NR. 2 – 2024

In the Orthodox Church, the Holy Sacraments occupy a central place in the life of the faithful, being considered fundamental acts or works through which God is present and manifests Himself in creation, in the world. St. Dumitru Stăniloae states that the union between Christ and human persons, realized through the Sacrament of Christ, is actualized in the form of the Church. The Church takes shape when Christ performs the act of extending Himself into humans, through these bridges, i.e., the Sacraments. The Sacraments are gifts of Christ to us, so that we may sanctify ourselves, gaining divine life. All the sacraments are “sacraments of life”, or those that give life to man, for through them, the faithful receive the power and joy to live in communion with God and to prepare for eternal life. Specifically, Orthodox theology and spirituality consider three Sacraments as Sacraments of healing: the Sacrament of Penance (or Confession), the Sacrament of Anointing (or the Unction of the Sick), and the Sacrament of the Eucharist (or Communion). Just as there is unity between the Sacraments of Christian initiation—Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist—so it can be said that Confession, Unction, and the Eucharist constitute the sacraments that continuously strengthen and heal the weakness and fragility of human nature. They are essential in the life of every believer because each of us feels the need for healing. Each is limited and vulnerable, subject to sin, suffering, illness, and death. For the Church Fathers, salvation or healing meant the recovery or regaining of fullness, of wholeness, of the unity of the human person. In the New Testament, the encounters of Jesus with the sick reveal the importance of the personal faith of those who suffer and are sick and who approach the Lord. The Gospels present faith, either preceding or following the healing. All our sacraments bring and give hope. They are sacraments of healing because they are sacraments that bring life, peace, hope, spiritual joy, and personal encounters, during their celebration, with the merciful Christ, who gives Himself for the life and salvation of the world, who heals all the weaknesses of the body and soul. Healing, as emphasized earlier, is not limited to just the soul or just the body, but addresses the whole person, while at the same time surpassing the actual stage of healing, projecting the person into the fulfilment of their vocation, which is the sanctification of man or the likeness to God, their Creator. Healing is part of the mystery or economy of salvation and deification of man. Through the Holy Sacraments, the new life of Christ is personally shared with each of us in the Church, as a foretaste of the complete sharing of eternal life in the Kingdom of God. 

The article analyses the priestly vocation of man, defined as the central role humans play in the sanctification of creation through their relationship with God. Man is seen as the priest of creation, a bridge between the created world and the Creator, bearing the image of God and advancing toward likeness with Him. This ontological tension between the image of God and the Archetype drives humans to seek continuous perfection, involving not only their own fulfilment but also the orientation of the entire world toward a divine purpose.

At the heart of the analysis is the idea that this priestly vocation, though inherent to human nature, can be forfeited when man abandons transcendent truth and replaces his relationship with God with various ideologies. These ideologies, described as religious surrogates, offer false structures of meaning and utopian promises but fail to lead to true fulfilment. Rather than guiding the world toward God, ideologies promote an immanent order, idolizing limited concepts such as reason, the state, or other human systems. By substituting these for divine truth, man derails its priestly role, leaving creation trapped in a disordered order devoid of transcendent purpose.

Religion is identified as an essential component of human existence, present in all forms of social organization. Utopian ideologies mimic religious structures by creating “priests” of ideology—philosophers, political leaders, and activists—who preach the dogmas of the ideological system, organize structures, and promote a utopian ideal for societal transformation. These “political religions” develop symbols, rituals, and ceremonies that parasitize the values of authentic religion but replace transcendent truth with finite ideas, inevitably failing the human vocation to transfigure the world. Concrete examples include Communism and Nazism, which, originating from utopian ideas, sought to create a perfect world but degenerated into totalitarian regimes marked by violence and oppression. Communism, for instance, imposed a revolutionary vision of society in which humanity had to be re-educated according to new ideological principles. The progress of humanity was tied to the destruction of old structures and the creation of a “new man”, but this ideal led to persecutions, crimes, and immense suffering instead of the promised fulfilment. Similarly, Nazism pursued racial purification and the creation of a utopian “Reich” based on the concept of a “new man”, yet it too resulted in atrocities, with the Holocaust serving as a stark example of sacrifices imposed in the name of false perfection.

Although supported by symbols and rituals imitating religious structures, these ideologies fail to bring about true transformation of humanity and creation. They ignore the fundamental truth that evil in the world arises not from poor social organization but from man’s fallen nature and his wrong choices. This perspective contrasts sharply with the Christian view, which holds that the healing and transformation of the world can only occur through the genuine change of man in its relationship with God. Freedom of choice, used in accordance with divine will, is the central element of human perfection.

The biblical example of Cain and Abel illustrates this dynamic. Cain, unable to take responsibility for his rejected offering, harbours resentment that turns into hatred and fratricide. Similarly, totalitarian ideologies are built on the collective resentment of groups perceiving their social and economic hardships as resulting from the oppression of others. These resentments are exploited to justify violent actions aimed at creating a better world, which in reality lead to suffering and disorder.

Historically, ideological claims to construct utopias have been accompanied by the idolization of the state and law as supreme authorities. The French Revolution, for example, replaced Christianity with the “Cult of Reason”, transforming churches into temples of reason. The revolutionary calendar replaced traditional religious symbolism with secular alternatives, and new ceremonies and holidays were introduced to support the revolutionary ideology. These transformations illustrate ideologies’ constant attempts to replace authentic religion, as well as the impossibi­lity of entirely eliminating the religious dimension from human nature.

Spiritually, ideologies fail to achieve the real purpose of existence because they absolutize finite structures and oppose transcendent truth. The Church, as the social extension of the Body of Christ, has the mission of sanctifying and transforming the world, directing it toward the Kingdom of Heaven. This work involves the deification of man and the realization of creation’s potential in relation to Christ. In contrast, utopian ideologies ignore this fundamental relationship, promoting structures that cannot address man’s need for meaning and perfection.

Authentic transformation of the world cannot occur through social or economic revolutions but through the spiritual progress of humanity. The elevation of creation toward Truth depends on man’s union with Christ, the only one who can bring mea­ning and fulfilment to existence. The Kingdom of Heaven cannot be fully realized in this world, and any attempt to absolutize it in the form of a utopia inevitably becomes a form of idolatry. Therefore, ideologies are seen as a deviation from man’s priestly vocation, which can only be fulfilled within an authentic relationship with God.

In conclusion, the meaning of man and creation lies in the continuous journey toward the Truth of Christ, in a perpetual process of transfiguration and perfection. Man’s priestly vocation aims to orient the world toward the Kingdom of Heaven through authentic sanctification, achieved in communion with God. Utopian ideologies, by their nature, fail in this mission because they replace absolute Truth with finite constructs, leading to alienation and disorder instead of fulfilment and perfection.

Ishoyahb I is one of the most important theologians of the (Assyrian) Church of the East / East Syriac Church in the sixth century. He was appreciated not only by contemporary Christians but also by some of the non-Christian rulers of the time: he represented one of them in meetings with Christian officials of the Byzantine Empire (Hormizd IV); he was also involved in the process of his conversion to Christianity of the Lakhmid ruler Nuʿmān III. In response to the urgent needs of the East Syriac Church, Ishoyahb convened an important synod in the Sasanian capital of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, whose decisions are recorded in the canonical collection Synodicon Orientale. The patriarch was also a prolific writer, producing confessions of faith, liturgical commentaries, polemical texts, letters and homilies, many of which have unfortunately not survived.

Although there is no extant Vita about him, as is the case with two other important East Syriac patriarchs of the sixth century, namely Mar Aba and Sabrisho, the stages of his life are well known from various sources. The most important of these, which have been used in this paper, are the Chronicle of Seert, the Book of the Tower (Kitāb al-Magdal – further Mārī), which Gismondi attributes to Mārī ibn Sulaimān, the Book of Mysteries (Asfār al-asrār – further ʿAmr), which the same editor attributes to ʿAmr ibn Mattā, the Chronicle of Khuzistan (or Chronicon anonymum), the Catalogue of Writers by ʿAbdishoʿ bar Brikhā, the Causa de institutione scholarum by Barhadbeshabba of Halwān, the Synodicon Orientale, the Chronicle of Michael the Great and the Opus Chronologicum by Elijah of Nisibis.

The Chronicle of Seert and Mārī tells us that Ishoyahb I studied at the renowned theological school of Nisibis during the time of a director-exegete named Abraham (of Beth Rabban). After completing his studies, Ishoyahb remained involved in the work of the school and became one of its teachers. The Chronicle of Khuzistan says that he was a “wise and skilful” man, which is confirmed by the following stages of his life: after the death of the headmaster Abraham, Ishoyahb was elected director-exegete of the school. Barhadbesabbas’s Causa de institutione scholarum briefly informs us that Ishoyahb acted as director with much heroism (the author probably has in mind an environment strained by the ideas of Henana of Adiabene), but quickly closes the subject with the information that after two years he “got tired / yielded to pressure” and resigned the position in order to be elected bishop of Arzun. Arzun was a diocese in the metropolitanate of Nisibis, on the Roman-Persian border.

After the death of Catholicos-Patriarch Ezekiel (570-581), Ishoyahb of Arzun was elected to the leadership of East Syriac Christianity through the direct intervention of Shah Hormizd IV (in 581, according to ʿAmr, or in 582/583, according to Elijah of Nisibis). Hormizd was a Sasanian ruler who sympathized with the Christians, and Ishoyahb knew how to use this political moment to the Church’s advantage. Mārī recalls that the patriarch supported the opening of new schools, and ʿAmr tells us that several monasteries were founded during his time.

To show his loyalty towards the Sassanid king, Ishoyahb accepted an invitation to be part of a Persian delegation sent to Constantinople to negotiate peace with the Christian emperor Maurice (582-602). During these negotiations, Ishoyahb also presented a confession of faith. This moment in his biography is recalled by Michael the Syrian, Mārī, and especially by ʿAmr. As early as the 5th century, the Persian shahs had decided to involve the East Syriac clergy in diplomatic relations with Byzantium. Louis Sako, who is the author of the only monograph dealing with the involvement of East Syriac Christians in Persian-Byzantine diplomatic relations, found that Ishoyahb’s visit to Constantinople must have taken place in 587. Here he relies on ʿAmr’s account that the Creed presented to the emperor was examined by the patriarch of the imperial capital together with Patriarch Gregory of Antioch, who was there with other bishops. L. Sako notes that the reason for their meeting was the synod organized in Constantinople in 587 (according to others in 588) to investigate certain accusations against the Patriarch of Antioch. This meeting became famous when Patriarch John Nesteutes (John IV) summoned the bishops to the discussions in the name of the “Ecumenical Patriarch”, a title that was officially used for the first time. The attestation of the presence of Gregory I of Antioch (571-593) in Constantinople in 587-588 is therefore a strong indication for the dating of the embassy of Ishoyahb in 587. To better understand why there was a need for Persian-Byzantine negotiations at this time, it is important to realize that the two sides had been engaged in military confrontations on the north-western border of the Sassanid Empire for over a decade. Peace negotiations were also held at Amida (modern Diyarbakir) in 586, on the initiative of the Persians, in which the East Syriac Metropolitan Simeon of Nisibis (573-ca. 595) took part. Theophylact Simocatta, a historian of the time of Emperor Maurice, informs us about these events and the fact that they ended in failure due to Byzantine demands. The Persians decided to seek a diplomatic solution and sent an embassy directly to Constantinople, to the Emperor Maurice, under the leadership of the Catholicos-Patriarch Ishoyahb I.

In the days before Ishoyahb’s journey to Constantinople, the Church of the East (East Syriac Church) was faced with several internal problems that were difficult to resolve. The Patriarch attempted to find solutions by convening a synod, which, according to the introduction to its canons in the Synodicon Orientale, took place in the fourth year of his pontificate (585/586). The growing influence in Persia of the West Syriacs (Miaphysite Christians, also known as Syro-Jacobites), the emergence of an influential theological movement led by Henana of Adiabene, the director of the school of Nisibis, which presented itself as an alternative to the official East Syriac theology, and the opposition of certain ascetic groups to the monastic reform attempted by Abraham of Kashkar and the Christian leaders of Persia, were some of the greatest difficulties of Ishoyahb’s tenure as head of the Church. The synod now laid down new rules for monks and strengthened the doctrinal identity of Christians in Persia by reaffirming the importance of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

The life of Ishoyahb I reveals particularly interesting aspects of the relations between Byzantine and East Syriac Christianity at the end of the sixth century. First of all, it should be remembered that the East Syriacs at that time were not conscious of being separated from Chalcedonian Christianity but considered themselves in communion with it as part of the universal Church. Relevant in this regard is Canon 29 of the Synod of Ishoyahb I, which speaks of the Patriarchal See of Seleucia-Ctesiphon as one of the five that the Holy Spirit has established in the Church, along with Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. On the other hand, during Ishoyahb’s visit to Emperor Maurice, the Byzantines, although initially cautious, soon recognized that they were engaging with fellow Christians who professed the Orthodox faith. This realisation came after reviewing the Creed drawn up by Ishoyahb I at the Emperor’s request. The common faith was reaffirmed through the Eucharistic communion. These elements deserve greater recognition, alongside the broader context of East Syriac Christian participation in Persian-Byzantine diplomatic relations, to foster a better understanding of the relationship between the Christians of the two empires in the fifth-seventh centuries. In this way, one could even correct some of the views of those church historians who see the Third Ecumenical Council (431) as the moment of ecclesiastical separation between the Christians of the Roman Empire and the East Syriac Christians, caused by an alleged Nestorianisation of the latter.

Silence has always played a very important role in mysticism, being a sacred element present in many cultures and religions. Christian spirituality provides a vast framework for the writings and connotations of silence, which can be defined as an inherent phenomenon of spiritual experience and, especially, of prayer. The meditative state and the intense contemplative moments experienced in the solitude of the cell provide a suitable environment for self-knowledge and concentration on the inner chamber of the soul. In this study, I have come to understand that silence cannot be defined merely as the absence of noise or speech; it is an attitudinal and factual process of reducing discourse, thoughts, and the constant tension of the will. Spiritual silence offers a person moments to live their true self authentically and to know their inner depths, while during secret prayer, they are made worthy of divine contemplations (visions). Biblical study confirms that silence is a quality of divine discretion manifested throughout the sacred history of the chosen people. Since ancient times, the lack of communication with God, the discontinuity or absence of a connection with Him, has been a theme of reflection in religious history. This aspect is highlighted in almost all Old Testament books, as often, the absence of a divine “response” to human appeal disturbs and frightens the prophets. Although God made His presence known through the elements of the world, such as in the burning bush, in lightning, in thunder, in the storm, or even through words understandable to humans, the essence of the mystical meeting between God and man is conveyed in the “gentle breeze” experienced by the prophet Elijah. Regarding the mystical experience, the prayerful perceives the divine presence as a non-intrusive closeness, which envelops, not frightening, as revealed in Rudolf Otto’s concept of mysterium tremendum. Equally, the conduct of the Incarnate Son of God was manifested through a constant discretion and silence. This silence, characteristic of the quiet lamb led to the slaughter, was embraced with selflessness by Christ during His Passion, especially before Pilate when He was asked what truth is. This Christ-like discretion leads us toward a practice of caution, expectancy, and a silence of patience in suffering before God. It is the silence that sanctifies our lives and makes us followers of Christ; for this reason, in monastic life, the cultivation of silence is practiced as a fundamental element of obedience and the renunciation of personal will. Not only is the monk’s cell governed by silence, but also in the monastic community, there are rules to maintain it. These rules have a practical purpose, which is to spare the monks from empty words, heated discussions, or spiritually useless debates. Monks are aware that the practice of prayer must be combined with meditation on the word of God, Lectio Divina. Director John Skinner, in the documentary Hear Our Silence, explored the silent life of Carthusian monks in England. However, the tradition of the Church Fathers uses two terms to express the quality and quantity of speech: argologia corresponds to the word “vain,” referring to speech without spiritual benefit, while polylogia corresponds to “chatter” or “babbling,” indicating speech without measure. The Philokalic Fathers never despised communion with others, but they always emphasized the superiority of communion with God in the “abyss of spiritual silence.” We have the example of holy people who did not speak at all, yet changed people and characters only through their gaze and presence. At a higher stage of hesychasm, the spiritual person dwells in the awe of suprasensible realities, in a silent and peaceful ambiance, a silence before the transcendence, before the greatness of God revealed to them. The perfect silence of the mind indicates the result of a progressively spiritual journey that, in the end, reveals the “hidden man of the heart” spoken of by St. Apostle Peter. In such unique moments (silent prayer), the contemplative prayer enters the apophatic zone of the knowledge of God. Silent prayer aims to highlight both the fact that vocal prayer must gradually transform into an ontological sigh and that descriptive prayer must be transformed into experiential living. However, no matter how high the spiritual life of the prayerful person, their spiritual maturity does not allow them to despise vocal prayer, which represents the first step of prayer and the beginning of spiritual progress. 

The study focuses on the presentation of several general frameworks concerning the situation of three specific Muslim groups – mercenaries, ambassadors, and prisoners of war – encountered in the Byzantium during the ninth and ele­venth centuries. The author’s analysis is based on Byzantine sources dating from the period investigated, which are carefully analysed in order to produce complex but systematic conclusions regarding the subject in question. Throughout the analysis, the author uses, as an approach, the expositive method, but he also provides additional explanations where is needed, in order to enlighten the obscure information found in the sources. The first chapter, entitled “Muslim mercenaries in Byzantine sources”, begins with a presentation of the Rebellion of Thomas the Slav (820-823), in which Muslims played an important role as military support for the rebel, in his quest to obtain the imperial throne. Most of the information concerning this event is taken from the Letter of Michael II of Amorium to Louis the Pious and from the chronicles of Symeon Magister, Theophanes Continuatus, Genesios and John Skylitzes. But, alongside these, a number of adjacent pieces of information, found in several contemporary saints’ Vitas and in certain writings of St. Theodore the Studite, are also reproduced, in order to confirm the existence of Muslim mercenaries alongside Thomas. The author continues his investigation by turning to two treatises on Byzantine etiquette – Philotheos’ Kletorologion and De Ceremoniis aulae Byzantinae –, which both provide important information concerning Muslim mercenaries who were members of the Hetaireia in the late ninth and tenth centuries, and then goes on to present some Turkish mercenaries who came to serve the interests of the Empire during the eleventh century. In the second chapter, dedicated to the Muslim ambassadors found in the Byzantine sources, the author presents several important Muslim envoys (Ahmad bin ʻAbd al-Bāqī al-Aḏanī al-Aḏanī, Abū Ḥafṣ ʻAmr, Delemikes, Nāghiya ibn al-Ḥasanī, Siaous etc.), but also their agendas, their condition of staying in Constantinople, or the way in which the Byzantine officials were supposed to behave towards them. The main sources on which he relies in presenting his arguments are the chronicles of Theophanes Continuatus and John Skylitzes, the treatise De Ceremoniis, but also the Alexiad of Anna Komnene. The last chapter, dealing with the Muslim priso­ners, aims to present both the situation of these captives from the time of their seizure until their arrival in Constantinople, and their situation during their stay in Byzantium. According to the author, the importance of the prisoners for the Byzantines was huge, because they could obtain from them valuable information, or use their skills in the imperial service. As a result, in order to secure the total submission of such captives, the Byzantines demanded their conversion to the Christian faith, offering them in return the possibility of having a position in the Byzantine central or provincial administration, material benefits or tax exemptions. In the end of the chapter, the author offers several examples of Muslim prisoners who were converted and enjoyed a brilliant career in the Byzantine administration or army – the parakoimomenos Samonas; the strategos Nicetas; Anemas, member of the imperial guard; the primikerios and protoproedros Tatikios -, but also of some captives who, although they did not choose to embrace the Christian faith, enjoyed a quiet life in Byzantium. The conclusion drawn by the author at the end of his research is that, after analysing the Byzantine sources from the nineth to the eleventh centuries, it can be seen that they are quite rich in information when it comes to the situation of Muslim mercenaries, ambassadors or prisoners in the Byzantine Empire during this period.

Asumând cadrul epistemic contemporan – la rândul său limitat și condiționat de o serie întreagă de factori –, putem declara că religiile societăților antice și cu precădere cea preislamică comportă un caracter pseudo-dogmatic. În acest sens, credințele acestora nu au un fundament doctrinar, ci sunt bazate eminamente pe superstiții, ritualuri și practici colective. Odată ce islamul a devenit o religie doctrinară și instituționalizată, musulmanii au dorit în mod real să cunoască celelalte religii, organizându-le într-o formă doctrinară și pe cele care, în termeni absoluți, nu îndeplineau aceste condiții. Deși demersul reprezentanților tradiției arabo-musulmane este anacronic, el are totuși valoare pentru studiul istoriei ideilor și al religiilor. În acest context, un model notabil de sistematizare este cel propus de marele teologic și istoric Muḥammad al-Shahrastânî, în opera sa enciclopedică „Cartea religiilor și sectelor”. Shahrastânî împarte religiile și doctrinele în două mari categorii: pe de o parte, credincioșii religiilor ce au la bază scrieri revelate (iudaismul, creștinismul și alte religii bazate pe texte sacre) și, pe de altă parte, adepții doctrinelor arbitrare, unde sunt incluși sabienii, filosofii greci, curentele musulmane heterodoxe și arabii preislamici. Aceștia din urmă sunt împărțiți în „inculți” (muʿaṭṭila), care neagă existența Dumnezeului creator, venerând idoli ca mijlocitori între om și divinitate, și „cultivați” (muḥaṣṣila), care, în ciuda unei credințe fataliste, caută totuși adevărata cunoaștere și se arată deschiși revelației islamice. Shahrastânî subliniază importanța muḥaṣṣila, corelând disponibilitatea lor către islam cu existența unui filon de cunoaștere transmis încă din vremea patriarhilor biblici. Astfel, el pornește descrierea „cultivaților” de la istoria Casei Antice (Kaʿba) și a orașului Mecca, subliniind importanța cunoașterii genealogice în cultura arabă tribală. În acest registru, pelerinajul instituit de Avraam este văzut ca manifestare vizibilă a ceea ce Shahrastânî numește „Lumina muhammadiană” – adică cunoașterea pură păstrată de muḥaṣṣila în perioada preislamică, chiar dacă într-o formă ascunsă sau alterată. De notat că Shahrastânî se îngrijește în mod deosebit atât de societatea preislamică, cât mai ales de cea arabă ulterioară revelației coranice, care a refuzat să îmbrățișeze mesajul profetului Muhammad. Astfel, credințele celei din urmă sunt prezentate într-o manieră confesională, în sensul în care acestea formează din perspectiva islamică un veritabil tratat de ereziologie. Al doilea model de sistematizare pe care îl propune articolul de față aparține poetului sirian Abû Tammâm, care, în lucrarea „Kitâb al-shadjara”, tratează mișcările marginale din interiorul islamului printr-o metodă totalizantă. El reușește să repertorieze nu mai puțin de șapte zeci și două de curente considerate eretice, împărțindu-le în trei categorii: cei care consideră că ascultarea este parte integrantă din actul credinței, cei care consideră că respectarea legii este independentă de credința individului și cei care îl recunosc pe ‘Alî ca succesor legitim al profetului Muhammad (șiiții). Înainte de a analiza aceste doctrine, Abû Tammâm pornește de la noțiunea de erezie, descriind astfel „satanii în potență”. Pe scurt, ar fi vorba de oamenii care se lasă purtați de aparențe, pierzând astfel accesul la adevărul ce poate fi cunoscut din interior. Aceștia sunt împărțiți în două categorii: „satani dintre oameni”, atrași de superficialitate și lipsiți de profunzime spirituală, și „satani dintre djinni (spirite)”, mai periculoși, deoarece, deși caută adevărul, ajung să-l trădeze și să influențeze negativ pe cei slabi în credință. Fundamentul coranic al teoriei lui Abû Tammâm este Coran 2. 14, text care critică ipocrizia celor care își manifestă vădit credința în fața musulmanilor, dar revin la convingerile lor opuse în fața comunității aparținătoarea. Acest comportament este reprobabil, fiind de fapt o formă de duplicitate și orbire spirituală. Exegeții coranici, precum At-Ṭabarî și Ibn Kathîr, interpretează această atitudine ca o manifestare a rebeliunii și ipocriziei, ce nu ține neapărat de apartenența la un grup etnic sau religios, ci de lipsa sincerității în raport cu revelația divină. Având în vedere metodele celor doi savanți – rațională  în cazul lui Shahrastânî și speculativă pentru Abû Tammâm – observăm că ele exprimă, fiecare în felul său, dificultatea pe care o religie dogmatică o întâmpină atunci când se vede nevoită să se raporteze la spațiul extrem de eterogen al credințelor ce au precedat-o. Shahrastânî asumă o sistematizare intelectuală, al cărei scop final este prezentarea doctrinelor considerate deviante ca sisteme coerente, însă, extrem de important, inferioare adevărului revelat. Pe de altă parte, din perspectiva poetului, Abû Tammâm recurge la o abordare simbolică, deci eminamente speculativă, prezentând credințele ce ieșeau din cadrul dogmatic sub forma unor ispite exterioare și interioare, purtate de figuri demonice. Această dublă abordare se leagă în mod firesc de analiza lui Robertson Smith, potrivit căruia, religiile pozitive (dogmatice) nu au apărut într-un vid doctrinar, ci au trebuit să intre într-un dialog cu moștenirea credințelor ancestrale. Acest dialog, uneori conflictual, alteori integrator, explică nevoia unei duble strategii: pe de o parte, convingerea prin claritate rațională iar, pe de altă parte, prin forță simbolică. Astfel, efortul primilor teologi musulmani, prin excelență figuri enciclopedice, arată clar dorința de a depăși stratificările religioase ale trecutului, folosind însă acele coduri mentale și culturale care erau deja familiare publicului căruia li se adresau.