Extended passages from Rodney Stark on the history of Muslim / Christian antagonism. Fascinating (and depressing) how much history repeats itself. A GREAT DEAL OF nonsense has been written about Muslim tolerance— that, in contrast with Christian brutality against Jews and heretics, Islam showed remarkable tolerance for conquered people, treated them with respect, and allowed them to pursue their faiths without interference. This claim probably began with Voltaire, Gibbon, and other eighteenth-century writers who used it to cast the Catholic Church in the worst possible light. The truth about life under Muslim rule is quite different. It is true that the Qur’an forbids forced conversions. However, that recedes to an empty legalism given that many subject peoples often were “free to choose” conversion as an alternative to death or enslavement. That was the usual choice presented to pagans, and often Jews and Christians also were faced with that or with an only somewhat less extreme option. 23 In principle, as “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians were supposed to be tolerated and permitted to follow their faiths, but only under quite repressive conditions—death was (and remains) the fate of any Muslim who converted to either faith. Nor could any new churches or synagogues be built. Jews and Christians also were prohibited from praying or reading their scriptures aloud, not even in their homes or in churches or synagogues, lest Muslims should accidentally hear them. And, as the remarkable historian of Islam Marshall G. S. Hodgson (1922– 1968) pointed out, from very early times Muslim authorities often went to great lengths to humiliate and punish dhimmis —these being Jews and Christians who refused to convert to Islam. It was official policy that dhimmis should “feel inferior and to know ‘their place’... [imposing laws such as] that Christians and Jews should not ride horses, for instance, but at most mules, or even that they should wear certain marks of their religion on their costume when among Muslims.” 24 In some places non-Muslims were prohibited from wearing clothing similar to that of Muslims, nor could they be armed. 25 In addition, non-Muslims were invariably severely taxed compared with Muslims. 26 These were the normal circumstances of Jewish and Christian subjects of Muslim states, but conditions often were far worse, as will be seen. This is not to say that the Muslims usually were more brutal or less tolerant than were Christians or Jews, for it was a brutal and intolerant age. It is to say that efforts to portray Muslims as enlightened supporters of multiculturalism are at best ignorant. Stark, Rodney (2011-10-25). The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the Worlds Largest Religion (p. 208). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. BY THE END OF the fourteenth century only tiny remnants of Christianity remained here and there in the East and North Africa, having been almost completely wiped out by Muslim persecution. Thus, as Philip Jenkins put it, Christianity became a European faith because Europe was the only “continent where it was not destroyed.” 44 Stark, Rodney (2011-10-25). The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the Worlds Largest Religion (p. 212). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. Thus, it is the accepted myth that during the Crusades an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalized, looted, and colonized a tolerant and peaceful Islam. These claims have been utterly refuted by a group of distinguished contemporary historians. 19 They propose that the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations, by many centuries of bloody attempts to colonize the West, and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places...., Muslims began raiding Christian areas in the lifetime of Muhammad. Then, a year after his death, Muslim invasions began in earnest when their forces entered Syria, then a Christian province of the Eastern Roman Empire. Muslim forces soon won a series of battles, taking Damascus and some other cities in 635, and by 636 the Byzantine army was forced to abandon Syria. Next the Arabs marched into the Holy Land: Jerusalem was taken in 638, Caesarea Maritima in 640. From there Muslim armies invaded Christian Egypt, taking Cairo; Alexandria fell to them in 642. A major Muslim empire now ruled most of the Middle East and was spreading along the North African Coast— then a major Christian region. Thirty years later the empire stretched past Tangier and reached the Atlantic. By 714 much of Spain was occupied. Soon major thrusts were made into France before the Franks managed to repel the Muslim forces at Tours (or Poitiers) in 732. In 831 Muslim forces invaded Sicily and held it until 1072, and in 846 they sacked Rome and then withdrew to rule over southern Italy for the next two centuries. Thus, by the time of the First Crusade, Christendom had been fighting a defensive war with Islam for more than 450 years! It seems very odd that those who are so vociferous about the misery and injustice imposed by Europeans on their former colonial empires fail to admit any such consequences of Muslim imperialism. But as was clarified in chapter 12, Muslims were brutal and intolerant colonialists. Thus the fact remains that the Crusades were fundamentally defensive, and it is against this general background of chronic and long-standing Western grievances that the very specific provocations for the Crusades must be considered. These involved the destruction of, and threat to, holy places in Jerusalem and the murder, torture, enslavement, robbery, and general harassment of Christian pilgrims. Stark, Rodney (2011-10-25). The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the Worlds Largest Religion (p. 217). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. Stark, Rodney (2011-10-25). The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the Worlds Largest Religion (p. 217). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:35:28 +0000