿāwiya flies over a stable, tax-efficient empire.

The bishops of the East gather under the sun of Dairin, writing canons on palm-leaf parchment.

They are surrounded by converts, rebels, and reformers — Christians who wear Arab robes, speak Arabic, and admire the new justice of Islam.

George I's scribe dips his pen, carves the date in a new calendar — Rajab, 57 of the Arabs’ rule — and begins:

“The times and the frailty of man demand that we renew the canons of our fathers…”

The Church, once the lawgiver of nations, now struggles to become the lawgiver of its own children.
Islam’s empire had remade the world — and George I was the first Christian leader to to truly understand it.

🕊️ SECTION II — “The Synod of Dairin: A Meeting in Exile”

📍Location: Island of Dayrīn (modern Bahrain)
🗓️ Date: May, 57 AH (≈ Rajab 57 AH / May 677 CE)
👑 Caliph: Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān (r. 661–680 CE), in his 15th year
⛪ Catholicos: George I of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (r. 660–680 CE)
🏝️ Attending Bishops: Thomas of Bēth Qatraye (Qatar), Isho‘yahb of Dairin (Bahrain), Sergius of Trihān (possibly Tarut Island), Stephanos of the Mazunaye (Oman), Phosy of Hagar (Hofuf/Al-Aḥsā’), Shahin of Ḥaṭṭā (Qatif).

✨ SECTION II — “The Synod of Dayrin: A Meeting in Exile”

📜 Translation of the Preface of the Synod (Dayrin, Rajab 57 / May 677 CE)

“Again: the holy and blessed synod of our father, the good and pious Mar George, Catholicos-Patriarch, and of the holy fathers who gathered and came together in the land of the Qataris.”

“For the life of this world and the frailty of the body are short, yet the wise providence of the good God has appointed for mankind times and measures, and power over mortality in every age.”

“That by means of this, those who are steadfast in the fear of God may receive from their labors the portion of life that is due to them. But the mercy and compassion of God—since the human mind is prone to weakness and the body to corruption—has ordained, through His wise guidance, laws and commandments in every generation, so that man may not lose the benefit of true understanding.”

“From the house of Adam and the house of Noah, from Abraham to Moses, the Lord appointed guides and helpers to those who feared His name. And afterwards, by the hand of His servant Moses, He established the written Law for the ancient people—a shadow of the mystery of the new.”

“Then, at the rising of the glorious dawn of His Beloved, who like the sun shone over the world, He gave to His Church the Gospel of Life. By it, the dead are raised, those fallen to earth are lifted up to heaven, and the paths of truth are made straight.”

“In their times, the holy apostles and the priests and teachers who followed them, amid trials and persecutions, set down laws and instructed assemblies in the way of righteousness. Many laws of great wisdom were thus appointed throughout the whole Church, in both West and East, established by our holy and pious fathers and written in their days, that their teaching might guide the faithful.”

“But since in every age changes arise through the weakness of mankind and the new circumstances that befall peoples and places, it is necessary to renew what has been weakened, and to strengthen those who have turned aside from the grace of God, lest they wander into self-rule and error.”

“Therefore, finding it fitting, we have gathered—by the help of our Lord—in the islands of the sea, in those regions which lie toward the south of the world, to fulfill the service of life for the people who dwell there.”

“And we found it necessary to renew the canons of our fathers and to add what is needed, that they might be preserved within the bounds of the fear of God.”

“And this took place in the month of Iyyar, in the fifty-seventh year of the dominion of the Arabs, after visiting other islands and regions, when we came to the holy Church on the island of Dairin.”

“Present were:

I, George, by the goodness of God, Catholicos and Patriarch of the East;

Thomas, by the goodness of God, Metropolitan of Beth Qatraye;

Isho‘yahb, by the goodness of God, Bishop of the island of Dayrin;

Sergius, by the goodness of God, Bishop of Trihan;

Stephanos, by the goodness of God, Bishop of the Mazonaye (Oman);

Phosi, by the goodness of God, Bishop of Hagar;

Shahin, by the goodness of God, Bishop of Hatta.”

“Having discussed all the matters that required correction, we have established these canons, both those of the ancient fathers and those that seemed fitting to add for the aid of the faithful in these regions.”

💬 Commentary — “A Church Writing from the Edge”

🏝️ “Gathered in the islands of the sea…” → Exile as strategy

George I deliberately convenes his synod not in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the old imperial seat, but on the island of Dayrin — modern-day Bahrain, at the farthest edge of the known Persian world.
➡️ This is both symbolic and political:

It’s a Church in retreat — the once-imperial Church of the East now pushed to the literal margins by Islam’s rapid expansion.

It’s also a Church in reconstruction — in a zone where conversion to Islam was surging (Weitz: “whole communities had traded their Christian affiliation for the new religion”).

Here, on Bahrain, George gathers bishops from the East Arabian coast — Qatar (Beth Qatraye), Hagar (Hofuf), Hatta (Qatif), Mazun (Oman) — to salvage ecclesiastical authority in regions where Islam’s law and order had outclassed the Church’s.

⏳ “The 57th year of the dominion of the Arabs” → The new calendar of power

The preface uses Hijrī dating — “the fifty-seventh year of the rule of the Arabs.”
➡️ This is the earliest known Christian text to adopt the Muslim calendar alone, without the Seleucid era.

This means George accepted, at least rhetorically, the temporal sovereignty of Islam.
The Seleucid calendar was the time of the Greek empires — dead now.
The Hijrī calendar marked a new epoch, where law, order, and history itself flowed from Medina, not Ctesiphon or Rome.

George’s choice silently acknowledges:

⏰ “History now runs by Arab time.”
But instead of capitulating, he appropriates it — using the same frame of time to legislate Christian renewal.

⚖️ “Laws and commandments in every age…” → Canon law as survival

George’s long theological preface — invoking Adam, Noah, Moses, and Christ — is a justification for making new law.
He insists that divine law must be renewed in every age — and this is exactly what Islam had done through the sharī‘a.

When Muslims demanded that Christians have their own civil law or be judged by Islamic courts, George took that as a challenge:
If the Arabs have a divine code, so must we.
Hence: “We found it fitting to renew the canons of our fathers and to add what is necessary.”

This is almost an imitation of Qur’anic logic:
Where the Qur’an claims to “confirm what was before it and add what is missing,” George echoes it word for word.
He is trying to keep his flock legally self-sufficient — so they wouldn’t defect to Muslim courts.

🕌 “After visiting other islands and regions…” → A Church competing with the mosque

The image is of George touring East Arabia like a caliph inspecting his provinces.
This mirrors the governor’s tours under Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān — the caliph then ruling from Damascus (r. 661–680 CE).

By 677 CE (Rajab 57), Islam had achieved:

Efficient courts in Basra and Kufa.

Arabic documents standardizing taxation.

Local Muslim judges (qāḍīs) applying a recognizable justice system.

Christians began bringing disputes to Muslim courts, attracted by:

Faster judgments.

Lower corruption.

Appeals to divine law — “By God’s Book, not by gold.”

George’s synod was the Christian answer to the qāḍī.
He created a Church court that could rival Islam’s legal prestige.

🪶 “To fulfill the service of life for those who dwell there…” → Mission in crisis

This phrase — “the service of life” — is almost pastoral code for saving souls slipping into Islam.
East Arabia’s Christians were converting — not because of persecution, but because Islam’s faith and law seemed coherent, simple, and just.

George’s synod is thus both a spiritual and bureaucratic rescue operation.
He builds fences: new marriage laws, new court rules, new discipline.
It’s not renewal for renewal’s sake — it’s survival under a rival revelation.

🧩 “We found it necessary to renew the canons…” → Canon as competition

This is the moment the blog title comes alive —
The Canons of Coexistence.

George doesn’t reject the Islamic world; he rewrites his Church to live within it.
He mirrors Islam’s legal logic to keep Christianity administratively viable.
➡️ Law, in this moment, becomes theology by other means.

💡 Final irony

Islam had no interest in suppressing these synods — only in ensuring non-Muslims had internal law.
But George’s attempt to rival the sharī‘a with his own nāmosā krēsṭyānā (Christian law) turned the Church of the East into a mirror-image of Islam’s legal self-confidence.

He did what the Qur’an said about every nation:

“To each We have appointed a law and a way” (Q 5:48).

And thus, on an island in Bahrain in Rajab 57 / May 677, a lonely patriarch with six bishops tried to keep pace with a rising civilization by writing law into the wind of change.

📜 Canon 1 — On the Right Word of Faith (ܥܠ ܕܘܠܐ ܕܡܠܬܐ ܬܪܝܨܬܐ)

Syriac English Translation
ܩܢܘܢܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ — ܥܠ ܕܘܠܐ ܕܡܠܬܐ ܬܪܝܨܬܐ First Canon — Concerning the Soundness of the Word.
ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܒܟܠ ܙܒܢܐ ܕܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܢܡܠܠܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܓܘܐ ܡܕܒܪ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢܝ̈ܐ ܘܡܠܦܥ̈ܐ : ܕܠܗܕܐ ܣܝܡܝܢ ܕܢܕܥܘܢ ܫܪܪܐ ܕܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ ܘܚܠܝܡܐܝܬ ܢܐܚܕܘܢ ܬܘܕܝܬܗܘܢ ܫܡܘ̈ܥܐ ܕܝܘܠܦܢܗܘܢ ܀ Let the teachers of faith, in every season of teaching, speak before the assembly of the Church and its rulers and instructors, that they may know the truth of Christianity and hold fast to their confession with gentleness, hearing the doctrines that are taught to them.
ܥܠ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܡܢܦܢܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܡܠܠܐ ܩܕܡ ܓܘܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ : ܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܒܕܘܟܬܗ ܐܘ ܡܢ ܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܕܗܘ̣ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܆ ܒܥܐܕ̈ܐ ܐܘ ܒܚܕܒܫ̈ܒܐ ܐܘ ܒܕܘܟܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ : Concerning the word of instruction that is spoken before the congregation of believers — whether by the bishop in his place, or by any who is a teacher — on feast days, or on Sundays, or at the commemorations of the saints:
ܚܝܒ ܗܘ̣ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܣܦܩܐ ܕܒܡܠܚܐ ܛܥܡܢܝܬܐ ܕܝܘܠܦܢ ܬܘܕܝܬܐ ܚܠܝܡܬܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܆ ܢܡܕܟ ܠܡܠܘܗ̈ܝ ܠܡܫܡܥܬܐ ܕܓܘܐ . The preacher must speak with clarity and with the salt of discernment, giving the sweet taste of Christian confession, instructing his words to the hearing of the assembly.
ܗܟܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܘܡܪܢ ܦܩܕ ܒܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܠܟܪ̈ܘܙܐ ܕܣܒܪܬܗ : ܕܙܠܘ ܠܡܬܠܡܕܘ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܡ̈ܡܐ . ܘܐܥܡܕܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܆ ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ . ܘܐܠܦܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܢܥܒܕܘܢ ܟܠܡܐ ܕܦܩܕܬܟܘܢ ܀ For so our Lord commanded in the Gospel to those who proclaimed His Good News: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
ܝܕܝܥܐ ܗܝ ܓܝܪ ܕܠܘ ܫܚܝܡܐܝܬ ܒܫܡܗ̈ܐ ܩܢܘܡ̈ܝܐ ܘܕܝܠܢܝ̈ܐ ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܡܥܡܕܝܢ ܗܘܼܘ ܆ ܘܡܪܦܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܬܠܡܕܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܚܠܝܡܐ ܕܬܘܕܝܬܐ ܕܒܗܘܢ ܆ ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܙܢܐ ܢܘܕܘܢ ܢ ܀ For it is known that if they are not baptized with proper understanding in the personal and true names of the holy Trinity, and if those who learn are not instructed with sound doctrine in their confession, they will not know in what manner they believe or confess.
ܗܟܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܠܒܙܚܐ ܘܠܬܗܠܠܬܐ ܗܘܵܐ ܗܘ̣ܐ ܬܘܠܡܕܗܘܢ : ܐܢܗ̣ܘ ܕܠܐ ܢܣܬܟܡܘܢ ܒܚܬܝܬܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܩܒܠܘ ܕܟܣܐ ܒܗ ܦܘܪܩܢܐ ܕܚܝܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܀ For thus their learning would become a laughing-stock and confusion, if they do not stand firmly upon what they have received, through which lies the salvation of their lives.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܦܣܩܢܢ ܕܒܟܠ ܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܘܬܘܪܓܡܐ ܕܡܬܡܠܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܡܠܦܢ̈ܐ ܒܝܘܡ ܥܐܕ̈ܐ ܡܪ̈ܢܝܐ ܘܚܕܒܫ̈ܒܐ ܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ ܆ ܡܠܬܐ ܦܣܝܩܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܢܫܡܥܘܢ ܠܥܡܐ . ܐܝܟ ܕܢܫܟܚܘܢܢ ܪܥܘܢ ܠܗܪ̈ܣܝܘܛܐ ܐܢ ܓܕܫ ܘܢܫܐܠܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܘܡܘܕܝܢ ܀ Therefore we decree that in every teaching and translation spoken by the teachers on the feast days and holy Sundays, a clear word of faith be heard by the people — so that they may be able to give answer to heretics if challenged, and explain how they believe and confess.

Syriac	English Translation
ܩܢܘܢܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ — ܥܠ ܕܘܠܐ ܕܡܠܬܐ ܬܪܝܨܬܐ	First Canon — Concerning the Soundness of the Word.
ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܒܟܠ ܙܒܢܐ ܕܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܢܡܠܠܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܓܘܐ ܡܕܒܪ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢܝ̈ܐ ܘܡܠܦܥ̈ܐ : ܕܠܗܕܐ ܣܝܡܝܢ ܕܢܕܥܘܢ ܫܪܪܐ ܕܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ ܘܚܠܝܡܐܝܬ ܢܐܚܕܘܢ ܬܘܕܝܬܗܘܢ ܫܡܘ̈ܥܐ ܕܝܘܠܦܢܗܘܢ ܀	Let the teachers of faith, in every season of teaching, speak before the assembly of the Church and its rulers and instructors, that they may know the truth of Christianity and hold fast to their confession with gentleness, hearing the doctrines that are taught to them.
ܥܠ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܡܢܦܢܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܡܠܠܐ ܩܕܡ ܓܘܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ : ܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܒܕܘܟܬܗ ܐܘ ܡܢ ܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܕܗܘ̣ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܆ ܒܥܐܕ̈ܐ ܐܘ ܒܚܕܒܫ̈ܒܐ ܐܘ ܒܕܘܟܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ :	Concerning the word of instruction that is spoken before the congregation of believers — whether by the bishop in his place, or by any who is a teacher — on feast days, or on Sundays, or at the commemorations of the saints:
ܚܝܒ ܗܘ̣ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܣܦܩܐ ܕܒܡܠܚܐ ܛܥܡܢܝܬܐ ܕܝܘܠܦܢ ܬܘܕܝܬܐ ܚܠܝܡܬܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܆ ܢܡܕܟ ܠܡܠܘܗ̈ܝ ܠܡܫܡܥܬܐ ܕܓܘܐ .	The preacher must speak with clarity and with the salt of discernment, giving the sweet taste of Christian confession, instructing his words to the hearing of the assembly.
ܗܟܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܘܡܪܢ ܦܩܕ ܒܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܠܟܪ̈ܘܙܐ ܕܣܒܪܬܗ : ܕܙܠܘ ܠܡܬܠܡܕܘ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܡ̈ܡܐ . ܘܐܥܡܕܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܆ ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ . ܘܐܠܦܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܢܥܒܕܘܢ ܟܠܡܐ ܕܦܩܕܬܟܘܢ ܀	For so our Lord commanded in the Gospel to those who proclaimed His Good News: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.”
ܝܕܝܥܐ ܗܝ ܓܝܪ ܕܠܘ ܫܚܝܡܐܝܬ ܒܫܡܗ̈ܐ ܩܢܘܡ̈ܝܐ ܘܕܝܠܢܝ̈ܐ ܕܬܠܝܬܝܘܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܡܥܡܕܝܢ ܗܘܼܘ ܆ ܘܡܪܦܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܬܠܡܕܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܚܠܝܡܐ ܕܬܘܕܝܬܐ ܕܒܗܘܢ ܆ ܕܒܐܝܢܐ ܙܢܐ ܢܘܕܘܢ ܢ ܀	For it is known that if they are not baptized with proper understanding in the personal and true names of the holy Trinity, and if those who learn are not instructed with sound doctrine in their confession, they will not know in what manner they believe or confess.
ܗܟܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܠܒܙܚܐ ܘܠܬܗܠܠܬܐ ܗܘܵܐ ܗܘ̣ܐ ܬܘܠܡܕܗܘܢ : ܐܢܗ̣ܘ ܕܠܐ ܢܣܬܟܡܘܢ ܒܚܬܝܬܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܩܒܠܘ ܕܟܣܐ ܒܗ ܦܘܪܩܢܐ ܕܚܝܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܀	For thus their learning would become a laughing-stock and confusion, if they do not stand firmly upon what they have received, through which lies the salvation of their lives.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܦܣܩܢܢ ܕܒܟܠ ܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܘܬܘܪܓܡܐ ܕܡܬܡܠܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܡܠܦܢ̈ܐ ܒܝܘܡ ܥܐܕ̈ܐ ܡܪ̈ܢܝܐ ܘܚܕܒܫ̈ܒܐ ܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ ܆ ܡܠܬܐ ܦܣܝܩܝܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܢܫܡܥܘܢ ܠܥܡܐ . ܐܝܟ ܕܢܫܟܚܘܢܢ ܪܥܘܢ ܠܗܪ̈ܣܝܘܛܐ ܐܢ ܓܕܫ ܘܢܫܐܠܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܘܡܘܕܝܢ ܀	Therefore we decree that in every teaching and translation spoken by the teachers on the feast days and holy Sundays, a clear word of faith be heard by the people — so that they may be able to give answer to heretics if challenged, and explain how they believe and confess.

🧩 Commentary — The Sound Word vs. the Recited Qur’an

🕌 1. “On the right word” → Competing with the Qur’an

In 7th-century Arabia, word (ܡܠܬܐ / kalima) had become the axis of religion.
Muslims were proclaiming the kalimat Allāh with precision and melody; even children in Basra memorized sūras flawlessly.
George I’s canon opens with anxiety: Christian sermons had become sloppy, ambiguous, and doctrinally confused.

So, Canon 1 orders every bishop and preacher to speak the faith clearly, with salt and sweetness.
It’s as if George had listened to Muslims reciting Q 112 — Qul huwa Allāhu aḥad and realized:
➡️ “We need our own confident creed, equally rhythmic, equally certain.”

🧠 2. “With the salt of discernment” → Counter-daʿwah

Islam’s early preachers (qurrāʾ and fuqahāʾ) were converting people not by force but by eloquence and logic.
Basran Muslims publicly debated Trinity, Incarnation, and Monastic celibacy.
Christians often lost — not because Islam coerced them, but because their own teachers “could not explain how they believe and confess.”

George responds like a general re-training his troops: every homily, every Sunday sermon must contain a mini-catechism.
The laity must be able to answer Muslims and heretics alike.

🗣️ “So that they may give answer to those who ask them how they believe.”
This is the earliest known Christian apologetic canon within Islamic territory.

⛪ 3. “In every teaching and translation” → The rise of Arabic

The canon says “in every teaching and translation (ܬܘܪܓܡܐ).”
By 677 CE, Arabic was fast replacing Syriac as the language of the street — especially in Beth Qatraye.
Many faithful no longer understood sermons in pure Syriac.
George thus orders “translation” — a remarkable concession:
➡️ Preach in whatever tongue keeps the people’s faith alive — even Arabic if needed.

That line quietly marks the start of Arabic Christianity.

⚖️ 4. “To stand firmly upon what they have received” → Legal and doctrinal discipline

Islamic law had a single, tight aqīda; Christians had fragmented schools.
George’s canon imposes doctrinal uniformity to parallel Islam’s legal clarity.
His concern isn’t mystical salvation but juridical cohesion — the ability to recite the creed correctly under questioning, like giving sworn testimony.
It’s creed as fiqh.

📜 5. Echo of Qur’an 5:48 — “Each has its law and way”

Canon 1 fits perfectly the Qur’anic worldview that every community has its allotted law.
Islamic judges were already asking dhimmīs about their “scripture and confession.”
George’s canon ensures that every Christian could articulate that confession without embarrassment — to maintain autonomy in a world of articulate Muslims.

🧩 6. Outcome

Canon 1, then, is not just about preaching — it’s the first defensive wall of a Church living beside the mosque.
Its goal:

Prevent ignorance → prevent conversion.

Replace imperial theology with liturgical eloquence.

Create a Christian answer to the Muslim qāriʾ.

In effect, George I turned every Sunday homily into a class in Christian law and identity.

📜 Canon 2 — On Churches and Monasteries Built by the Faithful (ܥܠ ܕܝܪ̈ܐ ܘܥܕ̈ܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ)

Syriac	English Translation
ܥܠ ܗܝ ܕܟܠ ܥܕ̈ܬܐ ܘܕܝܪ̈ܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܪ̈ܚܡܝ ܐܠܗܐ ܡܬܒ̈ܢܝܢ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܐܘ ܒܟܘܪܗ̇ :	Concerning every church and monastery built by the faithful, beloved of God, whether in a city or a village:
ܒܝܕܥܬܗ ܘܒܡܦܣܢܘܬܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܒܢܝܢܗܝܢ ܆ ܘܐܝܟ ܕܗܘ̣ ܢܦܩܘܕ ܢܬܛ̈ܟܣܢ ܀	Their construction shall be with the knowledge and permission of the bishop, and they shall be arranged according to his command.
ܟܠ ܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܪ̈ܚܡܝ ܠܡܫܝܚܐ ܕܒܪܬܚܐ ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܘܪܚܡܬ ܛܒ̈ܬܐ ܨܒܝܢ ܕܢܒܢܘܢ ܥܕܬܐ ܐܘ ܕܝܪܐ ܒܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܐܘ ܒܟܘܪܗܿ :	All the faithful who, in zeal of faith and love of good deeds, wish to build a church or monastery in a city or village:
ܢܗܘܘܢ ܡܘܕܥܝܢ ܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܨܒܝܢܗܘܢ ܘܢܝܫܐ ܕܬܪܥܝܬܗܘܢ :	They shall first make their intention known to the bishop and receive his blessing and approval.
ܘܗܟܢܐ ܡܢܗ ܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܡܦܣܢܘܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܆ ܕܐܢ ܘܿܠܐ ܢܦܫ̈ܬܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܬܓܥܠ ܠܗ ܘܦܘܪ̈ܢܣܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܥܕܪ̈ܢ ܠܚܝ̈ܝܗܘܢ :	And thus from him (the bishop) they shall receive the license and blessing for this work; otherwise, the souls of those who presume to build without it, and the fortunes of those who aid them, are endangered.
ܐܦ ܕܢܫܡܠܘܢ ܨܒܝܢܗܘܢ ܐܢ ܡ̇ܢ ܓܝܪ ܕܚܕܐ ܙܒܢ ܐܬܗܝܡܢ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܢܘܢ ܣܘܥܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܡܝܬܪ̈ܐ ܣܒܝܪܝܢ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܆ ܠܐ ܫܠܝܛܝܢ ܕܡܢܗܘܢ ܘܠܗܘܢ ܒܠܥܕ ܡܦܣܢܘܬܐ ܘܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܕܗܘ ܕܝܨܝܦܘܬܗܘܢ ܐܬܗܝܡܢ ܢܝܬܘܢ ܫܘܡܠܝܗܘܢ ܀	For even though their zeal seems pious, yet those deeds which go beyond measure are not permitted; for without the bishop’s approval and command, let none stretch forth their hand in the choice of a church or monastery.
ܟܠ ܥܕ̈ܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܘ ܕܝܪ̈ܬܐ ܕܡܬܒܢܝ̈ܢ ܒܟܠ ܩܪܐ ܘܡܕܝܢܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܩܬܘܠܝ̈ܩܐ ܢܗܘ̈ܝܢ ܆ ܘܒܫܘܠܛܢܗ ܢܬܛ̈ܟܣܢ ܆ ܘܬܚܝܬ ܦܘܪܢܣܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܢܗܘ̈ܝܢ ܀	Therefore every church or monastery built in any town or village shall belong to the Catholic (universal) Church, and shall be ordered under its authority, and remain under the protection of the bishop.

🧩 Commentary — The Church That Built Too Freely

🕌 1. What the canon is doing

At first glance, this seems like bureaucratic micromanagement — “don’t build churches without your bishop’s permission.”

But in context, it’s George’s response to the new freedom under Islam.

As Simon Pierre shows, between the conquest (630s) and the second fitna (680s–690s), Christians across Iraq and the Gulf were free to build churches and monasteries.

Muslim governors — far from destroying them — even helped, funded, or attended dedications.

The “local governor (shallīṭā)” of Mosul and Muʿāwiya’s viceroy ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād were known patrons of Christian sanctuaries.

➡️ So the paradox is this:

Under the Caliphs, church construction was easier than it had ever been under the Sasanians.

⚖️ 2. The problem: autonomy without hierarchy

This freedom undermined episcopal control.

Villagers or wealthy families could now build a church directly under Muslim permission — bypassing their bishop.

They might even dedicate it to saints outside the official calendar, or run it as a private foundation (waqf-like).

George’s canon reclaims that lost control:

“Let every church or monastery be under the bishop’s knowledge, command, and protection.”

He’s quietly re-Christianizing a structure of property law that Muslims had accidentally secularized.

🧱 3. “Beloved of God, whether in a city or village” → Islam’s urban reach

Notice George’s scope — cities (madinta) and villages (kūra).

The expansion of the ʿāmil (Muslim tax-governor) system into rural Khuzistan and Bahrain made local communities financially independent.

So rural Christians could now fund a chapel on their own.

George is saying:

➡️ “You may build with your hands, but the bishop owns the walls.”

🧩 4. “Otherwise their souls are endangered” → Spiritualizing property

George uses eternal damnation to reinforce bureaucratic authority.

“Without the bishop’s license … their souls are endangered.”

This wasn’t about salvation — it was about obedience.

But he cloaks jurisdictional anxiety in eschatological language — a classic late antique trick.

It’s also a counterpoint to Islam’s early niyya (intention) ethic:

Muslims were taught that deeds were judged by intention — “actions are by intentions.”

George flips it: intention isn’t enough; authorization is.

➡️ The Christian equivalent of ijazah.

🕌 5. Islamic parallels — the birth of waqf

At this same moment, early Muslims were creating the institution of the waqf, or charitable endowment — private property dedicated to God, immune from taxation, managed locally.

Christians were mimicking it, building private monasteries or family churches (bēth qaddīshē).

George’s canon is a reaction:

“All churches and monasteries … shall belong to the Catholic Church, not private families.”

He’s trying to prevent the Church of the East from fragmenting into independent, quasi-Islamic waqfs.

🕋 6. A quiet acknowledgment of Muslim power

Note how George refers to the bishop’s permission as license (maphṣanūthā) — the same Syriac word used for official authorization from a Muslim sulṭān (shulṭānā).

He’s mirroring the language of Islamic governance to assert internal ecclesiastical sovereignty.

In short: if the Arabs have a sulṭān, then the bishop must be the sulṭān within the Church.

🌊 7. Why Bahrain (Dayrin)?

The canon’s geography matters: Dayrin (modern Bahrain) was a maritime frontier where churches were easy to build and harder to control.

Merchants, pearl divers, and monks from Beth Qatraye had wealth, autonomy, and new Arab patrons.

George traveled all the way from Seleucia-Ctesiphon to remind them:

➡️ “The bishop’s authority does not stop at the shore.”

✝️ 8. The canon’s deeper anxiety

Islamic rule hadn’t banned church construction — it had decentralized it.

In that decentralization lay a new kind of chaos: holy buildings springing up without canonical oversight, mirroring mosques where anyone could pray and recite.

George’s canon re-sacralizes the building itself:

only a bishop’s blessing can make bricks into a “Church of Christ.”

🔚 Summary

Canon 2, then, is not anti-Islamic but anti-anarchy — the Church’s attempt to rebuild hierarchy in a world where Islam had democratized piety.

It proclaims:

🧱 “Yes, you may build — but you will build under us.”

In 677 CE, that was George’s way of saying:

➡️ “If Islam has a Caliph, we have a Catholicos.”

📜 Canon 3 — On the Selection of Church Leaders (ܥܠ ܓܒܝܬܐ ܕܡܕܒܪ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢ̈ܝܐ)

Syriac Text English Translation
ܥܠ ܓܒܝܬܐ ܕܡܕܒܪ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢ̈ܝܐ : Concerning the selection of ecclesiastical leaders:
ܕܡܢ ܕܘܒܪ̈ܐ ܡܝܬܪ̈ܐ ܘܡ̣ܢ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܘܬܪܝܨܘܬܐ ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܘܤܦܩܘܬܐ ܕܠܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܢܬܓܒܘܢ : They shall be chosen from among those distinguished by virtue, by knowledge of doctrine, firmness of faith, and sufficiency for the ministry.
ܘܠܘ ܡܢ ܡܬܩܕܡܢܘܬܐ ܕܨܝܕ ܦܪܨܘܦܐ ܘܡܣܒܒܐܪ̈ܐ ܘܡܘܗ̈ܒܬܐ ܥܕܝܠܬܐ ܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܫܠܝܚܘܬܐ ܕܟܣܐ ܒܗܿ ܦܘܪܩܢܐ ܕܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ܀ And not from personal favoritism, flattery, or gifts of wealth; for such men are unworthy to receive the ministry of the apostles, by which is wrought the salvation of humankind.
ܐܡܬܝ ܕܚܕ ܡ̣ܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘ̈ܦܐ ܕܒܕܘܟ̈ܝܬܐ ܢܥܢܕ : ܗܘ̣ܐ ܡܬܚܡ ܠܓܒܝܬܐ ܕܐܚܪܢܐ܆ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܩܥܘ̈ܢܐ ܤܝܡܝ̈ ܠܐܒܗ̈ܝܢ ܛܘܒ̈ܬܢܐ ܝܕܝܥ . When any bishop of a district dies, the appointment of his successor shall be made with prudence, as our blessed fathers decreed from ancient canons.
ܘܗܟܢܐ ܠܦܘܬ ܢܡܘܣ̈ܐ ܫܠܝܚܝܐ ܒܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܓܘܐ : ܡ̣ܢ ܕܘܒܪ̈ܐ ܘܡܢ ܙܢ̈ܝܐ ܡܝܬܪ̈ܐ ܢܬܦܪܫ ܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܬܗܝܡܢ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ . According to the apostolic laws of the Church, the one worthy of ministry shall be distinguished by greater virtue and discipline.
ܟܕ ܡܫܘܕܥܝܢ ܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܕܡܘܬܒܐ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܡܲܢܘ ܥܣܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܬܫܡܫܬܐ : Let the clergy and faithful of the episcopal see inform the metropolitan concerning the one they propose for the ministry.
ܘܢܕܥܝܘܗܝ ܘܢܤܝܡܝܘܗܝ ܘܢܫܘܕܥ ܠܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܣ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܒܬܫܕܪܬܐ ܕܫܠܡܘܬܗ ܕܥܡܐ : Then he (the metropolitan) shall examine, approve, and consecrate him, and inform the Patriarch by a letter of ecclesiastical communion.
ܘܠܦܘܬ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܣ ܢܫܬܡܫ ܛܟܣܗ ܘܢܬܓܡܪ ܫܘܡܠܝܗ܆ And according to the command of the Patriarch, his ordination shall be performed and completed.
ܒܐܦ̈ܐ ܥ̇ܒܕܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܦܪܨܘܦܐ܆ ܘܒܫܘܚܕܐ ܡܣܠܝܐ ܘܡܘܗ̈ܒܬܐ ܥܕܝܠ̈ܬܐ ܒܟܠܗ̇ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ : But those who act from partiality, and ordain by bribery, influence, or gifts, in any rank whatsoever—
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܒܬܪܥܝܬܐܐܢܫܝܬܐ ܓܒܝܬܐ ܕܡܫܡܫܝܢ ܠܨܒܘ̈ܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܒܓܒܝܬܐ ܡܚܝܒܬܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܟܢ : ܗܘܬܼ ܒܛܝܠܐ ܓܒܝܬܗܘܢ : ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ ܕܡܪܝܐ܀ —those who by human favor obtain divine offices: their ordination shall be void, by the word of the Lord’s power.

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܓܒܝܬܐ ܕܡܕܒܪ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢ̈ܝܐ :	Concerning the selection of ecclesiastical leaders:
ܕܡܢ ܕܘܒܪ̈ܐ ܡܝܬܪ̈ܐ ܘܡ̣ܢ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܘܬܪܝܨܘܬܐ ܕܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ ܘܤܦܩܘܬܐ ܕܠܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܢܬܓܒܘܢ :	They shall be chosen from among those distinguished by virtue, by knowledge of doctrine, firmness of faith, and sufficiency for the ministry.
ܘܠܘ ܡܢ ܡܬܩܕܡܢܘܬܐ ܕܨܝܕ ܦܪܨܘܦܐ ܘܡܣܒܒܐܪ̈ܐ ܘܡܘܗ̈ܒܬܐ ܥܕܝܠܬܐ ܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܫܠܝܚܘܬܐ ܕܟܣܐ ܒܗܿ ܦܘܪܩܢܐ ܕܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ܀	And not from personal favoritism, flattery, or gifts of wealth; for such men are unworthy to receive the ministry of the apostles, by which is wrought the salvation of humankind.
ܐܡܬܝ ܕܚܕ ܡ̣ܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘ̈ܦܐ ܕܒܕܘܟ̈ܝܬܐ ܢܥܢܕ : ܗܘ̣ܐ ܡܬܚܡ ܠܓܒܝܬܐ ܕܐܚܪܢܐ܆ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܩܥܘ̈ܢܐ ܤܝܡܝ̈ ܠܐܒܗ̈ܝܢ ܛܘܒ̈ܬܢܐ ܝܕܝܥ .	When any bishop of a district dies, the appointment of his successor shall be made with prudence, as our blessed fathers decreed from ancient canons.
ܘܗܟܢܐ ܠܦܘܬ ܢܡܘܣ̈ܐ ܫܠܝܚܝܐ ܒܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܓܘܐ : ܡ̣ܢ ܕܘܒܪ̈ܐ ܘܡܢ ܙܢ̈ܝܐ ܡܝܬܪ̈ܐ ܢܬܦܪܫ ܐܝܢܐ ܕܡܬܗܝܡܢ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ .	According to the apostolic laws of the Church, the one worthy of ministry shall be distinguished by greater virtue and discipline.
ܟܕ ܡܫܘܕܥܝܢ ܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܕܡܘܬܒܐ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܡܲܢܘ ܥܣܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܬܫܡܫܬܐ :	Let the clergy and faithful of the episcopal see inform the metropolitan concerning the one they propose for the ministry.
ܘܢܕܥܝܘܗܝ ܘܢܤܝܡܝܘܗܝ ܘܢܫܘܕܥ ܠܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܣ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܒܬܫܕܪܬܐ ܕܫܠܡܘܬܗ ܕܥܡܐ :	Then he (the metropolitan) shall examine, approve, and consecrate him, and inform the Patriarch by a letter of ecclesiastical communion.
ܘܠܦܘܬ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܣ ܢܫܬܡܫ ܛܟܣܗ ܘܢܬܓܡܪ ܫܘܡܠܝܗ܆	And according to the command of the Patriarch, his ordination shall be performed and completed.
ܒܐܦ̈ܐ ܥ̇ܒܕܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܦܪܨܘܦܐ܆ ܘܒܫܘܚܕܐ ܡܣܠܝܐ ܘܡܘܗ̈ܒܬܐ ܥܕܝܠ̈ܬܐ ܒܟܠܗ̇ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ :	But those who act from partiality, and ordain by bribery, influence, or gifts, in any rank whatsoever—
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܒܬܪܥܝܬܐܐܢܫܝܬܐ ܓܒܝܬܐ ܕܡܫܡܫܝܢ ܠܨܒܘ̈ܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܒܓܒܝܬܐ ܡܚܝܒܬܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܟܢ : ܗܘܬܼ ܒܛܝܠܐ ܓܒܝܬܗܘܢ : ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ ܕܡܪܝܐ܀	—those who by human favor obtain divine offices: their ordination shall be void, by the word of the Lord’s power.

🧩 Commentary — “The Caliph Chooses by Merit — Why Can’t We?”

⚖️ 1. A meritocratic echo of the Caliphate

The first lines — “let them be chosen from among the virtuous, the learned, the firm in faith” — read like a Christianized version of the Islamic ethos of the ʿālim and amīn.
By the 670s, Muslims in Iraq and Khuzistan were appointing qāḍīs and administrators known for learning and piety rather than noble lineage.
George I is implicitly saying:

“If the Arabs are choosing their judges by piety and justice, then the Church must choose its bishops the same way — but under our law, not theirs.”

He’s hijacking the language of early Islamic virtue politics to re-centralize authority in the Catholicosate.

💰 2. “Not from gifts or faces” → Anti-bribery = Anti-fitna

The canon bans ordination by money, favoritism, or face (ܦܪܨܘܦܐ = wajh, influence).
This mirrors the anti-corruption discourse that exploded after the First Fitna (656–661).
Under the Rashidun and early Umayyads, ṣadaqa and public morality were central: bribery (rishwah) was condemned as a sign of the decaying Roman and Sasanian worlds.

George I is echoing that — not opposing Islam, but competing with it.
➡️ “If their rulers forbid bribery in the mosque, we must purge it from the altar.”

🧱 3. Institutional anxiety after the collapse of Sasanian patronage

Before the conquest, episcopal appointments often depended on Sasanian approval or local noble houses.
Now, without that imperial backing, money and charisma threatened to replace canonical order.
So George reinstates a three-tier approval chain — local clergy → metropolitan → patriarch — mirroring the Caliph → provincial governor → local amil hierarchy.

In short: a Christian bureaucracy competing with the Islamic bureaucracy for moral legitimacy.

🕋 4. “Let the clergy and faithful inform the metropolitan” — democracy, but safely contained

Under Islam, local consensus (ijmāʿ) mattered — tribes elected their amīrs; communities endorsed qāḍīs.
George cautiously imitates this:

“Let the faithful propose the candidate.”
But then he immediately reins it in: the metropolitan and patriarch must ratify it.
➡️ He’s offering controlled participation, the Church’s version of shūrā (consultation).

⚡ 5. “Those ordained by bribery — void by the power of the Lord”

This is thunderous. George declares that illicit ordinations are ontologically null — the sacrament simply doesn’t take.
That’s extraordinary theology, because it places administrative sin on par with doctrinal heresy.
He’s weaponizing sacramental theology to enforce bureaucratic purity, the same way Muslims used ḥalāl/ḥarām distinctions to enforce legal and moral norms.

It’s no coincidence that this appears as Arab administration professionalized:
Muslim records from Basra and Kufa show salaried scribes and jurists punished for bribery and favoritism — the same vices George condemns.

🕊 6. The ghost of the Fitna

By 677, Iraq had been torn apart by factions — ʿAlids, Kharijites, Umayyads — all claiming divine legitimacy.
George’s phrase “their ordination shall be void” mirrors the logic of invalid bayʿah (pledge of allegiance) in Islamic thought:
a caliph chosen by false means has no legitimacy before God.
He’s translating that political theology into the Church’s idiom.

➡️ “A bishop chosen by bribes is as illegitimate as a caliph chosen by deceit.”

🧭 7. Khuzistan and Beth Qatraye — why it mattered

In Khuzistan, both Nestorian and Miaphysite communities were wealthy, urban, and close to Muslim governors.
It was common for ʿāmils (tax-collectors) to appoint local Christian elders (ra’is) as intermediaries.
Those same elders tried to influence ecclesiastical elections.
George’s canon is effectively a firewall:
no ra’is, no governor, no noble can install a bishop.
Only the canonical hierarchy — which he equates with divine order — can.

🏛 8. In short

This canon is George’s most open attempt to re-assert hierarchy in a meritocratic world.
Islamic rule had accidentally democratized and moralized authority — you rose by piety and justice, not wealth.
George’s response was to claim that same moral high ground, but inside an episcopal chain of command.

He’s saying:

✝️ “Yes, virtue makes a leader — but virtue must be certified by the Church, not the crowd.”
🕌 “You may have your qāḍīs — we have our bishops.”

📜 Canon 4 — On Bishops and the Administration of Church Property (ܥܠ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ)

Syriac Text English Translation
ܥܠ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܐ ܘܿܠܐ ܕܢܬܢܚܬ ܠܣܘܥܪ̈ܢܐ ܙܥܘܪ̈ܐ ܕܪܒܬ ܒܝܬܘܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܘܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܨܒܘ̈ܬܐ ܕܢܦܩ̈ܬܗܿ Concerning bishops: he should not personally manage the minor affairs or expenditures of the great houses of the Church, or the provision of its almsgiving.
ܐܠܐ ܒܐܝܕܝ̈ ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܢܓܥܠ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܟܢ ܕܠܐ ܢܪܗܛ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܨܘܚܝܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܦܘ̈ܡܐ ܠܐ ܙܗܝܪ̈ܐ Rather, he shall entrust this service of provision to trustworthy persons, that no slander from careless tongues may arise against him.
ܟܠ ܐܘܣܝ̈ܣ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܩܠܪܝܩܘ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܘܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܢܦܩ̈ܬܗ̇ ܘܢܛܘܪܬܐ ܕܢܟܣܝ̈ܗ̇ ܘܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܢܬܦܪܢܣܘܢ Every foundation of the Church, its clergy, the steward of its expenses, and the keeper of its property—
ܒܐܝܕ̈ܝ ܦܪ̈ܨܘܦܐ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܢܓܥܠ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܬܫܡܫܬܗܝܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܦ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܐܝܬ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܕܠܚ̇ܡܝܢ ܠܥܒ̇ܕܐ ܗܢܐ … the bishop shall appoint their ministry to faithful men, those whose reputation and conduct are well known among the clergy and believers.
ܘܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܢܦܪܢܣܘܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܒܕܚܠܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܠܦܘܬ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܘܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܩܠܪܘܣ All these shall administer their duties in the fear of God, following the command of the bishop and the knowledge of the clergy.
ܘܐܢ ܐܠܨܐ ܐܦ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܝܕܝ̈ܥܐ ܒܟܠܗ̇ ܕܟܝܘܬܐ And if necessary, let even lay believers of proven honesty assist in these matters.
ܡܣܬ ܕܠܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܡܢ ܥܒܕ̈ܐ ܡܬܚ̈ܬܝܐ ܢܫܬܐܠ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܐܠܐ ܘܕܢܗܘܐ ܤܦܝܡ ܠܥܒ̇ܕܐ ܕܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܘܕܬܘܠܡܕܐ For the bishop is not to occupy himself only with inferior labors, but to devote himself to teaching and instruction.
ܘܠܡܛܟܣܘ ܥܕ̈ܝܠܬܐ ܕܓܕ̈ܫܢ ܒܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܘܠܡܟܪܙܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ ܘܠܡܒܢܝܘ ܢܦܫܬ̈ܐ ܕܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ He should ordain those who sanctify the faithful, proclaim the word of truth, and build up the souls of humankind.
ܗܟܢܐ ܕܐܦ ܫܠܝܚ̈ܐ ܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ ܡܢ ܗܢܝ̈ܢ ܐܫܬܐܠܘ ܝܩܪܘ ܕܝܢ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܨܒܘܬ̈ܐ ܦܓܪܢܝܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܟܤܐ ܒܗ̈ܝܢ ܘܦܘܪܩܢܐ ܕܚܝ̈ܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ For even the holy apostles employed such helpers. Therefore let the bishop honor those who serve faithfully in these bodily duties, by which the life and salvation of believers is sustained.
ܡܢ ܕܢܬܬܚܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܣܟ ܐܬܬܣܝܡ ܠܓܡܪ ܗܘ̣ܐ ܡܫܬܐܠ ܒܕܝܠܝܬܗ ܕܫ݀ܘܝܐ ܠܐܝܩܪܗ But whoever stoops to the management of small affairs is diminished in the dignity of his office.

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܐ ܘܿܠܐ ܕܢܬܢܚܬ ܠܣܘܥܪ̈ܢܐ ܙܥܘܪ̈ܐ ܕܪܒܬ ܒܝܬܘܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܘܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܨܒܘ̈ܬܐ ܕܢܦܩ̈ܬܗܿ	Concerning bishops: he should not personally manage the minor affairs or expenditures of the great houses of the Church, or the provision of its almsgiving.
ܐܠܐ ܒܐܝܕܝ̈ ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܢܓܥܠ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܟܢ ܕܠܐ ܢܪܗܛ ܥܠܘܗܝ ܨܘܚܝܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܦܘ̈ܡܐ ܠܐ ܙܗܝܪ̈ܐ	Rather, he shall entrust this service of provision to trustworthy persons, that no slander from careless tongues may arise against him.
ܟܠ ܐܘܣܝ̈ܣ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܩܠܪܝܩܘ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ ܘܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܢܦܩ̈ܬܗ̇ ܘܢܛܘܪܬܐ ܕܢܟܣܝ̈ܗ̇ ܘܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܢܬܦܪܢܣܘܢ	Every foundation of the Church, its clergy, the steward of its expenses, and the keeper of its property—
ܒܐܝܕ̈ܝ ܦܪ̈ܨܘܦܐ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܢܓܥܠ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܬܫܡܫܬܗܝܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܦ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܐܝܬ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܕܠܚ̇ܡܝܢ ܠܥܒ̇ܕܐ ܗܢܐ	… the bishop shall appoint their ministry to faithful men, those whose reputation and conduct are well known among the clergy and believers.
ܘܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܢܦܪܢܣܘܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܒܕܚܠܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܠܦܘܬ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܘܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܩܠܪܘܣ	All these shall administer their duties in the fear of God, following the command of the bishop and the knowledge of the clergy.
ܘܐܢ ܐܠܨܐ ܐܦ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܝܕܝ̈ܥܐ ܒܟܠܗ̇ ܕܟܝܘܬܐ	And if necessary, let even lay believers of proven honesty assist in these matters.
ܡܣܬ ܕܠܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܡܢ ܥܒܕ̈ܐ ܡܬܚ̈ܬܝܐ ܢܫܬܐܠ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܐܠܐ ܘܕܢܗܘܐ ܤܦܝܡ ܠܥܒ̇ܕܐ ܕܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ ܘܕܬܘܠܡܕܐ	For the bishop is not to occupy himself only with inferior labors, but to devote himself to teaching and instruction.
ܘܠܡܛܟܣܘ ܥܕ̈ܝܠܬܐ ܕܓܕ̈ܫܢ ܒܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܘܠܡܟܪܙܘ ܡܠܬܐ ܕܫܪܪܐ ܘܠܡܒܢܝܘ ܢܦܫܬ̈ܐ ܕܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ	He should ordain those who sanctify the faithful, proclaim the word of truth, and build up the souls of humankind.
ܗܟܢܐ ܕܐܦ ܫܠܝܚ̈ܐ ܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ ܡܢ ܗܢܝ̈ܢ ܐܫܬܐܠܘ ܝܩܪܘ ܕܝܢ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܘܬܪܢܐ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܨܒܘܬ̈ܐ ܦܓܪܢܝܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܠܥܠ ܟܤܐ ܒܗ̈ܝܢ ܘܦܘܪܩܢܐ ܕܚܝ̈ܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ	For even the holy apostles employed such helpers. Therefore let the bishop honor those who serve faithfully in these bodily duties, by which the life and salvation of believers is sustained.
ܡܢ ܕܢܬܬܚܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܣܟ ܐܬܬܣܝܡ ܠܓܡܪ ܗܘ̣ܐ ܡܫܬܐܠ ܒܕܝܠܝܬܗ ܕܫ݀ܘܝܐ ܠܐܝܩܪܗ	But whoever stoops to the management of small affairs is diminished in the dignity of his office.

🧭 Commentary — “The Bishop, the Treasurer, and the Spirit of Zakāt”

🕌 1. Islamic fiscal revolution: Muʿāwiya’s world of accountability

By 677 CE, Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān (r. 661–680) had professionalized the dīwān (bureaucratic register) and introduced financial accountability across Iraq and Khuzistan.
Every governor was expected to appoint ʿummāl al-ṣadaqāt — trustworthy stewards to collect alms and distribute stipends.

George I was clearly watching this transformation.
In his canon, he tells bishops to delegate fiscal duties to trustworthy men and keep their own hands clean — the same moral and practical rationale the early caliphs gave for dividing sacred office and financial duty.

➡️ He’s re-casting the Christian bishop in the mold of a qāḍī or ʿāmil: holy in law, not in ledgers.

💰 2. “Not handling small affairs” → anti-corruption and ascetic dignity

When George forbids bishops to “handle small affairs,” he’s not calling them lazy — he’s elevating them.
In Islam, the caliph and the qāḍī were expected to avoid suspicion of greed; they ruled by ʿadālah (moral integrity).
Likewise, a bishop who counts coins or distributes bread himself risks gossip — ṣūḥīthā d-min pūmē lā zahīrē — “the talk of unguarded mouths.”
He’s protecting episcopal honor by enforcing financial distance, a concept that resonates with the Qurʾānic principle:

“Do not consume the wealth of others unjustly.” (Q 2:188)

🕋 3. The rise of pious administrators

The canon insists finances be managed “by faithful men.”
This mirrors how early Muslims praised the amīn — the “trustworthy one.”
Even the Prophet ﷺ called tax-collectors “ʿummāl amānah,” not “servants.”
George seems to create a Christian amānah system: the Church’s ʿummāl are lay accountants and stewards known for dayyānūtā (integrity).

This is how the Church of the East could continue functioning in Muslim lands — by adopting Muslim moral bureaucratic language and baptizing it.

🕯 4. Delegation and spiritual hierarchy

The bishop’s role, George says, is not to weigh silver but to teach, ordain, and build souls.
This draws directly from early Muslim administrative ethics: the qāḍī judges, the kātib writes, the ʿāmil manages.
Each has its divinely-ordained sphere.
He’s telling the Church:

“Stop confusing spiritual authority with fiscal control.”

That’s a striking break from Sasanian custom, where bishops were often landowners and estate managers.
Islamic rule forced a clerical specialization — spiritual vs. material — centuries before Europe would discover it.

⚖️ 5. A moral economy of transparency

George’s requirement that even “lay believers of proven honesty” could be called in evokes Islamic communal ethics: amr bi l-maʿrūf — enjoining right.
He’s saying the laity have a role in keeping finances honest, much as Muslims saw charity and oversight as collective duties.
In that sense, this canon is not merely bureaucratic; it’s a theology of accountability.

🪙 6. Khuzistan and Beth Qatraye: why this mattered

These were wealthy Christian regions where estates, monasteries, and endowments (waqf-like lands) produced serious income.
After the conquest, Muslim tax offices began auditing local finances.
If a bishop was accused of corruption, the whole community’s dhimmī status could be jeopardized.
So George’s canon doubles as a survival manual:
keep episcopal hands visibly clean, appoint honest stewards, and satisfy both conscience and caliph.

🌿 7. The closing line — “He who stoops to small affairs…”

This final warning sounds almost prophetic.
To meddle in petty funds is to lose ʾīqārā (honor).
In Islam, rulers who mishandled wealth were called sāqiṭ al-muruʾah — “fallen from dignity.”
George adopts that same ethic of muruʾah, merging Sasanian aristocratic dignity with Islamic moral restraint.

🧩 8. Summary

Canon 4 is George I’s attempt to Christianize zakāt ethics and mirror the caliphate’s fiscal discipline.
He builds a mini-bureaucracy of pious accountants under episcopal oversight, freeing bishops to focus on the soul while avoiding the taint of wealth.

🕊 Spiritual work to the shepherd, fiscal work to the faithful.
💰 Purity of hands = purity of faith.

📜 Canon 5 — On Ordinations and the Authority of Bishops (ܥܠ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܙܕ̈ܩܢ)

Syriac Text English Translation
ܥܠ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܙܕ̈ܩܢ ܐܢ ܣܝܡ ܐܝܕ̈ܐ ܥܕܬܢܝ̈ܐ ܕܩܫܝ̈ܫܐ ܘܕܡܫܡܫܢ̈ܐ Concerning those who are under the authority of the bishop: if there is the laying-on of hands in the churches — of priests or deacons —
ܘܐܢ ܝܗܝܒܘܬ ܥܕܬܐ ܐܘ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܚܫ̇ܚܝܢ ܠܬܫܡܫܬܗܝܢ or if there be a gift (endowment) of a church or monastery for those who desire to serve therein,
ܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛ ܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܡܗܝ ܡܥܐ ܠܡܘܫܒܘܐ ܕܐܝܕܐ ܒܦܘܪܢܣܗܝܢ let no one outside of the bishop’s council or circle intrude upon their ordination or appointment.
ܒܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܐܢܝ̈ܢ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ For these matters belong to the bishop alone.
ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܙܕܩ̈ܢ ܘܕܝܠܗ ܐܢܝ̈ܢ ܘܬܚܝܬ ܫܘܠܛܢܗ ܤܝܡ ܦܘܪܢܣܗܝܢ These are the rights of the bishop, and under his authority and care such matters must be arranged.
ܐܢ ܝܘܒܠܐ ܕܤܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܫ̇ܘܝܢ ܘܐܢ ܝܗܝܒܘܬ ܥܕܬܐ ܐܘ ܕܝܪܐ ܠܡ̇ܢ ܕܚ̇ܫܚ ܠܬܫܡܫܬܗܿ Whether it be ordination or the granting of property to a church or monastery, it must be done only to those fit and worthy to serve.
ܠܦܘܬ ܕܗܘ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܨܿܒܐ ܢܦܪܢܣ ܬܫܡܫܬܗܝܢ ܒܕܚܠܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ It is for the bishop to oversee and provide for their service in the fear of God.
ܟܕ ܡܘܕܥ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܥܠܝܗܝܢ ܠܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܠܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܝܕܝ̈ܥܐ But he must make it known to the clergy and trustworthy believers only,
ܐܝܟ ܕܢܫܬܘܬܦܘܢ ܗܢܘܢ ܒܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܡܕܡ ܕܣ̇ܥܪ that they may participate in understanding what is done.
ܐܠܐ ܕܡܫܠܛܐܝܬ ܕܝܢ ܢܦܩܕܘܢ ܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܡܕܡ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ Yet let not lay believers ever seize authority over these matters.
ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ For such is the command of our Lord.

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܙܕ̈ܩܢ ܐܢ ܣܝܡ ܐܝܕ̈ܐ ܥܕܬܢܝ̈ܐ ܕܩܫܝ̈ܫܐ ܘܕܡܫܡܫܢ̈ܐ	Concerning those who are under the authority of the bishop: if there is the laying-on of hands in the churches — of priests or deacons —
ܘܐܢ ܝܗܝܒܘܬ ܥܕܬܐ ܐܘ ܕܝܪܐ ܕܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܚܫ̇ܚܝܢ ܠܬܫܡܫܬܗܝܢ	or if there be a gift (endowment) of a church or monastery for those who desire to serve therein,
ܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛ ܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܡܗܝ ܡܥܐ ܠܡܘܫܒܘܐ ܕܐܝܕܐ ܒܦܘܪܢܣܗܝܢ	let no one outside of the bishop’s council or circle intrude upon their ordination or appointment.
ܒܕ ܕܝܠܗ ܐܢܝ̈ܢ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ	For these matters belong to the bishop alone.
ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܙܕܩ̈ܢ ܘܕܝܠܗ ܐܢܝ̈ܢ ܘܬܚܝܬ ܫܘܠܛܢܗ ܤܝܡ ܦܘܪܢܣܗܝܢ	These are the rights of the bishop, and under his authority and care such matters must be arranged.
ܐܢ ܝܘܒܠܐ ܕܤܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܫ̇ܘܝܢ ܘܐܢ ܝܗܝܒܘܬ ܥܕܬܐ ܐܘ ܕܝܪܐ ܠܡ̇ܢ ܕܚ̇ܫܚ ܠܬܫܡܫܬܗܿ	Whether it be ordination or the granting of property to a church or monastery, it must be done only to those fit and worthy to serve.
ܠܦܘܬ ܕܗܘ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܨܿܒܐ ܢܦܪܢܣ ܬܫܡܫܬܗܝܢ ܒܕܚܠܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ	It is for the bishop to oversee and provide for their service in the fear of God.
ܟܕ ܡܘܕܥ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܥܠܝܗܝܢ ܠܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܠܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܝܕܝ̈ܥܐ	But he must make it known to the clergy and trustworthy believers only,
ܐܝܟ ܕܢܫܬܘܬܦܘܢ ܗܢܘܢ ܒܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܡܕܡ ܕܣ̇ܥܪ	that they may participate in understanding what is done.
ܐܠܐ ܕܡܫܠܛܐܝܬ ܕܝܢ ܢܦܩܕܘܢ ܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܡܕܡ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ	Yet let not lay believers ever seize authority over these matters.
ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ	For such is the command of our Lord.

🧭 Commentary — “The Bishop’s Hand and the Qāḍī’s Pen”

1️⃣ Context: Early Islam’s New Religious Bureaucracy

By the 650s–670s CE, the Islamic world had transformed how religious legitimacy worked.
In the Prophet’s own time, bayʿah (allegiance), ijazah (authorization), and amānah (trustworthiness) were becoming the moral basis for authority.
A qāḍī (judge) or khaṭīb (preacher) could not act without the amr of the amīr al-muʾminīn — the Caliph.

George I was watching this unfold.
His canon mimics that logic exactly — but for the Church:
➡️ No one ordains or founds a monastery except with the bishop’s “amr.”
He’s constructing an ecclesiastical equivalent of “bi-idhni amīrihim” — “with the permission of their ruler.”

2️⃣ “The laying on of hands” — Christian ijazah

The Syriac phrase sīm yēdē (“laying on of hands”) was the Church’s ordination formula — but George is standardizing it like an Islamic license.
Only bishops may perform it, and only on those fit (d-šawīn).
In the early Islamic world, learning and authority became tightly regulated through ijāzah — transmission by recognized masters.

So George is responding by tightening the same principle:

Only those approved by episcopal authority can teach, preach, or serve.
No rogue clergy. No freelance monks.

That reflects Islam’s early centralization of religious legitimacy — a threat to any loose Christian authority in Arabia or Khūzistān.

3️⃣ “Let no one outside interfere” → resisting Muslim patronage

This line — lā neshtalṭ ʾenāsh men mahīmʿā — “no outsider should have authority” — is politically loaded.
It’s a direct response to a new social reality: Muslim officials donating or intervening in church affairs.

Historical parallels:

In 660s Nineveh, Isho‘yahb III complains that Muslim governors helped build a Jacobite church, undermining his authority.

Arab notables (the shallīṭā d-tāmen) were endowing monasteries and churches they favored.

Even Muʿāwiya’s viceroy ʿUbayd Allāh b. Ziyād is recorded as making offerings to Christian shrines in Iraq.

➡️ George I’s canon forbids exactly that kind of outside influence:
no Muslim patron, no lay donor, no governor can dictate ordination or appointment.
Only the bishop — the Christian equivalent of the amīr d-ʿedthā (leader of the Church).

4️⃣ Control of waqf-like endowments

When the canon speaks of “gift of a church or monastery” (ܝܗܝܒܘܬ ܥܕܬܐ ܐܘ ܕܝܪܐ), it’s addressing a major issue of the 7th century: land and property donations.
Islam had just formalized waqf, charitable endowments controlled by religious administrators.
George responds with his own version: the bishop must control all ecclesiastical endowments.

He’s adapting the waqf logic — religious property must be registered, supervised, and spiritually legitimate — but keeping it under episcopal authority.

5️⃣ “He shall inform only the clergy and the trustworthy”

This restriction — to consult only clergy and select believers — mimics early Muslim confidentiality in legal matters.
In Islamic practice, only those trained in fiqh (law) and of proven moral integrity could witness contracts or handle endowments.
So George’s “trustworthy believers” are the Church’s equivalent of ʿudūl — the morally upright witnesses of early Islamic law.
It’s institutional convergence through parallel ethics.

6️⃣ “Let no believers seize authority” — avoiding schism and imitation

George is terrified of Christian laypeople, especially wealthy ones, acting like Muslim patrons — appointing their own teachers, sponsoring monasteries, or paying priests directly.
That was happening in frontier zones like Baḥrayn and Beth Qatraye, where Christian merchants and Arab converts blurred boundaries.
Islamic mosques operated communally; any pious Muslim could finance a mosque.

George’s reaction?

“Not so in Christ’s Church. You cannot build your own church without episcopal authority.”

He’s drawing a bright red line between Christian hierarchy and Islamic communalism.

7️⃣ “For such is the command of our Lord” — invoking divine law

This last line (b-melteh d-Maran) gives the canon theological gravity — he’s not just asserting bureaucracy, but divine mandate.
That mirrors how early Muslims framed caliphal authority as amr Allāh — God’s command.
So again, George mirrors Islamic political theology but redirects it toward the Church:

“Our Lord’s command, not the Caliph’s.”

🕌 Historical snapshot — Why in Khūzistān and Eastern Arabia

The 670s were decades of blurred sovereignty.
Arab governors in Baṣra and Baḥrayn had enormous power and often patronized local Christians.
In Dayrīn (Bahrain), Hagar (al-Ḥufūf), and Hattā (Qatif), churches stood beside mosques.
Christians who accepted Muslim patronage risked bypassing episcopal control — exactly what George’s canon condemns.

So this law is not abstract: it’s aimed at Christian merchants and monks of the Gulf, living under Muslim rulers but tempted by their patronage and generosity.

🧩 Summary

Canon 5 transforms the bishop into a spiritual amīr, claiming exclusive authority over ordination, funding, and endowments — just as early Islam reserved such powers for the Caliph and qāḍī.
It is George’s way of saying:

🕊 “As Muslims have their Caliph, so we have our Bishop.”
💼 “As they appoint through amr and amānah, so do we through sīm yēdē and dhilthā (fear of God).”
⚖️ “And as their mosques depend on pious donors, our churches depend on obedience and order.”

⚖️ Canon 6 — “On the Judgments of Christians”

(ܥܠ ܕܝ̈ܥܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܕܝ̈ܥܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܒܥܕܬܐ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܟܗ̈ܢܐ ܘܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ	Concerning the lawsuits of Christians: let them be held within the Church, before priests and believers,
ܘܠܐ ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܥܕܬܐ ܢܦܩܘܢ	and let them not go outside the Church.
ܦܪ̈ܨܘܦܐ ܦܪ̈ܝܫܝ ܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܒܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܓܘܐ	Let those appointed judges be designated by the bishop, within the inner order of the Church,
ܘܩܕܡ ܚܢ̈ܦܐ ܐܘ ܠܐܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܗܢ̣ܘܢ ܢܬܬܕܝܢܘܢ	and let them not bring their cases before the pagans (ḥanpē) or the unbelievers (lā-mhēmnē) to be judged by them.
ܕܝ̈ܢܐ ܘܚܪ̈ܝܢܐ ܕܗ̇ܘܝܢ ܒܝܬ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܒܥܕܬܐ ܢܬܬܕܝܢܘܢ	Let all lawsuits and disputes that arise among Christians be judged in the Church.
ܘܠܐ ܢܦܩܘܢ ܠܒܪ ܐܝܟ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܕܠܐ ܢܡܘܣ ܐܢܘܢ	Let them not go outside, like those without law.
ܩܕܡ ܕܝ̈ܢܐ ܕܡܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܡܬܦܪܫܝܢ ܒܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܓܘܐ	Their judges shall be chosen from among those appointed by the bishop, within the Church’s peace,
ܡܢ ܟܗ̈ܢܐ ܣܗܝܕ̈ܝ ܒܪܚܡܬܐ ܘܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ	from priests who are witnesses in mercy and fear of God,
ܘܩܥ̈ܝܝ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܘܣܦܩܘܬܐ ܕܠܣܘܥܪ̈ܢܐ ܢܬܬܕܝܥܘܢ	who are known for knowledge and discernment in conduct.
ܘܠܐ ܕܐܚܪܢܝܐܝܬ ܘܠܦܘܬ ܚܐܦܐ ܕܬܪܥܝܬܗܘܢ ܢܦܩܘܢ ܡܠܝܗ̈ܘܢ ܠܒܪܡܢ ܥܕܬܐ	Let them not, out of impatience or anger, take their disputes outside the Church.
ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܢܗܘܐ ܡܕܡ ܕܡܬܛܫܐ ܡܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܦܪܫܝܢ ܠܦܘܤܩܢܐ ܕܕܝܢܐ	If there be any confusion or disagreement among those chosen for judgment,
ܠܩܕܡܘܗܝ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܢܩܪܒܘܢ ܒܥܬܗܘܢ	let them bring their case before the bishop himself,
ܘܡܢܗ ܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܫܪܝܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܥܣ̈ܩܢ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ	and from him receive the final judgment on those involved.
ܕܐܢܫ ܕܝܢ ܡ̣ܢ ܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ ܙܚܛܘܦ ܠܗ ܦܣܩܐ ܕܕܝ̈ܢܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ	But if any believer, by his own will, should seize a verdict and take his case outside the bishop’s command,
ܘܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛ	and so violate the peace of the Church,
ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ	let him be condemned by the word of our Lord,
ܟܡܐ ܕܐܢܢܩܐ ܕܦܘܩܕܢܐ ܕܫܠܝ̈ܛܝ ܥܠܡܐ ܠܐ ܥܪܨܐ	“for as the laws of the rulers of the world cannot be broken.”

🧭 Commentary — “No Muslim Courts Allowed”

1️⃣ The Problem: Christians Going to Muslim Qāḍīs

By 677 CE, Islam’s diwān and qāḍī system were expanding rapidly.

In Iraq, Khūzistān, and Baḥrayn, Muslim judges (qāḍīs) offered an attractive alternative to chaotic or corrupt Christian courts.

Why?

Muslim courts were orderly and consistent.
Their procedure was clear, scriptural (kitāb Allāh wa-sunnat rasūlih).
Judges were bound by fiqh (legal reasoning), not personal favor.
Their system was open to non-Muslims for civil disputes.

So Christian merchants and villagers — especially converts’ families — began to bring property, marriage, and inheritance cases to Muslim qāḍīs, because it was faster, fairer, and respected by authorities.

George’s reaction?

🚫 An outright ban.

Christians must only be judged “before priests and believers.”

This is an ecclesiastical firewall against assimilation — a Christian fatwā forbidding recourse to Islamic law.

2️⃣ The Key Terms: ḥanpē and lā-mhēmnē

The Syriac ܚܢ̈ܦܐ (ḥanpē) literally means pagans, but by the 7th century it was a coded term for Muslims.

So when George says, “do not go before the ḥanpē,” he’s forbidding going before Muslim judges or authorities.

The phrase ܠܐ ܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ (lā-mhēmnē, “unbelievers”) widens the scope — not just Muslims, but anyone outside the Church.

So this canon, in plainer terms, reads:

“Christians must not take their cases before Muslim judges or secular rulers.”

3️⃣ “Like those without law” — Competing Legal Visions

George calls those who do so “like those without law.”

That’s not just rhetorical. It’s polemical: he’s reversing the Islamic claim.

Muslims said Christians lived “without revealed law” (lā sharīʿah lahum).

George flips it: anyone abandoning the Church’s law is the true lawless one.

This is an ideological duel — canon law vs. sharīʿah — fought through legal vocabulary.

4️⃣ The Structure: Christian Judges Inside the Church

George builds a full judicial hierarchy:

Local priests act as judges.
They must be “witnesses in mercy and fear of God.”
Appeals go up to the bishop, whose word is final.

That’s a mirror of the Islamic qāḍī → governor → caliph chain.

He’s crafting a parallel justice system — a miniature ecclesiastical caliphate inside the Umayyad realm.

5️⃣ “Before priests and believers” — a Christian shūrā

The combination of clergy and “believers” as judges reflects how early Islamic law involved community participation — witnesses, mediators, and elders.

By including mahēmne (“believers”), George integrates lay Christians into law enforcement — making canon law socially binding, not just clerical.

He’s copying Islam’s model of community-based justice but sanctifying it through priestly oversight.

6️⃣ “If anyone seizes a verdict outside the bishop’s command…”

This clause is the penalty section — and it’s brilliant.

George condemns Christians who go to Muslim courts as breaking “the peace of the Church” and violating “the word of our Lord.”

Then he ends with a sarcastic jab:

“As even the laws of worldly rulers cannot be broken.”

It’s irony — he’s admitting Muslims enforce their laws more strictly than Christians, so he’s trying to match their discipline.

He’s saying: If Muslims can uphold their law, why can’t we uphold ours?

7️⃣ Historical Parallels — From Ishoyahb III to George I

Long before George I, the Church of the East was already losing control of its people to Islam’s emerging judicial system. Around 652 CE, Catholicos Ishoyahb III wrote furiously to the bishops of Beth Qaṭrayē (Arabia and eastern Arabia), who had dared to appeal their cases to Caliph ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān rather than to the Church.

In his own words, Ishoyahb lamented that these bishops,

“have aimed to show off their rebellion against the government of the Church of God to the governors of that place and to the Great Ruler, the chief of the rulers of this time, and they have in reality been despised by the governors just as their rebellion deserved.”

And in another blistering passage, he rebukes them for submitting to Arab rule but rejecting the Church’s authority:

“Because of their madness, they believed that obeying the Church of God is not a source of spiritual help but a harmful submission. They submit to this secular rule which now governs everywhere, like everyone who willingly submits — yet to the rule of Christianity they refuse to submit. They rebel against submission to God, like madmen. They pay taxes, duties, reverence, and honor to worldly rulers, but reject the law of love that Christ Himself gave.”

This letter (written c. 652 CE) is the first Christian protest against Christians going to Muslim courts.
It shows the new reality: Islam had established a credible, functioning system of justice — and even Church leaders in Arabia were appealing to it.

George I (677 CE): From Complaint → Canon

By George’s time, a generation later, the situation had worsened.

Under the Umayyads, qāḍīs now operated in nearly every provincial town.

Arab administration had matured: Arabic documents, standardized taxation, and formal court procedures.

Christian merchants and landowners found Muslim justice more efficient, less corrupt, and state-backed.

So while Ishoyahb III could only complain in letters, George I had to legislate in canon law.

➡️ Where Ishoyahb cried, “You have rebelled against the Church!”,
➡️ George responded, “It is now forbidden — under penalty of excommunication — to take a case outside the Church.”

Thus Canon 6 is not an isolated rule but the institutionalization of Ishoyahb’s despair — the moment when complaint hardened into law.

A Continuous Struggle (652 → 677 CE)

Year Event Effect on the Church
652 CE Ishoyahb III rebukes bishops appealing to Caliph ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān First sign Christians trust Muslim authority over ecclesiastical rule
660 CE Ishoyahb dies amid fragmentation of the Persian Church Arab rule now entrenched across Iraq and Khūzistān
677 CE George I issues Canon 6: “No lawsuits outside the Church.” Direct attempt to rebuild internal authority — a legal firewall against Islam

By George’s day, the temptation was not just political; it was legal and moral.
Islamic courts offered swift, accessible, scriptural justice.
The Church’s system was slower, hierarchical, and fragmented by sectarian rivalries.

So George’s canon was an act of institutional self-preservation — the Church erecting its own wall of law against the gravitational pull of the sharīʿah.

Year	Event	Effect on the Church
652 CE	Ishoyahb III rebukes bishops appealing to Caliph ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān	First sign Christians trust Muslim authority over ecclesiastical rule
660 CE	Ishoyahb dies amid fragmentation of the Persian Church	Arab rule now entrenched across Iraq and Khūzistān
677 CE	George I issues Canon 6: “No lawsuits outside the Church.”	Direct attempt to rebuild internal authority — a legal firewall against Islam

8️⃣ In Short

Canon 6 is George’s attempt to “out-Islam” Islam in law and order.”

He’s creating a mirror image of the early Islamic judiciary:

Islam	Church of the East (per George I)
Qāḍī – judge appointed by the Caliph	Priest – judge appointed by the Bishop
Sharīʿah – revealed law of God	Canon law – sacred law of Christ
Caliph – ultimate appeal	Bishop – final authority
Community witnesses	Believers (mahēmne)
Prohibition on seeking foreign courts	Ban on Muslim courts

George is building an ecclesiastical dār al-ʿadl — a domain of justice — within the dār al-Islām.

✋ Canon 7 — “On Those Who Seek Authority and Ordination Outside the Church”

(ܥܠ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܨܒ̇ܝܢ ܕܢܥܠܘܢ)

Syriac Text English Translation
ܥܠ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܨܒ̇ܝܢ ܕܢܥܠܘܢ ܠܩܠܪܘܣ ܘܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܟܝܪܛܘܢܝܐ Concerning this: that those who desire to enter the clergy or to receive letters of ordination shall not be allowed to do so unlawfully.
ܕܒܡܠܬܐ ܕܫܘܚܕܐ ܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܢܩܒ݀ܠܘܢ Let no one obtain such ordination by means of a bribe or flattery.
ܐܘ ܕܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܢܘܟܪܝܐ ܢܬܒܥܘܢ ܕܘܟܝܬܐ Nor shall they seek approval from a foreign power (shulṭānā nukhrāyā),
ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܐܬܪܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܠܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܢܬܒܪܟܘܢ or be blessed by any bishop not of their own region,
ܘܒܬܪܟܢ ܒܦܝܣܐ ܐܘ ܒܥܨܝܢܐ ܡ̣ܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܫܠܝܛܝܢ ܢܣܒܘܢ ܦܣܤܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܗܘܢ nor by seeking favor or intervention from worldly rulers to obtain approval for their clerical service.
ܐܘ ܩܘܡܐ ܕܒܕܘܟܝ̈ܬܐ ܡܓܒܝ̈ܬܐ nor to gain a clerical post in another jurisdiction through such means.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܨ̇ܒܝܢ ܕܢܥܠܘܢ ܠܩܠܪܘܣ ܐܘ ܕܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܟܝܪܛܘܢܝܐ Those who wish to join the clergy or to receive letters of ordination
ܢܡܘܣܐܝܬ ܘܐܝܟ ܕܦܿܐܐ ܠܩܢܘ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢ̈ܝܐ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܣ̇ܥܪܝܢ must do so lawfully, according to the canons of the Church,
ܘܠܐ ܐܝܟ ܢܘܟܪܝܘܬ ܣܘܥܪ̈ܢܐ ܥܠܡܢܝ̈ܐ and not according to foreign or worldly procedures.
ܒܕܠܐ ܦܐܝܐ ܕܨܒܘ̈ܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܒܕܘܡܝܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܥܠܡܢܝ̈ܬܐ For it is unfitting that the divine service should imitate worldly customs.
ܠܦܘܬ ܕܢܐܚܕܘܢ ܓܘܣܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܒܫܠܝܛܝ ܥܠܡܐ Nor should anyone adopt the style of those who rule the world,
ܘܒܟܬܒܐ ܕܠܘܚܡܐ ܚܐܦܐ ܕܪܓܬܢ ܢܫܡܠܐ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܪܚܡܬ ܐܝܩܪ̈ܐ or be included in official registers and charters (literally “writings of bread and honor”) out of love for status.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܐܦ ܠܐ ܢܬܒܥܘܢ ܕܘܟܝ̈ܬܐ ܡܓܒܝ̈ܬܐ Likewise, let them not demand licenses or decrees for ordination from officials,
ܘܩܘܪܒܐ ܕܠܣܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ ܐܦ ܒܡܐܚܕܐ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܙܫܬܠܛܘܢ nor force themselves into ordination by the laying on of hands through pressure or manipulation.
ܘܢܚܝܒܘܢ ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܠܡܤܬܠܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܠܓܡܪ Those who do so condemn themselves to complete disgrace.
ܐܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܐܢܫ ܒܛܟܤܗ ܘܒܬܓܡܗ ܘܒܙܒܢܗ ܒܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܐܚܘ̈ܗܝ ܕܒܥܕܬܐ Rather, let each man, in his own order, rank, and time, enter into service in the peace of his brethren in the Church.
ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܐܝܢܐ ܕܝܕܝܥ ܒܝܬ ܐܚܘ̈ܗܝ ܐܘ ܒܕܘܪܫܐ ܝܬܝܪܐ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܒܨܒܝܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܢܬܩܪܒ Only those known among their brethren, and with the consent of the bishop, may be advanced to the clergy.
ܐܘܟܝܬ ܢܒܥܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܝܩܪܐ ܕܢܬܦܪܫ For these distinctions of rank and dignity shall be made
ܘܡܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܢܬܥܠܐ ܠܕܘܟܬܐ ܐܘ ܒܡܝܬܪܘܬܐ ܕܕܘܒܪ̈ܐ by the bishop himself, according to merit and worthiness,
ܘܝܨܝܦܘܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܫܦܝܪ̈ܬܐ and the discipline of good conduct.
ܐܢܫ ܢܩܒܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܣܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ ܠܐ ܢܡܪܚ Whoever receives the laying on of hands (ordination) must not transgress this order.
ܘܐܢ ܢܡܪܚ ܠܡܥܒܕ ܕܐܝܩܪܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܕܡܝܩܪܐ ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܐܬܪܗ ܕܝܢ ܘܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܤܬܠܐ ܡܢ ܬܫܡܫܬܗ But if he transgresses and seeks honor outside his region or bishop, let him be deposed from his ministry.
ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܢܫ ܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܢܣܥܘܪ ܘܒܡܐܚܕܐ ܐܝܕܐ ܢܘܟܪܝܐ ܢܬܒܥ ܐܚ̈ܝܢ And if any man, by foreign hands, lays claim upon his brethren’s office,
ܗܘܼܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܢܟܪܝ ܠܟܠ ܐܝܩܪܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܬܐ he is denied all honor of ecclesiastical service,
ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ by the word of our Lord.

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܨܒ̇ܝܢ ܕܢܥܠܘܢ ܠܩܠܪܘܣ ܘܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܟܝܪܛܘܢܝܐ	Concerning this: that those who desire to enter the clergy or to receive letters of ordination shall not be allowed to do so unlawfully.
ܕܒܡܠܬܐ ܕܫܘܚܕܐ ܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܢܩܒ݀ܠܘܢ	Let no one obtain such ordination by means of a bribe or flattery.
ܐܘ ܕܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܢܘܟܪܝܐ ܢܬܒܥܘܢ ܕܘܟܝܬܐ	Nor shall they seek approval from a foreign power (shulṭānā nukhrāyā),
ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܐܬܪܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܠܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܢܬܒܪܟܘܢ	or be blessed by any bishop not of their own region,
ܘܒܬܪܟܢ ܒܦܝܣܐ ܐܘ ܒܥܨܝܢܐ ܡ̣ܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܫܠܝܛܝܢ ܢܣܒܘܢ ܦܣܤܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܗܘܢ	nor by seeking favor or intervention from worldly rulers to obtain approval for their clerical service.
ܐܘ ܩܘܡܐ ܕܒܕܘܟܝ̈ܬܐ ܡܓܒܝ̈ܬܐ	nor to gain a clerical post in another jurisdiction through such means.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܨ̇ܒܝܢ ܕܢܥܠܘܢ ܠܩܠܪܘܣ ܐܘ ܕܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܟܝܪܛܘܢܝܐ	Those who wish to join the clergy or to receive letters of ordination
ܢܡܘܣܐܝܬ ܘܐܝܟ ܕܦܿܐܐ ܠܩܢܘ̈ܢܐ ܥܕܬܢ̈ܝܐ ܢܗܘܘܢ ܣ̇ܥܪܝܢ	must do so lawfully, according to the canons of the Church,
ܘܠܐ ܐܝܟ ܢܘܟܪܝܘܬ ܣܘܥܪ̈ܢܐ ܥܠܡܢܝ̈ܐ	and not according to foreign or worldly procedures.
ܒܕܠܐ ܦܐܝܐ ܕܨܒܘ̈ܬܐ ܐܠܗܝܬܐ ܒܕܘܡܝܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܥܠܡܢܝ̈ܬܐ	For it is unfitting that the divine service should imitate worldly customs.
ܠܦܘܬ ܕܢܐܚܕܘܢ ܓܘܣܐ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܒܫܠܝܛܝ ܥܠܡܐ	Nor should anyone adopt the style of those who rule the world,
ܘܒܟܬܒܐ ܕܠܘܚܡܐ ܚܐܦܐ ܕܪܓܬܢ ܢܫܡܠܐ ܐܢ̈ܝܢ ܡܛܠ ܪܚܡܬ ܐܝܩܪ̈ܐ	or be included in official registers and charters (literally “writings of bread and honor”) out of love for status.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܐܦ ܠܐ ܢܬܒܥܘܢ ܕܘܟܝ̈ܬܐ ܡܓܒܝ̈ܬܐ	Likewise, let them not demand licenses or decrees for ordination from officials,
ܘܩܘܪܒܐ ܕܠܣܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ ܐܦ ܒܡܐܚܕܐ ܐܝܕܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܙܫܬܠܛܘܢ	nor force themselves into ordination by the laying on of hands through pressure or manipulation.
ܘܢܚܝܒܘܢ ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܠܡܤܬܠܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܠܓܡܪ	Those who do so condemn themselves to complete disgrace.
ܐܠܐ ܐܢܫ ܐܢܫ ܒܛܟܤܗ ܘܒܬܓܡܗ ܘܒܙܒܢܗ ܒܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܐܚܘ̈ܗܝ ܕܒܥܕܬܐ	Rather, let each man, in his own order, rank, and time, enter into service in the peace of his brethren in the Church.
ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܐܝܢܐ ܕܝܕܝܥ ܒܝܬ ܐܚܘ̈ܗܝ ܐܘ ܒܕܘܪܫܐ ܝܬܝܪܐ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܘܒܨܒܝܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܢܬܩܪܒ	Only those known among their brethren, and with the consent of the bishop, may be advanced to the clergy.
ܐܘܟܝܬ ܢܒܥܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܝܩܪܐ ܕܢܬܦܪܫ	For these distinctions of rank and dignity shall be made
ܘܡܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܢܬܥܠܐ ܠܕܘܟܬܐ ܐܘ ܒܡܝܬܪܘܬܐ ܕܕܘܒܪ̈ܐ	by the bishop himself, according to merit and worthiness,
ܘܝܨܝܦܘܬܐ ܕܥܠ ܫܦܝܪ̈ܬܐ	and the discipline of good conduct.
ܐܢܫ ܢܩܒܠ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܣܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ ܠܐ ܢܡܪܚ	Whoever receives the laying on of hands (ordination) must not transgress this order.
ܘܐܢ ܢܡܪܚ ܠܡܥܒܕ ܕܐܝܩܪܐ ܐܘܟܝܬ ܕܡܝܩܪܐ ܕܠܒܪ ܡܢ ܐܬܪܗ ܕܝܢ ܘܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܠܐ ܢܤܬܠܐ ܡܢ ܬܫܡܫܬܗ	But if he transgresses and seeks honor outside his region or bishop, let him be deposed from his ministry.
ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܢܫ ܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܢܣܥܘܪ ܘܒܡܐܚܕܐ ܐܝܕܐ ܢܘܟܪܝܐ ܢܬܒܥ ܐܚ̈ܝܢ	And if any man, by foreign hands, lays claim upon his brethren’s office,
ܗܘܼܐ ܗܢܐ ܡܢܟܪܝ ܠܟܠ ܐܝܩܪܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܬܐ	he is denied all honor of ecclesiastical service,
ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ	by the word of our Lord.

🧭 Commentary — “No More Foreign Hands”

1️⃣ The Setting: Christians Turning to Muslim Authority for Licenses

By the 670s, Muslim governors and tax officials in Baṣra, Kufa, and Khuzistan had begun issuing charters (kitāb), permits (ʿahd), and letters of appointment (ʿahd al-ʿamāl) to non-Muslim communities — including bishops, priests, and heads of monasteries.

These functioned as:

Legal recognition of position.

Guarantees of protection or tax privileges.

Permission to hold property, rebuild churches, or collect funds.

To the Muslim state, this was administrative.
To the Church, it was heretical dependence.

So George responds by forbidding any Christian from seeking Muslim confirmation or state “blessing.”

2️⃣ “By a foreign power (shulṭānā nukhrāyā)” = Umayyad authority

That phrase is key: ܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܢܘܟܪܝܐ (b-shulṭānā nukhrāyā) literally means “under foreign rule.”
In the late 7th century, there’s no doubt what that means — the Islamic state.

He’s saying:

“Do not go to the Muslim governor to get your ordination approved.”

This was a real issue. Bishops in places like Beth Garmai and Khuzistan were tempted to use Muslim governors to legitimize rival clerics. The qāḍī or amīr’s iqrār (acknowledgment) gave power in disputes.

George is declaring:
⚠️ “Any clergy ordained by Muslim permission = invalid ordination.”

3️⃣ “No bribes or favors” — a swipe at khidma and patronage

Islamic governance was already developing the khidma / shafāʿa system — the “service network” where influence and gifts (not necessarily corruption) secured favors.
Christian clergy had started to imitate this, giving gifts to Muslim officials for appointments or for letters of safe conduct.

George bans this wholesale:

“No bribes, no flattery, no seeking favor from those who rule the world.”

It’s not only moral; it’s polemical.
He’s drawing a line between Christian humility and Muslim patronage culture.

4️⃣ “Writings of bread and honor” (ܟܬܒܐ ܕܠܘܚܡܐ ܘܐܝܩܪ̈ܐ)

A stunning phrase — a jab at the Muslim dīwān system.
“Writings of bread” = state payroll lists.
“Writings of honor” = registers of rank and stipends (ʿaṭāʾ).

George is saying:

“Do not become a salaried official under Muslim administration — do not sell your priesthood for bread and rank.”

It’s a direct rejection of integration into the Islamic fiscal state — where converts and even Christians began serving as scribes, accountants, and tax collectors under the ʿaṭāʾ system.

5️⃣ “Let each in his own order and time…” — a counter to bayʿah

Islamic appointment rituals often involved public acknowledgment (bayʿah, pledge) and written confirmation.
George insists ordination should remain quiet, communal, spiritual, “in the peace of one’s brethren.”
He’s protecting the Church’s internal bayʿah, its own sacred hierarchy.

6️⃣ “By foreign hands” — an unmistakable anti-Islamic clause

The final line seals it:

“If any man by foreign hands lays claim upon his brethren’s office, he is denied all honor of service.”

“Foreign hands” = Muslim officials, judges, or patrons.
So anyone who seeks Muslim endorsement for his clerical authority is excommunicated.
George is exorcising the Church of external power — no matter how “useful” that power seems.

7️⃣ The Political Edge: Fear of Dhimmī Hierarchy

Under early Islam, local religious leaders (like bishops) were officially recognized as heads of their community — a system that later formalized as the dhimmī leadership model.
But for George, this threatened to turn bishops into state agents, not shepherds.

His canon is an act of theological resistance:
✊ “We are Christ’s subjects, not the Caliph’s clerks.”

8️⃣ Why This Matters — George vs. the Muslim Bureaucracy

Islam’s legal and bureaucratic expansion was irresistible:

Islamic Innovation George’s Reaction
Qāḍīs issuing binding verdicts Canon 6 forbids appealing to them
Governors approving clerical heads Canon 7 forbids seeking their approval
State registers for pay and rank (ʿaṭāʾ) George calls them “writings of bread and honor”
Islamic legal documents (kitāb, ʿahd) George forbids “letters of ordination” outside Church law

He’s creating a Christian shadow state, mirroring the caliphal system but claiming divine independence.

Islamic Innovation	George’s Reaction
Qāḍīs issuing binding verdicts	Canon 6 forbids appealing to them
Governors approving clerical heads	Canon 7 forbids seeking their approval
State registers for pay and rank (ʿaṭāʾ)	George calls them “writings of bread and honor”
Islamic legal documents (kitāb, ʿahd)	George forbids “letters of ordination” outside Church law

✋ Canon 8 — “On Demands for Gifts and Offerings by the Clergy”

(ܥܠ ܬܒ̈ܥܬܐ ܕܙܕ̈ܩܐ ܕܬܒ̇ܥܝܢ ܡܢ ܚܕ̈ܕܐ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܬܒ̈ܥܬܐ ܕܙܕ̈ܩܐ ܕܬܒ̇ܥܝܢ ܡܢ ܚܕ̈ܕܐ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܒܡܥܠܬܗܘܢ ܕܠܥܕܬܐ	Concerning the demands for alms and offerings which some of the clergy make when entering the Church,
ܐܝܟ ܥܝܕܐ ܥܬܝ ܩܐܠܐ ܢܬܒܥܘܢ	as if it were some solemn festival for them to demand gifts,
ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܡܕܡ ܕܗܘ̣ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܝ̇ܕܥ ܕܣ݀ܦܩܝܢ ܠܡܥܒܕ ܐܘ ܠܡܬܠ	let them do nothing unless the bishop knows that they are truly in need or worthy to receive.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܩܒܠܝܢ ܤܝܡ ܐܝܕܐ ܚܕܬܐܝܬ ܐܘ ܥܐܿܠܝܢ ܠܥܕܬܐ	Those who have been recently ordained or newly entered the Church,
ܨܒܝܢܐܝܬ ܘܠܦܘܬ ܚܝܠܗܘܢ ܢܥܝܚܘܢ ܠܐܚܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܕܡܫܟܚܝܢ	should, willingly and according to their strength, comfort their brethren who are in need.
ܛܥܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܘܝܘܩܪܐ ܕܬܒܥܬܐ ܗܿܢܘܢ ܕܙܕܩ̈ܐ ܘܘܠܝ̈ܬܐ ܡܬܩܪܝܢ	But the burden and cost of these demands, the so-called “almsgifts” and “festive dues,”
ܐܝܟ ܥܝ̈ܕܐ ܩܕܡ̈ܝܐ ܠܐ ܢܬܒܥܘܢ	should not be demanded as of old feast-days.
ܐܝܟ ܡ̇ܢ ܕܠܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܡܟܪܝܐ ܠܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܠܛܟܣܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܗܘܢ ܗܕܐ ܠܡܥܒܕ	For the true clergy should not act from fear of God and service alone in order to profit,
ܐܠܐ ܘܕܐܦܠܐ ܙܒܢܐ ܥܤܩܐ ܡܦܣܡܛܠ ܙܘܠܗܙܗ ܕܢܬܐܠܨܘܢ ܒܝܘܩܪܐ ܕܕܐܝܟ ܗܟܢ܆	nor should they, in any time of scarcity or distress, extort costly gifts under such pretenses.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܩܪܝܢ ܠܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ	Such behavior is unworthy of those called to the service of the Church,
ܒܗܿܝ ܕܡܬܟܠܝܢ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ ܡܛܠ ܣܘܢܩܢܐ	for many depend on them in times of hardship,
ܕܢܦܕܘܢ ܡܢ ܐܣܟܡܐ ܕܩܝܡܐ ܘܠܥܒܕ̈ܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ ܢܫܬܕܘܢ	and might fall away from steadfastness and turn to other labors out of despair.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ ܒܚܕ ܡܢ ܙܢܝܢ ܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܡܢ ܚܕܕ̈ܐ ܠܡܬܒܥ	Therefore let none of the clergy domineer over the faithful by demanding alms or dues.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܩܪܝܢ ܘܥܐܿܠܝܢ ܠܩܠܪܘܣ	For those who are called to the clergy and enter therein, let them be an example, not a burden.

🧭 Commentary — “When Charity Imitates the Caliphate”

1️⃣ The Context: The Rise of Muslim Charity and Public Giving

By the mid-7th century, Islam had introduced a powerful social idea:

→ Zakat (obligatory charity),

→ Sadaqah (voluntary giving),

→ and ʿUṭiyyah (state stipends, gifts, or pensions).

These practices flooded into Christian-majority provinces like Khuzistan, Beth Garmai, and Mosul.

Even Christians began to participate — seeing Muslims organize almsgiving with discipline and fairness under Islamic law.

George I saw this and panicked.

Why? Because Christian clergy — seeing the prestige of Muslim charitable systems — began imitating it, turning almsgiving into a quasi-tax, sometimes demanding gifts “as at a feast” (ܐܝܟ ܥܝܕܐ ܥܬܝ ܩܐܠܐ).

2️⃣ “As if it were a feast” — the clerical parody of zakat

The canon opens with biting sarcasm:

“As if it were a festival, they demand offerings!”

He’s condemning priests who treat church visits like a charity collection drive — ritualized, transactional, and profit-seeking.

It’s clear that under Islamic influence, giving had become bureaucratized.

George’s response:

Giving must remain voluntary, not obligatory.
Alms are for the poor, not the priests.
Clergy should comfort their brethren, not enrich themselves.

He’s trying to keep Christian zakat spiritual — not fiscal.

3️⃣ “Unless the bishop knows…” — restoring episcopal control

By requiring the bishop’s awareness of any collection, George is reclaiming the bishop’s traditional role as custodian of alms, a role that in Islam had been taken by the state zakat collector (ʿāmil al-zakāt).

This is a direct countermeasure:

Muslim amīrs were regulating charity.
George insists only the bishop can.

He’s effectively writing a Christian parallel to Qur’an 9:60, which lists the proper recipients of zakat — but the bishop, not the Caliph, decides.

4️⃣ Economic Realities: Austerity under the Umayyads

The language about hunger, scarcity, and distress (ܙܒܢܐ ܥܤܩܐ) reflects economic strain during the first Umayyad decades:

Heavy taxation of non-Muslims (jizya, kharāj).
Local droughts in Khuzistan and southern Iraq.
Redistribution of wealth through Muslim stipends (ʿaṭāʾ).

In this environment, some Christian clergy sought to maintain income by pressing their flocks for gifts, mimicking how the new rulers collected taxes and alms.

George forbids this imitation, making it a sin of greed and domination.

His phrasing — “that they should not domineer (ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ) over the faithful” — uses the same root šlṭ, “to rule,” as the Arabic sulṭān.

👉 A deliberate pun:

“Do not become little sultans in the Church.”

5️⃣ “Not as of old feast-days” — rejecting performative piety

In pre-Islamic Christianity, festivals (ʿīdē) were also times for giving, but under Islam, this became institutionalized through ʿĪd al-Fiṭr zakat.

George’s phrase “not as of old feast-days” sounds like he’s saying:

“Do not imitate their feasts of giving.”

It’s a rejection of how Muslim public giving had taken on ritual grandeur — something the Church must not copy.

6️⃣ “That they fall away and turn to other labors” — conversion anxiety

This line is extraordinary.

“Many depend on them... lest they fall away and turn to other labors.”

In context, “other labors” likely refers to:

Taking work under Muslim employers,
or even converting to Islam for economic relief.

This is a social canon disguised as a moral one — George is desperately trying to keep Christians from leaving the Church economy for the better-paying, tax-free Muslim one.

7️⃣ Moral and Symbolic Economy

Canon 8 draws a contrast between two economies:

Islamic Society	George’s Ideal Church
Zakat = organized, state-supervised	Almsgiving = personal, bishop-supervised
Giving = duty of community	Giving = act of mercy and humility
Charity tied to status and honor	Charity tied to humility and faith
Clergy risk turning into tax collectors	Clergy must embody simplicity and generosity

This is George’s economic theology — an attempt to out-moralize Islam by refusing its bureaucratic perfection.

🌿 Canon 9 — “On the Daughters of the Covenant and their Discipline”

(ܥܠ ܒܢ̈ܬ ܩܝܡܐ ܕܡܬܩܪ̈ܝܢ ܒܬܘ̈ܠܬܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܒܢ̈ܬ ܩܝܡܐ ܕܡܬܩܪ̈ܝܢ ܒܬܘ̈ܠܬܐ : ܕܐܝܕܐ ܗܝܼ ܬܫܡܫܬܗܝܢ ܒܥܕܬܐ܆ ܘܕܡ̇ܢܐ ܬ̇ܒܥ ܐܣܟܡܗܝܢ	Concerning the daughters of the covenant, called virgins, their service in the Church and the rule that must guide their conduct:
ܝܫ̈ܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܚܕܐ ܙܒܢ ܦܪܫ ܢܦܫܗܝܢ ܠܫܡܐ ܕܒܬܘܠܘܬܐ ܘܠܐܤܟܡܐ ܢܟܦܐ ܕܩܝܡܐ	Blessed are those who once set themselves apart for the name of virginity and the pure covenant of steadfastness.
ܢܗܘܝܢ ܦܪܝ̈ܫܢ ܒܐܤܟܡܐ ܕܠܒܘܫܐ ܘܒܣܘܦܪܐ ܕܣܥܪܐ	Let them be separated in their garments and in the cutting of their hair, as a sign of consecration.
ܘܩܕܡ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܢܐ̈ܠܦܢ ܬܢܝܐ ܕܡܙܡܘܪ̈ܐ	Before all things, let them learn the hymns of the Psalms.
ܘܢܐܨ̈ܦܢ ܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܘܒܥܕ̈ܢܐ ܕܡܕܪ̈ܫܝܗܝܢ	Let them attend the services of the Church and their appointed times of instruction.
ܒܬܪ ܥܪ̈ܣܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܥܢܝ̈ܕܐ ... ܒܝܘ̈ܡܐ ܡܕܪ̈ܫܐ ܠܐ ܢܫ̈ܬܠܛܢ	After the feasts of the martyrs, on the days of instruction, let them not exercise authority (ܠܐ ܢܫ̈ܬܠܛܢ).
ܬܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܙܗܝܪܘܬܐ ܕܦܐܝܐ	Let there be care and oversight over them, as over those who keep vigil in purity.
... ܠܒܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܕܝܢ ܠܡܐܙܠ ܘܬܡܢ ܠܡܐܡܪ ܕܩܒܘܪܬܐ	They may go to the cemetery to recite the prayers for burial,
ܗܟܢܐ ܘܒܝܘ̈ܡܐ ܕܦܪܝܫܝܢ "ܠܗܘܢ ܕܘܟܪ̈ܢܐ ܠܥܢܝܕ̈ܐ	And on the days of the departed, let them keep memorials for the martyrs.
ܘܒܕܘܟܬܐ ܚܕܐ ܐܘ ܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ ܒܡܕܝ̈ܢܬܐ ܢܬܟ̈ܢܫܢ ܒܥܘܡܪ̈ܝܗܝܢ	In each city, one or two houses shall be gathered for them to dwell together.
ܘܚܕܐ ܡܢܗܝܢ ... ܬܬܗܝܡܢ ܪܫܢܘܬܗܝܢ	One among them, known for maturity and modesty, shall be appointed their head.
ܘܬܚܝܨ ܥܠܝܗܝܢ ܢܡܘܣ̈ܐ ܕܢܛܪܝܢ ܠܗܝܢ ܡܢ ܝܫܘܥܝ̈ܬܐ	Let rules be set for them to guard them from scandal.
ܘܬܬܣܝܡ ܡܫܡܫܢܝܬܐ ܘܬܗܘܐ ܨܘܚܝ̈ܬܐ ܘܪܛܢܐ ܕܒܪ̈ܝܐ	Let a female servant be appointed to assist them, and she shall oversee their household needs.
ܡܫܚܐ ܒܡܫܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܠܢܫ̈ܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܕ̈ܢ ܒܡܫܘܚܬܐ ܡܫܡܠܝܬܐ	With holy oil shall the women who have been baptized be anointed by these women.
ܘܬܛܟܣ ܠܗܝܢ ܥܒ̇ܕܐ ܕܡܥܡܘܕܝܬܐ ܒܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܫܘܝ̈ܢ ܠܬܚܡܝܬܐ	They shall assist in the baptismal rites for women, performing what is proper to their office.

🕊️ Commentary — “The Daughters of the Covenant and the Women of Islam”

1️⃣ Who were the “Daughters of the Covenant”?

The Bnat Qyāmā (ܒܢ̈ܬ ܩܝܡܐ) were women who took vows of celibacy and service in the Church of the East — roughly analogous to Christian nuns, but not cloistered in the Western sense.

They lived among the community, serving in hospitals, liturgies, and baptisms.

But George I’s canon shows anxiety: he fears moral laxity, independence, and imitation of new Islamic norms of female activity.

2️⃣ “Let them not exercise authority” — a subtle counter to early Muslim women’s public role

That phrase — ܠܐ ܢܫ̈ܬܠܛܢ (lā neshtalṭān) — “they shall not exercise authority” — is loaded.

By George’s time (mid-7th century), Muslim women were visibly active:

Attending mosque prayers (as Akram Nadwi cites: “When your women ask to go to the mosque, permit them”).
Participating in the Bayʿat al-Riḍwān, the allegiance under the tree.
Narrating hadith, teaching, and advising rulers.

In short, women had moral and spiritual agency rooted in revelation and learning — not cloistered obedience.

George’s canon, in contrast, re-imposes separation and silence.

He fears that Christian women, inspired by their Muslim neighbors, might claim public voice or autonomy within the church.

Thus, “they shall not exercise authority” becomes the Christian rebuttal to the early Islamic idea that “authority is granted by knowledge and piety, not gender.”

3️⃣ Islamic “presence” vs. Syriac “purity”

In Akram Nadwi’s analysis, early Muslim women — from Fāṭimah bint Khattāb to Umm Kulthūm bint ʿUqbah — showed spiritual courage in the public eye, risking social norms for God’s truth.

George’s bēt qyāmā (house of the covenant) instead withdraws from public life:

“Let them dwell one or two houses together, with a matron over them.”

Islam’s moral model was participation in public worship;

George’s model was protection through seclusion.

This canon thus formalizes a counter-theology of purity — holiness through invisibility.

4️⃣ “Let them assist in baptism” — Christian female ritual agency

Yet paradoxically, these women did have sacred duties:

Assisting in female baptisms (since modesty forbade male deacons from touching women).
Caring for the sick.
Leading prayers for martyrs and the dead.

So, George limits their authority to ritual and bodily purity, not teaching or governance — in contrast to Muslim women who were already teaching Qur’an and hadith in public circles.

Where ʿĀʾishah bint Abī Bakr could instruct male jurists, George’s virgins could only anoint female bodies.

5️⃣ Economic and social implications

In the post-conquest Near East, Muslim society gave women legal identities in inheritance, contracts, and property — something alien to late antique Christianity.

George’s canon keeps these women under ecclesiastical dependency:

“Let a female servant be appointed… she shall oversee their household.”

This was a deliberate anti-Islamic structure — to prevent women from forming independent convents, economies, or teaching circles.

6️⃣ The anxiety of visibility

The canon forbids them to be seen “at the feasts of martyrs” or to “exercise authority on the days of instruction.”

That’s significant — those were public gatherings, often attended by Muslims too.

George’s message:

Christian women must not be visible where Muslim women are active.

It’s a quiet confession of cultural defeat — Islam had redefined the moral geography of womanhood, and George was retreating behind the walls of purity.

7️⃣ A tale of two moralities

Early Islam (as Akram Nadwi describes)	George I’s Church of the East
Women entered Islam individually, asserting conscience and choice.	Women’s vows were collective, supervised, and limited to service.
Authority through knowledge and transmission (ḥadīth, fiqh).	Authority through obedience and modesty (ܩܝܡܐ).
Presence in the mosque, pledge, and public debate.	Presence confined to burial, baptism, and liturgy.
Integration into the social ummah.	Withdrawal into consecrated isolation.
Moral dignity through ʿamal (deeds).	Moral dignity through nqāyutā (purity).

George I’s canon thus reads like a reactionary wall against the rising egalitarianism of early Islam — a desperate attempt to preserve Christian social order through gendered control.

⚖️ Canon 10 — “On Clergy Departing without the Bishop’s Permission”

(ܥܠ ܗܝ ܕܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛ ܒܠܥܕ ܡܢ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܗܝ ܕܐܢܫ ܡܢ ܩܠܪ̈ܝܩܘ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛ ܒܠܥܕ ܡܢ ܦܘܩܕܢܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܠܡܪܚܩܘ ܡܢ ܥܕܬܗ ܘܡܕܝܢܬܗ	Concerning that no member of the clergy shall presume, without the command of his bishop, to depart from his church or his city.
ܩܠܪܝܩܘ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܟܕܝܢܝ̈ ܒܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ܆ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܛܟܣܐ ܬܩܢܐ ܘܕܘܒܪܐ ܡܩܠܣܐ܆ ܐܦ ܒܡܥܠܐ ܐܦ ܒܡܦܩܐ	Let all clerics, in their service of the Church, conduct themselves with order, propriety, and discipline—both in entering and in departing from the holy places.
ܐܝܟ ܡ̇ܢ ܕܡܫܡ̈ܫܢܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܬܫܒܘܚܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ܆ ܘܒܝܬ̈ܝܐ ܕܐܪ̈ܙܘܗܝ	For they are ministers of the praise of God and of His mysteries.
ܠܕܘܟ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܥܕܬܐ ܘܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܠܡܪܚܩܘ܆ ܐܘ ܠܡܬܚܙܝܘ ܩܕܡ ܐܚܝܕܝ̈ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܥܠܡܢܝܐ ܒܨܒܘ ܐܘ ܒܣܘܥܪܢ܆ ܒܠܥܕ ܡܢ ܡܦܣܢܘܬܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ : ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ	But whoever departs from his city or church, or appears before secular authorities in business or public matters, without the bishop’s permission, shall have no authority to do so.
ܘܐܝܢܐ ܕܥܒ̇ܪ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܢܗܘܐ ܚܪܡ܀	And whoever transgresses these things shall be placed under ban (ḥerem).

🕊️ Commentary — “The Boundaries of Clerical Freedom under Islam”

1️⃣ Why this canon mattered

At first glance, this seems a simple rule of ecclesiastical discipline — clergy need permission to travel.

But in 7th-century Khuzistan and Mesopotamia, this was no minor administrative detail.

After the Muslim conquests, mobility and visibility became new forms of power.

Islamic society prized mobility: merchants, scholars, judges, and qāḍīs could move between garrison cities.
Muslims could appeal to higher authorities or attend court without ecclesiastical permission.
Dhimmī Christians, for the first time, could represent themselves before Muslim rulers directly, bypassing bishops or patriarchs.

George’s canon thus targets a crisis: clergy acting independently, perhaps fraternizing with Muslim officials or even seeking protection from them.

2️⃣ “Appearing before secular authorities” — i.e., Muslim rulers

The phrase “ܠܡܬܚܙܝܘ ܩܕܡ ܐܚܝܕܝ̈ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܥܠܡܢܝܐ” (“to appear before those who hold worldly authority”) unmistakably refers to the new Muslim administrators and judges.

Under Islam, officials such as the amīr, qāḍī, and wālī governed local disputes, taxation, and justice.

Many Christians, disillusioned with their bishops’ corruption, went to Muslim officials for redress — just as Canon 6 forbade earlier.

Canon 10 extends that prohibition to clergy themselves:

they were no longer to “go before secular rulers” without episcopal consent.

In short:

George was closing a loophole — clerics were beginning to engage with the Muslim state on their own terms.

3️⃣ The lure of Muslim openness

Islamic governance, compared to late-Sasanian or Roman systems, offered something new:

A uniform legal structure based on the Qur’an and Sunnah.
Accessible rulers and judges who accepted petitions from anyone.
Religious neutrality in administrative justice — dhimmīs could win cases against Muslims.

For a Christian cleric accustomed to episcopal hierarchy, the Islamic qāḍī’s court represented a new moral authority: justice based on revelation, not status.

George’s reaction was predictable:

“No priest shall go before worldly powers, except by his bishop’s permission.”

He was re-inscribing clerical obedience against a system that prized moral independence.

4️⃣ “Whoever transgresses shall be under ban” — ܢܗܘܐ ܚܪܡ

The canon ends with the word ḥerem (ܚܪܡ) — excommunication, the harshest penalty in Syriac canon law.

This wasn’t just a spiritual punishment; it meant loss of community protection, social ostracism, and in practice, often economic ruin.

That severity shows how deeply threatened George felt.

In the new Islamic world, a priest could build his own following, arbitrate disputes, or even earn favor from Muslim rulers.

George’s ḥerem was a tool to keep the clergy from defecting to the system of Islamic patronage.

5️⃣ Islamic comparison: the scholar’s independence

In Islam, scholars (ʿulamāʾ) were not bound to the state or to a hierarchical bishop.

Their legitimacy came from knowledge and piety — not appointment.

A Muslim jurist could move to another city, teach, and issue rulings without a superior’s permission.

This independence, unimaginable in the Syriac church, created an appealing intellectual freedom that clerics may have envied.

Thus Canon 10 represents an attempt to re-tighten the leash:

“Clerics must not travel, teach, or appear before rulers unless sanctioned by their bishop.”

In other words — a total reversal of the ʿālim’s autonomy.

6️⃣ Political subtext: loyalty to whom?

By the 670s, Christian bishops were effectively intermediaries between Muslims and their communities.

If clergy bypassed them, bishops lost leverage.

The canon therefore functioned as both a spiritual edict and a political safeguard: to keep power centralized in episcopal hands.

Islam had no ecclesiastical pyramid; George was desperately preserving his.

7️⃣ 7th-Century Scenario Illustration

Imagine a priest in al-Ahwaz or Gundeshapur, summoned for taxes or accused of misconduct.

Instead of appealing to his bishop (who might be corrupt), he petitions the Muslim governor, who hears him fairly and remits his fine.

Soon others follow, seeing Muslim justice as more equitable.

George’s response:

“Let no cleric go before worldly rulers, nor leave his church without consent — or be cast out.”

It’s not just about discipline — it’s an existential struggle over moral legitimacy.

💠 Canon 11 — “On the Care of Orphans and the Bishop’s Responsibility”

(ܥܠ ܗܿܝ ܕܘ݀ܠܐ ܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܢܥܒܕ ܝܨܝܦܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܫܬܒܩܝܢ ܒܡܫܘܚܬܐ ܙܥܘܪܬܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܗܿܝ ܕܘ݀ܠܐ ܠܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܕܢܥܒܕ ܝܨܝܦܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܫܬܒܩܝܢ ܒܡܫܘܚܬܐ ܙܥܘܪܬܐ ܡܢ ܐܒܗܝ̈ܗܘܢ	Concerning this: it is not fitting for a bishop to act negligently regarding those who are left in the lesser anointing from their fathers — that is, the young and fatherless children.
ܕܒܟܠܗܿ ܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܢܛܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܝܘܪܬܢܗܘܢ ܕܠܐ ܦܘܠܗܕܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܕܢܡܢܥܘܢ ܠܡܫܘܚܬܐ	In the fear of God he shall guard their inheritance without loss, until they come of age to receive their anointing (i.e., full ecclesial initiation).
ܘܢܤܦܩܘ ܠܡܐܚܕ ܝܘܪܬܢܗܘܢ	And they shall be made sufficient to take possession of their inheritance.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܿܢܕܝܢ ܘܫܒ̇ܩܝܢ ܒܢܝ̈ܐ ܒܡܫܘܚܬܐ ܕܛܠܝܘܬܐ : ܬܗܘܐ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܒܛܝܠܘܬܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ	Those who die and leave children in the anointing of youth, the bishop’s negligence shall rest upon them if their care is ignored.
ܘܢܥܩܒ ܘܢܕܥ ܗ̣ܘ ܘܕܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܚܠܝܗ̈ܘܢ ܡܕܡ ܕܦܫ ܠܐܒܗܝ̈ܗܘܢ	He shall inquire and know concerning them, and their mothers, and their relatives, whatever was left by their fathers.
ܘܢܩܝܡ ܠܗܘܢ ܥܠ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܐܢܫ ܐܦܛܪܘܦܐ ܕܕܚ̇ܠ ܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܤܗܝܕ ܒܬܩܢܘܬܐ	And he shall appoint over them a guardian — one who fears God and is known for his integrity.
ܘܢܓܥܠܠܗܘܢ ܦܘܪܢܣܗܘܢ	And he shall provide for their maintenance.
ܘܗܟܢܐ ܒܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܕ̈ܕܐ ܘܕܚ̈ܠܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܕܝܪ̈ܬܐ : ܢܗܘܐ ܦܘܪܢܣܐ ܕܛ̈ܠܝܐ ܘܢܦܩܬܗܘܢ ܘܬܪ̈ܡܝܬܗܘܢ ܘܢܛܝܪܘܬܐ ܕܩܢܝܢܗܘܢ	In the same knowledge and fear of God, the inheritance of the orphans shall be preserved — their sustenance, their income, their goods, and all that belongs to them.
ܕܒܐܝܕ̈ܝ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܣܗܝܕܝܢ ܒܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܐܡܬܝ ܕܢܣܦܩܘܢ ܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܝܪ̈ܬܐ ܠܡܐܚܕ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ	It shall remain in the hands of those who bear witness in the fear of God, until the orphans are of age to receive what is theirs.
ܟܕ ܟܠܗܝܢ ܒܝܕܥܬܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܡܫܬܡ̈ܠܝܢ : ܐܝܟ ܕܠܐ ܢܐܒܕ ܡܕܡ ܕܛܠ̈ܝܐ ܝܬܡ̈ܐ܆ ܘܢܫܬܡܫ ܛܠܘܡܝܐ	And all these things shall be done with the bishop’s knowledge, that nothing belonging to the orphans be lost or used unjustly.
ܘܡ̇ܢ ܕܢܦܣܥ ܥܠ ܗܕܐ : ܬܚܝܬ ܬܚܘܡܐ ܕܡܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܢܗܘܐ܀	And whoever transgresses this command shall be under the judgment of the Word of God.

🕊 Commentary — “The Bishop as Guardian in the Age of the Ummah”

1️⃣ What this canon is doing

This canon imposes direct episcopal responsibility for orphans — economic, moral, and spiritual.

The bishop becomes the custodian of both inheritance and soul until the orphan reaches maturity.

But the striking clause is the last one:

“He who violates this shall be under the judgment of the Word of God.”

That is a divine curse formula, not a mere church penalty.

George I invokes Scriptural wrath against those who exploit orphans — a direct echo of Qurʾānic language.

2️⃣ Islamic context — The Qurʾān’s orphan ethic

In Islam, the care of orphans (اليتامى) is one of the most emphatically legislated duties.

Key Qurʾānic parallels:

“Give orphans their property, and do not exchange the bad for the good, nor devour their wealth.” (Q 4:2)
“Do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best way, until he reaches maturity.” (Q 6:152)
“Those who unjustly consume the property of orphans consume only fire into their bellies.” (Q 4:10)

By the 7th century, Muslims had developed an entire legal and administrative mechanism around this — guardians (awṣiyāʾ), witnesses, and qāḍī-supervision.

George’s canon almost copies this structure:

a fear-of-God guardian,
property held “until maturity,”
bishoply oversight of wealth,
a divine curse against misuse.

This is a Christian mirror of Q 4:2–10, localized for a church struggling to maintain moral legitimacy in an Islamic polity.

3️⃣ Historical motive — Competing moral economies

Before Islam, Syriac Christianity inherited a mixed practice:

Charity toward orphans was admired (as in Hermas, Didascalia Apostolorum).
But systematic administration of orphan care was rare, often left to monasteries or wealthy patrons.

Islam, by contrast, made orphan welfare a pillar of law — linked to salvation itself.

The Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ was an orphan; his empathy shaped a community-wide ethic of guardianship.

When Muslims conquered Khuzistan, they were visibly building institutions of social justice: zakāt distribution, endowments, inheritance audits.

George I had to respond — not with abstract theology, but practical compassion framed as Christian duty.

Hence: bishops must guard orphan wealth, appoint godfearing trustees, and answer to God for their neglect.

4️⃣ Echoes of the early Church

The canon directly revives the Didascalia Apostolorum’s instruction that bishops “act as fathers of the orphans.”

But George goes further:

He institutionalizes episcopal accountability.
He creates a chain of recordkeeping (“known to the bishop”) remarkably like the Islamic waṣiyya system.
He threatens divine sanction — the first time this formula appears in Nestorian canons.

The Didascalia encouraged adoption and moral care.

George, in the world of Islam, adds financial regulation — an unmistakable borrowing from Qurʾānic moral law.

5️⃣ The “fear of God” formula — shared spiritual vocabulary

Every key line invokes “ܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ” — “fear of God.”

This is the Syriac Christian equivalent of taqwā — pious conscience before divine law.

Islamic society had redefined public ethics around taqwā;

George answers with “ܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ” — insisting that bishops and guardians act not by rank, but by conscience before God.

The continuity is unmistakable: both systems internalize justice as piety.

6️⃣ From abstract charity to bureaucratic morality

Before Islam, orphan care was charitable.

After Islam, it became a legal duty.

George’s canon marks the Church’s pivot from mercy to administration —

from “blessed are the merciful” to “the bishop shall ensure the accounts.”

That bureaucratic tone betrays a world already governed by fiqh.

7️⃣ Why this canon feels Qurʾānic

Let’s compare side-by-side:

Qurʾān	Canon 11
“Give orphans their property.” (4:2)	“Guard their inheritance until they come of age.”
“Do not consume their wealth.” (4:10)	“Whoever violates this shall be under the judgment of God’s Word.”
“Appoint guardians until they reach maturity.” (4:6)	“Appoint over them a man who fears God and is known for integrity.”
“Fear Allah regarding orphans.”	“In the fear of God he shall guard their inheritance.”

George’s phrasing reads almost like a Syriac tafsīr of Sūrat al-Nisāʾ.

8️⃣ Moral politics: reclaiming compassion from Islam

In the early caliphate, Muslims became renowned for equitable taxation and orphan protection.

Christian leaders risked appearing morally obsolete.

Canon 11 is thus a moral counter-narrative:

“We, too, guard the weak in the fear of God.
Our bishops, not your qāḍīs, defend the orphans.”

It was a desperate but eloquent attempt to re-Christianize social justice in an Islamic century.

💠 Canon 12 — “On Disorderly Monks and the True Rule of the Solitary”

(ܥܠ ܛܘܪܒܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܝܗܿܒܝܢ ܫܡܐ ܘܐܤܟܡܐ ܕܝܚܝܕ̈ܝܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܛܘܪܒܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܝܗܿܒܝܢ ܫܡܐ ܘܐܤܟܡܐ ܕܝܚܝܕ̈ܝܐ	Concerning the disorder and lack of discipline among those who bear the name and habit of solitaries (monks).
ܟܕ ܡܢ ܕܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܚ̈ܙܝܢ ܢܦܪܫܘܢ ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܘܚܝ̈ܐ ܢܟ̈ܦܐ ܕܢܙܝܪܘܬܐ ܚܝܠܗ ܪܚܝܩܝܢ	For these men appear to withdraw from the world, yet their way of ascetic life is far from the strength of true consecration.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܨܒ̇ܝܢ ܕܡܛܠ ܪܚܡܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܘܡܒܤܪܢܘܬܐ ܢܚܘ ܢ	Those who desire, for the sake of God’s mercy and the Gospel, to take this path—
ܘܠܐ݀ ܠܗܘܢ ܕܢܬܒܝܬܘܢ ܠܘܩܕܡ ܝܘܠܦܢܐ ܕܟܬܒ̈ܐ ܘܢܕܥܘܢ ܫܦܝܪ ܠܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܛܠܬܗ ܢܦܩܘ	Let them first be instructed in the teaching of Scripture and rightly understand those for whose sake they renounce the world.
ܘܗܟܢܐ ܒܥܘܡܪܐ ܢܬܠܡܕܘܢ ܠܕܘܒܪܐ ܘܢܩܒܠܘܢ ܐܤܟܡܐ	Thus, in community, let them be trained in conduct and receive the monastic habit.
ܘܢܦܠܚܘܢ ܒܩܢܘܒܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܛܟܣܐ ܕܪܕܵܐ	And they shall labour in monasteries according to the rule of the Fathers.
ܘܗܟܢ ܢܬܒܘܢ ܒܩܠܝܬܐ ܒܫܘܥܒܕܐ ܕܠܪܫܐ ܘܒܢܛܘܪܬܐ ܕܩܥܘ̈ܢܐ ܕܐܒܗ̈ܬܐ	They shall remain in humility, in obedience to their superior, and in the keeping of the Fathers’ rules.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܠܘ ܢܡܘܣܐܝܬ ܘܒܙܢܐ ܗܢܐ ܕܟܬܒܢ	But those who, not lawfully nor according to this pattern, take the name and habit of monks—
ܗܢܘܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܝ ܗ̇ܒܝܢ ܐܣܟܡܐ ܘܟܕ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܝܕܥܬܐ ܕܟܬܒ̈ܐ ܓܠܝܙܝܢ	who know nothing of Scripture and live carelessly—
ܫܘܒܚܐ ܣܪܝܩܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܨܿܒܝܢ ܕܢܨܝܕܘܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܩܘܛܢܐ ܒܓܪܝܥܘܬܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܕܪܫܐ	desiring only empty glory and a poor cloak of rough wool—
ܘܒܓܠܝܙܘܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܟܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܦܐܝ̈ܢ ܠܕܘܒܪܗܘܢ	who move idly among all, without the discipline of their profession—
ܘܒܕܘܟ̈ܝܬܐ ܡܫܚܛ̈ܬܐ ܝܬܒ̇ܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܫܘܥܒܕܐ ܕܠܪܫܐ ܘܕܠܐ ܢܛܘܪܬܐ ܕܩܢܘ̈ܢܐ ܕܪܫ ܕܘܒܪܗܘܢ	and who dwell in corrupt places, without obedience or observance of the rules of their order—
ܢܕܚܘܡ ܠܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܘܠܐ ܢܫܒܘܡ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܢܬܟܪܟܘܢ ܘܢܛܥܘܢ ܠܦܫܝܛ̈ܐ	Such persons the bishop shall expel, and he shall not permit them to wander or to deceive the simple.
ܗܘ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܡܬܚܡܝܢ ܡܢ ܫܡܐ ܘܐܣܟܡܐ ܕܕܝܪ̈ܝܐ ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ	For those who truly keep the name and habit of monks are protected by the Word of our Lord.

🕊 Commentary — “Monastic Discipline in the Age of the Ummah”

1️⃣ What’s going on

George I turns his gaze on the monks—once the pride of the Church of the East—and discovers chaos: self-appointed hermits, untrained ascetics, and charismatic wanderers roaming the countryside.

He demands that monks live under episcopal and communal authority, trained in Scripture and rule.

This is not merely internal reform.

It is a defensive response to Islamic moral order, where the ‘ābid, the pious devotee, had become the new public ideal of ascetic integrity.

2️⃣ Monks vs. Muslims: the new moral competition

By the 7th–8th centuries, the image of the faqīr or zāhid—the humble servant of God—had captured public admiration in Khūzistān, al-Baṣra, and beyond.

Muslim ascetics practiced fasting, silence, and voluntary poverty, but with social purpose and Qurʾānic legitimacy.

Christian monks, once viewed as holy men, now looked eccentric or lawless in comparison.

George’s canon tries to standardize holiness so it could still compete:

“Learn the Scriptures first, live in community, follow the rule, obey the head.”

This was, in essence, an attempt to Islamize monastic discipline without abandoning Christianity.

3️⃣ Islamic echoes

Note how the canon mirrors Qurʾānic and early Islamic ethics:

Islamic parallel	Canon 12 reflection
“Those who withdraw from the world for God’s sake must act with knowledge and discipline.” (Q 57:27)	“Let them first be instructed in the teaching of Scripture.”
“Monasticism which they invented—we did not prescribe it for them except to seek the pleasure of God, but they did not observe it properly.” (Q 57:27)	George condemns monks who “bear the name and habit” yet lack rule and obedience.
Sufis and ascetics under early Islam lived communally, in ribāṭs with clear hierarchy.	George commands monastic order “in obedience to their superior, and in the keeping of the Fathers’ rules.”

He is, effectively, re-baptizing the ribāṭ model back into Christian canon law.

4️⃣ Why George needed this canon

Political: Muslim governors tolerated monasteries only if they were orderly and tax-compliant. Wandering monks invited suspicion.
Social: Muslim society now boasted its own holy men; the Church had to show equal moral rigor.
Economic: Disorderly ascetics begged or lived off peasants—endangering Christian credibility under Muslim fiscal rule.

So George asserts episcopal control, making monks part of the official Church economy rather than free radicals of holiness.

5️⃣ A shift from charisma to hierarchy

Early Syrian monasticism (e.g., the stylites, hermits, and “sons of the covenant”) gloried in personal revelation and ecstatic solitude.

George’s canon transforms that wild charisma into regulated clerical obedience.

He replaces the desert prophet with the disciplined servant:

“They shall labour in monasteries according to the rule of the Fathers … in obedience to their superior.”

This echoes the Islamic shift from individual zuhd (asceticism) to communal taṣawwuf (organized spiritual discipline).

6️⃣ Language of law and legitimacy

Twice George uses the word ܢܡܘܣܐܝܬ (nāmūsāyith) — “lawfully.”

That is the same loan-word root as Arabic nāmūs (law).

He is consciously invoking the language of legal orthodoxy, just as Islamic fiqh was defining proper religious practice.

For the first time, holiness is treated as a matter of canonical legality, not spontaneous piety.

7️⃣ Expulsion and purity

“Such persons the bishop shall expel.”

That’s ecclesiastical policing—an almost qāḍī-like enforcement of moral order.

Compare: the early Muslim muḥtasib, who expelled impostors and public sinners.

George installs the bishop as his own muḥtasib of monastic morality.

8️⃣ Theological subtext

At the end he writes:

“Those who truly keep the name and habit of monks are protected by the Word of our Lord.”

That final clause deliberately re-anchors monasticism in Christ the Logos, counterbalancing the Qurʾānic “Word of God” which guarded Muslim ascetics’ sincerity.

It is the Syriac Church reclaiming divine patronage over ascetic legitimacy.

💠 Canon 13 — “On the Lawful Joining of a Woman in Marriage”

(ܥܠ ܗܝܿ ܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܛܐ ܐܢܬܬܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܠܡܫܬܘܬܦܘ ܒܠܥܕ ܡܢ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܐܒܗܝ̈ܗ̇ ܘܡܨܥܝܘܬܐ ܕܨܠܝܒܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܘܟܗܢܐ ܕܡܒܪܟ܀)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܗܝܿ ܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܛܐ ܐܢܬܬܐ ܠܓܒܪܐ ܠܡܫܬܘܬܦܘ ܒܠܥܕ ܡܢ ܨܒܝܢܐ ܕܐܒܗܝ̈ܗ̇ ܘܡܨܥܝܘܬܐ ܕܨܠܝܒܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܘܟܗܢܐ ܕܡܒܪܟ	A woman is not permitted to join herself in marriage to a man without the consent of her parents, the mediation of the Holy Cross, and the blessing of a priest.
ܢܫ̈ܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܢܤܝ ܙܘܘܓܐ ܘܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܐܒܗܝ̈ܗܝܢ ܡܬܡܟܪ̈ܢ	Women who have not been married and are given in marriage from their fathers’ house —
ܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܟܪܣܛܝܢܐ ܢܬܡܟܪ̈ܢ ܠܓܒܪ̈ܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܥܝܕܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ	— shall be given in Christian law to men according to the rite of the faithful,
ܒܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܕܐܒܗܝܗܝܢ ܘܒܡܨܥܝܘܬܐ ܕܨܠܝܒܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܦܘܪܩܢܢ ܘܒܘܪܟܬܐ ܟܗܢܝܬܐ	with the agreement of their fathers, through the mediation of the Holy Cross of our Redemption, and the priestly blessing.
ܒܗܝܿ ܓܝܪ ܕܠܘ ܐܝܟ ܫܪܟܐ ܕܥܡܡ̈ܐ ܙܘܟܪ̈ܝܝ ܠܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܦܫܝܡ ܠܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ	For unlike the other nations who are forgetful of the fear of God, Christians must not take part in unlawful unions,
ܠܡܣܟܠܘ ܒܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ ܕܙܘܘܓܐ ܢܡܘܣܝܐ ܘܠܡܩܦ ܠܐܚܪܬܐ	nor consort with others outside the law.
ܐܠܨܝܬܐ ܐܝܬܝ݀ܗ ܘܕܛܒ ܡܥܕܪܐ ܕܒܩܪܝܒܘܬܗ ܕܡܥܒܕܢܐ ܕܚܝܝ̈ܢ	For necessity requires and reason teaches that in their closeness the work of life be rightly ordered,
ܘܡܫܟܢܢܐ ܕܦܘܪܩ ܥܢ ܬܢܘܝ ܕܡܟܝܪܐ ܘܕܡܟܝܪ̈ܬܐ	and that the household be delivered from deceitful transactions and false dowries.
ܐܝܟ ܡ̇ܢ ܕܐܢ ܢܟܕܒܘܢ ܒܩܝܡܐ ܕܫܘܬܦܘܬܗܘܢ	Thus, if they are to write a covenant of partnership (a marriage contract),
ܐܝܬ ܗܘܼ ܠܗܘܢ ܬܒܘܥܐ ܢܝܫܐ ܕܙܟܘܬܢ	it shall have for them the seal of righteousness —
ܗ݀ܘ ܕܒܗ݀ ܟܠ ܟܣܝ̈ܬܢ ܡܬܓܠܝܢ ܘܥܒܕ̈ܝܢ ܡܬܒܚܪܝܢ ܩܕܡ ܒܝܡ ܕܚܝܠܬܐ ܕܫܘܒܚܗ	— that by it all their hidden things be revealed, and their works made manifest before the sea of His glorious power.
ܐܟܚܕ ܕܝܢ ܘܒܒܘܪܟܬܐ ܟܗܢܝܬܐ ܢܫܪܘܢ ܡܗܝܡܢܐܝܬ	Together and under priestly blessing, they shall commit themselves in faith
ܕܢܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܡܫܠܡܘ ܒܒܘܪܟܬܐ ܐܣܪܐ ܕܫܘܬܦܘܬܗܘܢ	that the bond of their union be perfected in blessing,
ܠܦܘܬ ܤܒܪܐ ܕܣܘܟܝܗܘܢ	for the hope of their posterity.
ܐܢܕܝܢܢܥܒܪܘܢ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܝܟ ܕܨܒܝܢ ܚܕܬܐܝܬ ܠܡܫܬܘܬܦܘ	But if they disregard these things and join themselves in new unions as they please,
ܘܢܒܤܘܢ ܥܠ ܢܡܘܤܐ ܕܐܬܬܣܝܡ	transgressing the established law,
ܐܡܬܝ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܡܟܕܒܘ ܒܚܕ̈ܕܐ ܐܦ ܡܛܠ ܕܓܠܝܙܝܢ ܡ̣ܢ ܒܘܪܟܬܐ ܟܗܢܝܬܐ	then, though they write contracts, they are deprived of the priestly blessing,
ܕܠܐ ܬܒܥܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܚܕ̈ܕܐ ܢܫܬܒܩܘܢ	and shall not be freed from the obligation of their unlawful covenants.
ܘܠܐ ܢܫܬܘܘܢ ܠܚܘܪܪܐ ܕܡܢ ܛܠܘܡ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܡ̣ܢ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܤܝܡܝܢ ܥܠ ܕܝ̈ܢܐ	Nor shall they escape the penalty imposed by those appointed over judgment.
ܥܡ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܦ ܢܬܬܚܪܡܘܢ ܡ̣ܢ ܥܕܬܐ	Moreover, they shall be excommunicated from the Church.

📜 Commentary — “The Marriage Canon and Islam’s Challenge to Christian Law”

1️⃣ Why this canon matters

Canon 13 is not a mere moral warning — it’s a juridical revolution.

George I is transforming Christian marriage from a social arrangement into a canonically constituted contract, consciously mirroring the form and rigor of Islamic nikāḥ.

He mandates:

Written documentation (ܢܟܕܒܘܢ ܒܩܝܡܐ ܕܫܘܬܦܘܬܗܘܢ)
Public and priestly oversight
Parental consent (walī-like authority)
The mediation of the Cross and priestly blessing
Excommunication for illicit or extra-ecclesial unions

In short: George I is building a Christian fiqh — a law of marriage under the Cross — designed to rival the emerging authority of Islamic jurisprudence.

2️⃣ The legal background: From Sasanian coexistence to Islamic competition

Lev Weitz’s work makes clear that under the Sasanians, East Syrian Christians never possessed a self-sufficient legal system.

They lived within a plural legal environment where:

Marriage contracts were typically drawn up by local or imperial scribes, often under Zoroastrian supervision.
Christian law had pastoral rather than constitutive authority — it admonished, but did not create or invalidate marriages.
Bishops claimed jurisdiction only over clerics, not over the civil affairs of laypeople.

Weitz summarizes the Sasanian situation:

“Christian law did not have constitutive power over the formation of marriages; Sasanian Christians moved within a legal sphere defined by the empire’s official traditions.”

George I’s world — early 8th-century Khūzistān and Mesopotamia — is utterly different.

Now, the Muslim qāḍī, not the Zoroastrian dādwar, is the state judge; and Islamic law (fiqh) is defining marriage as a divine contract (mīthāq ghalīẓ, Q 4:21).

The Church can no longer afford to remain a moral commentator — it must become a legal competitor.

Thus, Canon 13 marks the East Syrian Church’s transition from pastoral guidance to juridical self-definition.

3️⃣ The Islamic backdrop: Law as sacred order

By George’s time, the great early Muslim jurists — al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī in Basra, and later the Kufan teachers of Abū Ḥanīfa — had articulated marriage law as a sacred contract with clear requirements:

Walī (guardian’s consent)
Ṣadāq / mahr (bride-gift)
Shuhūd (witnesses)
Kitāb an-nikāḥ (written contract)

Marriage, in Islam, was not a social convention — it was a legal covenant before God, administered by His law.

George’s canon mirrors this framework point for point — but within an ecclesiastical, not Islamic, universe.

It is a counter-codification, an attempt to assert that the Church too has law, ritual, and enforceable contracts sanctified by divine authority.

4️⃣ Line-by-line parallels

Canon 13 clause	Islamic counterpart	Meaning / contrast
“A woman shall not join herself … without her father’s consent.”	Nikāḥ without walī is invalid (“No marriage except with a guardian.”)	George mirrors the Islamic requirement of paternal consent but places it under Christian law and priestly mediation, not state law.
“Through the Cross and the blessing of a priest.”	“In the name of God (bismi’Llāh), with a khuṭbah or duʿāʾ.”	A Christianization of ritual invocation — replacing Qurʾānic recitation with the Cross and priestly blessing.
“They shall write a covenant of partnership.”	Kitāb an-nikāḥ (marriage contract)	Adopts the same legal format: written, witnessed, and binding.
“Seal of righteousness… all hidden things revealed.”	Nikāḥ as a mīthāq ghalīẓ (Q 4:21) — a “solemn covenant.”	Parallel imagery: marriage as a public and moral covenant before God.
“Those who join unlawfully are excommunicated.”	Zinā punished by ḥadd and exclusion.	George transforms ḥadd punishment into ḥarīmā (excommunication) — the Church’s spiritual equivalent of Islamic penal law.

This is Christian fiqh, forged under the intellectual and institutional pressure of Islamic law.

5️⃣ The deeper struggle: Authority and jurisdiction

Under the Sasanians, bishops never claimed exclusive authority over lay marriage — they deferred to imperial courts.

Under Islam, however, Christian dhimmīs risked being drawn into qāḍī courts for family law cases, especially where inheritance, divorce, or dowry disputes arose.

Canon 13 is George I’s response to that erosion of authority.

“It shall not be lawful for a woman to join herself … without the mediation of the priest.”

That phrase — mediation of the priest — is the ecclesiastical reclaiming of jurisdiction.

George is not only defending morality; he’s defending the Church’s right to be the sole legal arbiter of Christian unions.

Excommunication, therefore, is not merely a spiritual sanction — it’s a juridical boundary marker against Islamic law’s encroachment.

6️⃣ Women, consent, and protection

Paradoxically, George’s canon — though framed patriarchally — enhances female protection in a Muslim legal environment that emphasized documentation and rights.

By demanding:

written contracts,
family consent,
priestly blessing,

he ensures that Christian women cannot be secretly married, coerced, or abandoned without record.

In a sense, this canon internalizes the Islamic revolution in women’s contractual rights, but reframes it through the Cross.

The Church is catching up — not out of imitation, but out of survival.

7️⃣ Economic realism: Dowries and deceit

“That the household be delivered from deceitful transactions and false dowries.”

This is a remarkable inclusion.

Islamic fiqh meticulously defined mahr (the obligatory bride-gift) and its payment and return in cases of divorce.

George’s parallel clause shows the same concern for economic fairness — rooting it not in divine law (sharīʿa) but in Christian honesty.

This is the emergence of proto-civil law in the Church of the East — no longer mere moral exhortation, but social regulation.

8️⃣ Law and salvation intertwined

Canon 13 fuses two worlds — the legal and the sacramental.

Each Islamic element has a Christian mirror:

Islamic institution	George’s transformation
Qāḍī’s ruling	Priest’s blessing
Bismi’Llāh invocation	Sign of the Cross
Ḥadd penalties	Excommunication
Kitāb an-nikāḥ	Covenant of partnership

George is constructing a Church-centered legal cosmos parallel to the Ummah’s — preserving salvation through law, not apart from it.

In this synthesis, canon law becomes both spiritual protection and juridical defense.

9️⃣ Moral stakes and ecclesiastical sovereignty

George’s conclusion is absolute:

“They shall not escape the penalty … they shall be excommunicated from the Church.”

This is the Church’s taʿzīr — its disciplinary enforcement mechanism, public and binding.

In Sasanian times, exclusion from the Eucharist was a pastoral correction.

In the Islamic era, excommunication becomes law — the Church’s last weapon of sovereignty in a world where state power and divine law now belonged to another religion.

💠 Canon 14 — “On Women Not Joining Themselves to Pagans”

(ܥܠ ܕܠܐ ܘܿܠܐ ܕܢܫܬܘ̈ܬܦܢ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܚܬܐ ܠܚܢ̈ܦܐ ܕܠܕܪܫܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܕܠܐ ܘܿܠܐ ܕܢܫܬܘ̈ܬܦܢ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܚܬܐ ܠܚܢ̈ܦܐ ܕܠܕܪܫܐ	Concerning that no Christian women are to unite or associate with pagans for marriage.
ܢܘܟܪ̈ܝܝ ܠܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ	Those who are strangers to the fear of God.
ܢܫ̈ܐ ܕܚܕܐ ܙܒܢ ܒܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܝ̈ܡܢ ܘܚܝ̈ܐ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܨܒ̇ܝܢ ܠܡܚܐ	Women who once believed in Christ and desired to live as Christians
ܗܘܝ ܡܙܕܗܪ̈ܢ ܡܢ ܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ ܕܥܡ ܚܢ̈ܦܐ ܡܢ ܟܠܗ ܚܝܠܗܝܢ	must beware with all their strength from partnership with pagans.
ܐܝܟ ܡܢ ܕܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ ܕܥܡܗܘܢ ܥܝܕ̈ܐ ܕܢܘܟܪ̈ܝܝܢ ܠܕܚܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܥܒܕܐ ܠܗܝܢ	For their sharing in the feasts of those alien to the fear of God corrupts them,
ܘܨܒܝܢܐ ܪܦܝܐ ܡܩܢܝܐ ܠܗܝܢ	and their weakened will inclines them toward them.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܠܓܡܪ ܗܘܼܝ̈ ܡܬܪ̈ܚܩܢ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܝܬܐ ܡܢ ܕܢܥܡܪ̈ܢ ܥܡ ܚܢܦ̈ܐ	Therefore, let Christian women be entirely separated from dwelling with pagans.
ܘܐܝܕܐ ܕܡܡܪܚܐ ܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܗܘܬܼ ܪܚܝܩܐ ܡܢ ܥܕܬܐ ܘܡ̣ܢ ܟܠ ܐܝܩܪܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ	And she who transgresses this shall be cast far from the Church and deprived of all Christian honor.
ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ	By the word of our Lord.

📜 Commentary — “The Canon against Muslim–Christian Marriage”

1️⃣ Historical Context: Qurʾān 5:5 and its social effect

“Today are permitted to you the good things… and chaste women from among those who were given the Book before you.” (Q 5:5)

This verse explicitly allowed Muslim men to marry Christian (and Jewish) women, provided they were muḥṣanāt — virtuous, chaste, believing women.

By contrast, Christian law (both East and West) had no precedent for interreligious marriage — it treated “pagans” and “heretics” as excommunicate.

Thus, under Muslim rule in Iraq and Khūzistān, Christian women suddenly found themselves in a society where Muslim men could lawfully marry them, but Christian men could not reciprocate.

That asymmetry created:

A legal imbalance (Muslim men gained wives, Christian men lost women),
A demographic leakage (children of these unions were raised Muslim),
A theological crisis (how to respond when “the law of the land” permits what your faith forbids).

George I’s Canon 14 is a direct countermeasure.

2️⃣ George’s language: “ḥanpē” (pagans) — but meaning Muslims

The Syriac word ܚܢ̈ܦܐ (ḥanpē) originally meant “pagans” or “idolaters.”

But by the early 8th century, Syriac authors used it euphemistically for Muslims, since calling them “Muslims” (ܡܘܣܠܡܝ̈ܐ) in a prohibitive canon would have been politically dangerous.

Thus, the canon’s surface language (“pagans”) hides its real target:

👉 Muslim husbands who married Christian women.

This same coded usage appears in other Syriac texts — for example, the Chronicle of Khuzistan (mid-7th century) and the Book of Governors of Thomas of Marga.

3️⃣ The problem George is fighting

Muslim men marrying Christian women had immediate social attractions:

Muslim men offered security and higher social status, since Islam was now the ruling faith.
A Christian woman’s children would be automatically Muslim, which meant economic and political integration.
Islam permitted such marriages without requiring the woman to convert — at least formally.

So why would Christian women accept?

Because under Islamic rule, Muslim marriage law offered them more rights than the old church structures did:

Mahr (dowry) belonged to the woman, not her family.
She could retain property in her name.
She could seek divorce (khulʿ) in some cases.
And the Qurʾān itself dignified her as a “woman of the Book,” not as an outcast.

From the perspective of a 7th- or 8th-century woman in Khūzistān or Baṣra, the nikāḥ contract was more protective, more equitable, and state-backed.

So George had to respond — not only to prevent apostasy, but to reassert Christian moral and legal prestige.

4️⃣ Clause-by-clause analysis

Canon phrase	Meaning / purpose	Islamic context mirrored or resisted
“No Christian women are to unite with pagans for marriage.”	Prohibition of interfaith unions.	Qurʾān allows Muslim men to marry Christian women; George forbids Christian women from marrying Muslim men — a one-way closure.
“Women who once believed in Christ … must beware.”	Apostasy risk — baptismal vows endangered.	Islam allowed coexistence of the Christian spouse, but children would be Muslim, cutting lineage ties.
“Sharing in their feasts corrupts them.”	Prohibition of participating in Muslim festivals.	Mirrors Islamic warnings against imitating non-Muslims (man tashabbaha bi-qawmin…). A cultural tug-of-war.
“Their weakened will inclines them toward them.”	Recognition of emotional attachment leading to conversion.	A pastoral acknowledgment: women were not coerced — they chose, attracted by the order and dignity of Muslim life.
“Let Christian women be entirely separated from dwelling with pagans.”	Physical segregation.	The mirror opposite of Islamic tolerance toward kitābiyyāt wives.
“She who transgresses… shall be cast far from the Church.”	Excommunication clause.	The Church’s only remaining weapon: sacramental exclusion, not legal punishment.

5️⃣ The deeper legal contrast

Islamic Law (Qurʾān 5:5)	George’s Law (Canon 14)
Muslim men may marry Christian women.	Christian women may not marry Muslims (“pagans”).
No conversion required; faith tolerated.	Conversion presumed — union equals apostasy.
Children inherit Muslim identity.	Church forbids union to preserve lineage and baptismal faith.
Marriage under nikāḥ with mahr and witnesses.	Marriage under priestly blessing, only within the Church.
Marriage is lawful before qāḍī.	Marriage outside the Church = excommunication.

This is a mirror-law effect:

Islam codified inclusion → George codified exclusion.

6️⃣ Sociological implications

By forbidding these marriages, George was effectively cutting Christian women off from upward mobility in Muslim society.

It’s a defensive canon — one born of fear that Christianity would slowly dissolve through intermarriage.

Islam did not need forced conversion — marriage itself was conversion by social osmosis.

7️⃣ Moral tone and pastoral despair

The canon’s language — “weakened will,” “beware with all your strength” — reflects George’s awareness that he was fighting a losing cultural battle.

Women were drawn not to “pagan lust,” as the rhetoric says, but to stability, legal dignity, and belonging in the new Islamic order.

Thus, the excommunication penalty is not just punitive — it’s a cry of helplessness, the Church’s last attempt to maintain identity.

8️⃣ George vs. the Qurʾān: Competing visions of ‘lawful union’

Islamic Qurʾānic vision	George’s Christian counter-vision
“And chaste women among the People of the Book are lawful for you.” (5:5)	“No Christian woman shall unite with those strangers to the fear of God.”
Marriage sanctifies cross-religious ties under divine law.	Marriage to unbelievers defiles baptismal grace.
Islam’s confidence: expansion through inclusion.	Christianity’s fear: survival through isolation.

Canon 14 is one of the clearest examples of Christian legislative reaction to the Qurʾān itself.

It is George I’s attempt to undo the social permeability Islam had created between faiths.

In one law, he encapsulates the early Church’s new reality:

Islam had made mixed marriages legal, safe, and respectable.
The Church could only forbid, isolate, and excommunicate.

In a sense, this canon is George’s mirror of Qurʾān 5:5, the verse that quietly dissolved centuries of religious boundary-keeping.

💠 Canon 15 — “On the Discipline of the Faithful in the Church”

(ܥܠ ܨܘܒܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܕܠܥܕܬܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܨܘܒܐ ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܕܠܥܕܬܐ	Concerning the discipline of the faithful of the Church.
ܕܘ̇ܠܐ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܐܠܨܐܝܬ ܒܥܕܢܐ ܕܪܡܫܐ ܘܕܨܦܪܐ ܒܛܟܣܐ ܦܐܝܐ ܕܠܚ̇ܡ ܠܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ	It is not fitting that there be negligence at the times of evening and morning in the proper order of the faithful’s participation in the breaking of bread.
ܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ ܓܒܪ̈ܐ ܘܢܫ̈ܐ ܗܘ̣ܘ ܨܝܒܝܢ ܠܥܕܬܐ ܒܪܡܫܐ ܘܒܨܦܪܐ	Believing men and women must be diligent to attend the Church both in the evening and in the morning.
ܕܠܐ ܡܗܡܝܢܘ ܣܛܪ ܡܢ ܩܛܝܪܐ ܕܐܢܢܩܐ ܕܢܬܟܠܘܢ ܠܐ ܫܠܝܛܝܢ	Let them not be slack, nor be hindered by excuses of necessity.
ܐܠܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܦܠܐ ܕܒܒܬܝܗ̈ܘܢ ܐܢ ܦܪܫܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܒܝܬ ܨܠܘܬܐ ܢܤܒܪܘܢ ܕܣܦܩܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܡܥܗܘܢ ܘܠܝܗܘܢ	Nor let them think that prayers in their houses suffice for them in place of the gathering with the brethren.
ܕܠܐ ܫܘܬܦܘܬܐ ܕܥܡ ܓܘܐ	For there is no fellowship with the body [of the Church] apart from it.
ܐܦܠܐ ܬܘܒ ܟܕ ܢܐܬܘܢ ܠܥܕܬܐ ܠܣܛܪܒܚ ܕܐ ܕܘܟܐ ܢܨܠܘܢ ܟܤܝܐܝܬ ܒܪܗܝܒܘ ܘܢܫܢܘܢ	Nor when they come to church should they stand apart, praying privately in withdrawal and silence.
ܐܠܐ ܥܡ ܓܘܐ ܕܨܝܒ ܨܢܫܬܘܬܦܘܢ ܒܨܠܘܬܐ	But together with the body of the assembly they shall join in prayer.
ܘܢܟܬܪܘܢ ܠܫܘܡܠܝܐ ܕܩܘܒܠ ܒܘܪܟܬܐ ܟܗܢܝܬܐ	And they shall wait to receive the priestly blessing.
ܗܟܢܐ ܘܐܦ ܠܐ ܒܥܐܕ̈ܐ ܩܕ̈ܝܫܐ ܘܝܘܡ̈ܬܐ ܦܪ̈ܝܫܐ ܢܫܒܩܘܢ ܟܢܘܫܝܐ ܓܘܢܝܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ	Likewise on the holy feasts and appointed days, let them not abandon the public assemblies of the Church.
ܘܠܥܘܡܪ̈ܐ ܘܠܕܝܪ̈ܬܐ ܢܫܢܘܢ ܘܢܫܬܚܡ ܟܢܘܫܝܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܡܢ ܣܓܝܐܘܬ ܥܡܐ ܘܗܕܪܐ ܕܦܐܿܐ ܠܗ	And let not the assemblies of the Church grow few because of the multitude of people and the worldly commotion around them.
ܗܠܝܢ ܗܟܝܠ ܗܟܢܐ ܬܚܡܢܢ ܕܠܐ ܩܛܝܪܐ ܕܡܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ	Therefore we hold firmly that there be no slackness in the word of God.

📜 Commentary — “Public Prayer versus Private Piety in the Age of Islam”

1️⃣ Context: the Islamic revolution of ritual time

By George I’s reign, Islam had completely re-ordered public time:

dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset, and night were punctuated by the adhān, and Muslims gathered for ṣalāh.

Christian communities, long used to irregular Eucharistic gatherings, now lived in a soundscape of communal, synchronized devotion.

Some Christians began to imitate this discipline privately — praying morning and evening in their homes.

Canon 15 responds directly to that.

🔹 “It is not fitting that there be negligence at the times of evening and morning…”
— A deliberate echo of Muslim dawn (ṣubḥ) and sunset (maghrib) prayers.

2️⃣ George’s aim: keep Christianity visible

The canon demands attendance at church for morning and evening prayers — the Syriac ramshā and ṣaprā, long-standing liturgical hours in the East Syriac rite.

But under Islam, these had started to fade:

The adhān drew attention away from church bells.
Muslims prayed publicly; Christians began hiding theirs.
Some thought private devotion “safer” — especially converts or dhimmīs afraid of scrutiny.

George reverses that trend:

👉 Prayer must remain public, collective, and ecclesiastically controlled.

Private piety, no matter how sincere, was not sufficient.

3️⃣ The sociological subtext

This canon also shows anxiety about disappearance through invisibility.

When Christian worship leaves the public square, identity dissolves.

Thus George orders:

Don’t pray secretly at home.
Don’t stand apart in church (like ascetics or fearful minorities).
Stay until the priest’s blessing — the communal seal of identity.

In effect, he’s saying:

“If Islam has the mosque, you must keep the church alive.”

4️⃣ Clause-by-clause analysis

Canon phrase	Meaning / Enforcement	Parallel / Reaction to Islam
“Evening and morning”	Maintain liturgical hours.	Mirrors maghrib and fajr prayers.
“Men and women diligent to attend the Church”	Mixed attendance emphasized — communal solidarity.	Counterpart to mosque congregations.
“Nor think that prayers in their houses suffice”	Forbids home-based private piety.	Responds to Christian imitation of Muslim individual prayer.
“Nor stand apart, praying privately in withdrawal”	Forbids isolationism or quietism.	Islam had rowed congregational prayer — unity in ranks.
“Together with the body they shall join in prayer”	Re-asserts collective ritual as theological necessity.	A Christian jamaʿah, if you will.
“Wait to receive the priestly blessing”	Sacramental closure; no self-sufficiency.	Contrasts with Islam’s direct, non-mediated access to God.
“Let not assemblies grow few because of the multitude of people”	Fear that worldly crowds (i.e., Muslim society) will absorb Christians.	An appeal against assimilation.

5️⃣ Broader meaning: a counter-mosque strategy

Canon 15 reveals George’s acute awareness that the mosque had become the center of community life — legally, socially, and spiritually.

The Church risked becoming peripheral, even invisible.

So he recasts Christian worship as a disciplinary obligation, not mere devotion:

Attendance at ramshā and ṣaprā is now a legal duty,
much like ṣalāh for Muslims.

In that sense, Canon 15 is part of George’s parallelization project —

making Christianity a “civilization” with its own binding rituals, mirroring Islam’s precision.

6️⃣ The deeper theological point

For Islam, prayer (ṣalāh) is direct communion with God — no priest, no mediation.

George counters by emphasizing hierarchy and mediation:

Only in Church, under priestly blessing, does grace flow.
Personal prayer without the clergy is spiritually incomplete.

This is not mere conservatism — it’s anti-Islamic theology in liturgical form.

He is re-defining obedience to the Church as the Christian analogue of submission to God (islām).

7️⃣ Synthesis

Islamic society	George’s Christian response
Public, time-bound communal prayers	Reinforce church-based morning/evening prayers
Flat hierarchy between believer and God	Insist on priestly mediation and blessing
Mosque as social nucleus	Church as exclusive sacred assembly
Dhimmī Christians praying quietly	Mandate visible participation
“Ṣalāh is better than sleep”	“Do not neglect morning prayer with the faithful”

Canon 15 is George’s attempt to rescue visibility — the hallmark of identity.

In an empire where “the call to prayer” defined the rhythm of life, he ordered that Christians not hide in silence.

“Nor stand apart, praying privately in withdrawal…”

A line that reads less like discipline and more like lament.

George knew that each time a believer chose private over public prayer,

the Church lost another voice to the muezzin’s echo.

💠 Canon 16 — “On Those Who Defile Themselves by Taking Two Wives”

(ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܡܤܒܐ ܕܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ ܢܫܝ̈ܢ ܡܬܛܡܐܝܢ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܡܤܒܐ ܕܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ ܢܫܝ̈ܢ ܡܬܛܡܐܝܢ	Concerning those who defile themselves by taking two wives.
ܕܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܘܡܛܟܣܝܢ	They are counted among the faithful and seem orderly.
ܗܘ̣ܘ ܡܪܚܩܝܢ ܡܢ ܥܝܕ̈ܐ ܚܢ̈ܦܝܐ ܘܥܒܿܪܝܢ ܥܠ ܢܡܘܣܐ ܕܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ	Yet they keep themselves from the feasts of the pagans, but transgress the Law of Christianity.
ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܒܫܡܐ ܕܒܡܣܒܐ ܕܬܪ̈ܬܝܢ ܢܫܝ̈ܢ ܘܢܛܿܪܝܢ ܙܗܝܪܐܝܬ ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܚܘܝܒܐ ܕܠܢܡܘ̈ܣܐ	Those who, in the matter of taking two wives, claim to guard themselves carefully from the guilt of the Law.
ܢܫܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܢܡܘܣܝ̈ܬܐ ܡܡܣܪܝܢ ܐܚܪ̈ܢܝܬܐ ܠܡܠܒܟ ܒܪܘܚ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܘ ܕܕܚܠܬ ܫܡܗ	Let their lawful wives hand over others (those living with them) to be instructed in the Holy Spirit and in the fear of His Name.
ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܝܬ ܐܢܫܝ̈ܢ ܕܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܡܒܣܪܝܢ ܫܢܝܐܝܬ	But if there are men who persist in this practice a second time,
ܘܥܠ ܗܟܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܘܒܘܪܟܬܐ ܕܡܢ ܐܠܗܐ ܣܓܝܐܨܐ ܕܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܒܢܛܘܪܬ ܢܡܘ̈ܣܐ	Then upon them there shall be many chastisements from God for despising the keeping of the Law.
ܦܘܠܚܢܐ ܕܛܡܐܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܦܠܚ ܡܢ ܥܡܡ̈ܐ ܢܘܟܪ̈ܝܝ ܠܕܚܠܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ	For the practice of impurity that is done among the foreign peoples who know not the fear of God
ܐܝܟ ܡ̇ܢ ܕܐܬܩܕܫܘ ܚܕܐ ܙܒܢ ܒܡܥܡܘܕܝܬܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ	Is not fitting for those who have been sanctified once in the baptism of Christ.
ܘܐܬܦܪܫܘ ܡܢ ܒܩܘܪܒܐ ܐܘ ܚܐܪ̈ܬܐ ܐܘ ܐܡܗ̈ܬܐ ܒܫܡ ܕܪ̈ܘܟܬܐ ܐܘ ܐܚܪܢܝܐܝܬ	And who have separated themselves from fornication, from unlawful unions, and from every defilement of the spirits.
ܘܟܕ ܢܬܬܪܬܘܢ ܠܡܦܢܐ ܡܢ ܦܘܠܚܢܐ ܕܛܡܐܘܬܐ ܠܐ ܢܬܛܦܝܤܘܢ ܐܘ ܢܫܬܘܕܘܢ ܬܘܪܨܐ ܘܢܟܕܒܘܢ	And if they are warned to turn away from this impurity, let them not invent excuses or arguments, nor lie.
ܗܘܘ ܡܢܟܪܝܢ ܕܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܠܟܠ ܐܝܩܪܐ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ	Such men shall be strangers to all the honor of Christians.
ܒܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ	By the word of our Lord.

📜 Commentary — “Two Wives, One Baptism: The Polygamy Crisis under Islam”

1️⃣ The Situation George Is Facing

This canon addresses Christian men taking multiple wives — a behavior previously unthinkable in the Syriac churches, yet suddenly plausible after the Islamic conquests.

Lev Weitz perfectly captures this in his remark:

“Polygamy crops up conspicuously in bishops’ responsa from seventh-century Syria… When the conquests exported these practices to the conquered territories, the similarities between Christianity and the conquerors’ scriptural religion appear to have made polygamy’s lawfulness a newly live question.”

George’s canon is a pastoral response to that new “live question.”

Christians were seeing Muslim men — respected, devout, legally upright — with multiple wives, and wondering:

“If they are righteous before God, and their Scripture allows it, why can’t we?”

2️⃣ Why Some Christians Were Tempted

In early Islamic society, marriage was social capital.

Having multiple wives meant:

Broader kinship alliances across tribes and faiths,
Greater social and economic security,
A sign of prosperity and divine favor.

For dhimmī Christians trying to survive in a Muslim-majority city like al-Ḥīra, Basra, or Damascus, polygamy offered:

Integration into Muslim legal frameworks (since marriage contracts could be recognized under Islamic law),
Protection of property through multiple familial ties,
And, for men, a display of virility and success in the Islamic idiom.

In short: to marry twice was to seem “modern” and “aligned with divine permission.”

3️⃣ George’s Rhetorical Strategy

The canon begins not by condemning unbelief — but by highlighting irony:

“They are counted among the faithful and seem orderly… yet they transgress the Law of Christianity.”

He recognizes these men still attend church, avoid pagan feasts, and even present themselves as righteous.

They are not apostates — they are acculturated Christians.

Hence the danger: they’re undermining the Christian law from within.

4️⃣ Structure of the Canon

Canon Section	Purpose	Meaning
Opening line	Identifies the offense	“Those who defile themselves by taking two wives.”
“They are counted among the faithful…”	Exposes hypocrisy	Outward piety, inward compromise.
“Yet they transgress the Law of Christianity.”	States doctrinal violation	One baptism, one marriage.
“If they persist a second time…”	Sets threshold for discipline	Repeat offenders excommunicated.
“Let lawful wives hand over others…”	Prescribes remedy	Convert the second wife or dismiss her.
“Upon them there shall be many chastisements from God…”	Threatens divine punishment	Polygamy = impurity.
“Such men shall be strangers to all Christian honor.”	Imposes ecclesiastical exclusion	No communion, no social recognition.

5️⃣ The Key Theological Argument: One Baptism, One Union

George builds his theology of marriage on baptismal singularity:

“Those who have been sanctified once in the baptism of Christ…”

In other words:

One baptism = one covenant.
One covenant = one spouse.

To take two wives is not just immorality — it’s anti-sacramental.

It violates the symbolic unity between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:25–32).

So George reframes polygamy as spiritual adultery.

6️⃣ Islamic Parallels and Christian Responses

Islamic Practice (7th–8th c.)	Christian Perception / Reaction
Qur’an 4:3 permits up to four wives “if you can deal justly”	Christians see this as legal pluralism legitimized by revelation.
Polygamy = pious, socially beneficial	Christian bishops call it “impurity” (ṭmāʾutā).
Muslim men often marry Christian or Jewish women	Christian men begin to feel marginalized; some imitate.
Muslim legal system recognizes all wives’ rights	Church law does not — thus, “defilement.”
Islam allows concubinage	Christian canon equates it with fornication.

So George’s canon isn’t just moral; it’s juridical resistance.

He is reasserting a Christian legal identity against Islamic normativity.

By calling polygamy “defilement,” he delegitimizes it as ritually impure, not merely “illegal.”

7️⃣ Psychological and Social Impulse Behind Polygamous Christians

These men weren’t necessarily lustful.

They were performing Islamic respectability — adopting Muslim domestic codes to signal status and moral credibility in the new order.

For example:

A Christian tax official under Umayyad rule might marry 2 women from 2 different families.
By taking a second wife, he appears more “manly” and more in tune with Qur’anic norms.
His peers may even praise him as being “close to the Arabs.”

But George sees this as assimilation masquerading as piety —

“They seem orderly… yet they transgress.”

8️⃣ George’s Vision of Christian Marriage

In this canon, George defines marriage as:

Monogamous,
Sacramental,
Indissolubly linked to baptism,
And under the bishop’s oversight.

He contrasts Christian purity with “the impurity practiced by the foreign peoples who know not the fear of God” —

meaning Muslims, now the dominant “gentiles.”

This isn’t a generic condemnation of immorality — it’s a direct rebuttal to Qur’an 4:3.

9️⃣ Echoes of Earlier Canon Law

George stands in a long line of monogamous enforcement:

The Apostolic Canons (late 4th c.) forbade second marriages for clergy.
Basil the Great condemned simultaneous marriage as adultery.
The Syriac Synodicon Orientale (5th–6th c.) also treated polygamy as “impure.”

But unlike his predecessors, George’s canon is reactive:

he’s defending the Christian household against Islamic law rather than against pagan custom.

🔟 Conclusion — “One Bride for One Groom”

Canon 16 is where Christian canon law becomes counter-Qur’anic law.

George I is defending the integrity of the Christian body — and the exclusivity of its covenant — against the seductive pluralism of Islam’s new social order.

In a society where polygamy symbolized divine sanction,

George insists:

“To multiply wives is to divide faith.”

Or in his own idiom:

“Those who have been sanctified once in baptism must not defile that holiness twice in marriage.”

It’s not just about sex or law —

it’s about what kind of world Christianity will inhabit under Islam:

a world of blended loyalties, or a remnant of one covenant, one bride, one Lord.

💠 Canon 17 — “On Those Who Profane the Mysteries”

(ܥܠ ܠܐ ܡܛܟܣܘܬܐ ܕܡܗܝ̈ܡܢܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܕܡܒܤܝܢ ܥܠ ܐܝܩܪܐ ܕܐܪ̈ܙܐ ܩܕܝ̈ܫܐ	Concerning those who despise the honor of the holy Mysteries.
ܐܫܬܡܥܬ̣ ܠܢ ܕܐܢܫ̈ܝܢ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܒܐܬܪܐ ܗܢܐ	We have heard that there are certain Christians in this region
ܒܬܪ ܕܢܣܿܒܝܢ ܐܪ̈ܙܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ	Who, after receiving the holy Mysteries (the Eucharist),
ܘܢ݀ܦܩܝܢ ܡܢ ܥܕܬܐ ܒܝܘܡ̈ܬܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ	Go out from the church on the days of the feast,
ܡܣܬܪܗܒܝܢ ܠܚܢܘ̈ܬܐ ܕܝܗܘܕ̈ܝܐ ܠܡܫܬܝܐ	And hurry to the shops of the Jews to drink there,
ܝܗܘܕ̈ܝܐ ܟܦܪ̈ܝ ܒܛܝܒܘܬܐ	With Jews who deny the grace (of Christ).
ܘܗܕܐ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܚܣܝܪ̈ܢ ܠܗܘܢ ܚܢܘ̈ܬܐ ܕܚܡܪܐ	And this, though they lack no wine-shops of their own!
ܘܡܝܥܪܝܢ ܒܫܢܝܘܬܗܘܢ ܠܩܕܝܫܘܬܐ ܕܢܣܒܘ	Thus they insult the holiness which they have received,
ܒܚܘܠܛܢܐ ܕܥܡ ܕܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܕܢܡܠܘܢ ܒܗܝܢ ܪܓܬܗܘܢ ܒܡܫܬܝܐ ܕܚܡܪܐ ܐܝܟ ܥܝܕܗܘܢ	Mingling with those Christians who indulge their desires with wine, as if it were their feast.
ܠܗ̇ ܗܟܝܠ ܠܗܕܐ ܐܣܠܝܢ ܘܒܛܠܢ	Therefore we abolish and forbid this practice,
ܕܠܐ ܬܘܒ ܬܗܘܐ ܒܝܬ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ	That it may not again be found among Christians.
ܘܐܢ ܐܢܫ ܢܦܣܥ ܥܠܝܗ̇ ܘܢܡܪܚ ܠܡܣܥܪܗ	And if anyone transgress this and persists in doing so,
ܢܬܐܠܨ ܡܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܒܓܙܪܕܝܢܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܐ	Let him be disciplined by the bishop with ecclesiastical correction.

📜 Commentary — “Wine after Communion: The Tavern Crisis of the First Islamic Century”

1️⃣ The Setting: Christian Feasts in a Muslim–Jewish Marketplace

This canon reads like a snapshot of daily life in Khūzistān or southern Iraq in the mid-600s, where Syriac Christians lived side by side with Jews and early Muslims.

After Sunday liturgy or Easter communion, some Christians were — quite literally — walking out of church and into Jewish taverns.

The Syriac word ḥanūthā (ܚܢܘ̈ܬܐ) means a shop or stall — but here it clearly refers to taverns or drinking houses.
These were often Jewish-owned, since Jews, unlike Muslims, could freely sell wine under the new caliphate.

George hears that Christians, freshly absolved and filled with the Eucharist, were going straight to these wine-shops — and drinking with Jews who “deny the grace” (ܝܗܘܕ̈ܝܐ ܟܦܪ̈ܝ ܒܛܝܒܘܬܐ).

To him, this is not merely bad behavior — it’s liturgical blasphemy.

2️⃣ A Post-Communion Profanation

The logic of the canon is Eucharistic:

You’ve just partaken in the Blood of Christ — how dare you then drink common wine “as if it were your feast”?

It’s the antithesis of Christian distinctiveness:

Christ’s blood versus tavern wine.
Sacred table versus public tavern.
Communion with God versus communion with “the deniers of grace.”

By calling the Eucharist “the Holy Mysteries (ʾarāzē qadīshē),” George reminds his flock that this act unites them mystically to Christ. To drink in Jewish taverns afterward is to break the mystery’s sanctity and dissolve the Christian identity it confers.

3️⃣ The Jewish Context under Islam

Under early Islamic rule, Jews had regained civic and economic prominence after centuries of Roman restriction.

They could:

Own vineyards,
Sell wine to dhimmīs,
Operate taverns and trade freely with Muslims and Christians alike.

Muslims themselves often avoided these places (since alcohol was forbidden), so Christians became the core clientele — turning Jewish taverns into cross-confessional meeting spaces.

In that space, George sees a double danger:

Doctrinal contamination — drinking with “those who deny the grace,” i.e., Jews rejecting Christ.
Moral scandal — Christians celebrating alongside them, “as if it were their feast.”

This is not anti-Semitic rhetoric in the modern sense — it’s George trying to preserve the boundary of the Christian table in a world where public feasting now belonged to others.

4️⃣ A Subtle Islamic Shadow

Notice that the canon never mentions Muslims — but Islam haunts every line.

Why? Because Muslim ḥisbah culture (public morality regulation) was beginning to form.

Muslim society emphasized:

Sobriety and prayer discipline,
Public modesty,
Avoidance of drunkenness.

In contrast, Christian tavern culture was becoming a public spectacle.

George, acutely aware of how Islam associated wine with sin, feared Christians would look morally inferior to Muslims — a people whose Book explicitly condemned drunkenness (Qurʾān 5:90).

So the canon indirectly addresses this Islamic gaze:

“Even the Jews do not revere Christ, and yet our Christians drink with them!”

It’s a defensive reaction — George is trying to restore moral credibility in an environment where Muslim ethics are ascendant.

5️⃣ Why He Emphasizes “Even Though They Have Their Own Wine Shops”

That line —

“Though they lack no wine-shops of their own” —
is pure exasperation.

It means: You could at least sin among your own!

But the Christians’ choice of Jewish taverns shows something deeper:

Perhaps Jewish wine was cheaper,
Or perhaps those taverns offered conviviality and safety under early Muslim rule (since Jewish merchants often had legal protection).
Either way, George reads this not as economics but as apostasy — the erosion of Christian distinction.

6️⃣ “As If It Were Their Feast” — Mimicry of Islamic and Jewish Festivals

By saying “as if it were their feast,” George hints at imitation of others’ religious joy.

He fears Christians are transforming Christian feast days (like Easter or Pentecost) into public street festivals, resembling:

Jewish drinking and communal meals on Sabbath, or
Muslim gatherings after Ramadan (ʿĪd al-Fiṭr).

Once again, he’s not just policing wine; he’s policing identity performance.

His fear:

The Christian calendar will dissolve into the marketplace rhythm of the Islamic city.

7️⃣ The Penalty

“Let him be disciplined by the bishop with ecclesiastical correction.”

The Syriac word gzardēnā ʿedtnāyā (ܓܙܪܕܝܢܐ ܥܕܬܢܝܐ) means a formal ecclesiastical censure, not expulsion — likely:

Suspension from communion,
Public penance,
Or being barred from the Eucharist for a period.

It’s the same formula he uses for semi-apostates — suggesting that, in George’s mind, drinking with Jews after communion = soft apostasy.

8️⃣ Historical Reality: Christians Between Mosque and Tavern

In early Islamic cities like Gundēshāpūr, Basra, or Kufa:

Muslims prayed in mosques.
Jews ran the taverns.
Christians had the churches — but also wandered between both.

George’s canon is a desperate attempt to redraw sacred geography —

to say: Your feast ends at the altar, not in the market.

He’s mapping a new Christian behavioral boundary in an Islamic urban space.

9️⃣ The Subtext: Competing Moral Economies

Islamic Ethos	Christian Temptation	George’s Response
No alcohol; purity = piety	Wine as joy, social glue	Turn joy back to the liturgy, not the tavern.
Mosques as centers of discipline	Taverns as Christian meeting spots	Replace tavern gatherings with church fellowship.
Early Muslims viewed Christians as lax	Christians wanted to appear “civilized” and social	George insists: sanctity, not sociability, defines you.

So George is effectively saying:

“If Islam is sober, Christianity must be holy.”

He’s building a counter-ethic — not abstinence, but reverence.

🔟 Conclusion — “The Tavern and the Temple”

Canon 17 dramatizes the everyday struggle of Christians adapting to Islam’s social order.

It’s about far more than alcohol — it’s about what communion means in a plural city.

George I, with his characteristic mix of frustration and precision, is shouting across centuries:

“Do not drink with those who deny the grace you have just received — for your table is not theirs!”

The tavern, for George, symbolized the creeping dilution of Christian identity —

so he drew the line: From altar to alehouse, from Eucharist to emptiness, no step further.

In the shadow of Islam’s rise, this is the Christian attempt to reclaim sacred space and moral legitimacy.

💠 Canon 18 — “On the Burial of the Dead” (ܥܠ ܩܒܘܪܬܐ ܕܥܢܝܕ̈ܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܩܒܘܪܬܐ ܕܥܢܝܕ̈ܐ : ܘܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܐܒܠ̇ܢ ܠܒܪܡܢ ܛܟܣܐ	Concerning the burial of the dead, and those who mourn without proper order.
ܥܚܕ̈ܐ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܟܪܣܛܝܢܐܝܬ ܢܬܩܒܪܘܢ ܘܠܐ ܚܢܦܐܝܬ	Let Christians be buried in a Christian manner, not in the manner of the pagans.
ܥܝܕܐ ܗܘ̣ ܓܝܪ ܚܢܦܝܐ ܕܒܡܐܢ̈ܐ ܪ̈ܫܝܐ ܘܝܩܝܪ̈ܝ ܕܡܝ̈ܐ ܢܥܦܐ ܠܥܢܝܕ̈ܐ	For it is the custom of the pagans to anoint the dead with costly and fragrant oils,
ܕܒܙܥܘܪܘܬ ܢܦܫܐ ܘܦܤܡ ܤܒܪܐ ܘܤܓܝܐܘܬ ܐܒܠܐ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܢܥܒܕ ܒܐܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ	And to make loud lamentations, with loss of composure, despair, and much wailing — acts not becoming the faithful.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܦܣܩܢܢ ܒܬܚܘܡܐ ܕܡܠܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ	Therefore we set a boundary according to the word of our Lord:
ܕܠܐ ܒܫܐܪ̈ܝܐ ܘܠܐ ܒܡܐܢ̈ܐ ܝܩܝܪ̈ܝ ܕܡܝ̈ܐ ܫܠܝܛܝܢ ܟܪ̈ܣܛܝܢܐ ܠܥܢܝܕ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܠܡܩܒܪ	That Christians may not bury their dead with perfumes and costly spices.
ܐܠܐ ܒܡܐܢ̈ܐ ܫܚܝ̈ܡܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܐ ܣܓܝ ܝܩܝܪܝܢ ܢܬܥܦܘܢ ܒܤܒܪ̈ܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ	But rather with simple ointments, and in the spirit of faithful hope.
ܗܘܝ̈ ܕܝܢ ܒܛܝ̈ܠܢ ܐܦ ܐܘܠܝܬ̈ܐ ܗܢܝ̈ܢ ܕܢܫ̈ܐ ܫܛܝܬ̈ܐ ܥܒܕ̈ܢ ܒܝܬ ܐܒܠܐ	We also abolish the foolish customs of women who make lamentations in the house of mourning,
ܘܢܦܩܬ̈ܐ ܣܓܝܐܬ̈ܐ ܕܥܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܟܢܫ̈ܢ ܒܝܬ ܐܒܠܐ	And the noisy processions of those who gather at the mourning houses.
ܕܡܐܙܠܬܐ ܕܢܫ̈ܐ ܕܥܡ ܥܪܣܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܕܘܟܬܐ ܕܡܬܐܡܪ ܒܗ̇	Especially the custom of women walking beside the bier all the way to the burial place.
ܘܡ̇ܢ ܕܢܥܒܪ ܥܠ ܗܠܝܢ܆ ܬܚܝܬ ܚܪܡܐ ܕܡܠܬ ܐܠܗܐ ܢܗܘܐ	Whoever transgresses these things shall be under the ban of God’s word.
ܬܚܘܡܐ ܕܝܢ ܒܚܝܐܐ : ܠܗܠ ܕܝܢ ܡܢ ܬܡܢ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠ̈ܛܢ ܠܡܐܙܠ	Let the living draw this boundary: that from then on, none shall presume to follow (the bier).

📜 Commentary — “Funeral Reform in the Age of Islam”

1️⃣ The Problem: Christian Mourning Looked Pagan

George’s canon directly targets what we might call the emotional theater of Near Eastern funerals —

women wailing loudly,
crowds parading through the streets,
perfume and spice offerings for the body,
richly anointed corpses.

These customs were ancient and deeply Semitic — practiced by Jews, pagans, and early Christians alike — but by the mid-7th century, they became a public embarrassment under Islam.

The Qurʾān and Hadith condemned this niyāḥah (wailing) as a pre-Islamic jāhilīyah custom.

“We were forbidden to follow funerals, but it was not made absolutely unlawful for us.”
(Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Jana’iz, 3130 — ḥadīth of Umm ʿAṭiyyah)

George clearly heard this critique echoing through Khūzistān: Christians were being mocked as primitive or superstitious. His canon is therefore a pastoral defense and a cultural adaptation.

2️⃣ “Christians Shall Be Buried as Christians — Not as Pagans”

The canon’s key phrase —

“Let Christians be buried in a Christian manner, not in a pagan manner (ܟܪܣܛܝܢܐܝܬ … ܘܠܐ ܚܢܦܐܝܬ)” —
is one of the most programmatic statements of George’s entire code.

It’s not just about ritual; it’s about reputation.

By using the word ḥanpāyā (ܚܢܦܐ) — “pagan” — George deliberately evokes how Muslims used that same root (ḥanīf, ḥunafāʾ) to mean pure monotheist.

Here, he flips it: our Christians must not look pagan in their eyes.

He’s signaling a Christian “moral modernity” — aligning with Islam’s rationalized, sober public ethos.

3️⃣ The Ban on Costly Fragrances and Perfumed Oils

“It is the custom of the pagans to anoint the dead with costly and fragrant oils…”

This was a direct imitation of Greco-Roman and Persian elite funerary practice — and still common among upper-class Christians.

But under Islam, such opulence was a social liability. The Prophet ﷺ had warned:

“Do not exaggerate in shrouding or embalming, for it does not benefit the dead.”

George’s language echoes this almost line-for-line. He frames anointing with perfume not as honor but as vanity, a lack of “faithful hope.”

He’s teaching his people: the Christian way of death is simplicity, faith, and composure — not scent and spectacle.

4️⃣ Women, Wailing, and the Shadow of Umm ʿAṭiyyah

This section is remarkable:

“We abolish the foolish customs of women who make lamentations… and the noisy processions… especially the custom of women walking beside the bier.”

This matches exactly the prophetic ban narrated by Umm ʿAṭiyyah — that women should not accompany the bier, not out of inferiority, but to curb excessive display of grief.

Both George and the early Muslims were reacting to the same Near Eastern mourning culture — a performative, semi-ritualized lamentation by women, which blurred lines between religion and superstition.

George isn’t imitating Islam per se; he’s responding to the same moral environment — one now dominated by Islam’s critique of spectacle.

But the effect is the same: his Christian canon aligns visually and morally with the Prophet’s reforms.

5️⃣ Public Order, Not Just Theology

Why such vehemence? Because public funerals were public theology.

A bishop could preach moderation in church, but the entire city saw Christians screaming in the streets — and Muslims saw chaos versus composure.

To Islamic observers:

Muslims prayed with calm rows and silent duʿāʾ.
Christians paraded with drums, crying, perfume, and silk shrouds.

To George, that was intolerable — not because of Muslim law, but because of Christian dignity.

He writes:

“With loss of soul and breaking of hope — acts not of the faithful.”

That’s a line of spiritual psychology: despair (pasm sabrā) equals disbelief.

6️⃣ Simplicity as Orthodoxy

“But rather with simple ointments, and in the spirit of faithful hope.”

That phrase — simple ointments — encapsulates George’s pastoral tone.

He’s not banning care for the dead; he’s banning extravagance.

This echoes both:

Christian monastic asceticism (simplicity in death), and
Islamic egalitarian burial: plain shroud, no pomp, no display.

The funeral thus becomes the site of cross-confessional convergence — a shared ethic of restraint.

7️⃣ “Whoever Transgresses Shall Be Under the Ban of God’s Word”

George here invokes the harshest penalty formula in his code:

“Under the ban (ḥerem) of the Word of God.”

This is not mere ecclesiastical punishment — it’s divine disapproval.
It shows how seriously he viewed public image and ritual integrity.

The bishop’s authority extends to the threshold of the grave — literally to prevent wailing and excess.

8️⃣ A New Funeral Geography

Notice how the canon ends:

“Let the living draw this boundary: that from then on, none shall presume to follow (the bier).”

This creates a boundary between private grief and public expression, just as the Prophet ﷺ’s community did.

The Christians are now instructed to:

bury quickly,
mourn quietly,
avoid processions,
separate men and women’s spaces,
use minimal perfumes.

It’s the birth of the Islamic-era Christian funeral — discreet, humble, and doctrinally controlled.

9️⃣ Cultural Strategy: Respectability in an Islamic City

George’s reform is part moral, part diplomatic.

He knows Muslim officials, merchants, and neighbors are watching.

A community that controls its emotions, honors its dead simply, and prays in quiet faith looks civilized, monotheistic, and lawful — not “idolatrous.”

This is what we might call Christian taqwā — piety as public discipline.

🔟 Conclusion — “A Funeral Fit for Faith”

Canon 18 is more than a burial rule. It’s George’s manifesto for Christian respectability under Islam.

He saw the Prophet’s reforms not as threats, but as signals: the public world now expected sobriety, order, and monotheist dignity.

So he turned funerals — the most visible Christian rite — into a symbol of self-restraint.

Where pagans wailed and perfumed, where Jews keened in lamentation, where Muslims now prayed in silence — Christians, too, would now weep with hope, not with noise.

“Let Christians be buried in a Christian manner — not in the manner of the pagans.”

In one line, George had redefined not just funerals, but what it meant to be Christian in Islam’s new world.

✋ Canon 19 — “On the Bishop and the Honor Due to Him: And That the Faithful Who Hold Authority Are Not Permitted to Demand Gifts From Him”

(ܥܠ ܐܦܝܣܩܘ܆ ܘܙܕܩܐ ܕܐܝܩܪܗ : ܘܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܟܝܢ ܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܣܝܡܝܢ ܥܠ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܠܡܬܒܥ ܡܢܗ ܡܕܐܬܐ)

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܥܠ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܘܙܕܩܐ ܕܐܝܩܪܗ : ܘܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܛܝܢ ܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܣܝܡܝܢ ܥܠ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܠܡܬܒܥ ܡܢܗ ܡܕܐܬܐ܀	Concerning the bishop and the honor due to him: and that the faithful who hold authority (shulṭānā) are not permitted to demand gifts (mdāthā) from him.
ܐܝܩܪܗ ܕܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܐܝܢܐ ܕܫܦܝܪ ܓܡܪ ܬܫܡܫܬܗ ܘܟܫܝܪ ܒܦܘܠܚܢܗ܆ ܢܗܘܐ ܦܪܝܫ ܡܢ ܡܪܥܝܬܗ : ܒܟܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܦܐܝ̈ܢ ܕܢܬܝܩܪ ܒܗܝ̈ܢ ܘܢܬܬܢܝܚ .	The honor of the bishop—that is, he who perfectly fulfills his service and is diligent in his labor—shall be distinguished by his leadership: in all things that are fitting, he shall be honored in them and given rest.
ܕܢܬܒܥܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܡܢܗ ܡܗܝܡ̈ܢܐ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܚܝܕܝܢ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܟܣܦ ܪܫܐ ܘܡܕܐܬܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܡܢ ܫܚܝܡܐ ܠܐ ܢܫܬܠܛܘܢ .	But that the faithful who hold authority should demand from him head-tax money (kesaf rēshā) and gifts, as from a subordinate, they shall not be permitted.
ܒܗܝܿ ܕܛܥܝܢ ܝܘܩܪܐ ܕܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܗܘܢ ܒܡܘܠܝܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܗ̇ : ܘܫܗܿܪ ܥܠ ܢܦܫ̈ܬܗܘܢ ܒܢܡܘܣܐ ܪܥܝܐ܆ ܘܡܣܝܒܪ ܥܘܣܩ̈ܝܗܘܢ܀	In this, they err concerning the honor of their own leadership in the primacy of his service; and they are negligent of their own souls in the pastoral law, and they increase their own straits.
ܕܒܕܓܘܢ ܢܫܬܐܥܝܢ : ܚܝܒܝܢ ܕܢܝܩܪܘܢܝܗܝ ܒܨܒܘܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܘܠܐ ܢܬܒܥܘܢܝܗܝ ܟܣܦ ܪܫܐ : ܐܝܟ ܕܠܫܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܫ̈ܐ .	Therefore, they should understand: they are obliged to honor him in this matter, and not to demand from him head-tax money, as from the rest of men.
ܐܢ ܕܝܢ ܢܡܪܚܘܢ ܥܠ ܗܕܐ : ܢܕܥܘܢ ܕܡܚܝ̈ܒܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܟܐܢܘܬܐ܀	But if they transgress against this, let them know that they are guilty of iniquity.

🧭 Commentary — “The Bishop is Not a Taxable Subject: Defining Spiritual Sovereignty”

1️⃣ The Problem: The Bishop as a Fiscal Target

This final canon addresses a critical and delicate issue: the financial relationship between the Church and powerful Christian laymen within the new Islamic system. Wealthy Christians who had attained positions of authority (ܫܘܠܛܢܐ, shulṭānā) in the Caliphate's administration—as tax collectors, scribes, or local officials—were apparently treating the bishop as just another source of revenue. They were demanding "head-tax money" (ܟܣܦ ܪܫܐ, kesaf rēshā) and "gifts" (ܡܕܐܬܐ, mdāthā) from him.

This was an intolerable inversion of the proper spiritual and social hierarchy. The bishop, the spiritual father, was being treated as a subordinate (ܫܚܝܡܐ, shḥīmā) by his own flock who served a foreign power.

2️⃣ "Head-Tax Money" (Kesaf Rēshā) – A Direct Link to the Islamic State

The term ܟܣܦ ܪܫܐ (kesaf rēshā) is explosive. It is the literal Syriac translation of the Arabic جِزْيَة (jizya), the poll tax imposed on non-Muslims. By using this term, George reveals the shocking reality: Christian officials were attempting to extract the jizya from their own bishop.

This was a profound humiliation. It meant that within the Christian community, the representative of God's authority was being treated with the same fiscal subjugation as any other dhimmi by the Islamic state. George is drawing a line in the sand: the bishop's relationship to the Caliphate is one thing, but his relationship to his own people must be governed by a different, sacred logic.

3️⃣ The Spiritual and Social Hierarchy Reasserted

George's argument is masterful. He does not plead poverty; he asserts principle.

The Bishop's Honor: A bishop who diligently performs his sacred duties (ܬܫܡܫܬܗ, teshmeshteh) is entitled to honor and rest, not fiscal harassment.
The Laymen's Error: By demanding money, these powerful laymen "err concerning the honor of their own leadership" (ܝܘܩܪܐ ܕܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܗܘܢ, yūqārā d-mdabranūthehon). In other words, they undermine the very ecclesiastical structure that gives their community its identity and integrity. They are "negligent of their own souls" because they are damaging the Body of Christ for worldly gain.
"Not as the Rest of Men": The bishop is not "like the rest of men" (ܐܝܟ ܕܠܫܪܟܐ ܕܐܢܫ̈ܐ, ayk d-l-sharkā d-nāshē). He belongs to a different category. To tax him is to profane the sacred.

4️⃣ The Political Edge: Creating a Tax-Exempt Sacred Sphere

In this canon, George is performing a final act of boundary-drawing. He is declaring the bishop and his office fiscally sovereign within the Christian community. He is creating a sacred, protected sphere that even powerful Christian laymen cannot violate.

This has two major implications:

Insulating the Church from Internal Corruption: It prevents the Church's wealth from being drained by greedy officials who might use their state-connected power to bully the clergy.
Asserting the Church's Dignity vis-à-vis the State: While the Church as a community pays the jizya to the Caliphate, its internal hierarchy is not a mere mirror of that power dynamic. The bishop is the spiritual head, and no Christian, no matter how high he rises in the Muslim bureaucracy, has the right to treat him as a taxable subject.

Conclusion of Canon 19:

This final law is the capstone of George's project. After regulating clergy, monks, nuns, orphans, and marriage, he ends by protecting the protector. He ensures that the bishop, the linchpin of this entire reformed community, remains financially and honorifically independent, able to lead his people without being subjugated by the very elites whose worldliness he is trying to reform. It is a powerful declaration that within the world of the Church, spiritual authority transcends the temporal power that Christians might hold in the Islamic state.

📜 The Concluding Doxology of the Synod

Syriac Text	English Translation
ܗܠܝܢ ܗܟܝܠ ܤܡܢܢ ܒܚܝܠ ܡܪܢ ܘܪܘܚܗ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܠܥܘܕܪܢܐ ܕܒܢܝ̈ܢܫܐ ܒܣܘܝܥܐ ܕܡܢ ܛܝܒܘܬܐ .	These things, therefore, we have established by the power of our Lord and His Holy Spirit for the aid of humankind, in the concord which is from grace.
ܗܘ̣ܘ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܢ ܢܬܠ ܒܪ̈ܚܡܘܗܝ ܠܢ ܝܨܘ̈ܦܐ ܕܥܡܗ ܘܠܗܠܝܢ ܒܡܝܬܪܘܬܐ ܕܗܘܦܟ̈ܐ ܘܒܢܛܘܪܬܐ ܕܢܡܘܣ̈ܘܗܝ ܡܫܒܚ̈ܐ ܟܠ ܝܘܡܝ̈ ܚܝ̈ܝܢ .	And may our Lord grant us in His mercies to be diligent with His people, and in these things, in the excellence of deeds and in the keeping of His praiseworthy laws, all the days of our life.
ܕܣܝܡܝܢ ܡܬܝ̈ܨܦܢܐ : ܕܒܟܠ ܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܠܨܒܝܢܗ ܫܦܪ̈ܢ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܢ ܠܡܚܐ ܐܡܝܢ ܘܐܡܝܢ܀	[May we be] established and diligent, that in all things according to His will, it may be for us to please Him. Amen and Amen.
ܫܠܡܬ̣ ܣܘܢܗܕܘܣ ܕܡܪܝ ܓܝܘܪܓܝܣ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ	Here ends the Synod of Mar George, the Catholicos.

This concluding prayer beautifully encapsulates the synod's purpose: the laws were established "for the aid of humankind" and "in the concord which is from grace." It is not presented as a burdensome restriction, but as a divine gift for the salvation and good order of the Christian community, a fortress of law and grace built amidst the new reality of the Caliphate.

EPILOGUE — “Canon Law 2.0: The Architecture of Coexistence”

George’s Synod of 677 CE was a moment of profound and sobering clarification. It was the moment when the leadership of the largest Christian church in the East looked upon the new order—from the bustling Arab garrisons of Iraq to the distant shores of Bahrain—and accepted a transformative truth: Islam was not a temporary affliction, but a permanent neighbor. The Caliphate was not a passing storm, but the new climate.

This realization demanded a radical shift in strategy. The Church could no longer position itself as the spiritual arm of a rival empire, for that empire was gone. It could no longer wait for a political savior from Constantinople or Ctesiphon. To survive, it had to evolve. It had to become a self-governing, self-perpetuating civilization within a civilization.

George I was the architect of this evolution. His canons were the blueprints for what we might call Canon Law 2.0—a comprehensive upgrade for a new operating system of existence. This was no longer merely about regulating piety; it was about legislating identity.

The genius of his project lay in its paradoxical nature. It was an act of both defiance and accommodation.

It was defiant in its fierce internal consolidation. By pulling clergy, monks, nuns, and the entire lay household under the exclusive jurisdiction of the bishop, George built a "fortress ecclesiology." The walls of this fortress were built with the stones of canon law: the priestly blessing for marriage, the bishop’s oversight of orphans, the prohibition on appealing to Muslim courts. Its gates were guarded by the threat of excommunication. This was a declaration of spiritual sovereignty.
Yet, it was also an act of profound accommodation. George accepted the fundamental premise of the emerging Islamic state: that society was composed of distinct religious communities, each under its own God-given law. He looked at the Quranic concept of a sharīʿa—a path and a law for a people—and responded in kind, forging a Nāmōsā Krestyānā, a Christian Law, of equivalent comprehensiveness and divine authority. He was not trying to defeat sharīʿa; he was building a parallel structure to exist beside it.

This is the ultimate significance of the Synod of Dayrin. 🕋✝️ From that point on, Syriac Christianity understood its legal tradition not as a universal system destined to rule, but as a particular law for a people in exile. Christian law would exist beside sharīʿa, not above it.

It was a move from imperial theology to a theology of resilience. The dream of a Christian Rome or a Christian Persia was over. In its place, George offered the reality of a Holy Church of the East, a nation defined not by territory or political power, but by sacraments, law, and the disciplined boundaries of the Christian household. He traded the crown of temporal power for the keys to an enduring kingdom of the soul.

His work created the template for Christian life—and indeed, for all dhimmi life—under Islamic rule for centuries to come. He proved that a community could lose political supremacy and yet retain its soul, its structure, and its future, by mastering the art of building walls not of stone, but of law, and bridges not of conquest, but of coexistence.

THE END

📚 Works Cited

-

Primary Sources

al-Balādhurī, Ahmad b. Yaḥyā. History of the Arab Invasions: The Conquest of the Lands (A New Translation of al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ al-Buldān). Translated and with historical commentary by Hugh Kennedy, I.B. Tauris, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2022.
al-Tabari, Muhammad ibn Jarir. Tarikh al-Tabari = Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Edited by Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1967.
al-Ṭurṭūshī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Walīd al-Fihrī. Sirāj al-Mulūk. Min Awāʾil al-Maṭbūʿāt al-ʿArabiyya, Miṣr, 1289 AH / 1872 CE.
Chabot, J. B., editor. Synodicon Orientale, ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens. Edited and translated by J. B. Chabot, Bibliothèque Nationale, 1902.
Connolly, Serena, Simon Corcoran, Michael Crawford, John Noel Dillon, Dennis P. Kehoe, Noel Lenski, Thomas A. J. McGinn, Charles F. Pazdernik, and Benet Salway, editors. The Codex of Justinian: A New Annotated Translation, with Parallel Latin and Greek Text. Based on a translation by Justice Fred H. Blume, edited under the general editorship of Bruce W. Frier, with contributions by Timothy Kearley, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Harrak, Amir, translator. The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV: A.D. 488–775. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999.

Hoyland, Robert G., translator. Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Liverpool University Press, 2011. Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 57.
Ibn Qudāmah, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad. Al-Mughnī. Ed. Ṭāhā al-Zaynī, Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Fāʾid, ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā, and Maḥmūd Ghānim Ghayth, Maktabat al-Qāhirah, 1st ed., 1388–1389 AH / 1968–1969 CE, 10 vols.

Mangō, Cyril, and Roger Scott, with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284–813. Clarendon Press, 1997.
Moosa, Matti, translator. The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo (The Great): A Universal History from the Creation. Beth Antioch Press, 2014.
Palmer, Andrew. The Seventh Century in the West Syrian Chronicles. Liverpool University Press, 1993.
Penn, Michael Philip, translator and editor. When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam. University of California Press, 2015.

Thomson, R. W., translator. The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos. Translated with notes by R. W. Thomson, historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston, assistance from Tim Greenwood, Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Secondary Sources

Ali, Aliya Abdukadir. “Family Ties and Political Power: Governing Kūfa under ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān.” Journal of Late Antique, Islamic and Byzantine Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2025, pp. 117–156. University of Cambridge.
Avni, Gideon. The Byzantine–Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Bcheiry, Iskandar. An Early Christian Reaction to Islam: Išū‘yahb III and the Muslim Arabs. Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.
Bessard, Fanny. Caliphs and Merchants: Cities and Economies of Power in the Near East (700–950). Oxford University Press, 2020.
Borrut, Antoine, and Fred M. Donner, editors. Christians and Others in the Umayyad State. The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute, 2016.
Cohen, Mark R. Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Daryaee, Touraj. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. I.B. Tauris, 2023.
Fitzgerald, J. T. "Orphans in Mediterranean Antiquity and Early Christianity." Acta Theologica, vol. 23, no. 1, 2016, pp. 29-48.
Friedmann, Yohanan. Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition. Cambridge UP, 2003.
Furman, Yulia, and Dmitry Cherkashin. “‘Superiority Is Due to Us, and the King Should Come from Among Us’: The Arab Conquests and Conflicts of the Early Umayyad Era in a 7th-Century Syriac Universal History of Yoḥannān bar Penkāyē.” Der Islam, vol. 101, no. 2, 2024, pp. 346–382. De Gruyter.
Greatrex, Geoffrey, and Samuel N.C. Lieu, editors. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars, Part II AD 363–630: A Narrative Sourcebook. Routledge, 2002.
Harper, Kyle. The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Howard-Johnston, James. The Last Great War of Antiquity. Oxford University Press, 2021.
Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Gorgias Press LLC, 2019.
Levy-Rubin, Milka. Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Levy-Rubin, Milka. “Were the Jews Prohibited from Settling in Jerusalem? On the Authenticity of al-Ṭabarī’s Jerusalem Surrender Agreement.” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (JSAI), vol. 36, 2009.
Linder, Amnon, editor. The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation. Wayne State University Press and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987.
Linder, Amnon, editor. The Jews in the Legal Sources of the Early Middle Ages. Wayne State University Press and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997.
Lindstedt, Ilkka. Muḥammad and His Followers in Context: The Religious Map of Late Antique Arabia. Brill, 2023.
Maas, Michael, editor. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Marsham, Andrew. The Umayyad Empire. Edinburgh University Press, 2024.
Matthee, Rudi. Angels Tapping at the Wine-Shop’s Door: A History of Alcohol in the Islamic World. C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 2023.
Miller, David J. D., and Peter Sarris. The Novels of Justinian: A Complete Annotated English Translation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Morony, Michael G. Iraq After the Muslim Conquest. Gorgias Press, 2005. (Facsimile reprint of the 1984 Princeton University Press edition.)
Nadwi, Mohammad Akram. Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam. Interface Publications, 2007.
O’Donnell, J. J. The Ruin of the Roman Empire: A New History. Harper Perennial, 2009.
Payne, Richard E. A State of Mixture: Christians, Zoroastrians, and Iranian Political Culture in Late Antiquity. University of California Press, 2015.

Petersen, Leif Inge Ree. Siege Warfare and Military Organization in the Successor States (400–800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam. Brill, 2013.
Robinson, Chase F. "Neck-Sealing in Early Islam." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, vol. 48, no. 3, 2005, pp. 401-41.
Sarris, Peter. Justinian: Emperor, Soldier, Saint. Basic Books, 2023.
Sijpesteijn, Petra M. Shaping a Muslim State: The World of a Mid-Eighth-Century Egyptian Official. Oxford University Press, 2013.
Sijpesteijn, Petra M. “Shaving Hair and Beards in Early Islamic Egypt: An Arab Innovation?” Al-Masāq, vol. 30, no. 1, 2018
Simonsohn, Uriel I. A Common Justice: The Legal Allegiances of Christians and Jews under Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.
Tezcür, Güneş Murat. Liminal Minorities: Religious Difference and Mass Violence in Muslim Societies. Cornell UP, 2024.
Weitz, Lev E. Between Christ and Caliph: Law, Marriage, and Christian Community in Early Islam. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018.

The Canons of Coexistence: How George I Rewrote Christian Law for Islam’s New World