Crusaders versus Jihadists
Just a quick thought. I have recently done some study of the early development of Christianity and its literature. With the focus on Al-Qaeda, all Americans have been receiving an education on Islam. From that learning by osmosis and reading many early Suras from the Quran, I have a new understanding of Islam's development. From a number of years studying many periods of history from all but Chinese and Central Asian history, I have a working understanding of many dynamics.
With all that basis for my statement, I have a couple conclusions about are working understanding of Islam and Christianity's historical interaction.
Christianity started as a Jewish movement which grew exponentially largely by persuasion of non-Jews to follow this martyred person named Jesus and nicknamed the Christ. For most of the period of Christianity before the conversion of Emperor Constantine in the 320's, Christianity did not have the ability to use force of arms to force adherence to the Christian doctrine, its orthodoxy.
Immediately after Constantine's conversion, Christianity had the power to coerce through government and force of arms. The Romans had historically used force of arms to enforce compliance. This same government to enforce religious compliance is not all that shocking.
This change in Christianity from an expansion by persuasion and example to an expansion that included force of arms made a huge difference in Christianity's expansion and acceptance. Unsurprisingly, a government that pushed an idea either creates or is supported by propoganda explaining the goodness of the government's actions. This is the experience of Christianity that continued for centuries. It is also the experience that Mohammed could observe during his life.
One of the most important differences between Islam and Christianity is not in its historic action: both used force of arms to expand and convert. The difference is in doctrine. Christianity in its holy book and first days after its "prophet" Jesus did not have an experience of use of force. In fact, it can be argued persuasively that using force of arms to convert goes against the New Testament doctrines and experience.
In comparison, Mohammed being the shrewd operator that he was observed the Christian experience and wrote his doctrine accordingly. Mohammed moved from being supportive of Christians and Jews around his community to being hostile to those religions, in fact building systems to be able to say that he did not suppress religions of the Book, his phrase, yet discourage persons from not converting to Islam.
Mohammed encouraged the use of force of arms and killing to spread Islam. In fact, he lead several military actions to acquire land that we wanted. In Islam, there is no equivalent for "those who live by the sword die by the sword." The counter-example in Islam is encouragement to fight and die to have 72 virgins in heaven awaiting the martyred soldier of Allah.
Those two examples do not define the entire interaction of the two religions, but it does explain the doctrines of force of arms.
In the 400 years before Mohammed's death, Christianity had a history of using force of arms to enforce Christian orthodoxy and conversion, mostly as an adjunct to the Roman 900-year history of enforcing its governing will on its subjects. Mohammed observed the success of spreading Christianity through Roman legions. He turned it into doctrine and add the virgins as persuasive marketing. Being from a merchant family, he apparently knew how to sell and persuade.
As Mohammed's system grew through the use of armies to conquer land, particularly Christian strongholds like Antioch and Alexandria, Christians became nervous about their neighbors.
Most of the fWest or the former Western empire -- that portion that historically was governed through the Latin language -- did not have to consider the threat of Islamic expansion because it had the buffer of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire. This continuation of Roman history covered the territory governed by the Romans under the Greek language.
The West experienced attacks from the western flank of Islamic expansion from Spain into southern France in the 800's. This made the West aware of the problem. Since the attacks did not continue relentlessly, the West quit worrying about this expansion from this direction after a few decades.
The West's concern from that point mostly focused on the threat to the Eastern Roman Empire. Since Byzantine forces gradually lost Christian land in the Holy Land, the desire of the West to protect the Holy Land for Christendom grew into a desire to bring force of arms to the Holy Land.
The current common understanding in America is that the Crusaders created a desire for use of Islamic use of arms to defend themselves. This is utter non-sense. Islam spread by force of arms. Christian Crusades were a response. This is simply the old territorial fight with religion as a new motivation. By the time of the Crusades in 1032 through 1230 or so, neither side could be considered an innocent party.
Christianity had not ever tried to add territory through force of arms until it tried to reconquer lands formerly within the Roman Empire and now under Islamic rule. Islam learned the value of force of arms from a bygone era of Christianity. Chicken or egg? Newton would tell us in physics that each force is met with an equal and opposite reaction. Newtonian physics do not apply to politics or war. Clausewitz suggests a political corollary to his doctrine that would apply to politics: each application of force is met with a mirror image reaction thatpushes back with greater force.
Every poor politician believes that he can overwhelm his opposition with forceful action because such action works in military conflict. However, this is incorrect, or if correct, short lived. If you attempt to destroy your political opposition and they survive, you should expect them to develop a doctrine that seeks your own destruction at least to a level just greater than what you attempted on them. Macchiavelli's Prince understood this by pointing out that a tyrant needs to apply overwhelming force to prevent this type of back and forth. (Never forget Macchiavelli was a republican that wrote The Prince to show that despotism could never lead to healthy society. It was so successful in describing how despots work that it has become a how-to manual for those despots.)
Between Christianity and Islam, each side has tried to use Macchiavellian force to destroy the other. Since each has failed, they have only accomplished the Clausewitz corollary reflecting a strong, more strident response from the other side.
All of this leads to a simple point. Christianity can more easily move away from force of arms as a tenet of its orthodoxy than can Islam. Once the superimposed doctrines of force that Romans and medieval crusaders invented to support their unChristian action are removed, Christianity does not have any doctrine that supports aggressive warfare for conversion or conquest.
Islam on other hand is an entire religion that frames its own doctrine using vocabulary of struggle, conflict, and warfare. The history of Islam, beginning with Mohammed's own actions, reflects that this is more than mere literary license at work. Struggle against non-Muslims is expected and desired. Specially treatment is given the two Religions of the Book. They are not equals. They are to be protected from attack, but they are like wayward children who need to grow up. They are less than Muslims, but they are sufferable.
Once land become Muslim, once a church becomes a mosque, once a family becomes Muslim, none can return to a non-Muslim state. This is not tolerance. This is conquest preservation.
Crusaders are now seen among Christians as a disgusting and misguided attempt to comply with the Bible. We now see that there is no basis in the Bible for this action. Jihadists create a split in Islam, but it is harder to argue persuasively that military force is not to be used under the plain meaning of the Quran. The Quran is written in just that language. A Muslim must see that as a literary device and not a commandment in order to avoid a militaristic doctrine. This is difficult to do for even the most persuasive imam.
The Crusaders are a part of history that Christianity can disavow with credibility. Can Islam truly do the same with the Jihadists?
Friday, November 14, 2003
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Insidious judicial activism - The Washington Times: Commentary
Insidious judicial activism - The Washington Times: Commentary
As an alum of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, I find the study of foreign law and procedure as well as their histoies invaluable. In my recent study of the English system of equity formerly embodied in the Chancery Court, I find the state of lawyer's understanding of their own history woefully inadequate.
What David Limbaugh writes about is another permutation of that inadequate understanding. In my experience on the law review, I found that there is little common methodology of analyzing international law. This means that looking at other countries' laws can be used to reinforce whatever law is espoused as the solution.
Without some methodology, we lose what of the most valuable aspects of the common law system which is its predictability. It is this growing loss of predictability that is destroying our system.
With no methodology and 150 or more different countries in the world, let alone their component states and provinces, a legal essayist or judge can probably point out a good standard for us to follow.
What about security of property? Well, in China, they can prevent terrorism easily because they have little protection of home and hearth. We need more security. Let's be like China.
What about freedom of speech? Well, in England, libel and slander laws are very tight. This prevents famous persons, including the Prince of Wales, from being spoken ill of in some respects. We need less libel and slander, so let's be more like England.
In fact, to make sure that libel and slander is reduced, we should be more like the Taliban . . . .
Clearly, with these examples, we can justify capital punishment for libel and slander and no protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
This debate about whether to consider foreign law is not new. Even professors on the history of equity debate whether Roman law may be considered to reach decisions in equity because the first chancellors (i.e., judges in equity courts) were priests and versed in Canon Law, an outgrowth of Roman law. See C.J.S. Equity sec. 3. There is no evidence of this assertion in the Chancery's records, because chancellors did not explain their decisions for centuries. McClintock on Equity sec. 1-3. They are just inferences. No historian worth his salt can back up this assertion.
This is just a simple example of how this problem of lack of knowledge about our own legal system exists. In future, I will write about why this lack of knowledge is dangerous. But imagine this lack of knowledge of legal systems can start running rampant through our own legal lsystem! What will that do the predictability of our law? Add that to lack of methodology, we have disaster.
As an alum of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review, I find the study of foreign law and procedure as well as their histoies invaluable. In my recent study of the English system of equity formerly embodied in the Chancery Court, I find the state of lawyer's understanding of their own history woefully inadequate.
What David Limbaugh writes about is another permutation of that inadequate understanding. In my experience on the law review, I found that there is little common methodology of analyzing international law. This means that looking at other countries' laws can be used to reinforce whatever law is espoused as the solution.
Without some methodology, we lose what of the most valuable aspects of the common law system which is its predictability. It is this growing loss of predictability that is destroying our system.
With no methodology and 150 or more different countries in the world, let alone their component states and provinces, a legal essayist or judge can probably point out a good standard for us to follow.
What about security of property? Well, in China, they can prevent terrorism easily because they have little protection of home and hearth. We need more security. Let's be like China.
What about freedom of speech? Well, in England, libel and slander laws are very tight. This prevents famous persons, including the Prince of Wales, from being spoken ill of in some respects. We need less libel and slander, so let's be more like England.
In fact, to make sure that libel and slander is reduced, we should be more like the Taliban . . . .
Clearly, with these examples, we can justify capital punishment for libel and slander and no protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
This debate about whether to consider foreign law is not new. Even professors on the history of equity debate whether Roman law may be considered to reach decisions in equity because the first chancellors (i.e., judges in equity courts) were priests and versed in Canon Law, an outgrowth of Roman law. See C.J.S. Equity sec. 3. There is no evidence of this assertion in the Chancery's records, because chancellors did not explain their decisions for centuries. McClintock on Equity sec. 1-3. They are just inferences. No historian worth his salt can back up this assertion.
This is just a simple example of how this problem of lack of knowledge about our own legal system exists. In future, I will write about why this lack of knowledge is dangerous. But imagine this lack of knowledge of legal systems can start running rampant through our own legal lsystem! What will that do the predictability of our law? Add that to lack of methodology, we have disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)