|
Student Research submissions 2013 (2013 research options) |
LITR 5831 World Literature
|
 |
Jacob A. McCleese
27 October 2013
Religion and War
Imperial conquests were essential to the
development of the modern world. The Roman, British, Ottoman, and the Persian
empires are just a few examples of vast armies that shaped the world’s culture
by promulgating their own way of life. It is this “way of life” that sparked my
interest in Empires. For many empires, the way of life includes a powerful and
persuasive religious component. For the purposes of this post, I will define
religion as a belief in a deity and a set of dogmas, enumerated by a text or set
of scriptures. This definition allowed me to direct my research at two religions
that at various historical moments were the driving force behind empires,
Christianity and Islam. Both religions are compelling systems of belief that
promote peace. Yet, peace and the formation of empires seem like paradoxical
goals. So, why would these “peace loving” religions form such violent empires?
What is it about religious belief that breeds violence? These are the main
issues I’ll be working with in this post.
Christianity and Islam, historically, have two
different ways of talking about war. Crusades and Jihads are two words that have
become part of the modern world’s lexicon. These words denote the method’s by
which Christians and Muslims spread their empires and dominated the world. Alan
Heston, author of “Crusades and Jihads: A Long-Run Economic Perspective,” wrote
that the purpose of Jihads was to, “pillage and eventually expand Muslim rule”
(115). In like manner, the Crusades were a series of wars where, “Brutality was
infamously memorable” (Heston 117). This article presents Jihads and Crusades as
intensely violent affairs aimed at perpetuating the dogmas of Christianity and
Islam. Many critics believe that the mass appeal of both Christianity and Islam
as imperial powers stems from the strong basis in ancient texts.
As I stated in the introduction, both Islam and
Christianity are text-based religions. Judith Nagata in “Beyond Theology: Toward
an Anthropology of Fundamentalism,” cites the texts of major religions as the
cause of their historical violence. She writes, “It leads to quests for
certainty, and a mindset immune to dialogue or alternatives” (483). The surety
that many adherents to Christianity and Islam live with is astounding. While
many people live in an epistemologically unbalanced world, Christians and
Muslims enjoy decisive knowledge provided by their holy scriptures. Possessing
this privilege of unshakeable faith gave both these empires the drive to conquer
massive parts of the globe. However, this unwavering belief has caused many
problems for groups that are deemed less than acceptable by the leaders of these
two faiths.
One group that both religions
see as inferior is women. Being Abrahamic religions, both subjects of this essay
are patriarchal. Meaning, that the dominance of the male sex is a focal point
for both Christianity and Islam. For Christians, “Patriarchy is interwoven in
the tradition in distinct and pervasive ways” (Rokoczy 31). Violence against
women, in the Christian tradition, is overlooked in the modern world as
something that used to happen in the past. However, as late as the early 2000’s
there has been documented violence against women in Christian communities around
the world (see Rokoczy pg. 34).
Islam is also deeply ingrained with the belief of
male dominance; much more attention has been dedicated to the despair of the
female sex in Islamic communities.
During my research I found several sources that
supported the right of Christians and Muslims to dominate other cultures. None
shocked me more than James Turner Johnson’s article about Thomas Aquinas and
Martin Luther. Both of these men are paragons in the Christian faith. Their
writings sparked some of the greatest revivals in the practice of Christianity
throughout the world and both men felt that Christians have divine authority to
rule the world with the sword. Johnson wrote that both men championed the “just
war tradition” (13), which essentially gives Christians the right to make war
with anyone deemed enemies of the faith. The Islamic version of this is well
known in America now because of the 9/11 attack. After this attack, Osama Bin
Laden was seen on TV everyday, or at least that’s how it seemed, claiming the
divine right of Muslims everywhere to strike at the heart of the infidel.
I am unsure where the divergence happened, but
neither Christ nor Muhammad preached violence as a divine right. The teachings
of both founders were about peace and finding a way to bring about peaceful
solutions. Although this essay turned out a little more religiously minded than
I intended, it still relates quite well with our course texts. Most of the texts
have religious language and deal with the big questions of life, meaning, and
how one should live life. Religion and war will always be intertwined and the
reasons why are vast and varied.
Works Cited
Heston, Alan.
“Crusades and Jihads: A Long-Run Economic Perspective.”
Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science
588 (2003): 112-135. Print.
Johns, Jeremy.
“Archaeology and History of Early Islam: The First Seventy Years.”
Journal of
the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 46.4
(2003): 411-436. Print.
Johnson, James Turner. “Aquinas and
Luther on War and Peace: Sovereign Authority and the
Use of Armed Force.”
The Journal of
Religious Ethics 31.1 (2003): 3-20. Print.
Nagata, Judith.
“Beyond Theology: Toward and Anthropology of Fundamentalism.”
American
Anthropologist 103.2 (2001): 481-498. Print.
Rakoczy, Susan. “Religion and Violence:
The Suffering of Women.”
Agenda 61 (2004): 29-35.
Print.
