From Michael J. Bumbulis Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Crusades Date: Sun Dec 22 23:15:08 EST 1996 Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Message-Id: <59l10c$3gp@geneva.rutgers.edu> Carl Erdmann, whom my college history text claims is "a distinguished scholar of the Crusades," notes: "At around the turn of the millennium [the year 1000], the attitude of the church toward the military class underwent a significant change. The contrast between militia Christi [war for Christ] and militia saecularis [war for worldly purposes] was overcome and just as rulership earlier had been Christianized.. so now was the military profession; it acquired a direct ecclesiastical purpose, for war in the service of the church or for the weak came to be regarded as holy and was declared to be a religious duty not only for the king but also for every individual knight." What brought about this "signficant change?" Enter Jacques Ellul, a highly regarded French intellectual who is retired from his position as Professor of Law and the Sociology and History of Institutions at the University of Bordeaux. Ellul is an author of many articles and over 40 books. In his book "The Subversion of Christianity," Ellul points to "the many contradictions between the Bible and the practice of the church, [asserting] in this provocative and stimulating book that what we today call Christianity is actually far removed from the revelation of God." [from Ellul's publisher] In one of the chapters in his book, Ellul argues that the cause of this "significant change" is the influence of Islam. He notes that Arab influence on Europe was great and offers several examples. After citing some examples, he writes: "All this is very banal. But it does tell us beyond doubt that even between enemies who are depicted as irreconcilable there were cultural and intellectual relations. Exchanges took place and knowledge circulated. In truth, knowledge seems to have circulated in only one direction, coming from Islam and the Arab world to the West." And among this intellectual influence concerned matters of religion. Ellul writes: "How can we imagine that there was a well-known and admitted influence on philosophy that did not have theological repercussions? Everyone knows that the problem solved by Thomas Aquinas was precisely that of confrontation between classical theology and Aristotle's philosophy. But the bridge is by way of the Arabs. We speak of Greek philosophy and Christian theology. But the Greek philosophy was faithfully transmitted by Arab interpreters. It was by way of Arab-Muslim thinking that the problem came to be addressed at this time. We can hardly think that the Arab influence was nil except in matters concerning Aristotle." After highlighting certain theological similarities between Islam and Christianity, Ellul notes: "It seems that the Muslim intellectuals and theologians were much stronger than their Christian counterparts. It seems that Islam had an influence, but not Christianity." What might some of these influence be? "But in Islam there was an indissoluble correlation between religious law and political power. In this field, too, what was introduced with Constantinianism, as we have seen, received a new impulse from Islam. Every political head in Islam is also the ruler of believers. There is no separation of church and political powers. The political head is the religious head. He is the representative of Allah. His political and military acts, etc., are inspired. Now this is all familiar in Europe. The king or emperor does not merely claim to be the secular arm of the church but the one who has spiritual power. He wants to be recognized that he personally is chosen by God, elected by the Almighty. He needs a prophetic word and the power to work miracles. His word and person have to be sacred. Naturally some of this was already present prior to Islam. It was not for nothing, however, that this theology, liturgy, and imperial understanding developed first at Byzantium on the first contact with Islam, and only later spread to the West. Royal power became religious not merely in an alliance with the church but under the influence of Islam, which was more of a theocracy than the West ever was.." This, of course, brings us to the ideas which influenced the West and led to the Crusades: "In tandem with this great importance of the political power there is, of course, the importance and glorification of war as a means of spreading the faith. Such a war is a duty for all Muslims. Islam has to become universal. The true faith, not the power, has to be taken to every people by every means, including by military force. This makes the political power important, for it is warlike by nature. The two things are closely related. The political head wages war on behalf of the faith. He is thus the religious head, and as the sole representative of God he must fight to extend Islam." Is it mere coincidence that the Crusades were also the most obvious manifestation of the papal claim to the leadership of Christian society? Continuing.. "This enormous importance of war has been totally obliterated today in intellectual circles that admire Islam and want to take it afresh as a model. War is inherent in Islam. It is inscribed in its teaching. It is a fact of its civilization and also a religious fact; the two cannot be separated. It is coherent with its conception of the Dhar al ahrb, that the whole world is destined to become Muslim by Arab conquests. The proof of all this is not just theological; it is historical: hardly has the Islamic faith been preached when an immediate military conquest begins. From 632 to 651, in the twenty years after the death of the prophet, we have a lightening war of conquest with the invasion of Egypt and Cyrenaica to the west, Arabia in the center, Armenia, Syria, and Persia to the east. In the following century all North Africa and Spain are taken over, along with India and Turkey to the east. The conquests are not acheived by sanctity, but by war. For three centuries Christianity spread by preaching, kindness, example, morality, and encouragement of the poor. When the empire became Christian, war was hardly tolerated by the Christians. Even when waged by a Christian emperor it was a dubious business and was assessed unfavorably. It was often condemned. Christians were accused of undermining the politcal force and military might of the empire within. In practice Christians would remain critical of war until the flamboyant image of the holy war came onto the scene. In other words, no matter what attrocities have been committed in wars by so-called Christain nations, war has always been in essential contradiction to the gospel. Christians have always been more or less aware of this. They have judged war and questioned it." Recall that there was a "significant change." For the first time, war was considered a holy duty. It was a war against the infidels. The Crusades started as the reconquista, or holy war of reconquest. My history text states: "The Crusades of the High Middle Ages grew out of earlier conflict between Christians and Muslims in Spain. The concept of holy war originated in the Spanish peninsula and gradually influenced all parts of western Europe. In the eighth century, the Muslims had overrun the peninsula, and Christian lords had fled to the mountains in the north." In other words, the Muslims had previously waged holy war on Spain. For two centuries, the west had been influenced by Islamic thinking. Then came their version of the holy war. Put simply, Christendom had sunken to the level where they began to imitate their enemies. Ellul notes: "In Islam...war was always just and constituted a sacred duty. The war that was meant to convert infidels was just and legitimate, for, as Muslim thinking repeats, Islam is the only religion that conforms perfectly to nature. In a natural state we would all be Muslims. If we are not, it is because we have been led astray and diverted from the true faith. In making war to force people to become Muslims the faithful are bringing them back to their true nature. Q.E.D. Furthermore, a war of this kind is a jihad, a holy war." In fact, we learn from the Quran (Sura 9:5) that a revelation came to Muhammad that he should make war on the idolators of Arabia and force them to submit and become Muslims. And this he did. Critics are quick to claim that Christanity borrowed from other religions. And here is a case where I would agree with that assessment. Islamic influence on the west is widely acknowledged. Islamic holy wars had been going on since the birth of Islam. It ain't no coincidence that Christian holy wars began not too long after the birth of Islam, its war against Spain, and its influence on western philosophy and theology. Allow me to quote Ellul's conclusion: "In conclusion, let me make it clear that I have not been trying to excuse what the Europeans did. I have not been trying to shift the "blame," to say Muslims, not the Christians, were the guilty party. My purpose is to try to explain certain perversions in Christian conduct. I have found a model for them in Islam. Christians did not invent the holy war or the slave trade. Their fault was to imitate Islam. Sometimes it was imitation by following the example of Islam. Sometimes it was inverse imitation by doing the same thing in order to combat Islam, as in the Crusades. Either way, the tragedy was that the church completely forgot the truth of the gospel. It turned Christian ethics upside down in favor of what seemed to be very obviously a much more effective mode of action, for in the twelfth century and later the Muslim world offered a dazzling example of civilization. The church forgot the authenticity of the revelation in Christ in order to launch out in pursuit of the same mirage." --
Answering Islam Home Page