I admit religious history is not my forte. Can anyone help me verify the truth of the claims made in the passage below? CJ? Tuff? Anyone? Please do so, preferably in the comment section below. From a Catholic Archbishop in Denver:
Over the past few decades, studies have shown again and again that Americans tend to have a poor grasp of history. In fact, the scholar Christopher Lasch once wrote that Americans love nostalgia, because we see it as a form of entertainment. But we dislike real history, because real historical facts are inconvenient. Yesterday helps shape today. Real history places annoying obligations of truth on our present and future, and gets in the way of re-inventing ourselves.
As a result, quipped a teacher friend, “history is whatever we say it is, as long as we can get away with it.” I remembered her words recently as I read a news story. The story reported an Islamic leader as suggesting that it was European Christians, never Muslims, who tried to root out those who didn’t agree with them. Perhaps the reporter misunderstood the speaker. Perhaps the speaker made an honest mistake. Both Muslims and Christians have committed many sins against each other over the centuries. In the United States, we have an opportunity to overcome that difficult history and learn to live with each other in mutual acceptance. But respect can’t emerge from falsehood.
Catholics who do know history may remember the following: Islam has embraced armed military expansion for religious purposes since its earliest decades. In contrast, Christianity struggled in its divided attitudes toward military force and state power for its first 300 years. No “theology of Crusade” existed in Western Christian thought until the 11th century. In fact, the Christian Byzantine Empire had already been resisting Muslim expansion in the East for 400 years before Pope Urban II called the First Crusade as a defensive response to generations of armed jihad.
Much of the modern Middle East was once heavily Christian. Muslim armies changed that by imposing Islamic rule. Surviving Christian communities have endured centuries of marginalization, discrimination, violence, slavery and outright persecution not always and not everywhere; but as a constant, recurring and central theme of Muslim domination.
That same Christian suffering continues down to the present. In the early years of the 20th century, the Muslim Ottoman Empire murdered more than 1 million Armenian Christians for ethnic, economic, but also religious reasons. Many Turks and other Muslims continue to deny that massive crime even today. Coptic Christians in Egypt who, even after 13 centuries of Muslim prejudice and harassment, cling to the faith continue to experience systematic discrimination and violence at the hands of Islamic militants.
Harassment and violence against Christians continue in many places throughout the Islamic world, from Bangladesh, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan and Iraq, to Nigeria, Indonesia and even Muslim-dominated areas of the heavily Catholic Philippines. In Saudi Arabia, all public expressions of Christian faith are forbidden. The on-going Christian flight from Lebanon has helped to transform it, in just half a century, from a majority Christian Arab nation to a majority Muslim population.
These are facts. The Muslim-Christian conflict is a very long one, rooted in deep religious differences, and Muslims have their own long list of real and perceived grievances. But especially in an era of religiously inspired terrorism and war in the Middle East, peace is not served by ignoring, subverting or rewriting history, but rather by facing it humbly as it really happened and healing its wounds.
That requires honesty and repentance from both Christians and Muslims. Comments like those reported in the recent news story I read claiming that historically, it was European Christians, never Muslims, who tried to root out those who disagreed with them are both false and do nothing to help.
2 Comments:
By CJ Smith |
8/18/2006 7:52 PM Generally the Bishop's not off the mark, although a couple mistakes I think, or things that could have been expressed a little more clearly.
First though I appreciate that he said that both sides have sinned/erred and that the US is a place that the two communities can and do live together in relative peace.
The Bishop is certainly right that if some Islamic leader (whatever that means--a Muslim Jerry Falwell?) said that only Christians have tried to root out non-Christians that is certainly spouting nonsense.
What this figure may have been referring to is that during the Middle Ages, Islam generally had a much more tolerant-pluralistic stance towards others believers--particularly Jews and Christians--than did the Christian W.European Kingdoms. That pluralism by the way is rooted deeply in the Quran. Some parts of it at least.
Generally. Specific instances of violence by Muslims exist all over the map historically. But you would have much more wanted to be Jew living in Ottoman Empire than spanish Monarchy in the 15th century.
But it certainly wasn't really great; it wasn't like the US is today. Jews and Christians had to pay a special tax--essentially an extortion payment--for protection in Muslim lands. But that is better than the Spanish kingdom which expelled all Muslims and Jews who wouldn't convert.
We should also not forget how horrific the Crusades really were. Not just to Muslims, but to Jews (who were massacred in German towns along the way in 1096) as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians. The Latin Crusaders sacked Constantinople in the 4th Crusade and set up a Latin kingdom and tried to force them to accept the Pope for God's sakes. Not to mention the sack and raping of Jerusalem which when it had been conquered by the Muslims was spared pillage and was open for all 3 religions to practice freely.
It is also true that the Middle East has been much more largely Christian than we realize, even well into the 20th century. Muslims conquered the land, but often did not want to see the whole population convert. Remember they got taxes from Christians. You couldn't tax Muslims in the same way. So many Ottoman authorities did not wholeheartedly support mass conversion during the early modern period--bad for business.
It was actually the Sufis who started processes of trying to convert the lower classes to Islam. [Technically there is no conversion in Islam, but that's a different story]. And they undertook those measures out of religious feeling not a desire to dominate.
But Islam has been on the march since the beginnings of the 20th century. It has woken up from a slumbering period and part of that has been a strong proselytization, even militantly so, to Islamicize societies. Again the general medieval pluralism is lost. Fundamentalism is a modern phenomena not an ancient one.
Lot of reasons, can't get into them all now, but obviously in part a reaction to European colonialism and the labeling of Christianity as a "white, Western" religion, when of course the Middle East/SW Asian Christians are far older than Euro ones.
The loss of Christianity in the Middle East is sad state of affairs. Yasir Arafat used to spend Christmas with Palestinian Christians at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.
Also sad is the loss of Judaism in the Middle East--the Arab Middle East to Israel. Since there are no Jews left in places like Lebanon, Egypt, Ethiopia (African Jews there) anti-SEmitism has such truck. There are no Jews with which to compare the prejudicial views one finds in the Protocals of Zion, etc. Particularly among young Arab, Turks, Persians. They likely have never met or seen a Jew and perhaps not a Christian.
So the issue of whether Islam is violent from the get-go versus Catholicism.
This is a long and involved topic to be sure, I'll be as brief as I can.
The situation of the two religions are vastly different.
Christianity laid the blame for Jesus' death on the Jews and obviated the guilt of the Romans. It arose during Roman occupation, so there was no chance of "fighting" it, if that had been an option. They subverted and co-opted from within. And the second they did they unleashed the Roman state on pagans, Jews, and heretics. So if there is an argument about Christians delaying violence, it's mostly historical accident--they just didn't have the chance right away.
Islam is different. Islam arose in one of the least governed, least hospitable places on Earth at the time. It arose during a time of clan law, not an imperial institution.
And the early Muslim community was in legitimate threat of being completely wiped out, every man woman and child among them from the dominant Meccan establishment. So it goes both ways on that one. The harshness of the land and the scarcity of resources played a part here no doubt.
If the Muslims had been allowed to live in peace in say Medina and not been attacked, then maybe things would have gone differently. But even after an initial defensive victory the Meccans geared up to take them down. And once that happened, then the Quran starts giving the lines we know of as the ones that are used as supports for terrorism. Things like "slay them wherever you find them", etc.
Those lines arose during a moment of absolute crisis where they unfortunately did not have the ability to make finer distinctions between enemies, tactics, etc. Their entire lives were at risk. I'm not apologizing for it. Just helpful to remember the context.
And once that was part of the trajectory, Islam did burst out within a generation or two into conquering a far-flung empire. But that, to me, is just part of the imperial (blue) meme structure. That's what empires do. They just came at a time of structural weakness--post Roman empire fall and Eastern Roman empire weakened.
It does not mean Islam is inherently violent of course. Muslims in North America aren't going around in mass trying to establish Islamic law.
Islam was the last and greatest blue meme in terms of size (classical religion) empire. It was also the first enemy of the modern West. It was who the West principally defined themsleves in opposition to--more so even than indigenous populations in the Americas.
This is to me, why Islam is now in such pain to enter the modern world. Why its narrative involves question as to Islam's demise and the secular West's dominance, esp. at its expense.
Islam does have to come to grips with this episode of violence deeply connected to their core, even if we contextualize it.
But the Hebrew Scripture is full of passages where God tells the Jews to ethnically cleanse a population they have just defeated in battle. You don't hear any discourse about how Judaism is inherently violent and can never be practiced in a modern world. Moses killed people and lead his followers in battle, so did Muhammad. Do we think of Moses as a terrorist?
Christianity has to come to grips with its history of collusion with empires, with over-emphasis at times on individual salvation and not questioning the society atlarge--Holocaust, Serbian War, Conquistadors, Inquisitions, slaughters of indigenous peoples.
Hard to argue which is aggregately worse. They both, as the Bishop said, have histories filled with so much blood.
What is different is that most of Christianity and Judaism has moved on--there have been modern (even postmodern) theologies. Islam has yet to make that leap.
Islam is in the middle of its own Reformation and like the Christian one it's going to be bloody. And hopefully when at some people will realize they have to let go of this idea of dictating the world principally on a mythic narrative.
But until the West understands that it leaves a choice between religion at myth only and rationality as science-secular only (essentially), Islam will be stuck. Islam wants a modern world with Islamic identity. it does not want a modenr world with a secular attitude. Particularly the individualism so associated with Western, esp. American, modernity.
That is their "right" if you like. It doesn't have to be inhererntly combative, war-making. It can't be tribal law. Until we see the need underlying it, we won't be able to separate the good guys from the bad. And that only ratches up the hatred and victimhood.
Both sides have much to repent of.
As Christians continue to leave the Middle East, the real question becomes how will they relate in sub-Saharan Africa and both with militant Hinduism in India. Those are the flash-points for violence going forward. Especially sub-s.Africa.
By victoria |
8/19/2006 1:22 PM Brilliant analysis, CJ.
I would like to add that the overwhelming drive behind the crusades was monetary. (Who has time and space to go into the greed of popes?!?) The propaganda for the average European was caged in a sort of Christian jihad rhetoric, but the first people slain by crusaders were Christian. From the get go, the Western mind, Middle Easter equaled Muslim.