Christianity and Islam in History

Catholic Educators ^ | December 2005 | MSGR. WALTER BRANDMULLER

[NYer]

On the same day when the Vatican made public Benedict XVI’s message for the World Day of Peace next January 1, cardinal secretary of state Angelo Sodano sponsored a meeting at the Pontifical Lateran University — the grand chancellor of which is the pope’s vicar, cardinal Camillo Ruini. The meeting focused on a topic crucial for the Church’s geopolitics: “Christianity and Islam, Yesterday and Today.”

In his message, Benedict XVI pointed to “nihilism” and “religious fanaticism” as the two deep sources of Islamist terrorism.

But the analysis at the December 13 meeting at the Lateran concentrated above all on the history of the relationship between Christianity and Islam. The occasion for the meeting was the fifth centenary of the birth of saint Pius V, the pope of the battle of Lepanto in 1571, at which a league of Europe’s Christian states inflicted a decisive defeat upon the Turkish fleet.

The topic was explored by an authoritative specialist in Church history, monsignor Walter Brandmüller, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.

Delivered in the presence of cardinal Sodano, his address represented the Holy See’s current point of view on the question: a point of view that is certainly less pliant than the one that prevailed during the pontificate of John Paul II. - Sandro Magister

Christianity and Islam in History
by Walter Brandmüller

I will address the topic of Christianity and Islam by limiting myself to a brief presentation of historical facts, without entering into the specifics of religious and theological dialogue. This seems useful to me, because the celebration of the fifth centenary of the birth of Pius V was a bit muted, especially in academic circles. The victor at Lepanto in 1571, this pope who had the courage and the energy to construct an alliance of almost all the Christian kingdoms against the Ottoman empire — which was advancing to threaten Europe and had already established dominion over the Balkans — today, precisely on account of the unhappy restoration of hostility between the two worlds — one formerly Christian, and to a certain extent still Christian, and the Muslim world — seems to many to be an obstructing presence best left in the shadows.

The so-called “secularism” that would silence all the monotheistic religions through accusations of fundamentalism, or that exalts dialogue by negating their differences, intends to blot out the age-old conflict that has pitted the two religious communities against one another. Above all, it intends to neutralize the Roman pontiff, who has shown himself capable of blocking the Islamic advance and saving Christian civilization.

Although the two monotheistic religions in question share, among other things and to different degrees, the Jewish tradition — a specialist like Samir Khalil Samir emphasizes how before Mohammed the Arab Jews and Christians called their God by the name of Allah — there are many differences between Christianity and Islam, and the differences are fundamental.

Since their very beginnings, there have been differences in how Christians and Muslims think of conversion and the use of violence.

---

Those who maintain that understanding jihad as a holy war constitutes a sort of deviation from the true Islamic tradition are therefore not telling the truth, and history sadly demonstrates that violence has characterized Islam since its origin, and that Mohammed himself systematically organized and led the raids against the tribes that did not want to convert and accept his dominion, thus subjecting the Arab tribes one by one.

---

For the Christians, conversion was something that must be voluntary and individual, obtained primarily through preaching and example, and this is how Christianity did in fact spread during its first centuries. Obviously, we must immediately note that this conception of early Christianity underwent changes in later eras, connected with the diffusion of a spirit of religious intolerance in Western culture. John Paul II himself acknowledged that in this regard the Church’s children “must return with a spirit of repentance [for] the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth.” (Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 35).

But on the part of the Muslims, from the earliest times, even while Mohammed was still alive, conversion was imposed through the use of force. The expansion and extension of Islam’s sphere of influence came through war with the tribes that did not accept conversion peacefully, and this went hand in hand with submission to Islamic political authority. Islamism, unlike Christianity, expressed a comprehensive religious, cultural, social, and political strategy. While Christianity spread during its first three centuries in spite of persecution and martyrdom, and in many ways in opposition to Roman domination, introducing a clear separation between the spiritual and political spheres, Islam was imposed through the power of political domination.

It therefore comes as no surprise that the use of force occupies a central place in Islamic tradition, as witnessed by the frequent use of the word “jihad” in many texts. Although some scholars, especially Western ones, maintain that jihad does not necessarily mean war, but instead a spiritual struggle and interior effort, Samir Khalil Samir again clarifies that the use of this term in Islamic tradition — including its usage today — is essentially uniform, indicating warfare in the name of God to defend Islam, which is an obligation for all adult Muslim males. Those who maintain that understanding jihad as a holy war constitutes a sort of deviation from the true Islamic tradition are therefore not telling the truth, and history sadly demonstrates that violence has characterized Islam since its origin, and that Mohammed himself systematically organized and led the raids against the tribes that did not want to convert and accept his dominion, thus subjecting the Arab tribes one by one. Naturally, it must also be said that at the time of Mohammed warfare was part of the Bedouin culture, and no one saw anything objectionable about it.

---

But the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucial issue of understanding the human person. This is shown by the fact that many Islamic countries have not accepted the declaration of human rights promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, or have done so with the reservation of excluding the norms that conflict with Qur’anic law — which means practically all of them.

---

The interpretation that Muslims today try to make of the crusades — an interpretation that finds many followers among Western historians — also fails to correspond to historical reality.

According to this representation, Western Christians were invaders in a peaceful region that was respectful of the different religions — the Holy Land, which back then was part of Syria — using religious motives to disguise imperialist ambitions and economic interests.

But the idea of the crusades emerged, above all, as a reaction to the measures that the Fatimid caliph Hakim bi-Amr Allah took against the Christians of Egypt and Syria. In 1008, al-Hakim outlawed the celebrations of Palm Sunday, and the following year he ordered that Christians be punished and all their property confiscated. In that same year of 1009, he sacked and demolished the church dedicated to Mary in Cairo, and did not prevent the desecration of the Christian sepulchers surrounding it, or the sacking of the city’s other churches. That same year saw what was certainly the most severe episode: the destruction of the Constantinian basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem, known as the Holy Sepulcher. The historical records of the time say that he had ordered “to obliterate any symbol of Christian faith, and provide for the removal of every reliquary and object of veneration.” The basilica was then razed, and Ibn Abi Zahir did all he could to demolish the sepulcher of Christ and any trace of it.

Today in many intellectual circles there is a lot of talk about the religious tolerance shown over many centuries by the Islamic authorities, because — while in terms of the pagan populations the saying “embrace Islam and your life will be spared” held true, and the pagans who did not convert were killed — the “people of the book,” the Jews and Christians, were able to continue practicing their religion.

In reality, the situation was much less idyllic: the Christians and Jews could survive only if they accepted Muslim political dominion and a situation of humiliation, which was aggravated by the obligation to pay increasingly burdensome taxes. So it’s no wonder that most of the Christians, even though they were not constrained by force, converted to Islam on account of the constant economic and social pressure. This led to the total disappearance of a form of Christianity that had flourished for more than half a millennium, as in the part of Africa ruled by the Roman empire, the land of Tertullian, saint Cyprian, Tyconius, and above all saint Augustine.

But the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam concerns the crucial issue of understanding the human person.

This is shown by the fact that many Islamic countries have not accepted the declaration of human rights promulgated by the United Nations in 1948, or have done so with the reservation of excluding the norms that conflict with Qur’anic law — which means practically all of them. From an historical point of view, therefore, it must be recognized that the declaration of the rights of man is a cultural fruit of the Christian world, even though these are “universal” norms, in that they are valid for all. In Islamic tradition, in fact, the concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life. Sharia is founded upon a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave. In essence, the male human being is considered a full titleholder of rights and duties only through his belonging to the Islamic community: those who convert to another religion or become atheists are considered traitors, subject to the death penalty, or at least to the loss of all their rights.

---

In Islamic tradition, in fact, the concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life. Sharia is founded upon a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave.

---

The most irrevocable of these inequalities is that between man and woman, because the others can be overcome — the slave can be freed, the non-Muslim can convert to Islam — while woman’s inferiority is irremediable, in that it was established by God himself. In Islamic tradition, the husband enjoys an almost absolute authority over his wife: while polygamy is permitted for men, a woman may not have more than one husband, may not marry a man of another faith, can be repudiated by her husband, has no rights to the children in case of divorce, is penalized in the division of the inheritance, and from a legal standpoint her testimony is worth half as much as a man’s.

So if Islam implied, and still implies, not merely religious membership, but an entire way of life, sanctioned even at the political level — a way of life that naturally involves and prescribes how to act with other peoples, how to behave in questions of war and peace, how to conduct relations with foreigners — it is very easy to understand how the victory of Lepanto guaranteed for the West the possibility of developing its culture of respect for the human person, for whom equal dignity regardless of his condition came to be guaranteed.

If this characterization of Islam is destined to remain unchanged in the future, as it has been until now, the only possible outcome is a difficult coexistence with those who do not belong to the Muslim community: in an Islamic country, in fact, the non-Muslim must submit to the Islamic system, if he does not wish to live in a situation of substantial intolerance.

Likewise, on account of this all-embracing conception of religion and political authority, the Muslim will have great difficulty in adapting to the civil laws in non-Islamic countries, seeing them as something foreign to his upbringing and to the dictates of his religion. Perhaps one should ask oneself if the well-attested difficulties persons coming from the Islamic world have with integrating into the social and cultural life of the West are not explained in part by this problematic situation.

We must also recognize the natural right of every society to defend its own cultural, religious, and political identity. It seems to me that this is precisely what Pius V did.

[NYer]

Monsignor Walter Brandmüller is president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Ping!

[Aetius]

I know its not exactly on topic, but this reminds me of Chirac's idiotic comments on how Europe's history and tradition is as much Islamic as Christian.

[Darkwolf377]

Benedict XVI pointed to “nihilism” and “religious fanaticism” as the two deep sources of Islamist terrorism.

If only the Democrats were so clear.

[TheCrusader]

"In Islamic tradition, in fact, the concept of the equality of all human beings does not exist, nor does, in consequence, the concept of the dignity of every human life. Sharia is founded upon a threefold inequality: between man and woman, between Muslim and non-Muslim, and between freeman and slave."

Pope Benedict XVI has it right, and he's not afraid to proclaim history as it really was. He says, in summation, that Islam was an evil, conquering cult from its inception, and that its theology is based on inequality and subjugation. In defending the Crusades as righteous and necessary, and in proclaiming the Chrisitian victory over the Islamic fleet at Lepanto as being good for the West, this Pope is now taking the lead in defending all Christians against Islamic aggression and facism.

Pope Benedict XVI commands no armies but the path of TRUTH always leads to victory. "Enough of this religion of peace lie, we have the right to defend ourselves from this evil religion", he seems to be saying. But is anybody listening to the Pope anymore?

[weegee]

Europe almost had a history and tradition that was Nazi German.

I see little difference between these political systems that preach supremacy and block off different classes of individual under the law.

[Roverman2K]

Exactly! The right Pope at the right time.
Onward Christian solders.

[Enchante]

The terms that would characterize many Democrats would be "nihilism" and "secular fanaticism"...... our Democrats perversely prefer alliance with the jihadists over cooperation with conservative Christians, under the Howard Dean/Ted Kennedy precept that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[BW2221]

The only ones that would prefer Islam over Christianity are the "Muzzies" and the ACLU.

[Fred Nerks]

Thanks for posting. How wonderful it feels to read the truth.
Spread the 'good' news! (Islam isn't the ROP!)

[freeangel]

Mmmm--'wonder if that's in the history books that kids are getting in public schools?--I think not.

[Popman]

[Popman]

[DTwistedSisterS]

"Pope Benedict XVI commands no armies"

Ah, but recall Stalin's quote and how he was proved wrong!

He necessarily needs not command any "organized" army, but he does have Christ and His followers behind him.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

"A fool has said unto himself, there is no GOD."

The ultimate defeat of the execrable mad Mo's, murdering, black rock worshiping, moon "god", death cult, IS assured in the end.

The enemy holds this earth for a time granted to him by the Lord GOD, that time is finite.

See how the entire world is arrayed against Israel, yet they are powerless against the One True GOD's covenant.

Powerless.

"Trust the LORD, and pass the ammunition."

[familyop]

"We must also recognize the natural right of every society to defend its own cultural, religious, and political identity. It seems to me that this is precisely what Pius V did."

He did that by ordering the Jews to be expelled from every papal state except Ancona and Rome (and those two exceptions only for commercial reasons and under humiliating conditions) in 1569. He exposed his attitude against Jews in "Hebraeorum Gens."

[Dark Skies]

In all due respect...9/11 was the beginning of what we need to know of this enemy. Saying 9/11 was all we need to know is like saying that all we need to know about Great White Sharks is that they have sharp teeth.

We need to know everything about islam...we need to know its weaknesses, we need to know how to kill it.

How to kill it! That's what we need to know.

[Popman]

I can't agree more.

[TheCrusader]

"He necessarily needs not command any "organized" army, but he does have Christ and His followers behind him."

I recall reading about that quote. I believe it was "how many divisions does the Pope have"? But you are right, the Pope has legions of Christian believers behind him, and most importantly, he has "the Way,the Truth and the Life" standing beside him.