I had the pleasure of actually sitting down and visiting with a cyber friend who I only knew tangentially in high school. We visited for a bit at our 30th reunion a few weeks back. He asked what I was up to and I mentioned that I was reading The Source by James Michener. He then said, "Why?!?" Russ is a Political Scientist who specializes in the Middle East. He was clearly not impressed that I would be reading this less than scholarly work of historical fiction. I was quick to respond with the other related titles I was also reading and explained that Michener's book was like an outline to point me in other directions.
The Source tells the history of this small local in northern Israel. For once he doesn't start with dinosaurs and early animals, but begins the ancient history (9000 BCE) with human characters. The book then follows this locale in typical Michener fashion through many eras where descendents of the original characters live out their lives. What follows is a nicely laid out history of the various battles for the land - Asyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, Islamic Turks, etc. The town is rebuilt and destroyed over and over again. The residents are butchered or exiled or sold into slavery time and again.
Recently on OCICBW, Jonathan AKA Mad Priest made some strong statements about Islam. It is clear from his argument that he sees a strong historical connection with war fare that is inherent in Islam from the beginning. In particular, he cites the devastation of the Eastern Christians as an essential example of this connection.
To what extent I will ultimately agree or disagree with Jonathan will be dependent on further reading. However, what I have seen so far tells me that all the major powers wrought significant destruction upon the residents of what ultimately became the State of Israel as they sought control of the territory.
Each group dragged its religion along with its army and imposed this religion to varying degrees on the local survivors. Quite often the Hebrews paid the stiffest price. This alone indicates that the warfaring violence of Islam is not unique for this period of history.
Both Michener's book and The First Crusade by Thomas Asbridge show in graphic detail the horror of what became known as the First Holocaust as tens of thousands of European Jews were butchered by the Crusaders heading off to the Holy Lands to fight the infidels. Once in Islamic territory the crusaders frequently murdered other Christians because of how they were dressed and their physical characteristics - they assumed they were Muslims.
If we are to condemn Islam for the actions of it's Holy Armies, it would seem that we should also condemn Christianity - both Western and Eastern. However, as I said, I have much reading to do before I come to a more solid conclusion.
Yes, Mohammed began to gather up converts to his new understanding of the monotheistic faith in Mecca, and once he was exiled to the city that became Medina, he fought valiantly with his growing army to centralize his power and the power of what was to become Islam.
Jesus had no army. I understand that.
However, neither man sought to invent a new religion. Jesus of Nazareth sought to introduce Judaism 2.0. It was only after his death that it was eventually rebranded as Christianity 1.0. Similary, Mohammed thought he was selling folks on Monotheism 3.0 initially - for in Islam both Jews and Christians are held in higher esteem than mere pagans as being Children of the Book and descended from Abraham. Mohammed believed that they had gone astray and his revelations were to purify the traditional, historic monotheistic faith.
Of course, Christianity was not a significant political power in the Mediterranean region until Constantine decided to name it the offical religion of the Empire. Christianity went from persecuted and powerless to top dog overnight. Yet that power shrunk significantly with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the invasion of the barbarian (pagan) hordes. Over time those peoples were converted to Christianity.
As Pope Urban II sought to consolidate power in Rome with the Papacy, he responded to a request for help from Byzantium with the call for the first Crusade. The ruling class, knights and such, existed in a political reality that called for repeated violations of their Christian faith. The near constant warring and killing and fighting created a powerful dilemna for these men. The Pope's call in which the act of crusading would grant them penance and allow them to go straight to heaven. An entire generation of nobility stopped their internecine European conflict and channeled all that violent energy on the Holy Lands and the infidel. Political power and religion finally merged for Christianity.
Mohammed, on the other hand, needed to carve out territory from the beginning so the presence of stories of conquest and military victory in Islamic history is not surprising. There was no Emperor ready to convert his Empire over with the single stroke of a pen.
As Islam flourished as a political power, the role of Caliph served as head of state. This is not that different from the Orthodox Church where the Emperor of Byzantium was the head of the church. Even in the Roman West, the struggle between kings and the Pope for ultimate power was played out over and over.
Jonathan has made it a key point that "Islam" depended on violent conquest from the beginning. I find it hard not to separate the church from the state... My reading so far has also shown that overall Islamic Overlords were much more tolerant of the existance of other faith traditions in their lands than were the Chrisians.
Just last night as I read a few more chapters in A Case for God by Karen Armstrong, I learned about the forced conversions of the Jews by Isabella and Ferdinand. Many chose exile to Portugal, until Isabella and Ferdinand forced Portugal to do the same. Then, with the creation of the Spanish Inquisition, those same converted Jews were suspect because they were forced...nice logic that.
All this is not to deny that there is a dangerous, fundamentalist form of Islam out there. I am not willing, however, to condemn the entire faith until I have done my homework. Peace.
2 comments:
So glad you are blogging again. I love Margaret George. Have read most of her "biographies". Especially enjoyed the one about Mary Magdalene. And Karen Armstrong is amazing. PBS has a 2 hr documentary narrated by Ray Suarez about Jerusalem that really covers the history of that city from the dinosaurs to the present. What an eye-opener!
I was trying to think of the book we read in my church book group some time back when we were on the phone, and I now remember the title, "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam." You might check that one out, too.
Post a Comment