|
Since Benedict XVI quoted him in a speech on September 12, 2006, Manuel II's words have been closely examined. But what about the motivations behind them?
Manuel II's controversial quote can be found in Dialogue 7 of Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian (1399) in which he recorded philosophical discussions, probably dating from 1391, between himself and an unnamed Persian:
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
Manuel probably had the conversation while he was an unwilling hostage at Bajazet's court and published it shortly before he left Constantinople to find help for lifting Bajazet's siege. He was therefore in a very bitter frame of mind about Muslims, and about the Ottoman Turks in particular, both when he had the conversation and when he published it.
One must also contrast the above attitude with his friendly alliance with Bajazet's successor, Mehmed I (1402-1421) and his own military career. By accusing Muhammad of violence, Manuel is, of course, ignoring Christianity's own bloody history (hardly a surprising attitude in a Christian ruler of the period), particularly the growing post-Black Death aggression of his western allies toward heretics, Jews and Muslims. But his attitude in the 1390s did not stop him from entering into friendly relations with the successor to his greatest enemy. Considering how little of the Byzantine Empire remained in his lifetime, he really had no choice.
One must therefore take Manuel's words in the context in which they were used. Whatever Pope Benedict XVI intended, he did not do this. If he had intended to show how relations could be strained between Christians and Muslims during their history-particularly in times of war-he did not sufficiently clarify Manuel's (and his empire's) circumstances when Manuel made this argument. If he had intended simply to discuss how religion could be used as an excuse for violence against others, an example involving Christians might have been more appropriate, given the currently strained climate between the two religions and the ample examples available.
Certainly, he failed to make clear how much has changed since Manuel's time. The Ottoman Empire finally disintegrated after WWI. Christian countries, however secular, currently dominate the world scene. The medieval world in which Islam was a genuine threat to Christianity, pushing Christians out of North Africa, southern Spain, Sicily, southern Italy and Anatolia no longer exists. Muslim dominance in Eurasia hasn't existed for nearly two centuries. It's time to let go of old medieval fears, on both sides, and move on.
The copyright of the article Manuel II Paleologus pt 2 in Medieval History is owned by Paula Stiles. Permission to republish Manuel II Paleologus pt 2 in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Oct 13, 2006 8:16 AM
Brian Tubbs :
I think there's truth to Manuel's writing. Christian nations, when they
become more secularized, engage in violence. The Crusades are an example of
this. You'll find that much of the violence of the Catholic Church, for
example, during the medieval period was motivated by greed, power, etc.
By contrast, Muslim violence is usually religious in nature. And
Muhammad (or Mohammed - I've seen it spelled both ways) did start the
religion of Islam with the sword. That is a historical fact. Islam spread
with the sword. Not so with Christianity - at least not initially.
Oct 13, 2006 4:33 PM
Paula Stiles :
I'm a little confused--you are seriously claiming that the Crusades were
secular? How so? The First Crusade began with a sermon, continued with
convulsions of religiously inspired pogroms against Jews in the Rhine area
and culminated in the siege and sacking of Jerusalem in which the city was
"cleansed" of "infidels" by killing the inhabitants.
Subsequent crusades all began with similar religious fervor. I'm aware of
the historiographical arguments that the Crusades were essentially an
economic and military venture, but even the most extreme never completely
discounted the religious motivation and they are now considered out of
favor with historians.
As far as the idea of Christianity being
a peaceable religion--not since Constantine, it hasn't been. And Byzantine
emperors well into the 11th century spread Christianity quite freely by the
sword. As did the knights of the Albigensian Crusade. While that crusade
certainly had a strong element of northern territorial expansion to it, it
was sanctioned by the Church as a way to "cleanse" the Catharist
heresy. There is also the example of the Spanish Inquisition and the
fanatical campaigns of Ferdinand and Isabella, not to mention the eastern
crusades against Slavic pagans.
And lest we let Protestants off
the hook, let's not forget the Reformation, in which Christians spent
nearly two centuries cheerfully murdering each other in the name of
Christ.
Finally, your argument about Islam is just silly. For it
to work, Muslims would have always had to prosecute war in the name of
Allah, never for greed, power, etc. Obviously, they have fought for gold,
land and power just like any one else.
Oct 20, 2006 8:01 PM
Brian Tubbs :
First, let's clarify our terms. When I hear "Christianity," I
think of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles. I think of the
Bible, as originally canonized.
Others (and it appears you)
think of the "Christian" denominations and institutions over the
centuries - leading to the current 2.3 billion "Christians" in
the world today.
Christianity, understood that way, is NOT
monolithic. Not even close.
So, let's discuss foundational,
biblical Christianity. Fair enough?
Oct 20, 2006 8:04 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Finally, your argument about Islam is just silly. For it to work,
Muslims would have always had to prosecute war in the name of Allah, never
for greed, power, etc. Obviously, they have fought for gold, land and power
just like any one else. </i>
I'll rephrase. Muslim
violence TODAY is mostly about religion. Historically, Islamic nations have
fought for a multitude of reasons. I agree.
I stand by my point
that Mohammed (or Muhammad - whatever the correct sp) laid the foundation
of Islam with the sword. His evangelism was one of violence. That is a
historical fact, and it contrasts significantly with Christianity's
origins.
Oct 21, 2006 5:31 AM
Paula Stiles :
Let's not, since Islam did not come into existence until a good six
centuries after the "primitive", apostolic New Testament
Christianity that you apparently want to set up versus a straw-man Islam.
If you want to compare Islam to Christianity, then to avoid being
anachronistic, you must compare Islam to what Christianity was like when
Islam came into existence--which is definitely post-Constantine and
definitely problematical in the terms you want to compare. And definitely
not monolithic. Nice try, though.
Christians had been making war
on both pagans and each other for centuries before Islam came along. It is
therefore a logical fallacy to compare pacifistic, non-nationalistic,
apostolic early Christianity with early Islam. The two never coexisted.
Second, you keep comparing Muhammad to Christ. Please stop as this
is grossly sacrilegious to a Muslim (especially considering that we're at
the end of Ramadan). While Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, they
naturally do not revere him as the Son of God. Even if they believed in a
Son of God, it would never be Muhammad. Muhammad is in no way comparable to
God in Islam--he is "just" the final prophet. He may be the
Perfect Man to many Muslims, but he is still only human.
If you
want to accuse Muslims of violence endemic to their religion (always a
dodgy idea with any religion that boasts a billion adherents, imho), you
should look at how they perceive God. But watch your step, since you'll
also have to show why Christianity is not inherently violent even though
Christians still revere the Old Testament, which frequently portrays God in
such a vengeful way that it makes Allah truly look kind and merciful.
As for the "canonized" Bible--in what language? There
have been many canonizations of the Bible through the ages. We don't follow
every one of them today.
Oct 23, 2006 1:31 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Let's not, since Islam did not come into existence until a good
six centuries after the "primitive", apostolic New Testament
Christianity that you apparently want to set up versus a straw-man
Islam.</i>
I am not setting up anything as a straw man.
I'm simply comparing foundations - the foundation of Islam as opposed to
the foundation of Christianity. This is a valid comparison.
<i>If you want to compare Islam to Christianity, then to avoid
being anachronistic, you must compare Islam to what Christianity was like
when Islam came into existence--which is definitely post-Constantine and
definitely problematical in the terms you want to compare. And definitely
not monolithic. Nice try, though.</i>
I disagree with
these parameters, since my objective - I being the initiator of this
discussion - was to contrast the foundations of the two religions. But,
since you wish to compare the conduct of the two organizations during the
Middle Ages....well....then, okay. But the terms of the discussion change
dramatically.
With that in mind, I would say that both Islam and
Christianity were organizationally corrupted by human beings -- and both,
in their own way, inflicted great pain on the world.
But...this
does not speak to the truth claims of each respective faith. For that, it's
helpful to look at their comparative creeds and foundations.
Oct 23, 2006 1:35 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>you keep comparing Muhammad to Christ. Please stop as this is
grossly sacrilegious to a Muslim (especially considering that we're at the
end of Ramadan)</i>
I'm not sure what you're getting at
here. I'm only comparing Christ and Muhammad in the sense that one is the
central figure in Christianity and the other is the central figure in
Islam.
But even if my comparisons or arguments are offensive to
Muslims, that should not be reason for you to ask me to 'stop' unless I'm
being deliberately provocative and insulting. I'm being neither. I'm just
engaged in a discussion.
Oct 24, 2006 3:04 PM
Paula Stiles :
Since this is a history forum, certain parameters already existed when you
posted your discussion--namely, that you should make comparisons that were
historically valid. Comparing an insider's view of early Christianity
(which will naturally be rose-colored) with an outsider's view of early
Islam (which will naturally be less favorable) is not historically valid.
It reminds me of those medieval disputations that used to occur between
Christians and Jews--those, of course, were supposed to end in the favor of
the Christians, not because the Christians had the right but because they
had the might.
Further, if you really want to compare the two
religions in some pure theological space that does not exist, you should
keep in mind that this aim goes completely against original Christian
theology. You are asking what is wrong with Islam. Yet, Jesus himself spoke
out against this type of attitude: "Let he who is without sin cast the
first stone," "How is it that you can see the mote in your
brother's eye and not see the beam in your own eye?", "Judge not
lest ye shall be judged" and "By their fruits shall ye know
them." His parable of the Good Samaritan also warns against condemning
those who don't believe as we do.
I frequently hear comments
like yours from people who seem to feel they have every right to judge
Muslims and others who do not share their beliefs without showing any need
whatsoever to examine their own beliefs. As Christians, we have no right to
call Islam "inherently violent" when we have so much blood in our
own history. So the Qu'ran has examples of war in it. So what? So does the
Bible. The Qu'ran also makes provisions for charity and the care of those
who are helpless in Muslim society. The hadiths enjoin Muslims to treat
animals with kindness. Early female mystics are still revered as saints
today. These examples contradict the popular western attitude of Islam as
"inherently violent" and "inherently misogynistic"
(another favorite slur) while conveniently ignoring the violence and
misogyny often found in Christian practice.
I have known many
kind and gentle Muslims who have taken their strength and faith to help
others from the Qu'ran. They have treated me kindly as one of the
"People of the Book" and have, in fact, respected me more because
I held firm in my own faith while respecting theirs than they would have
for someone raised Christian who had no faith. Like the Good Samaritan,
some of them even took care of me when I was ill
Oct 25, 2006 1:28 PM
Brian Tubbs :
First, I am personally NOT judging anybody. That is not my perogative. But
I can certainly express my disagreement or disapproval as a participant in
a discussion. But Judging someone? No, that requires higher authority -
something neither of us has.
Second, writers question Jesus'
divinity all the time. I'm used to it. I believe in freedom of speech as
well as the freedom of religion. I believe in the free exchange of ideas
and in debates and discussions. We should not have to muzzle ourselves on
certain days or weeks. You're basically saying: "Don't compare
Muhammad to Christ at any time, because that will offend Muslims." And
"don't say anything disagreeable about Islam on any of their holy days
or weeks." Well, excuse me, but what happened to freedom of speech?
Third, I haven't said anything in any kind of an offensive or
derogatory tone. I've been polite and civil in this exchange with you. In
fact, if you comb back through our exchanges, I think you've been the more
aggressive one.
9 Comments
|
