Religious Policy of David IV the Builder towards the Muslim Community in Georgia

Abstract

The governance of famous Georgian king David the Builder stands out in many ways. The very name of
the King indicates the character and achievements of his reign. The era of David also refers to the Golden Age
of Georgian history. Then Georgia was not only united politically and economically strong, but also Georgian
culture developed significantly – architecture, painting, poetry and much more. Religious policy was also
very important in David's reign. In this regard, Ruis-Urbnisi council should be mentioned first, and the drastic
religious reform carried out in the country's dominant Church. However, in this paper I will discuss the policy
pursued by David towards non-Orthodox people, namely, Muslims.
Georgian Orthodox fundamentalists make every eVort to refute the facts confirmed by historical sources
regarding King David’s tolerant religious attitude with Muslims. The object of criticism of the mentioned
Georgian authors is mainly the religious component of these relations. The theme has never been examined
in theological terms.
In the opinion of so-called defenders of Orthodox faith, it was impossible for the King David (who was
canonized lately) to attend religious service in mosque and pray together with Muslims as long as such actions
contradict with church canons. The authors of such a view believe that the very act of canonization of a person
(including government ojcials or Kings) implies the knowledge of any Christian theological idea and all
canons of church law by a given person, as well as the strict observance of all religious rules and practices. The
Georgian Church knows saints who had a significant lack of knowledge in Christian theology and church law.
The King's religious apologists are convinced that such specific and very narrowly defined canons would
be very important to the country's political leader. Canons prohibiting prayer and communion with persons of
diVerent faiths were enacted primarily for ordinary Christians and not for leaders and those who were strong
in the faith. Even in the era when these laws were passed, the Church Fathers took a creative and free approach
to such restrictions. For example, St. John Climacus wrote: “As defined in the holy canons, let the weak not
sit at the same table with heretics. However, if those who are strong in the Lord are invited in good faith and
disposition by heretics, then they should go”. Thus, these canons had a quite relative rather than an absolute
meaning, in other words, they were not necessary for everyone.
The King attends the prayers of Muslims and listens to the Quran as the political leader. By doing so, the
King respects people of diVerent faiths living in his kingdom and their religious service. This is part of the way
of governing the Kingdom by a wise ruler: in a state of multinational and multi-confessional populations, it
was necessary to pursue a policy of tolerance, especially towards the powerful Muslim contingent in Georgia.
In general, it is uncertain why we should be convinced that King David, who was only a political leader and
not a religious figure, would be such a defender of Orthodox Christian faith as the religious apologists want
him to be? King David was canonized because of his political activities for the benefit of the country, which
also proved to be useful for the Church. King David was not a religious figure, and his thinking and actions
should not be viewed in the light of such strict theological criteria and narrowly defined religious discipline.