Revealing “Muhammedisdom”:
The construction of knowledge about Islam in the seventeenth-century
Dutch Republic
Master Thesis for the Research Master Religious Studies at the University of Amsterdam
Student: L. Brouwer Student number: 5768284 Supervisor: dr. R. van Leeuwen Second reader: Prof. Dr. G. Wiegers
List of contents
Introduction 4
Research Question 7
Structure 8
1. Simon Oomius 10
Academic background: Challenged Orthodoxy 11
Religious Background: The Reformed Church 14
and ‘Nadere Reformatie’
Oomius’ works 16
2. Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom 18
Structure and Content 19
Motives and Justification 20
A new approach to Islam 25
3. Islam in vernacular culture 27
News about the East 28
The Muslim on stage 30
Travel literature 32
Islamdom, Islamicate culture and Islamic religion 37
5. Scholarly knowledge about Islam 39
The development of Dutch oriental studies and the study of Arabic 41
European orientalism: Oomius’ sources 44
‘Enlightened’ orientalism 48
4. Theologians and Islam 50
The conversion of Muslims 52
Calvinist apologetics 55
Islam in Church and salvation history 56
6. Conclusion: studying Islam in a Post-Reformation context 60
Religious Comparison 62
The wellbeing of the true Church 63
Introduction
A current problem encountered within Dutch society is the widespread lack of proper knowledge about Islam. Despite the presence of a substantial Islamic community in the Netherlands, the public image of the religion is characterized by many misunderstandings. With the present questions of immigration and integration, and the perceived threats of radicalization, terrorism and the Islamic State, proper knowledge about Islam would appear to be more important than ever. Nevertheless, public opinion often seems to hold on to a (negative) generalized stereotype, which persists – and is fed – precisely by these problems. In the process, the negative events that people experience, or are afraid to experience, are often attributed to the inherent nature of Islam. The question of how to break this continuation of stereotyping, and how to provide the common public with more objective knowledge, proves a very difficult one. Even though Islam is a hotly discussed and reported topic, not everyone seems to know how to assess and interpret the information they receive via media and politics, and the things they see and experience in everyday life. Moreover, there seems to be little awareness of the importance of accurate knowledge about Islam. Rather than “facing their demons”, many people are led by sentiments of fear and defensiveness. Consequently, they seem more likely to listen to those who appeal to such feelings, rather than to those who try to counterbalance them.
The question of ‘proper’ knowledge about Islam is not a new one. In 1663 the Reformed minister Simon Oomius published what has become known as the first Dutch work completely dedicated to Islam. In the work, titled Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom, the author laments the widespread lack of knowledge about Islam, and the countless myths and fables that circulate about the ‘Mahometan religion’. Stressing the importance of accurate information for the spiritual welfare of the whole Dutch nation, that should not be deceived by lies and false accounts, he intends to be the first author to write a concise but complete “Systema of the Mahometan Teachings and Religion”.1 The only sources on which such a work can be based, according to Oomius, are authentic Islamic texts, written by religious practitioners, or scholarly works based on these. He lists an extensive number of admired authors, among whom some of the most widely renowned orientalists of his day, such as Erpenius, Golius, Du Ryer, Scaliger, Pococke and Hottinger. Considering these were all important scholars in the development of academic oriental studies, their names give a certain authority to the work of Oomius, who himself was not a scholar, but a theologian working as a minister.
Oomius’ nearly 1000-page work thus aims to translate accurate, ‘scholarly’ knowledge about Islam into the more ‘popular’, vernacular field of knowledge about the religion. The question, then, is why the Protestant minister attached so much importance to his project. As he
1 S. Oomius, Het Geopende en Wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom (Amsterdam 1663) **2. NB: English translations of Oomius’ text throughout this thesis are my own.
claims in his introduction, he does not only want to give an accurate presentation of Islam, but he also aims to refute it. Close reading of the sources, he argues, will show that it is a “cursed” and heretic religion. The fact that academic (oriental) studies were used for religious goals, such as the refutation of non-Christian religion, is in itself not surprising. Early-modern Dutch orientalists often studied oriental languages and manuscripts, such as Hebrew and Arabic, for theological or missionary goals.2 What is especially interesting in the work of Oomius is his mentioning of other religions next to Islam: Like Catholicism, he claims, Islam is a ‘rug’, woven together by heresies and malefic deviations of Jews, pagans and ‘falsely named’ (‘valschgenaemde’) Christians. This comparison suggests that Oomius’ aim is not only refuting Islam, but refuting all ‘false’, that is non-Protestant, religions by means of religious comparison.
In this context, it is worth mentioning Urs App’s The Birth of Orientalism. In this work, the author discusses what he calls the genesis of ‘modern Orientalism’, “that is, the secular, institutionalized study of the orient by specialists capable of understanding oriental languages and handling primary source material”.3 The author – quite rightly – argues that academic oriental studies4 before the eighteenth century often solely served theology and Biblical studies, and thus focused on regions, languages and religions that were of importance to the Christian Holy Scriptures. In this context, Islam was often seen as a heretical Christian sect, and Muhammad as a schismatic. App sees a change in this tradition in the eighteenth century, with the development of a more independent field of oriental studies, less defined by theology and a Judeo-Christian worldview. In this period the focus (partly) shifted from the Middle East to non-Abrahamic, Asian religions. App argues that this area of study especially has been of great importance to the development of modern oriental studies. As he says, “this new or “modern Orientalism” was prepared by a growing interest in India as the cradle of civilization, an interest that was promoted by Voltaire (1694-1778) in his quest to denigrate the Bible and destabilize Christianity”.5 In this context he also mentions the relevance of the ‘century of Enlightenment’, which he seems to suggest posed a challenge to the traditional, Judeo-Christian worldview.
Even though App admits that the ‘paradigm change’ in eighteenth-century oriental studies was the result of a longer process, his main focus is on the changing idea of religion caused by the (academic) ‘discovery’ of non-Abrahamic religions. As he argues, this challenged the European Judeo-Christian worldview to such an extent that “Judaism and Christianity themselves began to be increasingly viewed as local phenomena on a dramatically expanded, worldwide canvas of religions and mythologies”.6 As a consequence, a more plural and abstract
2 See i.a.: W.M.C. Juynboll, Zeventiende-eeuwse beoefenaars van het Arabisch in Nederland (Utrecht 1931), 3 U. App, The Birth of Orientalism (Pennsylvania 2010) xi.
4 To refer to the academic field I choose to use ‘oriental studies’, rather than ‘Orientalism’, to avoid confusion with Edward Said’s well known notion of ‘Orientalism’.
5 U. App, The Birth of Orientalism, xii. 6 U. App, The Birth of Orientalism, xiv.
idea of religion emerged, that allowed for the development of a secular field of oriental studies to study the different world religions. However, Christianity itself had already experienced an earlier era of destabilization and diversification. With the sixteenth-century Reformation, a once ‘united’ European Christianity had disintegrated into different Christian confessions. Not only did these confessions compete in the religious field, but they were also engaged in worldly (political and military) struggles, both across and within country borders. These developments within Christianity, too, seem to have manifested themselves in the field of orientalism. Not only did they affect what App calls ‘premodern academic Orientalism’, but they also seem to have stimulated a more common effort to come to terms with the different ‘world religions’ in an attempt to consolidate the position of the own confession in an increasingly multiform religious landscape.
As a result, there seems to have been a growth in the publication of works about (world) religion and religious history after the Reformation, including studies about Islam. Even though these often served polemical goals – aimed at the refutation of religions other than the authors’ own – these works did contribute to the production of knowledge about the various known religions, by increasingly using authentic sources. More than just a division between ‘Christians’ and ‘heretics’, the religious landscape now required a more complex definition of what ‘religion’ was to begin with, and who did or did not belong to this category. In this respect, a discussion of other religions could also contribute to the consolidation of one’s own religious confession as the ‘true’ one. Oomius’ work seems to be indicative of these contemporary religious currents and polemics within the Reformed Dutch Republic. The fact that the author is considered to have been one of the leading figures in the so called Dutch Nadere Reformatie (‘Further Reformation’) further supports this assumption. Oomius argues that Christianity had deviated from its true form, with the Islamic threat, in fact, being a scourge of God. Only by thorough reform would the Christian world be able to save itself from Islam. In this sense, his work is contains a clear justification of the Reformation. At the same time, the Calvinist minister hoped to put an end to the Catholic fable of ‘Calvinoturcism’, which accused the Reformist doctrine of being a disguised form of Islam.7 Instead, throughout the work, he sets out to prove the opposite: If anything, Islam was closer to Catholicism than to Calvinism, the latter being the only true faith. In this sense, Oomius’ work could be seen as a reflection of the idea of ‘Turcopapism’, which sought to counter the accusations of ‘Calvinoturcism’.8
7 See: F. van der Pol, ‘Religious diversity and everyday ethics in the seventeenth-century Dutch city Kampen’, Church History (2002) 2.
8 The terms are borrowed from the two classical texts Calvino-turcismus (Antwerp, 1597) by Matthew Sutcliffe, and the Protestant riposte by William Raynolds, De Turcopapismo (London, 1604). For more information on the tradition, see: . M. E. H. Mout, “Calvinoturcisme in de zeventiende eeuw: Comenius, Leidse oriëntalisten en de Turkse bijbel”, Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis 91 (1978) 576–607.
Research Question
This thesis will explore the relationship between the changing ideas about religion under the influence of the Reformation, and the production, use and spread of knowledge – whether or not accurate according to modern standards – about Islam in the early modern Dutch Republic, with Oomius’ Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom as its starting point. Rather than looking for a general early modern ‘image’ of Islam, it will examine and contextualize the different forms of knowledge that could constitute such an image. The early modern production of knowledge about Islam is often described in terms of a process developing from (anti-Islamic) polemical works towards an ‘Enlightened' ideal of objective knowledge about the religion.9 However, the question remains what caused or influenced this process, and one of the answers – though certainly not the only one – seems to lie within the context of the Reformation and the religious debates that it caused between different Christian denominations. This approach shows that the distinction between polemical works on the one hand and ‘Enlightened’ objective works on the other is in reality rather fluid. In Simon Oomius’ case, authentic knowledge about Islam was not just (re-)produced in the pursuit of knowledge; it was in fact embedded and ‘used’ in a particularly polemical context. At the same time, these polemics motivated Oomius to write his work in the Dutch vernacular, aiming to reach a wider public. Consequently, academic knowledge about Islam became more readily available to the common – all be it literate – man.
The relationship between ‘common’ and ‘scholarly’ knowledge about Islam is something that has not as yet received due attention. Often, the focus seems to be either on the image formation of Islam – the stereotypical, usually ‘negative’ image as found in popular (vernacular) culture – or on the production of academic knowledge of the religion.10 The case of Oomius’ work, however, shows that these were not necessarily two different fields. Through publications like these, knowledge from the academic world could indeed trickle down to the vernacular culture, providing a more accurate source of information about Islam. In order to study this process, this thesis will distinguish between two broader forms of knowledge about Islam. The first form is what will be called ‘common’ knowledge, and covers those sources of information that were available to the wider public. The second form is that of ‘scholarly’ knowledge about Islam, including those sources about the religion that were both available to and created within the academic field. These sources were usually inaccessible for the wider public, primarily because they were almost exclusively written in non-vernacular languages.
9 See: A. Hamilton, ““From a Closet at Utrecht.” Adriaan Reland and Islam”, Nederlands Archief voor
Kerkgeschiedenis, 7:2 (1998) 243-250.
10 A clear example of the first is Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978). The latter is more related to the history of oriental studies, as found in works like Robert Irwin’s For Lust of Knowing. The Orientalists and their
Oomius’ work provides a good case study in exploring the relationship between different forms of knowledge about Islam on the one hand, and early modern religious currents on the other. In agitating against the many misunderstandings about Islam, and seeking to replace these with ‘accurate’ knowledge from the academic field, the work offers an extensive overview of the different existing sources of information about Islam, both in the ‘common’ and ‘scholarly’ domain. Moreover, it seeks to bridge these two domains, by providing the wider public with an academic account of Islam. In justifying this project, and arguing for its importance, Oomius offers many arguments, most of which are – at least to a certain extent – grounded in his Reformed background. As one of the leaders of the Further Reformation, Simon Oomius shows a great concern with the defense of Reformed theology against all enemies, truthfulness to the sources, the conversion of the Turks to ‘true Christianity’, and the welfare of the own religious community both at home and overseas. Simon Oomius’ work therefore seems to bridge different domains: Those of academic oriental studies, Reformed identity formation/apologetics, and post-Reformation polemics.
Structure
In order to examine the relationship between Dutch religious currents and knowledge about Islam, this thesis will analyze both primary and secondary sources, with Oomius’ Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom as its starting point. The first chapter will discuss Simon Oomius himself, primarily analyzing and contextualizing the author’s academic background and religious career. In the second chapter, the focus will shift to Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom. It will first discuss the work’s structure and publication history, followed by an analysis of the introduction, or ‘Kort Begryp’, identifying the author’s aims and motives. Following on from this, chapters 3, 4 and 5 will discuss the different forms of knowledge about Islam that were available in Oomius’ time. Considering the author aimed to improve Dutch common knowledge about the religion, chapter 3 will analyze the sources of information about Islam that were available to the wider public, or ‘popular’ forms of ‘knowledge’ about Islam. It will analyze how and why these sources were produced and what kind of information they contained, and relate them to Oomius’ own work.
In a similar manner, chapter 4 and 5 will discuss the scholarly forms of ‘knowledge’ about Islam. A distinction is made between works produced in the field of academic oriental studies (chapter 4) and in that of theology (chapter 5). This distinction is based on the fact that Oomius – as a schooled theologian – was on the one hand rooted in a theological tradition, but on the other hand argued for the use of orientalist sources in the production of works about Islam. In conclusion, the final chapter will attempt to position Oomius’ work in the wide array of forms of knowledge about Islam, based on the author’s motives and aims, and the sources and methods
he used. Although the author takes a remarkably academic approach to Islam, using authentic, academic sources, the work ultimately seems to be part of a specifically Reformed agenda within the divided Christian landscape. As such, his work combines religious aims and motives with academic knowledge, thus reclaiming the field of oriental studies as a supporting discipline to Reformed theology and religious strategy.
1. Simon Oomius
Even though he is considered to be one of the most prolific writers of his time according to Van der Aa11, and one of the figureheads of the Nadere Reformatie12, not much has been written about
Simon Oomius and his various works, including Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom (from here on referred to as Het geopende Turckdom, following Oomius’ own abbreviation). It has only been in the past two decades that more interest has been shown for the Reformed minister. An important contribution has been made by Gregory Schuringa, in his 2003 dissertation ‘Embracing Leer and Leven: the theology of Simon Oomius in the context of Nadere Reformatie theology’. In the first chapter of this dissertation, Schuringa offers a biographical overview of Oomius’ life, largely based on the latter’s final work, which contains a chapter about the author’s life. His personal background shows how Oomius was firmly rooted both in the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church, and in the academic world of the Dutch Republic of his time.
Oomius was born on March 1, 1630, in Heenvliet, South Holland. Though a small community, it was known for the famous Reformed martyr Angelus Merula, who ministered there from 1532 to 1552, and was heavily influenced both by reformers like Luther and Melanchtron and by thorough study of the Church Fathers and the Bible in the original languages.13 Oomius’ father and his brother, originally from the Catholic south, were converts to the Reformed Church. About them Oomius writes that “through the reading of the Holy Scriptures their eyes were opened and they were called out of “the Egyptian darkness of pernicious papacy to the wonderful light of the Gospel””.14 From an early age on, outspoken aversion against the papacy seems to have been implanted in Oomius’ mind. Often times his father told him that he was confirmed in the true – Reformed – doctrine against the papacy through the Biënkorf der heylighe roomsche kercke, a polemical work written by Marnix van Sint Aldegonde.15
Before he was seven years old, his parents sent Simon Oomius to Den Briel, to study with Henricus van Rossem. In his ‘autobiography’, Oomius praises his first teacher as a “worthy and
11 A. J. van der Aa, Biografisch woordenboek der Nederlanden, bevattende levensbeschrijvingen van
zoodanige personen, die zich op eenigerlei wijze in ons vaderland hebben vermaard gemaakt (Haarlem,
1852-1878).
12 In this thesis I choose to follow the example of Gregory Schuringa, by referring to the movement with its Dutch name, that goes back to the period itself. See: G. D. Schuringa, “Orthodoxy, scholasticism and piety in the seventeenth-century Further Reformation: Simon Oomius” in Church and School in Early Modern
Protestantism: Studies in the Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition
(Leiden 2013) 641-651.
13 G. Schuringa, Embracing Leer and Leven: the theology of Simon Oomius in the context of Nadere
Reformatie theology (2003) 20.
14 Ibid., 21. 15 Ibid., 21.
very wise man who was a sailor when he was younger and was later admitted to the ministry”.16 After his primary education, Oomius was sent off again, this time to learn languages. This he did with Petrus Magerus, of whom Oomius was also very praiseworthy. Not much is known about Magerus, but he was in close association with Johannes Cloppenburg (1592-1652), who was “known as a sympathizer of Gomarus, a friend of Voetius (…), a combatant against the Remonstrants, Socinians, and papists, a convenant theologian, and a colleague of Cocceius”.17 Here we can possibly see the first traces of Oomius’ association with Voetius and Coccejus, to whom we will return later, and with Christian polemics. In any case, it was Magerus who taught Oomius Greek and Latin, and the beginnings of Hebrew.
In 1647, Oomius enrolled in the University of Leiden, where he first studied philosophy under Adriaan Heereboord (1614-1661). After this he continued with theology, while, at the same time, he was taught Hebrew and Chaldean by the orientalist Constantinus l’Empereur. In addition to this Oomius stated to have followed the lectures on Islam of Jacobus Golius, professor of Arabic in Leiden at the time. From 1649 onwards, Oomius was an official student at the University of Utrecht as well, where he also studied philosophy and theology. He highly praised his instructors in the latter field, writing that “(…) words cannot express what he feels about (…) Gisbertus Voetius, Carolus Dematius and Johannes Hoornbeeck”.18 In 1652, Oomius finally became a candidate for ministry, and in 1653 he was called to Purmerland to fulfill his office. In 1677 he received another call, this time to Kampen, where he began service in 1678 and remained pastor until his death in 1706. Throughout his ministry, Oomius is said to have stressed the importance of uncorrupted doctrine, as well as an honorable life.19
Academic background: challenged Orthodoxy
What is striking about Oomius’ academic background, is its variety of influences. Especially with regard to the field of philosophy, the universities of Leiden and Utrecht offered two very different academic climates. In one of his writings, Oomius calls Adriaan Heereboord, his philosophy teacher at the University of Leiden, his “friend and master”.20 As both Heereboord and the University of Leiden have often been associated with the rise of Cartesianism in the Dutch Republic, one might expect at least some Cartesian influences in Oomius’ thought.21 At the same time, one of Oomius’ highly appreciated teachers in Utrecht was Gisbertus Voetius, who was a
16 G. Schuringa, Embracing Leer and Leven, 27. 17 Ibid., 28.
18 Ibid., 30. 19 Ibid., 30. 20 Ibid., 30.
21 On Heereboord, see: F. L. R. Sassen, ‘Adriaan Heereboord (1614-1661). De opkomst van het Cartesianisme te Leiden’, Algemeen Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte en Psychologie 36 (1942) 12-22; H. de Dijn, ‘Adriaan Heereboord en het Nederlands Cartesianisme’, Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift
notorious opponent of Cartesianism. A dispute between Voetius and Descartes himself eventually had even led to an official ban on the teaching of Cartesian philosophy at the University of Utrecht in 1643.22 Finally, Oomius graduated as a doctor in theology at the Academy of Harderwijk in 1674 under the supervision of Samuel van Diest, who in turn was a moderate Cocceian – a follower of the liberal Reformed Johannes Coccejus.
Oomius began his academic career in the heydays of Renaissance humanism, in the time of what could be called the early Dutch Enlightenment. On the one hand, universities were still highly dominated by the Aristotelian philosophy, which – under the influence of medieval scholasticism – had for a long time been closely connected with and accommodated to Christian theology in the form of scholasticism.23 Scholastic studies were based on the use of ‘logic’, supported by a limited corpus of ‘traditional’ texts and authorities. In the sixteenth century, however, important changes had taken place within the European culture of learning, with the emergence of humanism. This intellectual movement devoted itself to the translation and study of texts from classical antiquity, which had become more readily available after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. As a result of this new influx of knowledge about ancient Greek philosophy, people adopted a more critical attitude towards the Aristotelian philosophy, and came to recognize the errors and misunderstandings which had been caused by its mixing with Christian theology. This realization allowed philosophy to develop in a direction more independent from Aristotelianism and – consequently – Christian theology. At the same time, the fact that traditional views were now also challenged from the field of philosophy created a certain anxiety, especially among the different confessions that were caught in a struggle to consolidate their position in the aftermath of the Reformation. These sentiments led to tensions within the different churches, and between the churches and the academic world, caused by the new forms of knowledge.24
One of Oomius’ most influential teachers, as mentioned above, was Adriaan Heereboord, who was a professor in philosophy at the University of Leiden from 1641 until 1661. Heereboord has been described as one of the most important proponents of Dutch liberal scholasticism. He was highly influential in the spread of Cartesian thought and even played a role in the development of Spinoza’s philosophy.25 Heereboord lamented the fact that philosophy was still largely dominated by the scholastics, regardless of new insights that had been created by
22 On this dispute, see: K. van Berkel, ‘Descartes in debat met Voetius. De mislukte introductie van het Cartesianisme aan de Utrechtse universiteit (1639-1645), Tijdschrift voor de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde,
Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Techniek, 7:1 (1984).
23 E. Petersen, Descartes vs. Voetius. De essentie van het conflict tussen Descartes’ filosofie en Voetius’
theologie en zijn betekenis in het licht van de Wetenschappelijke Revolutie (Utrecht, 2013), 6.
24 F. Cohen, De herschepping van de wereld, Het ontstaan van de moderne natuurwetenschap verklaard (Amsterdam 2008), 172-176.
25 H. van Dijn, “Adriaan Heereboord en het Nederlands Cartesianisme”, Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift
Renaissance humanism. At the same time, he was not completely dismissive of Aristotelianism. However, people should not endeavor to just ‘understand Aristotle’, but rather to ‘understand Nature’. In order to do so, one should not solely rely on Aristotelianism, but supplement this with other ‘old’ and ‘new’ philosophers. In this respect Aristotle should not be followed as an authority, but as an example of a rational philosopher.26 What Heereboord was thus aiming at was a synthesis between newly developed philosophies and the ‘Christianized’ form of Aristotelianism, as a part of traditional scholasticism. One of Heereboord’s problems with the scholastics, was that they ‘confused philosophy with theology’ and by doing so undermined the latter. Instead, he argued for the autonomy of philosophy. This did not mean that philosophy could not be useful to other disciplines. Knowledge of metaphysics, for example, could be highly important in theological controversies with Catholics, Socinians, Remonstrant, Lutherans, etc.. At the same time, one should not lose sight of the importance of the study of metaphysics ‘for its own sake’.27 Heereboord’s views testify to the changing ideas about different forms of knowledge, and the study of subjects in their own terms.
In his views on philosophy, Heereboord showed a special appreciation for the controversial ideas of Descartes, which he passionately defended.28 This put him in direct opposition to one of Oomius’ other teachers, the theologian Gisbertus Voetius, who was a notorious opponent of Descartes in Utrecht. Since 1628, René Descartes had been working and writing in the Dutch Republic, where he eventually published his Discours de la Méthode in 1637. In his philosophy, Descartes assigned a major rule to human reasoning. For Voetius, however, reason itself was too independent to be a proper source of knowledge. Moreover, the theologian argued, Descartes’ emphasis on free reasoning would affect the authority of the Bible.29 Indeed, Descartes refuted the idea of the Holy Scriptures as a source of scientific knowledge. Voetius was not only a Reformed orthodox theologian, but also a highly orthodox scholastic scholar, whose goal it was to bring everything – and not just theology – under ‘the rule of the king of sciences’.30 As T. Brienen argues in Theologische aspecten van de Nadere Reformatie, Voetius discussed even the most sensitive topics through the scholastic method, making his lectures and writings somewhat dry and artificial.31 Voetius’ great attachment to scholasticism made it impossible for him to allow the use of any other philosophy at the University of Utrecht, also in fields other than theology. Eventually, this led to an official dispute between the theologian and Descartes, in which the magistrate of Utrecht chose the side of Voetius. On September 23, 1643, Descartes’
26 H. de Dijn, “Adriaan Heereboord”, 61. 27 Ibid., 60.
28 For an account of Heereboord’s role in the teaching of Cartesianism in Leiden, see: F. L. R. Sassen, “Adriaan Heereboord (1614-1661). De opkomst van het Cartesianisme te Leiden”, Algemeen Nederlandsch
Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte en Psychologie 36 (1942) 12-22.
29 J.D. Snel, ‘Cartesianisme’, in G. Harinck e.a. (red.), Christelijke Encyclopedie (Kampen 2005). 30 T. Brienen, Theologische Aspecten van de Nadere Reformatie (Zoetermeer 1993) 16. 31 T. Brienen, “Introduction”. Theologische Aspecten.
actions against Voetius were officially condemned. Moreover, new academic statutes were adopted, which explicitly stated that only the Aristotelian philosophy could be taught. Cartesianism was officially banned from the university, and even the mentioning of the philosopher’s name became prohibited.32
Religious background: the Reformed Church and ‘Nadere Reformatie’
The academic climate and Voetius’ strong attachment to scholasticism should not be understood independently from the religious climate within the Dutch Republic. The Dutch Reformed Church had developed in the 1570s during the Protestant Reformation, as a movement separate from Lutheranism. The Reformed religion was characterized by a strong academic emphasis, having largely developed out of the sciences that studied the Holy Scriptures. As a result, two of the main characteristics of the Reformed religion were its focus on exegesis and its dogmatic provision, with a large role for logic in the explanation of the Scriptures.33 At the same time, the Reformed Church was highly orthodox in its teachings, that had to play a central role in bringing and keeping the religious community together within an orthodox church structure. Important in the move towards profound orthodoxy was the Synod of Dort that was held from November 1618 to May 1619. At the synod, leaders of the Reformed Church of the Dutch Republic assembled to lay out the official Reformed doctrine and end all existing conflicts. The most important of these conflicts was that between Remonstrants, followers of the theologian Jacobus Arminius, and Contra-Remonstrants, the former of which rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. The synod meant a victory for the Contra-Remonstrants: it ended with the condemnation of the Remonstrants and the composition of the ‘canons of Dort’, containing the orthodox – Calvinist – doctrine founded upon the classical scholastic method. Moreover, the Calvinist leaders decided to fight the publication and circulation of ‘heretic’ texts that would challenge the orthodoxy at it was now established.
At the same time, the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic was known for its tolerance and religious plurality. Though it has been debated what the underlying motives of religious tolerance were, and whether this was truly a Dutch characteristic, it can at least be stated that the idea of tolerance emerged in the sixteenth century, when it was employed during the resistance against the Spanish authorities.34 The intended introduction of the Inquisition, the resistance argued, would violate the ‘old privilege’ of freedom of conscience by suppressing
32 For more information on the dispute, see: K. van Berkel, ‘Descartes in debat met Voetius. De mislukte introductie van het cartesianisme aan de Utrechtse universiteit (1639-1645), Tijdschrift voor de
Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde, Natuurwetenschappen, Wiskunde en Techniek, 1984, Vol.7(1).
33 T. Brienen, Theologische Aspecten, 11-12.
34 For more information on the discussion about ‘Dutch tolerance’, see: J. B. Kaplan, “‘Dutch’ religious tolerance: celebration and revision”. R. Po-Chia Hsia and H. van Nierop [ed.], Calvinism and Religious
Protestantism and imposing Tridentine orthodoxy. This perspective met with opposition from both recently converted Protestants – Calvinist, Lutheran and Mennonite – and traditional Catholic believers. When the independent Dutch Republic was established in 1581, with Reformed Protestantism as its official faith, it continued to embrace the principle of freedom of conscience, thus creating a climate of religious tolerance that was unprecedented in Europe at the time.35 Not only did different Dutch religious communities live side by side, the country also became an appealing haven for religious refugees from other European countries. The result was a diverse climate, continuing throughout the seventeenth century, in which both orthodox and unorthodox thinkers from different backgrounds could exchange their religious ideas in relative freedom.
Within the context of religious pluralism, it seems to have been of ever more importance for the Dutch Reformed Church to clearly lay out its teachings, and to achieve unity within its own congregation based on these teachings. Indeed, it was in this context that the movement of Nadere Reformatie developed, with Voetius as one of its prime proponents. More than just focusing on the right teachings and doctrines, it also focused on the right life. It aimed at the extension of the guiding Biblical principles in the family, society and the church, and eventually in politics and the state. For this reason, many of the most important representatives of the Nadere Reformatie were preachers, whose sermons and activities emphasized the importance of a spiritual and pious life of the individual, in the interest of the common welfare of the congregation.
In comparison to the Reformed orthodoxy, the movement of Nadere Reformatie was both more spiritual and more practical in its nature. Where the Reformation had mainly meant a renewal with respect to the Christian teachings, proponents of the Nadere Reformatie provided both the church and society with a program to continue this reformation. For this reason, the movement is often appreciated as “a rich movement of piety which included a strong desire for a practical outworking of the faith in the believer’s personal life, home, church, and even in all of society”.36 However, Gregory Schuringa has shown that this is a too narrow view, that tends to juxtapose scholasticism and piety. In reality, the focus on piety and the practical working of orthodox teachings did not mean an exclusion of academics, or more specifically, scholasticism. Voetius, for example, was a strong exponent of the scholastic Reformed orthodox tradition, often engaging in polemical religious disputations to explain and defend the orthodox doctrine.37 At the same time, he showed a great concern for practical theology and the spiritual development of
35 L. Hunt, M.C. Jacob and W. Mijnhardt, The Book that Changed Europe. Picart & Bernard’s Religious
Ceremonies of the World (Harvard 2010) 11-14.
36 G. Schuringa, “Orthodoxy, scholasticism and piety”, 643. 37 T. Brienen, Theologische Aspecten, 16.
his students. Throughout his career he sought for the conjunction of ‘scientia’ and ‘pietas’, with practical theology flowing out of scholastic orthodoxy.38
Oomius’ works
The same concerns can be distinguished in Oomius’ numerous works, which has led Gregory Schuringa to place the minister firmly within the movement of Nadere Reformatie. On the one hand, Oomius received firm Reformed scholastic training at the University of Utrecht, with both the scholastic Voetius and the polemicist Hoornbeeck. This academic background especially reflects in Oomius’ polemical writings, which are a typical product of Reformed orthodox disputations. At the same time, his works are characterized by great piety and a strong practical-theological drive. In his sermons and writings, Oomius concentrated on practical-theological subjects which were of relevance to the congregation, and articulated a clear theocratic ideal. Not only did the minister show great concern with the family – which he considered to be a ‘small church’ – and the congregation, he was also engaged with the spiritual and social welfare of the Dutch nation as a whole. Civic order and salvation, he argued, would be accomplished through the widespread adoption of Reformed ‘practia pietatis’ within a Reformed church that ruled over both doctrine and daily life. Contrary to what has often been written about the Nadere Reformatie, Oomius did not seem to react against Reformed orthodoxy. Rather, as Schuringa also argues, Reformed scholasticism, orthodoxy and Nadere Reformatie piety existed side by side.39
Looking at the corpus of Oomius’ writings, his scholastic background shows primarily in his early works. During his time as a student – between 1647 and 1655 – he wrote and published several theological disputations, all written in Latin. From 1655 onwards, Oomius appears to have completely abandoned the Latin language, rather choosing to publish in Dutch. Until 1662, his works mainly seem to discuss issues relating to salvation and piety, such as the family as a small church, the sinfulness of suicide, doing penance, and the importance of being content with the present and live accordingly. They all seem to be practical guides, offering the congregation guidance in how to live a pious life. The prime focus is on the individual believer and everyday life, which fits in well with Oomius’ function as a minister, and his affiliation with the movement of Nadere Reformatie. From 1662, Oomius’ publications show an increasing concern with contemporary political and religious developments, and the welfare of the whole Dutch nation. In several works, he warns against the dangers of blasphemous thoughts, and the disunity within the Christian church. Another increasingly recurring theme is that of warfare. As a consequence, his works become of a more polemical nature, with the author agitating against non-Reformed religions in his propagation of salvation through Reformed faith.
38 T. Brienen, Theologische Aspecten, 22.
It was in this period, in 1663, that Oomius published his Het geopende Turckdom. It stands out among the rest of his works, being the only one that deals with a non-Christian religion. At first sight, it could be argued that Oomius’ publication reflects an increasing feeling of anxiety over the Islamic threat. In the years prior to 1663, tensions had been building up between the Ottoman Empire and the Christian powers in eastern and middle Europe, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Austro-Turkish War (1663-1664). While the Dutch Republic was physically far removed from the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic world was posing a real threat to European Christianity. However, Oomius must have started writing his nearly one-thousand page book before the start of the war. Moreover, the military confrontation between the Turks and the Catholic Habsburgs might have been a welcome event for Protestant Europe, which was still facing Catholic challenges after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. It suggests that Oomius’ work about Islam was more than just a polemical, anti-Islamic reflection on the contemporary confrontation between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. This idea is further supported by the fact that Het geopende Turckdom is the only work from Oomius’ large legacy that focuses on a non-Christian religion or region. True to the spirit of Reformed orthodoxy and Nadere Reformatie, all Oomius’ other works are about issues and affairs that are of immediate relevance to the faith of the own congregation or the welfare of the Dutch nation within an internally divided Christian landscape. It is to this question of how to characterize and interpret Oomius’ publication of Islam that we shall turn in the following chapters.
2. Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom
Het geopende Turckdom was published in 1663 by the Amsterdam publisher Willem van Beaumont. At the time, Oomius could profit from a favorable intellectual environment, both with regard to the availability of his sources and the publication of his own work. In the seventeenth century, the Republic was the publishing center of Europe. Due to its blossoming trade, the country had a well-developed capital market, providing the required investments for publishers. Moreover, the technical necessities – such as paper and type founders – were readily available across the country, and especially in Amsterdam. A growing, wealthy middle class contributed to an increasing demand for books, thus providing the market. As a result, more books were published in the Republic than in any other European country, and due to the centrality of the Republic these books could also find a distribution market outside its borders.40 The Dutch Republic was relatively free of censorship, so also foreign books that were (or would potentially be) considered offensive or inappropriate by worldly or religious institutions in other countries often found their way to Dutch publishing houses.
Though Amsterdam was known as Europe’s publishing center, the fact that Oomius’ work was published there is slightly remarkable. At the time, the minister was located in Kampen, a city close Deventer where the publishing business was quite blossoming. It would seem that Deventer offered all the needed means for the publication of Oomius’ work, which did not contain any rare scripts or fonts. The reason why Oomius had his work published in Amsterdam, rather than in Deventer, might well have been pure necessity. The liberal, tolerant climate of the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic in no way implied that there were no religious conflicts, nor did it mean that there were absolutely no restrictions in the field of publishing. In fact, the Synod of Dort had officially condemned the publication and distribution of all texts that could threaten the Reformed orthodoxy. In Deventer, the ongoing conflicts between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants had induced the authorities to issue a ban on the writing and publishing about theological matters in 1616.
Measures of censorship were primarily a local affair, developing out of an interplay between secular and religious authorities. From the start of the Reformation, with the most famous example being Luther’s theses, the press had played an important role in occasions of social, religious unrest. In the early seventeenth-century Dutch Republic, this was exemplified by the heated conflicts between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants. International affairs, too, such as shifting political alliances in wars, stimulated the publication of books, pamphlets, manifestos, songs and satirical poems. The press proved to be a successful means by which to
40 I. Weekhout, Boekencensuur in de Noordelijke Nederlanden. De vrijheid van drukpers in de zeventiende
both express and influence social sentiments. When these sentiments became too heated, threatening the public order, local governments could decide to intervene by issuing decrees of censorship.
Another possible reason for Oomius to divert to the Republic’s capital to have his work published, might have been the commercial opportunities that the Amsterdam’s book market offered. However, there is little that can be said with certainty about the popularity and scope of Oomius’ work, and about the public it reached within the Dutch Republic. The international database WorldCat shows that eight surviving copies of Het geopende Turckdom can be found in libraries in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and even as far as the United States. WorldCat also indicates that an English translation of the work was made, which was published in the same year as the Dutch original. The only known, still-existing copy of this translation can be found in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. The distribution of the work even across the Dutch borders, possibly taken abroad by Dutch travelers or merchants, suggests that it enjoyed at least a certain degree of popularity, maybe especially among the seafaring part of the nation.
Structure and content
Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom consists of almost one-thousand pages and contains eight chapters, all focusing on another element of the Islamic religion, referred to by Oomius as ‘Muhammedisdom’ or ‘Turckdom’. The name Muhammedisdom was often used by Christians, either to express the idea that the religion was made up by the Prophet Muhammad, or caused by a misunderstanding of Muhammad’s status within Islam. Referring to Islam as the ‘religion of the Turks’ was also common in Christian Europe, even though the religion originated in Arabia. In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the Ottoman Turks occupied most of the Arab regions, which may have caused the Arabs to become synonymous with the Turks. Another reason to refer to Islam as ‘Turckdom’ might have been the continuous confrontation with the Ottoman Empire in Europe, both militarily and politically and commercially, which made the Ottoman Empire the main source of knowledge about Islam. In any case, Oomius did not use the name ‘Turckdom’ to make a distinction between the religion of the Turks and those of the Arabs. In fact, at some points he explicitly refers to this ‘Turckdom’ as being the religion of the Arabs. The only distinction he makes in his description of Islam is between the Turks and the Persians, whose religion he seems to understand as an Islamic ‘sect’. For this reason, we may assume that the names ‘Muhammedisdom’ or ‘Turckdom’ for Oomius referred to Islamic orthodoxy as he understood it.
The first two chapters, or ‘sections’ [‘afdeelingen’], of Het geopende Turckdom discuss the emergence of Islam and are thus of a more ‘historical’ nature. In chapter one, Oomius discusses the birth, life and works of the Prophet Muhammad. This is followed by a description of
“Muhammad’s first heirs, the Muhammedan schisms or sects, and special names” in chapter two.41 In the next two chapters, Oomius makes a distinction between what he calls the Islamic ‘teachings and articles of faith’, which are discussed in chapter four, and the Muhammedan ‘religion’ (rituals and practices), which is discussed in chapter five. After this, the focus shifts to issues that are of importance to those who are in direct contact with the Islamic world. Chapter six discusses the conversion of the Muslims, and the means that should be employed to this end. In chapter seven, called “Schijndeugden, treffelijke sententien en zinrijke bijspreuken” – roughly translated: “apparent virtues, excellent maxims and meaningful sayings -, Oomius warns the reader for those elements of Islam that might seem appealing, and therefore could potentially tempt people to convert. In the last and final chapter, the issue of slavery is brought up. Oomius discusses the fate of Christian slaves in the Islamic territories, to whom he tries to offer spiritual support, and calls for their liberation.
Motives and Justification
In his introduction, Oomius justifies what he calls the ‘policy’ and ‘high necessity’ of his work. After having listed a great number of authors who have written about Islam throughout history, he continues by stating that, among them, there are only few or maybe even none, who have written about, and elaborated on, those things that are believed about the ‘Muhammedans’, and those things that actually ‘exist among them in practice’. In other words, little or no attention has yet been paid to the existence of incorrect knowledge about Islam. Therefore, Oomius says, it is hard to judge to what extent existing works about the religion are ‘ornamented and filled with fables’. The author does not question the fact that these lies or false beliefs exist, just as he says they exist about his own religion.42 He is especially suspicious of travel literature, mainly because their authors usually claim to have seen everything with their own eyes, and learned from their own experience, and thus ought to be the most reliable sources. However, Oomius points out, if travelers see certain things in Turkey, or witness something from an ‘unpracticed’ Muslim, they could immediately take it to be true for Islamic teachings and practices in general, without doing any further research. As authors they would often not even be capable of performing such research, since they lack the knowledge and erudition.
While false information could less easily mislead the learned reader, Oomius continues, it is also from works like these that the ‘common people’ get their knowledge about foreign peoples and religions. Among them, the fabulous travel accounts are the most popular. These are made even more appealing by the addition of images, which further reproduce the ‘fables’ told by the authors. In this way, false information about the Islamic religion is even spread among the
41 S. Oomius, Het geopende Turckdom,title page.
42 Oomius uses the word ‘ons’, which makes it hard to determine whether he refers to his own Calvinist religion, or to Christianity in general.
illiterate. “Our fellow countrymen are being deceived by this fraud”, Oomius laments, “and they remain ignorant of the true affairs of the Muhammedans”. Witnessing this, he says he often wished that there would be someone who would correctly write about the ‘Muhammedans’, based on their own – i.e. the Muslims’ – works and those of scholars.43 Oomius further justifies his work by pointing out that important Protestant leaders, like Luther and Melanchthon, had earlier expressed the same wish. This does not just add a religious, but also a specifically Reformed element to Oomius’ project. Seeing that no-one in the Dutch Republic employed himself to the task, with everyone being ‘too busy’ repeating the words of others, Oomius took it upon himself, as he claims, to be ‘of service to the fatherland’.
But how, then, did the theologian think that knowledge about the Islamic religion would benefit his country and fellow-countrymen? Oomius seems to have already anticipated this question himself. He admits that there might be those among his readers, who may think he has wasted his time on writing his extensive work. However, Oomius argues that, considering the ‘poor and depraved state’ in which religion currently is, theologians should not only write about what is right, but also about what is wrong. They should write about both the ‘institutions of God’ and the ‘adornments of the Devil’, about Christ and the Antichrist, from righteous teachings to the ‘main heretic’s profane and idle opinions’, about both true and false religion, about virtues and vices and about the good and the bad peoples.44 As an early example of this, Oomius refers to the sermons of the prophets and the writing of the apostles, that he says contain more about the alien and godless religions than about the true and righteous service of God. In doing so, they not only refer to current religions, but also ‘repeat’ the past and warn for the future. In this way, Oomius ‘historically’ justifies his own project by referring to the Bible.
What should be remembered, Oomius argues, is that the Arabs formerly did have the most blossoming and celebrated church of Jesus Christ. In this respect he agrees with Theodor Bibliander, who argued that the life and teachings of Muhammad were an integral part of Church History and thus should be correctly represented and explained. They showed how – by what teachings and with what kind of reasoning – so many Christians had successfully been lured away from the ‘Common Church’ [‘Algemeyne Kercke’], and turned into the most bitter enemies and prosecutors of the Christians.45 To those who say that the Islamic writings contain more bad than good things, Oomius replies that Divine History [‘Goddelicke Historie’] is not in any way just about the ‘good’. As it combines the divine with the worldly/human, it does not only tell about
43 “Als ick aenmerckte hoe door dit bedrogh onse Landts-Lieden wierden verleyt, en gehouden in onkunde van de rechte gheleghentheydt der Muhammedaensche Leere en Religie; so hebb’ ick menighmael ghewenscht, dat’ er yemandt mochte zijn, die ons uyt der eygen Muhammedanen Schriften, en Boecken van andere Geleerden, recht onderwees (…)” S. Oomius, Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of
Turckdom (Amsterdam 1663) paragraph 5.
44 S. Oomius, Het geopende en wederleyde Muhammedisdom of Turckdom (Amsterdam 1663) paragraph 8. 45 Ibid., paragraph 8.
godliness, but also about superstition, godless people, tyrants and murderers. To ignore these facts would mean to “wipe out a large part of the Holy Scriptures, and to bring violence to God’s words and to rebuke and condemn the advice of Godly wisdom. Because God, who does not want injustice, and whose will is our salvation, did not give his people such a story to have them learn or do those foul and godless things, but so that the people would be warned and were taught to wait and abominate.”46
Following this logic, denying the importance of the study of Islam would more or less be an act of irreligion. Moreover, ‘seen in the light of the Godly Truth’, the falsities of Islam would be self-evident. Oomius argues that this is the reason why Muhammad presumably did not want his followers to engage in any public disputes, or to thoroughly study his teachings. Also for this reason, Muslims would keep their books, especially the Quran, hidden from people who hold different beliefs. Here, Oomius not only seems to criticize the Islamic religious teachings, but also their blind following by Muslims, who – apparently – did never study the words of Muhammad, but rather took them for granted. Indeed, if they were to be studied, it would show that Muhammad had acquired all his teachings from heretic traditions that existed from Christ’s ascension up unto his own time. Therefore, Oomius classifies Muhammad as a ‘main heretic’ [‘Hooft ketter’], and his religion as a heresy. In his work, he announces, he will not only point out the heresies within Islam, but will also refute them, ‘like poison is fought with an antidote’.47 In doing so, he would help those who have ‘fallen’, with the help of God. So, here we see two motives: the warning of the straying Christian community at home, by showing them where ‘evil’ was located, and the conversion, or ‘rehabilitation’, of the Islamic heretics. What is also apparent, is Oomius’ conviction that an accurate account of false beliefs would ‘logically’ or ‘rationally’ lead people to the right faith.
Oomius continues: “There are those who lightly blame others of the ‘Muhammedan’ errors; and others who praise the Turkish teachings and religion, to such an extent that some of them have – without any problem – taken and acknowledged the Turks as their brothers”.48 As an example of the first, he describes a quarrel within Protestantism about the Last Supper that became so heated, that the involved communities started to see each other as Turks and ‘Muhammedans’. In other words: the lack of true knowledge about Islam caused rivaling Protestants to wrongly accuse each other of being Muslims. According to Oomius this practice
46 “(…) uytwisschen een groot ghedeelte der heylighe Schriften, om Godts Woordt geweldt aen te doen, en om te berispen de veroordeelen den raedt der Goddelicke Wijsheydt. Want Godt, die de ongherechtigheydt niet en wil, en welckers wille is onse heylighmakinge, en heeft sijn volck niet gegeven sulcken verhael, niet om die vuyle en godtloose dingen te leeren of te doen, maer op dat de menschen, gewaerschouwt zijnde, die souden leeren wachten, en verfoeyen.” S. Oomius, Het geopende Turckdom, paragraph 9, **4.
47 Ibid., paragraph 10.
48 “Hier by kom, dat d’een den anderen soo lichtelick de Muhammedaensche dwalingen te laste leght; en dat andere de Turksche leere en religie prijsen, in soo verre dat ‘er zijn die geen swarigheydt gemaeckt en hebben om de Turken voor haer Broeders aen te nemen, en te erkennen”. S. Oomius, Het geopende
was already lamented by Melanchthon. He goes on to describe how especially his own – Calvinist – community had fallen victim to such accusations. Among the Lutherans there was Zacheus Faber, who had wanted to prove that Calvinism was not only worse than Catholicism, but also than paganism, Islam, and even the Devil himself. Then there was Mathias Hoë, who had described Calvinism as the ‘Eastern Antichrist’, “like our [Calvinist] teachings and religion had any similarities or affinities with that of Muhammad, who is also called the Eastern Antichrist”.49 Yet the religious community ignores these accusations, Oomius says, because they have been common practice ever since Luther.
Oomius implicitly expresses his worries about the spread of false knowledge about Islam among the ‘common people’, through conflicts like these. He describes how the Remonstrants rejected the ‘right teachings’ – which we can assume to be the Calvinist religion – as Devilish, and likened them to the Islamic teachings. One of the means by which they did this was through ‘scenes’ [‘taferelen’], which were printed and spread within the community. Oomius was clearly worried about the effects this could have: the spread of a wrong image of Islam, comparing it to Calvinism could lead Calvinists to doubt and maybe even leave their faith. One of the published scenes apparently had been burned by sentence in Arnhem. However, Oomius laments the fact that the one who spread them was never found and thus escaped his ‘rightful punishment’. The passage clearly articulates Oomius’ anxiety about the public comparisons between Islam and Calvinism, not only within learned circles, but also among the ‘common people’ and even the illiterate.
The accusation of Protestant denominations to be similar to Islam seems to have been even more problematic for Oomius when uttered by Catholics, who, he says, are ‘slanderers by nature’. To defend ourselves against these slanders, Oomius goes on to argue, it is necessary to have a better knowledge of the ‘Muhammedan’ affairs, teachings and religion. In fact, the author is convinced that a rightful description of Islam would self-evidently show that Catholicism has more in common with that religion than Protestantism, insofar as they both strive against Christ and his gospels. It is for this reason, the author announces, that every chapter of his work will end with a ‘short, but powerful’ comparison of the two religions, following the same method and logic as those of the Catholic writers. Oomius mentions some authors who have set out to do the same thing, among whom Sutlivius, who wrote a refutation of the works of Reginaldus and Giffordus and the Jesuit arguments, and Johan Ulrich Walligh, who wrote a Latin comparison of the ‘Eastern and Western Antichrist’ (being Muhammad and the Pope). Walligh’s work had presumably been published in a Dutch translation, in which the translator claimed the work was based on authentic Islamic sources. Oomius, however, seems to question this: Especially the
49 “of onse heylige leere en religie eenige over-een-kominghe en verwantschap hadt met die van Muhammad, die den Oosterschen Antichrist wort genaamd”. S. Oomius, Het geopende Turckdom, paragraph 12.
description that Walligh gives of the Turkish religion and Muhammad, he claims, is very similar to the ones that can be found in travel accounts. The objections articulated by Oomius show that, even (or maybe especially) when compared with Catholicism, he was convinced that Islam should be described in an ‘authentic’ way.
After having justified his comparison of Islam with Catholicism, Oomius shifts his focus to ‘those who don’t see too much harm in the religion of the Turks’ and who place the Islamic religion among the various Christian ones,50 whether or not for political reasons. With astonishment Oomius quotes Sebastianus Franck, who stated that, to him, “a papist, a Lutheran, a Zwinglian, an Anabaptist, yes also a Turck” was a good brother, as long as he tolerated him in an equal manner.51 Oomius expresses his fear that sentiments like these were also common among the Dutch. The only right way to resolve this, would be to convince ‘those deceived and blind’ men of the many horrors of the Islamic religion.
To yet another category belong those who, in Oomius’ words, ‘hide under the Christian name’, but do in fact not believe in God, Christ and the teachings of Christianity any more than the Turks do.52 Among these he groups the Socinians, for example, who are called ‘half Turks’ by Protestants and Catholics alike. Oomius is convinced that a work like his would show that such judgments are anything but too harsh. He argues that even the Turks themselves recognize the similarities between them and the Socinians, and that they would have no objections to accept them into their own religious community if they would only have themselves circumcised. The aim of this passage is not only to refute Socinianism, but to create awareness of its similarities to Islam. To those who doubt our judgments, Oomius says, we show their validity with the help of the Turks’ own words and teachings. As a justification for using the Quranic teachings to distinguish parallels between Islam and Christian heresies, Oomius says that he merely “use[s] the words and works of ‘aliens’ to call the Christians towards their real duty, just like the prophets, apostles and even Jesus himself did when they were addressing the Jews and the Christians”.53
False images of the ‘Muhammedan’ religion, Oomius argues, also have an impact on worldly affairs within Christian Europe, and the military confrontation with the Turkish empire. He describes how the Pope is trying to form a league with the Christian potentates, in order to fight the Turks with a united Christian front. However, the author suspects that the Pope’s real
50 “Daer zijnder voorts noch andere, die soo veel leedt niet en sien, in de religie der Turcken, of sy meynen dat die noch wel behoorde toegelaten te worden van de Christenen, en dat de menschen noch in die wel konden saligh worden”. S. Oomius, Het geopende Turckdom, paragraph 16.
51 “My is een Papist, Lutheraen, Swingliaen, Weederdooper, jaa oock Turck een goeden broeder, als hy my maer verdraeght”. Ibid., paragraph 16.
52 Ibid., paragraph 17.
53 “In desen hebben wu het exempel der Propheten, Apostelen, ja van onsen Salighmaker selve gevolgt, die de woorden en wercken van de vreemdelingen ter gelegener tijdt gebruyckt hebben, om de Ioden of
aim is to ‘distract’ the Princes: when they have left for war, the Catholics will seize the opportunity to steal all lands, rights and privileges. While needless to say this is an undesirable scenario, Oomius does declare it necessary for the potentates to unite against the Turks. “Rather than regularly stabbing each other with their swords”, they should “lead their hands and hearts together, to resist and expel the all-occupying power of the Turks”.54 He also blames the Spanish king for having spent his time and energy on persecuting the Dutch, rather than on fighting the ‘enemies of Christianity’. At the same time Oomius laments the fact that some potentates had earlier chosen to form alliances with the Turks to fight fellow-Christians. How the author thinks the potentates should proceed to form this union without any religious implications does not become clear.
In the next paragraph, Oomius turns to his final issue, namely that of slavery. Learning about the Turkish ‘atrocious teachings’ and ‘foolish religion’, would also inform the reader about the miserable state of those Christians who suffer under Turkish slavery. Since the Turks seize most of their slaves at sea, Oomius argues that, for a long time, he has been convinced of the need of a text about Islam in service of the ‘seafaring companions’ [‘varende Gesellen’].55 Not only would such knowledge make them more capable to resist the Islamic religion, but it would also equip them to strengthen others in their Christian faith. It would enable them to see the falsities of Islam, and to distinguish by what reasons and arguments the Turks tried to fight Christianity. Finally, Oomius also shows a worldly concern with the issue of slavery. He ends his paragraph with an appeal to the Christian political leaders to free their fellow Christians from slavery. A new approach to Islam
The aim of Oomius’ work, as stated by the author himself, was to offer the reader an authentic description of Islam, based on its own sources or on the works of scholars. In his justification of this project, Oomius mentions a variety of ways in which a better understanding of Islam would benefit the Dutch fatherland. In the first place, it would show where evil was located, both in history and in the present, and would thus serve as a warning to or a protection of the Dutch Reformed Church. In this sense, his work should be seen as a refutation of Islam from an apologetic stance. Moreover, Oomius expresses the hope that his description of good and evil would lead those who deviated from true Christianity – both Christians and non-Christians – to ‘naturally’ repent. Secondly, the work served as a justification of the Reformation. As Oomius states, the rise and spread of Islam – as a scourge of God – was a clear sign that Christianity had become divided and lost its true nature, and thus needed reform. In this sense, it was also a call for the Christians to reunite, by ‘returning’ to the true nature of Christianity in the form of the
54 S. Oomius, Het geopende Turckdom, paragraph 20. 55 Ibid., paragraph 18.
Reformed Church. Thirdly, better knowledge of Islam would end the fable of ‘Calvinoturcism’. It would show that Islam was in fact far removed from Calvinism; if anything, it was closer to Catholicism. Moreover, showing the evils of Islam would also stop the rapprochement of some Calvinists to the Muslim world. Fourthly, showing the true nature of Islam would be beneficial to Christians traveling to the Islamic world, and especially those who were captured and enslaved. On the one hand Oomius’ work would prevent them from converting to Islam, by revealing all Islam’s apparent seductions. On the other hand it would strengthen them in their own, Christian faith, in which they could also be of spiritual support to fellow Christians in the Islamic world.
What is interesting, is that Oomius consciously saw himself as a pioneer. As he explicitly states, he intended to be the first one to write a complete work about Islam – accessible to the wider public – in which prevalent misconceptions about the religion were refuted and Islam is presented on the basis of its own sources. In this sense, Oomius wanted to present Islam ‘in its own terms’, free from religious bias and prejudice. At the same time, when looking at Oomius’ motives for writing his work, Het geopende Turckdom appears to be firmly rooted in traditional religious polemics. This ambiguity suggests a change of thought around the second half of the seventeenth-century, which allowed for the development of a more objective, source-based approach to the religion, breaking with the Roman Catholic tradition of misrepresentation, that was at the same time still rooted in traditional religious views and motives.
The question, then, is how this change occurred, and what might have caused it. In order to determine this, the next few chapters will be an examination of the broader scope of seventeenth-century forms of knowledge about Islam. They will respectively cover the field of vernacular culture, which Oomius’ work was aimed at, the field of academic oriental studies, which the work was founded upon, and the field of theology, to which the author initially belonged. All chapters will examine the ways in which knowledge about Islam was constructed within these fields, and the sources of information it was based on. Moreover, they will look at the various contexts in which knowledge about Islam was produced. This will shed light on seventeenth-century currents and developments which might have influenced the approach that was adopted to the Islamic religion. Ultimately, this will enable us to contextualize and evaluate Oomius’ work, and try to explain why the author was on the one hand taking a remarkably academic approach to the Islamic sources, while on the other hand implementing a clearly religious agenda.
