John of Damascus, from the house of Mansur, is one of the most respected theologians in the Eastern tradition, one of only three people to share the official title ‘the Theologian’. John’s influence is hard to establish directly, but Harry Wolfson calls him ‘the connecting link between the Church Fathers and early Islam’ (Wolfson 1972, 119). His work The Orthodox Faith is the first ‘Summa’ developed in the Christian tradition, the first truly systematic theology. The principal literary products that draw on John’s Muslim context are his description of Islam in De Haeresibus and his doctrine of images. A third work, The Discussion of a Christian and a Saracen, is of disputed authorship but belongs firmly in the Damascene tradition (probably Abu Qurra).
John appropriates almost all of De Haeresibus from other authors, most notably the Anakephaleoses of Epiphanius’ Panarion (Sahas, 1972:80–81). Only three of its 103 chapters are thought to be original. One is chapter 101, dealing with the religion of the its origin, Muhammad, the doctrine, and practice. Sometimes it takes the form of a dialogue between Christians and Muslims, but its rhetoric is descriptive rather than polemical. Of course, at this time Muslims and Christians were debating with each other widely, and needed to be able to identify strong and weak points for disputation.
For example, John asks the Muslims why there are no witnesses like Moses and the prophets to Muhammad’s own prophethood when the demands witnesses for so many other reasons. One of the impressive aspects of John’s approach is his accurate portrayal of Islam and its conception of God. John accepts the unity of God and interprets the Trinity not as a diversity in God but as a reference to the way that God can be known. He argues against Islam that the stress on the unity of God does not work well with the distinction between God and his book, the leading to a bifurcation in Islam between God and his spirit, something resolved much more neatly, he suggests, in Christianity.
What is interesting about John’s approach is his familiarity with Islam and his determination to argue that Christianity does not associate partners with God (shirk), despite what the sometimes suggests. He quite rightly points out that the precise nature of the link between God and the is itself not a simple issue, and the createdness or otherwise of the did indeed become a highly controversial topic in the Islamic world. Since he was based in Damascus, John presumably had a better grip on what Muslims were actually arguing. He used his defence of the Trinity as not interfering with the nature of tawhid or divine unity to defend another doctrine antagonistic to many interpretations of Islam, the acceptability of images of the divine. In just the same way, he argued, God participates in the person of Jesus Christ and in the Bible, so he can be thought of as being incarnate in icons and images.
Reference
Sahas, D. (1972) John of Damascus on Islam, Leiden: Brill.
Wolfson, H. (1972) The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
See also:Christianity
OLIVER LEAMAN
This is the complete article, containing 525 words
(approx. 2 pages at 300 words per page).
its origin, Muhammad, the 
doctrine, and practice. Sometimes it takes the form of a dialogue between Christians and Muslims, but its rhetoric is descriptive rather than polemical. Of course, at this time Muslims and Christians were debating with each other widely, and needed to be able to identify strong and weak points for disputation. 
demands witnesses for so many other reasons. One of the impressive aspects of John’s approach is his accurate portrayal of Islam and its conception of God. John accepts the unity of God and interprets the Trinity not as a diversity in God but as a reference to the way that God can be known. He argues against Islam that the stress on the unity of God does not work well with the distinction between God and his book, the 
leading to a bifurcation in Islam between God and his spirit, something resolved much more neatly, he suggests, in Christianity.
sometimes suggests. He quite rightly points out that the precise nature of the link between God and the 
is itself not a simple issue, and the createdness or otherwise of the 
did 
