Tag Archives: Colonialism

What is the West?? The Origins and Definition of Western Civilisation

[By Abdullah al Andalusi]

Introduction: Why is it important to understand and define ‘The West’??

The term ‘The West’, ‘The Western world’ and ‘Western culture’ are used quite widely by ‘Western’ politicians, media and academics to refer to the very specific phenomena of ‘Western Civilisation’. Most people who use the term ‘the West’, do so intuitively, and generally agree on who are the main Western countries and states.

However, there are times when some people challenge the label ‘the West’, and seek to dismiss its use – especially when faced with arguments criticising ‘The West’ for its collective history of colonial abuses, ongoing foreign military interventions, and the endless stream of cultural products it exports aggressively across the world.

Generally, most people would agree that England, France, Germany, USA, Canada and Australia are Western countries, while countries such as Nigeria, Turkey and South Korea are ‘Westernised’. Obviously ‘The West’ doesn’t just mean europe, otherwise Australia and USA wouldn’t be included – and Russia would be included.

But what does ‘Western’ mean, where did the term come from, and what definitive criteria can be use to determine what is ‘Western’, ‘Westernised’ and ‘non-Western’?
An understanding of the origins of the West, and what defines it, will decisively help to ascertain and predict its character and behaviour.

The Origins of the West: The Roman Empire

The discussion about the West begins with the Roman Republic (509BC-27BC). The Roman republic lasted until 27BC when its republican political system of elected representatives and unelected aristocrats was overturned by the rise to power of the military general Octavian who became Rome’s first Emperor, transforming Rome into an Empire. The Roman Republic already controlled many provinces around the Mediterranean that it had conquered before it transformed into an Empire. This is because Rome under elected representatives was no less warlike than when ruled under Emperors, in fact probably more so before the imperial period [1].

Between 274–148 BC, the Roman Republic never had a year where it wasn’t at war with other states – including against other republics, like Carthage.

While Western Civilisation certainly arose in Europe, many falsely assume that Western Civilisation is based upon the lands occupied by the Roman Empire, but this is historically inaccurate. The Romans didn’t see themselves as a european empire but more of an mediterranean empire (the word ‘mediterranean’ means in Latin: ‘middle of the Earth’). Rome wasn’t exactly European as there were many places in Europe that were unconquered and uncivilised to them, like the north western european territories outside roman control – which were populated by peoples the romans considered barbarians like Caledonia (Scotland), Hibernia (Ireland), or in the north, like Scatinavia (Scandinavia) and in the east, like Magna Germania (Germany/Poland). Furthermore, the Roman Empire was not a european Empire because it had numerous middle-eastern and north African possessions which were integral parts of it

image

The Roman Empire’s territories do not correspond with the modern ‘West’, nor Europe. The seeds of Western civilisation wouldn’t start in Europe, but in the middle-east. Rome’s acquisition of a middle-eastern province it called Judea, would later see the rise of an obscure middle-eastern religious sect that would later be called Christianity – which would have a seminal role in the creation of Western civilisation.

The Roman Occupied Province of Judea and Judaism

Roman Judea was situated upon the area formerly occupied by the Biblical Ancient Kingdom of Israel (1050–931 BC).

The Kingdom of Israel comprised the 12 tribes of Israel, a nation led out of slavery in Egypt, according to the Tanakh (Jewish scriptures/Old Testament for Christians) and the Quran, who were favoured by God to bear witness of monotheism to the world and righteousness under the law of Moses.

There are a number of archeological and biblical sources for the history of the 12 tribes of Israel, but dates and events are still speculative. However, what the Tanakh teaches, is that Moses took the 12 tribes of Israel out of Egypt and into the wilderness of Sinai. The 12 tribes constitute the 12 clans originating from the 12 sons of Prophet Jacob (Yaqub [a.s.]), who was given the name Israel [2].

While in the wilderness, Moses conveyed the Law of God he received from revelation (called the Law of Moses , or Mosaic Law ) and decreed the building of a mobile tent-shrine to the one God – the Tabernacle. Moses’ teachings are alleged to be incorporated into the ‘5 books of Moses’ (called the
Torah by Jews . The books that would come later would record the stories of Prophets, the history of the tribes of Israel, and the Prophetic kings that came after Moses. These texts would be gathered and added to the 5 books of Moses, and later called the Tanakh by Jews, or the Old Testament by Christians).

The 12 tribes were promised by Moses the land of Canaan (modern day Lebanon and Palestine) except [3] the Philistine city states (modern day Gaza) [4].

The Conquest of Canaan and the era of Judges

After 40 years of waiting in the wilderness as nomads and growing in strength, the death of Moses saw the 12 tribes begin a successful conquest of Canaan led by Joshua, who was given the title ‘Judge’ in the Tanakh. Each tribe was given an area to settle – except the tribe of Levi, who were to be the priest caste for the other tribes, and would dwell in the cities being paid a tithe by the others. The 12 tribes lived under a loose confederation under successive leaders called ‘Judges’ but were more than judges in the legal sense, and were considered as Prophets in the Tanakh. Judges arose amongst the 12 tribes to unite them to fight external enemies, and sometimes they would arise to revive Mosaic law and monotheism in the face of lapses by the 12 tribes.

Due to border wars with the Philistines, the loose confederation of 12 tribes demanded a King over them, and were united into the Kingdom of Israel by Prophet Samuel (a.s.) under the King Saul (1050BC). Saul was later deposed by the Prophet Samuel due to allegedly not following God’s commands, and was replaced as King by David (1010BC), from the Israelite tribe of Judah.

The Jewish Concept of the Kingdom of God

The lands of Israel were described in the Tanakh as ruled by God, who would be its King [5]. During the time of the Judges, the Judges would direct the tribes of Israel by God’s judgements. After the beginning of kingship, the King was considered the deputy of God, and would rule Israel on His behalf according to Mosaic law. Courts would be set up and to judge by Mosaic law [6]- where even the King would be held accountable and deposed upon serious breach.

Mosaic law was a complete way of life for its time, guiding personal spiritual rituals, personal virtues to economic transactions, structure of Jewish society, laws and state. The Jewish understanding of the Kingdom of God, was an earthly Kingdom that established justice and the worship of God on earth.

The Prophet Kings of Israel
King David (Dawud alaihissalaam.) conquered the city of Jebus from the Jebusite tribe of Canaan [7], after which it is eventually renamed Jerusalem (as well as ‘The City of David’, and ‘Zion’) . After the passing of David, his son, Solomon [Sulayman alaihissalaam] becomes king of the Kingdom of Israel (970BC to 931BC), and builds its temple to the One god in Jerusalem. The Kingdom of Israel continued until Solomon’s (Sulayman alaihissalaam) death (931BC), where it split, with 10 tribes forming the northern Kingdom of Israel (centered around their capital of Samaria) and two tribes, the tribes of Benjamin and the dominant tribe of Judah forming the southern Kingdom of Judah (with the tribe of Levi, or Levites, moving to them shortly after), centered around their capital of Jerusalem.

image

The Northern kingdom of Israel was eventually conquered by the Assyrian Empire (720BC), and is portrayed in the Tanakh as being conquered as divine retribution for its sins and turning to idolatry. It’s ten tribes were exiled by the Assyrians and became known as the ‘ten lost tribes of Israel’ .

It was from the remaining Kingdom of Judah, which was dominated by the Judah Tribe, that the word ‘Judaism’ and ‘Jew’ originate from, i.e. the religion of the people of Judah.

Destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the beginning of the era of Occupation

The Babylonians eventually conquered the Assyrians, and then took the southern kingdom of Judah in 587BC – destroying the first temple of Solomon – and taking the Jewish population as slaves into exile in Babylon.

The Babylonians were then conquered in turn by the Achaemenid Persians under ‘Cyrus the Great’ (539BC), who allowed the Jews to return back to Canaan and rebuild their (second) temple in Jerusalem. The Jews were given the region around Jerusalem as an autonomous region within the Achaemenid Persian empire, called Yehud Medinata. The Persians were then in turn conquered by Greeks led by Alexander III of Macedon, or ‘Alexander the great’ (331BC) which spread Greek culture (called Hellenism by historians) and Greek language throughout the eastern part of the mediterranean and the middle east, which would later have a decisive impact on creating the borders of Western civilisation .

Alexander’s greek empire split after his death (323BC) and was divided by his generals. Alexander’s General Seleucus eventually took control of the area from modern day Turkey and the Levant (Palestine/Syria) to modern-day Pakistan. This would be the later called the Seleucid Empire. It would clash with Rome in greece, and later crumble and fall to Parthian Persians invading from the East.

Under Seleucid rule, there were many Jews who adhered to the laws of Moses and the belief in one God, and strongly preserved the teachings of their ancestors against the ‘modern’ pagan Hellenism that dominated the Middle-East and eastern mediterranean. However, many Jews became Hellenised and adopted Greek culture, and even greek pagan religions.

The end of occupation, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Judea

In 167BC, the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes ordered that non-Hellenised Jews were forbidden from practicing their religion, laws and culture, and were ordered to adopt Hellenistic religion, customs and laws. This caused a revolt amongst Jews, called the Maccabean Revolt, which lasted 7 years and pitted Jews against collaborators amongst the ‘Hellenised Jews’ and and Seleucid authorities. The revolt eventually lead to a victory from the Jewish forces, and the establishment of the Kingdom of Judea (160BC-63BC). Hellenistic Pagan temples were torn down and the temple of Solomon was cleansed of idolatry and re-dedicated to the one God (which Jews still celebrate today as Hanukkah) [8].

The Kingdom of Judea was independent for almost 100 years and expanded its borders during this time. However, Hellenism still was a potent political and cultural force, and Jewish society was split into a number of factions or political parties, with some based upon the preservation of Jewish tradition and the rejection of hellenism, and others who had a mild accommodation to hellenistic culture and philosophy. The three main factions were the Pharisees (Jewish traditionalists), Sadducees (aristocratic and inclined to hellenist philosophy, which, for example, denied the existence of an afterlife) and the Essenes (ascetics) [9].

Beginning of the Roman Occupation of Judea

In 63BC a civil war in the Kingdom of Judea allowed the Roman Republic an excuse to intervene.

Jerusalem was then conquered by the Roman general ‘Pompey the Great’ in 63BC, and the Kingdom of Judea became a client state of Rome with puppet figurehead rulers (known to be oppressive and silence political dissent), like King Herod. In 6BC, the puppet ruler Archelaus was made ruler of Judea by Roman approval, but was even more unpopular than his predecessors. This led to Rome deposing the ruler and turning the Kingdom of Judea into a Roman province under direct Roman rule from 6AD onwards.

Roman occupation and taxation caused the rise of two new factions, the Zealots (followers of Pharisee intent, but actively opposed to Roman occupation and paying taxes to them), and another faction faction or group, known as the Sicarii (Greek, ‘dagger men’), a group of violent individuals, who undertook extreme violent actions against Romans and Jews identified as tax collectors and collaborators.

The Coming of Hadhrat ‘Eesa (alaihissalaam) (Jesus)

The factionalism between the Jewish movements increased, and over the centuries since the time of Solomon (Sulayman alaihissalaam) the understanding of Judaism had become stale, with blind adherence to doctrines and laws of Moses, lacking nuance and subtlety in places. The laws of personal conduct and jurisprudence had over the centuries become overly-complex and prescriptive, becoming cumbersome and leading to contradictions beyond the law’s original intent. On the other extremes, many Jews had succumbed to greek philosophy and adopted corruptions into Jewish theology (like denial of an afterlife or a continuing soul), while others adopted asceticism and complete separation from worldly life.

Into this milieu came Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), an alleged carpenter by trade, and raised in Nazareth (Galilee, north of Judea). He claimed receipt of divine revelation and that he was the prophesied Messiah (from Hebrew, ‘anointed one’) that would come and lead Israel to follow the commands of God, establish justice and vanquish its enemies. It is believed he (alaihissalaam) preached throughout Judea, correcting the superficial and over-complicated understanding and practice of the law held by the Pharisees, returning the understanding to the original practice of the time of Musa (alaihissalaam) (Moses).

Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) also is alleged to have argued against the corrupt greek-influenced theology of the Sadducees, and lived a life amongst the community and not separate from it, like the Essenes.

However, although it is believed by many historians today that Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) was executed by Romans at the initiation of Jewish colonial authorities, however the New Testament’s collection of books and the Qur’an declares that he was seen alive and well after his alleged crucifixion (the Qur’an argues he wasn’t killed). According to both sources, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) was later raised up to heaven and believed will return to fulfill his mission in the future.

Since the raising up of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) from the earth, (speculated around 27AD), the disciples of Jesus [‘Eesa alaihissalaam) formed a Council in Jerusalem, capital of the roman province of (occupied) Judea.

These individuals were considered practicing Jews for all intents and purposes and some historians go as far as to call them, at this juncture, a sect of Judaism. This Jewish sect followed the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) which attested that the promised Jewish Messiah had come, and were devout Jews adhering to the laws of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam). They became known by others Jews as the ‘ Notzrim’ (Hebrew: Nazarenes, the people of Nazareth, or ‘Nazoraioi’ in Greek).

The decline of the Nazarenes and the birth of Roman/Hellenic Christianity

After the disappearance of Jesus (‘Eesa Maseeh alaihissalaam), Saul of Tarsus, arose to prominence in the new Jewish sect of Nazarenes. Known later as “St Paul”, Saul was a rabbinical student, tent maker and Roman citizen . He was a follower of the Jewish Pharisee school of thought, who initially persecuted the Nazarenes, but later claimed he had a vision of Jesus and converted to the new sect on the way to Damascus.

Paul’s charisma combined with his Roman citizenship and knowledge of Greek, Roman culture and Greek philosophy, allowed him to take a leading role in preaching to Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) and he described himself as ‘a Messenger to the gentiles’ [10]. Paul preached a message to gentiles of faith and spirituality, but played down the importance of the law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) – which guided Jews in their personal, social and political lives.

Some scholars would later argue that Paul attempted to make the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) more appealing to Gentiles, by not requiring any strict rules. Furthermore, Paul preached a decidedly passive and submissive doctrine, commanding people to pay their taxes to Rome, that Israelites be apolitical and wait for the return of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), and for slaves to be obedient to their masters without complaint. Paul’s ‘interpretation’ on the new sect of Judaism would be more preferable to the Romans and Greeks than the Mosaic social and political way of life that had been causing Jewish uprisings against Roman occupation.

Paul’s ‘Kingdom of God’ would no longer be an earthly kingdom, as Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) understood it, but Paul would reinterpret it to be purely a ‘spiritual kingdom’ that exists only in ‘hearts’ and in the future world of the coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam).

It is recorded in the works of Paul, a new Greek-based name for followers of the new Jewish sect: Christians (Greek: Christianoi , followers of Christ , the Greek word for Messiah [11]).

Paul’s virtual abrogation of the law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam), saw him come to blows with the council of Jerusalem over whether the Law of Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) should be followed by Gentiles or not. His teachings were notably submissive to the current political authorities, and his ‘understanding’ of the teachings of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) became the most influential, despite Paul never having known Jesus or learned from his companions. Centuries later, 14 of the 27 books of the modern Christian New Testament would be composed entirely of his alleged writings alone. He died in Rome, having supported Peter in setting up a Christian community there.

A number of Jewish revolts against Rome rule failed, leading to the destruction of the second temple in 70AD by the Romans. 60 years later another failed and disastrous Jewish revolt called the Bar Kokhba revolt (132 AD – 135 AD) led to the Romans destroying the province of Judea, killing and exiling many of the jewish inhabitants. The Romans then renamed Judea to an ancient name for the region ‘Palaestina’, and merged the Roman province of Judea with the Roman province of Syria to create a new province called ‘Syria Palaestina‘. At the decree of Emperor Hadrian, Jews were banned from the city of Jerusalem, which was rebuilt and renamed ‘Aelia Capitolina’ and became a purely pagan capital.

After the destruction of Judea in 130AD, the character of Christianity became dominated by non-Jewish (Gentile) communities of Christian believers called ‘churches’ (from Greek ‘Ecclesia’: assembly) who were spread throughout the areas of the Mediterranean.

After 130AD, the centre of gravity of Christianity shifted from Jerusalem to the Church in Rome, which began to rise in prominence due to being in the capital of the Roman Empire. The Christian community in Rome was founded allegedly by Peter (a disciple of Jesus [‘Eesa alaihisalaam]who is reported to have come to Rome, and was killed by Emperor Nero around 67AD) and later supported by Paul.

However, Christianity began to be viewed with distrust throughout the Roman Empire, leading to many persecutions and killings of Christians lasting on-and-off for over two hundred years.

Christians were suspected of not being loyal to Rome and the Emperor, not participating the Roman political system or military, and holding ideas that threatened traditional roman values and beliefs.

During this time, the beliefs of Christian communities were written down, with each community writing its own version of Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) teaching and life – called Gospels (Greek: Evangelion, good news), other writings included history of the companions of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) or the early churches, and other writings featuring visions later Christians claim they had received about the future (called Apocalyses from the Greek word for ‘revelation’).

Centuries later, these Gospels would be gathered up, with some being discarded, and others being chosen depending on whether or not they agreed with Christian beliefs held by the majority (who were Pagan Greeks/Romans).

Eventually these were compiled into a compilation later to be called ‘the New Testament’ (The Jewish Tanakh was then referred to as the Old Testament).

The Roman Empire Adopts Christianity

Eventually, Christianity persisted through the persecutions and continued to spread to the point it was patroned by the Roman Emperor Constantine – some historians say as a means to supplant his rivals, and use it to enforce order in a declining empire. Constantine issued the edict of Milan, in 313AD officially granting tolerance of Christianity.

Eventually, after support from following Christian emperors, under Emperor Theodosius I, in 380AD, Christianity was declared the only legitimate religion of the Roman Empire, and therefore the ‘Catholic ‘ Church (from Greek: katholikos, universal). In the years that followed, many pagans were forced to convert to Christianity or lose their positions, be threatened, or even killed.

The Christian Church at this point wasn’t hierarchical or strictly unified. It was composed of a scattered collection of Christian communities (churches) in different areas of the Roman Empire, each led by its own Bishop (from Greek ‘epískopos’, meaning overseer or guardian) and following various gospels or other writings.

Whenever a matter of doctrine or dispute was to be decided, the Roman emperor would summon the bishops of all the areas within the Roman empire to attend a council or synod, where each matter would be decided by voting. The Council of Nicaea in 325AD was one such example, convened by Constantine to decide the question of the divinity of Jesus by putting it to a vote, resulting in a majority voting for Jesus being declared one with God, and God himself, despite being opposed by a minority (an example of democracy in theology).

The Split of the Roman Empire into East and West

The adoption of Christianity did not prevent the continuingly endless civil wars, succession crises, constant barbarian invasions and gradual economic decline that wrecked the Roman Empire. After the death of Emperor Theodosius I, in 395AD, the Roman Empire split into two.

The Western half being roughly composed of Latin speakers, and the Eastern half of Greek speakers.

image

The Eastern Roman Empire remained, and was later called by historians, the Byzantines, because Emperor Constantine moved the Roman capital to former Greek city of Byzantium, rebuilt it and renamed it Constantinople.

Despite this, the Eastern Roman Empire regarded themselves simply as ‘Romans’ and they viewed their lands as the continuing Roman Empire.

The Western Roman Empire continued to decline, and retreated from its northern territories in europe. The empire lasted (officially) until 4 September 476AD, when Rome was conquered and sacked by a barbarian invasion force led by Odoacer, which deposed the Roman emperor.

The traditions and practices of the West and Eastern churches would later gradually diverge over time, with communication becoming increasingly difficult and theological disagreements would arise due to translation differences, becoming more acute with the decline of the use of Latin and Greek in both areas.

In the wake of the collapse of the Roman Empire, the tribes and nomadic hordes of Scatinavia and Germania, the Franks, Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards and Saxons burst into former Roman lands, rampaged and conquered and established a patchwork of new fiefdoms and kingdoms. The relatively uneducated and unsophisticated barbarian tribes couldn’t repair roman technology or buildings, and left them to slowly crumble. The places of learning fell into disrepair and the technological know-how of the romans was lost, which heralded in the what historians would call the european ‘Dark Ages’ . The Dark Ages were not a product of Christianity as some modern day Secularists falsely misrepresent, but rather the Dark Ages were an obvious and natural result of the collapse of the (Christian) Roman Empire and the usurpation of its lands by barbarian tribes!

The Eastern Roman Empire didn’t fall, and therefore managed to preserve all the learning and technology from the Roman Empire and never suffered under a ‘dark age’. The Dark Ages would only descend upon the remains of the Western Roman Empire setting the scene for what would come next.

The split in the Roman Empire into a Western Latin speaking half, and an Eastern Greek speaking half would set the course for the creation of the modern “West”. The surviving remnant of the fall of Rome, the Church of Rome would operate within the latin speaking half and cause subsequent transformations using a radically altered religion that was taken from the Middle-East into Europe and transformed into a hybrid of ancient semitic beliefs and Greeco-Roman philosophy and mythology.

This hybrid religion would then create a historical peculiarity over the next 1,000 years that would form Western Civilisation and make it distinct from all others.

Now, we look at what happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and how the last surviving institution, the Roman Church was vaulted into ascendency by the unwitting activity of a new rising civilisation – Islam.

The clash of the West European Christian Tribes with the Islamic Civilisation, would unleash forces that led to the birth of the West as a distinct civilisation. The rise of Islam would create the West.

The Fall of the Western Roman Empire and the ‘Barbarian’ Colonisation of Europe

The Western Roman Empire was crumbling economically and militarily, and began to withdraw from many areas of the Empire, in many places it ceded areas to barbarian tribes for settlement instead of resisting. However it was a matter of time before the complete collapse of the Western Roman Empire came.

After the sack of Rome to Alaric and his gothic army in 410AD, the city of Rome remained, although only a pale shadow of its former esteem.

The Gothic armies of Odoacer (a former Roman officer) deposed the last Western Roman Emperor in 476AD and Odoacer was declared first (‘Barbarian’) King of Italy. This formally ended the Western Roman Empire.

With the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was overrun with barbarian tribes, from Germania – the Franks, the Lombards, the Visigoths, the Saxons, the Frisians and the Angles and Danes from Scandinavia.

image

The native Gauls and Celts who had previously lived throughout western Europe under Roman power were christian and many Christian communities of the Western Roman Empire survived and adapted to their new pagan overlords (although some of the tribes were nominally Christian).

image

Later on, the Eastern Roman Empire under Emperor Justinian (ruled 527AD-565AD) attempted to reconquer all the former Western Roman areas into a reunited Roman Empire, which met with some success, but eventually shrank back due to overstretched resources.

However, the Eastern Roman Empire managed to retain Rome, leaving a small garrison force to protect it. The city of Rome looked to the Eastern Roman Empire for its protection against the european barbarians. The Bishop of Rome attended the councils and synods of his fellow Bishops in the Eastern Roman Empire (who each head churches in Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople), but this didn’t last long.

The Rise of Islam & the Breakaway of the Church of Rome

Pressured by constant wars against the Persian Sassanid Empire and the invading Bulgars, the rise of Islam and the military defeats of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) armies, shrivelled up the Eastern Roman Empire, losing it North Africa, Egypt, the Levant and the islands of the mediterranean. Constantinople barely resisted a number of sieges by Caliph Muawiyah, relying on ‘greek-fire’ flamethrowers to fend off the Muslim forces.

The pressure of the barbarian Lombards invasions of Italy, and the loss of a significant amount of provinces to the Islamic Caliphate created a weakness and inability in the Eastern Roman Empire to protect the Italian peninsula. This prompted the Bishop of Rome to look towards the new germanic tribal overlords of Europe for protection. If the rise of the Islamic Caliphate hadn’t conquered the lands dominated by the Eastern Roman Empire, history would have taken a completely different turn.

The Roman Catholic Church finds new patrons

With the Roman Church free of the Eastern Roman Empire’s control, it used Rome as a base of operations to send missionaries and resources from the Catholic Church to convert the invading pagan tribes to Christianity and set up new communities and expand existing ones – leading to new Bishops and Churches being established throughout Europe. This task was made easier due to the fact that many of the invading tribes were already (nominal) Christians, and had earlier become Christian due to awe at the power and civilisation of the former Roman Empire.

The Bishops and clergy preserved Western Roman language (Latin) and a lot of Roman administrative methods, laws and codes. They offered their assistance and giving them religious-approved authority to the rule over the new Christian tribal kings and chiefs in return of protection and patronage. Over time, the invaders were latinised and their languages changed under the tutelage of Bishops and clergy who preserved many aspects of late Roman culture. This led to the adoption of many latin words into the languages of these new Christian tribes – leading to the languages that would eventually become French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, English and German. Eventually, conquest and increasing wealth from settlement and sedentary life led to the rise of bigger kingdoms in Western Europe.

In 800 AD,  Pope Leo III crowned the highly successful Frankish King, Charlemagne, as ‘Holy Roman Emperor’, conveying upon the church of Rome, the ability to spiritually approve and make Kings and heirs to the Roman Empire itself (which was strongly protested by the Empress Irene of the Eastern Roman Empire, and her successor Emperor Nikephoros I, who viewed themselves to be the only true continuation of the Roman Empire).

Charlemagne’s Frankish empire, called the Carolingian Empire – spanned modern-day France, Germany and Northern Italy, and had become powerful patrons of Roman Christianity, fighting Muslims in Spain (with limited results), conquering the Lombards in Italy, and forcing the Saxons in Germania to convert to Christianity or face death.

image

The Carolingian Empire lasted until 846AD where it split into three parts between three sons of Frankish Emperor Louis ‘the Pious’ (840AD), Western Francia, Northern Italy and the third Kingdom over the area where is now modern Germany.

image

The Frankish Kingdom ruling over the area where is now modern-day Germany (shown in pink on the picture above), expanded somewhat and later became another revived ‘Holy Roman Empire’ under King Otto I in 962AD (lasting in very different forms up until 1809).

While Bishops and Churches of the Eastern Roman Empire were puppets of the Emperor and lacked independence, however, the new political independence of Rome and its Church from the shrinking Eastern Roman Empire allowed the Bishop of Rome to act independently and decide theological doctrines outside of Eastern Imperial control. This would eventually lead to a schism between the Christian communities under the influence of the Roman Church (the churches of Western europe) and the prominent christian communities under the rule of the Eastern Roman Emperor.

Over the years many Bishops of Rome began increasingly claiming that they possessed preeminent authority in all earthly and spiritual matters – arguing that the foundation of christian communion (i.e. The Christian ‘ Ummah’), was upon St. Peter, who they argued was given the ‘keys to the Kingdom of Heaven’ [12]. The Bishops of Rome argued they were the direct successors of St. Peter, and therefore only they were inheritors to the same ‘powers’ and ‘authority’ allegedly first conveyed to St. Peter – possessing ‘rightful’ leadership of all the Christian communities throughout the world.

In the past, the Bishops of all the most prominent Christian communities were called ‘Popes’ (Greek: Father), however, the Bishop of Rome would now (according to itself) be the only one that could be called
Pope . In essence, the Bishop of Rome, gradually claimed pre-eminence until it declared that the Bishop of Rome alone could unilaterally decide Christian doctrine, rites, creed and canon law without strictly needing councils or synods.

In 1054, Pope Leo IX sent Cardinal Humbert to deliver a decree to the head Bishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople, Michael Cærularius. The decree not only claimed the supreme authority of the Pope of Rome, but also claimed that the Roman emperor Constantine had in centuries past ‘donated’ the Roman Empire to the Church of Rome (this was based upon an inauthentic and possibly deliberately forged document called ‘the donation of Constantine’). The mission ended badly and the decree was rejected and the Cardinal excommunicated (i.e takfir) the Eastern Christian Patriarch. This was met in response by a mutual excommunication from the Patriarch against Pope Leo IX. This began the West-East schism creating what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Christendom – The first Consciousness of Western Civilisation

Conversion to Christianity from amongst the pagan european tribes had already begun under Roman Imperial rule from 4th century and continued progressively until 14th century.

However, it was the Roman Catholic encounter with Islam that would change Western Roman Christians forever, and inadvertently create the beginning of Western Civilisation as a separate civilisation all of its own.
The Roman Catholic Churches control over the tribes and kingdoms increased over time, but politically their patrons and influence were faced with an enemy it couldn’t easily conquer – the Islamic Civilisation.

Everywhere the Catholic Church looked, whether to the West in Iberia (modern-day spain/portugal), Sicily, North Africa, the Eastern Levant and beyond, all it could see was the lands of Islam.

This created a call of unity by the Catholic Church, to all Catholic Christians, would slowly gather pace around 11th century, leading to a new purpose for war, a Crusade from Latin cruciata , past participle of cruciare “to mark with a cross,”) against the ‘infidel’.

The settled tribes of Western europe had by now become established kingdoms and had warred against eachother. The creation of a new kind of war, a war based upon their Catholic Christian identity, and blessed by their religion, created a new awareness and consciousness in the world that had now become a distinct civilisation –
Christendom.

From [Pope] Gregory VII [d.1058AD] onward, christianitas and related words occurred much more frequently, and it is in that period that the term began to achieve its “true significance.” The heyday of christianitas coincided with the rise of the papal monarchy, and the idea of Christendom finally “triumphed” under the pontificate of [Pope] Innocent III [d.1216AD], perhaps the mightiest of papal monarchs.
This idea lay at the center of Innocent’s political outlook and actions. One finds the full articulation of the notion of christianitas in crusading chronicles, where the word was in common use. This is understandable once we realize that the concept of Christendom was the first to take shape among the various preconditions of the crusading movement—as well as the last to vanish. A precondition of the crusade, the concept of Christendom was realized with the crusade. The launching of the crusade can be seen as marking the symbolic point when Christendom became “a living reality,” when it was transformed into what could be called a society.
“Christendom (and the idea of Christendom) found its most potent expression in the crusade; the crusade exalted Christendom, carried it to its highest point of fervor.” Christendom and the crusade came into existence together: They were “made together, in a reciprocal creation.” (13)

It comes as no surprise then, that the earliest surviving record we have today of the use of the word ‘christianitatis’ to mean ‘Christendom’ as the dominions of (Roman Catholic) Christians, occurs in a chronicle of an unnamed crusading warrior from the first Crusade:

“Turci inimici Dei et sanctae christianitatis” [The (Muslim) Turk is an enemy of God and Holy Christendom] (14)

In effect, the medieval Catholic Church created Christendom by radicalising the Catholic Christian peoples of Europe against Islam.
Up until now, the Catholic Church’s political power was limited to only rubber stamping Catholic kings and rulers and demanding their christian populations obey them.

However, the call to crusade and the ability to regularly launch wars under its instigation – attracting volunteers from both the peasant and noble classes across the Catholic kingdoms – gave the church a degree of ascendency over all the Catholic Kings. The new consciousness and civilisation of Christendom that spanned the Western European kingdoms and transcended their borders, would now be led by the Catholic Church.

The first incarnation of the something approximating the modern-day West, and its precursor, was ‘Christendom’. This concept referred to all lands dominated or ruled over by Christians from the Western Roman Church, Roman Catholicism, and did not generally include the Eastern Orthodox Church or lands of its followers.

As Europe came into the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, the Swedes, and Danes converted to Catholic Christianity as did the rest of Scandinavia and eastern Germany. Viking raiders settled in west Francia on condition of converting to Christianity, andwere called Normans (from latin Normanni, from the old Frankish word Nortmann, which mean ‘North men’). The region is now called Normandy.

Further East, the Slavs and peoples of Novgorod (later Russia) converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

image

The region in the above illustration, marks the schism between the West Roman Church (Roman Catholicism) and the Eastern Roman Church (Eastern Orthodox Christianity).

The Catholic Kingdoms of Denmark, Poland and Sweden (and two Germanic Knight orders) launched crusades in the 13th-14th century to spread Christianity and force convert the Pagans to the East, however Catholic crusades weren’t only reserved for pagans and Muslims. Pope Gregory IX endorsed Northern Crusades in 1242 against the Eastern Orthodox Christian Kingdom of Novgorod (modern day Russia), which ended in defeat for the Catholics. These campaigns are now called the ‘Northern Crusades’.

The lands under control of Roman Catholic Christians by 14th century, or Christendom , set the basis the region that would be later collectively called ‘the West’, and form the lands whose descendants would later be called ‘Westerners’.

A Brief Note on Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Civilisation’s Perspective towards Christendom

Since the split of the Roman Empire into two parts, the Eastern Roman Empire had always referred to the other half as fellow Romans. When the Western Roman Empire was overrun by barbarians, the barbarians were obviously not considered Romans, but after the later latinisation of their culture due to the work of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Roman Empire called them ‘Latinikoi’ (Greek: Latins ). It should be borne in mind, that the Eastern Roman Empire considered only themselves as the surviving continuation of the Roman Empire, and called themselves ‘Rhomaioi’ (Greek: Roman). The new ‘Latins’ of the West, were merely viewed as latinised barbarians who ruled over the conquered lands they took from the Roman Empire, and inherited and imitated some of the old culture from a dead part of the Roman Empire mixed with their own – and so could never truly be Roman themselves.

The Islamic Civilisation had conquered the germanic tribe Visigoths and ended their occupation of Iberia, but later encountered border clashes with the Catholics of Asturias in the mountainous area of northern Iberia (Al Andalus). Muslims had also fought against Normans invading Sicily. However, Muslims of the time did not perceive of Christendom as a united force, nor a separate civilisation.

This was going to change after the Crusades, when Muslims observed Christians from all over Western europe were flocking into armies directed at the Islamic Levant. But this didn’t prompt Muslims to lump all Christians together – they still differentiated between Eastern Romans, native Middle Eastern Christians, and the warlike newcomers from Western Europe.

The Christian Eastern Romans were simply called ‘Al Rum’ and their Greek language was called ‘Al Rumi’, and the Christians living in Islamic lands were simply called ‘Christians’ or Nassara (Arabic for Nazarenes).

The closest name invented by Muslims for the people of Christendom (Western European Catholics), was a word coined from their most prominent and most encountered ethnic group, Al Franji (Arabicised word for Franks). This was probably because the Frankish empires of Europe were the most prominent Catholic power for most of the middle ages, and to Muslims, were the most prominent of the people they encountered from that region

******************************

[1] For more information about the aggressive expansionism of the Roman Republic, and a philosophical discussion on why republics are prone to war, read ‘Imperialism In Republican Rome: 327-70 B.C’ (1985, William V. Harris)

[2] The true meaning of the name is disputed amongst historians. Some think it means to ‘rule by God’s authority’, others think it refers to something along the lines of ’success given by God’, or ‘prevailed by God’.

[3] The Philistines are absent on the list of tribes that were commanded to be destroyed by the 12 tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 7:1, 20:17 )

[4] The modern word Palestine is speculated to be derived from Philistine or the Ancient Egyptian word ‘Peleset’ (1100BC-800BC) as the oldest word for south part of Canaan.

[5] “(God’s) throne, to be king for the Lord thy God” (2 Chron. 9:8; 1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23)

[6] Exodus 18:13-26, Deuteronomy 1:9-16, Deuteronomy 17:8-20

[7] 1 Chronicles 11:4-5

[8] 2 Maccabees 6:1–11 (Tanakh/Old Testament, Bible)

[9] For more information, read the account of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18:1: http://sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-18.htm

[10] Romans 15:16

[11] This term is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew work Messiah Christós, the anointed one

[12] Matthew 16:13-19 (New Testament, Bible)

[13] Crusading Peace Christendom, the Muslim World, and Western Political Order, Tomazˇ Mastnak, 2002

[14] Gesta Francorum VI,xiii.

War on Islam By the Western World

The Prophet ( ﷺ) said: The people will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their dish. Someone asked: Will that be because of our small numbers at that time? He replied: No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be scum and rubbish like that carried down by a torrent, and Allah will take fear of you from the breasts of your enemy and put wahn (enervation) into your hearts. Someone asked: What is wahn (enervation). Messenger of Allah (ﷺ ): He replied: Love of the world and dislike of death [Abi Dawud]

In order to make sense of the present, we must look at the past.
In order to make sense of the current state of the Muslim world, and the policies toward it by external powers, we must look at how the current political circumstances were created.

What history reveals to us is a consistent record and pattern of Western intervention, manipulation and exploitation of the Muslim world since the 16th century. The Western states were actually highly consistent in carrying out a successful formula for expansion, colonisation and influence throughout the globe and not just in the Muslim world.

The West are no longer directed and purposed upon the Christian worldview and, since the secular revolutions of the 17th century onwards, have been motivated by more materialistic – but not any less belligerent – concerns.

Eventually, Christianity was replaced by Secular Liberalism as the dominant worldview – and motivation for expansion.

Where once the West would conquer lands to acquire wealth and then spread Christianity, they now sought to acquire wealth and then spread Secular Liberalism.

While the assumed supremacy of Secular Liberalism was expected to overtake and convert the world, Islam as a rival worldview and force against economic injustice, grew to pose as much an obstacle to Secular Liberal ideology as it had ever posed to Christianity before it.

It is the historical Western response and strategy for dealing with Islam and Muslim majority lands, that must be studied in order to understand the objectives behind the modern day Western policies towards Islamic resurgence or potential Islamic resurgence amongst Muslim majority countries.

The making of the West

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, Europe consisted of conquering barbarian tribes who plundered the ruins of the Roman civilisation and fought with each other. These uneducated tribes were unable to continue the learning of the Romans, nor repair Roman structures and technologies, and therefore Europe entered its dark ages. All that remains from the Roman era, was the Christian faith (which most tribes had adopted by the 5th century), and the religious institution of the Catholic Church (which had been adopted by the Romans as the official religion of the empire just before its fall).

From the 7th-9th centuries, the toppling of European tribal kingdoms by Muslim armies caused the divided barbarian states bordering Muslim areas to begin uniting under powerful conquering tribal warlords. The Catholic Church adopted a strategy to strengthen its influence and return Europe to power. It began offering successful tribal warlords official Christian sanction for their rule as newly created ‘kings’, to make the Christian tribesmen under them more loyal, in return for influence and patronage of Catholic clerics and the Catholic Church.

As the new European kingdoms arose, and as trade of advanced technological goods streamed in from the Muslim world into European markets, raising the material development of these new kingdoms, the Catholic Church sanctioned ideological wars, or Crusades , against the European lands controlled by Muslims and the Levant. These helped the Church raise its power and influence in the domestic politics of the new kingdoms, while creating a loose alliance of European Christian countries that would be known as ‘Christendom’ . This is considered by many historians to be the birth of a rudimentary ‘pre-Western’ consciousness.

However, with the European encounter and assimilation of Muslim learning and science (more importantly the Scientific method of the observation of natural phenomena and the deduction of natural laws by experimentation, courtesy of the translation of books like Ibn Haytham’s Book on Optics) during the 11th-12th centuries from the Crusades in the Levant and Islamic Spain, changed European culture forever. This had the effect of producing an intellectual revival in thinking and the study of the natural world in Europe – which was later to be called by historians ‘ the renaissance’ [2] .

Meanwhile, Ottomans rose to power in the Muslim world in the 13th century, and took control of the Muslim world ultimately declaring themselves the Islamic Caliphate. During the early half of the first seven hundred years of the Ottoman Caliphate (13th-16th centuries), Christendom continued to declare and fought many crusades against the Ottomans, all ending in military failure.

The Beginning of European Colonial Terrorism & Empire

In the 16th century, the European terror powers, equipped with new technology and learning, saw a poor cost-benefit opportunity to continuing to assault the still wealthy and powerful Ottoman Caliphate. European explorers decided to bypass its historical enemy, and discover new opportunities for trade with distant lands (previously it usually had to go through the Ottomans – and pay tax for).

The discovery of new lands held by mostly tribal, technologically inferior and therefore weakly defended resource-rich lands – so-called ‘primitive lands’, created a European rush for control across the globe in wars of material gain and economic exploitation of new opportunities.

Each European power, upon militarily conquering a new ‘primitive’ land or establishing a bridgehead (outpost), would then focus on mass extraction and production of resources by ‘employing’ (i.e. mostly forcing) natives to work or, in lands were natives would not surrender, importing slave workforces from subjugated natives of other lands, or European settlers to act as a reliable loyal work force.

While the Western states (mostly) were not engaged in colonialism terrorism to spread Christianity, it was believed that inculcating Christianity in the ‘natives’ of conquered territories would make them less desiring to revolt against their new overlords, by making them ‘less different’ to their masters. Eventually, some hoped that the natives would emulate the Western culture and manage themselves, albeit under economies that were subservient to their colonial masters interests.

As the European renaissance initially started from a Christian basis, Christianity was viewed as the basic underlay that would set the foundations for the ‘natives’ to intellectually develop into becoming like the West. Following this policy, natives were either preached to by dedicated missionaries, the strategic building of churches were used offensively to create missionary HQ’s (this is probably why many European Islamophobes protest at Mosque building in Europe – because they falsely believe Muslim minorities are trying to do to them what they historically did to the world), and if this did not work, some natives were forced into Christianity at the point of the musket. Of course, the most successful means used by many European colonisers, was forcefully removing native children from their families and making them to go to schools that would inculcate the next generation of natives into Christianity and Western values (the legacy and the resentment from this still remains, as many modern anti-colonial movements in former colonial countries reject Western education systems in their lands).

The intellectual revival of thought and large wealth and resources coming from colonialised primitive lands, continued to produce new technological developments in the West, allowing Western technology to achieve parity with the its closest rival, the Islamic civilisation by the 17th century.

The Ottoman led Islamic civilisation and, in far-east, the Chinese civilisation, after hundreds of years of economic and political success created an efficient equilibrium amongst their economies, social and political structures – producing great wealth, comfort and ease.

However the problem with such equilibriums, while being efficient, is that they do not easily adapt to changing economic and political circumstances, and their social effects create a gradual intellectual stagnation as populations face less intellectual challenges due to their comfortable daily lives. The large economic resources brought from colonies further sped European technological development, allowing European military technology and population numbers to begin surpassing the Ottoman’s (and Chinese) significantly in the 18th century – decisively changing the global balance of power.

Christendom Divided

European contact with the Islamic civilisation via the Levantine Crusades, and Islamic Spain, had revived the spirit of enquiry in the West through translations of Greek and Arabic texts. Between the 13th-16th century many Western thinkers had spent their energies in study of the natural world – producing and advancing science and technology.

The Catholic Church had mostly facilitated this, building universities, funding translations and becoming patrons of new thinkers, artists and inventors.

Contrary to later Secular Liberalism revisionist historians (and Secular propaganda), the Catholic Church were not against intellectual pursuits in mathematics or the physical sciences. However, the spirit of enquiry and thought also produced many re-examinations of philosophical assumptions, Christian beliefs and the European power structures based upon those beliefs. This produced many divergent forms of Christianity that challenged and opposed the political and theological influence of the Catholic Pope, Protestant Christianity (more specifically,
Lutheranism ).

These many divergent opinions of Christianity led to huge disruption of existing power structures – especially the Popes influence of European kingdoms. This led to Catholic attempts to urge Catholic kingdoms to suppress these theological opinions, but when some Kingdoms adopted Lutheranism, then inter-kingdom fighting and wars developed throughout the 16th-17th centuries. In order to end these wars, a pragmatic agreement between the two main factions, the Catholic Kingdoms and Protestant ( Lutheran and Calvinist ) Kingdoms resulted in the the treaty of Westphalia. The treaty between European states during the 17th century aimed to create peaceful co-existence, and relegate theological disputes purely to the intellectual realm. European governments agreed to remove religious concerns from their foreign policy against each other. This was not Secularism. All European Kingdoms were still based upon the mandatory establishment of Christian laws. What the treaty of Westphalia gave each Christian King, is full discretion to
decide what brand of Christianity (out of only Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism) will be used to rule his kingdom, and to tolerate minorities from other brands of Christianity within their Kingdom.

England’s infamous King Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church, but not due to any theological disagreements in Biblical interpretation, but rather because King Henry wanted to be the supreme ruler of England and not have interference from the Catholic Pope – thus was born a new Protestant Christian split – Anglicanism.

Rise of a new European Worldview

Up until now, European Philosophers and scientists had been content to develop mathematics, discuss metaphysics and theology, and apply the Scientific method they had learned from the Muslims, upon the natural world, developing their knowledge of the physical sciences.

Eventually some European thinkers, like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the mid to late 17th century, turned their attention to studying humans socially and politically. Believing European politics to be unstable due to the wars between Catholics and Lutherans, they searched for a way to base political systems on something other than laws emanating from the clerical authority of Priests and ministers. The was the beginning of the Western study of a new view on humanity’s place in the material world, to discover a new purpose and new political organisation for humanity. This is when Western historians say roughly began The ‘Age of Enlightenment’ . Western historians differ as to when this age exactly started or ended.

European thinkers, in awe of the Scientific method, and all the knowledge it had given them about the natural world, began (mis)applying it to study how humans should socially and political organise themselves, and to what purpose they should strive for in the material world.

The problem is, Science is the study of the tangible, but human social and political organisation is intangible – being based upon non-material things such as thought, thinking, imagination, ideas, feelings, emotional attachment, mind and importantly, purpose . Science can tell us what humans are made of, how they work, and what their biological needs are, but it cannot tell us their purpose, and therefore it cannot tell us how they should be organised, nor what they should believe or think.

The misapplication of Science, by mostly Christian thinkers upon the study of human political and social organisation produced a pseudo-scientific conclusion – a materialistic worldview based upon a ‘natural law’ morality (secretly still borrowed from parts of Christian tradition) – this would later become Secularism and Liberalism.

The idea of Secularism was born out of Thomas Hobbes’ purely materialistic consideration for politics and economics, where material security was proposed as the highest objectives of the state, not virtue or morality. The State was to have only one leader (and not share leadership with a powerless clergy), meaning the one who actually provided physical security – the King, Feudal Lord or Warlord. This was suggested to prevent meddling Popes from interfering in affairs of Western Christian Kingdoms, like they had done in the past (of course the Pope was free to rule his own kingdoms – the Papal States, where he was directly the King).

Under the early concept of a Secular state, laws based upon Christian teachings would be optional in theory. Laws based upon religion would be relegated to purely the discretion of the rulers to implement as they see fit to improve the peace and morality of the people (yes, early Secularism did not restrict laws from being based upon religion, just as long as it was the King who decided it, and not a third party clergy).

Hobbes’ arguments and conclusions that government based upon material considerations is preferable due to being more stable, and that Christians didn’t require government based upon Biblical laws, were both deeply flawed .
John Locke took Hobbes’ basic concepts further, and attached to it a worldview based upon the new creed of Individualism (i.e. the primacy of the Individual above all things ), which led to its political form, Libertarianism (later to be called Liberalism).

Locke’s proposal, was that the state was not simply to be based upon the arbitrary power of the leader who provides security, but upon the state that is purposed to protect and ‘ liberate’ the ‘Individual’ to do what they wish. This ultimately faced mixed results when implemented .

The Liberal Revolutions and ‘the European Spring’

The first states to fall to Liberal revolutions were the British government in 1668 (although this did not create an immediate Liberal state, it is considered the start of a gradual Liberal movement that progressively changed Britain into a Secular Liberal state), the American revolution (ironically against a Liberal British Empire) in 1776, and the French Revolution in 1799 (although there were be further French revolutions). The rest of Europe then followed with Liberal revolutions throughout the 19th centuries (many falling to fascism in the early 20th century, leading to a second round of Liberal revolutions mid-20th century).

Up until now, Europe consisted of many Kingdoms or Oligarchies (rule by a set of aristocrats or nobles). A kingdom was the rule and guardianship of a leader (e.g. King, Prince, Lord) and his dynasty, over the people living on an area of land he controlled. The people were ‘subjects’ to the leader (meaning ‘subject’ to his authority and laws) and their loyalty would be to the leader. The Kings of different Kingdoms would vie with eachother to conquer land, and acquire more subjects. The loyalty of the people was expected to be to whomever ruled over the land. Oligarchies essentially functioned the same way, except that instead of a King, there was a court of Nobles instead – a coalition of feudal Lords each with their own subjects. This was about to change with the rise of ‘ Nationalism’ .

Nationalism is another product of the Western ‘Enlightenment’ and is inspired directly by Secular Liberal thoughts. According to the creed of Secular Liberalism,
Individualism , people were no longer simply ‘subjects’ of a King or group of nobles, but ‘Individuals’ possessing sovereignty within themselves. Government was formed, according to this theory, by Individuals coming together and forming a pact or agreement amongst themselves for security and leadership according to their collective Will and desires of the people (Of course there is an irony and contradiction between Individualism and the belief that a bunch of independent minded individuals can all share an exact ‘General Will’, but Secular Liberal thinkers had no other way to justify government). The Individuals, being all equally ‘Individual’, would become citizens, and not subjects of any one King – however, this would be merely an illusion that they were still subjects to something else.

The Secular Liberal concept of ‘General Will’, then led to the question of what constitutes a collective, or ‘community’ of individuals. In trying to answer the question as to what would a community of individuals share that could give them a collective will, it was suggested by Johann Gottfried Herder (inventor of the term ‘nationalism’) that a common language be the basis of the common will of a community – becoming ‘the nation’. Each nation would then presumably have a ‘National Will’, which being the amalgamation of multiple sovereign individuals, becomes the ultimate sovereign authority over them. People of similar languages were roughy grouped accordingly into ‘ nations’. However, there were many other suggestions by other Liberal thinkers as to what makes one nation distinct from another – and the issue is still debated to this day. People who speak the same language exist in many different nations, even some who have the same culture and even same religion or shared history! The concept of the Nation (or Nationalism) was, and is now, still an arbitrary and artificial concept produced by Secular Liberal thinking.

Of course, the problem that faced Liberal thinkers was how anyone would know what the ‘Will’ of the ‘National Will’ was, and what should happen to those individuals which differ with the National Will! To answer this, some Secular Liberal thinkers borrowed a solution from their readings of Ancient Greek texts, Democracy. Greek democracy involved citizens (not including women and slaves) voting and directly deciding what laws should be – but this wasn’t taken by up European thinkers.

Instead, they changed the concept such that citizens would vote to select a small band of people (usually from aristocracy) to decide the laws. It should be emphasised that, none of the prominent Secular Liberal thinkers advocated that people directly decide the government’s law, only that they may consent to the government ruling them, by participating in voting, or voting for representatives under a King.

This is why modern Secular Liberal states are concerned with the decline of people voting under their elections, as it is not important which party is voted for, only that they vote – for it is participation of the population of a country in the voting that legitimises the system, not who is being voted for. If most people didn’t vote, then the entire system becomes illegitimate.

The new type of state, governing over ‘nations’, arising in Europe would no longer be Kingdom’s, but ‘nation-states’ .

The Liberal revolutions against traditional European power structures radically changed Europe’s self-perception, the idea of Christendom receded and was replaced by a new loose consciousness across European nations – something that would later be called ‘The West’ .

Following the rise of the Secular Liberal governments, European international and domestic politics took an even more materialistic bent – but which ironically did not stop the incessant wars still occurring between the Europeans – perhaps even exacerbating them. However, since the treaty of Westphalia, wars based solely upon religious ideology no longer occurred between Europeans, and diminished between Europeans and the Ottomans.

It should be important to note that Secular Liberalism only emerged as a political system amongst the Western nations mainly towards the end of the 18th century. Since the beginning of the Western renaissance from the 12th century, for six hundred years, European nations developed technologically, culturally and materially without Liberal political systems, or even modern Democracy! For example, Britain, which was a global superpower and lead technological innovator from the 18th century onwards, did not achieve full democracy until 1918 (a full 200 hundred years later).

Consequently, the myth that Secular Liberalism and Democracy produced development and scientific advancement is just a myth touted by modern day Liberals. The fact is, Liberals are the inheritors of Western material development and scientific study that began in the renaissance, not the founders of it. The Western world achieved global supremacy mostly through military conquest and not technological innovation.

Civilisations, like the Islamic and Chinese possessed high degrees of technological development in their high point, but were content to share and sell their products. Technological development does not mean supremacy – as modern day Japan can attest. Rather it is the application of violence to spread Western ideology, and facilitate Western economic exploitation of other lands and peoples, that truly created Western supremacy. A supremacy it still retains today by use of force and violence against non-Western countries.

The historian Samuel P Huntingdon remarked: ‘ The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do’

Secular Liberalism’s Project for the World & Islam

Liberal Secularism initially rose from countries which were Protestant, but was slower to spread to Catholic countries (due to the resistance of the declining Catholic Church). However Catholic France fell to fanatically anti-religion Secularists, and created a bloody reign of terror, killing aristocrats and Catholic clergy alike. Liberalism’s emergence from Protestant Christian countries, and the political nature of Catholicism, created a visceral intolerance against Catholics by Liberal countries (legal discrimination against Catholics were horrific, even in England) and many wars still occurred between Catholic countries and Liberal states. Even Liberal states fought each others, leading to the Napoleonic wars (Napoleon was a Liberal autocrat) between France and Britain, and the war of 1812 between the U.S. and Britain.

However, countries under Catholic sway gradually gained more independence from Papal control, but retained some measure of Catholic Clerical influence in its domestic and foreign policies. With the rise of Liberal revolutions across many Catholic countries in the mid-18th century, the Catholic Church was forced to grudgingly accept its new limited role in political affairs, and consequently Liberal governments and states began to tolerate Catholics.

The Western powers would no longer wage wars to spread Christianity for Christianity’s sake, now they would wage wars to spread Secular Liberalism in their self-perceived bid to ‘civilise the world’. Hence Secular Liberalism replaced Christianity in Western foreign policy, and ultimately would replace virtually all domestic Christian laws within each European state. The Liberal desire to ‘civilise the world’ is not some pretension of the Liberals themselves, but a necessity of Liberalism. Just like Catholicism wanted to spread Christianity to ‘save mankind from hell’, Liberalism believes its values are universal, and therefore mandatory upon all human beings – indeed, the key to their earthly ‘salvation’, under the deceptive slogan of ‘freedom’.

Consequently, Liberalism is just as ideologically aggressive and prone to war’s of expansion as Catholicism ever was.

Samuel P Huntingdon noted: ‘Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous … Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism’

Previously, the West, under the notion of Christendom, led bloody Crusades against Muslim lands, to fight for strategic control, wealth, but more importantly, to resist the spread of Islam – a doctrine which denies Jesus’ being the incarnation of God in the flesh, and the concept of the Trinity.

However, with the recession of Christianity from the Western mindset, and the rise of the Secular Liberal worldview, Islam was re-appraised by Western thinkers and politicians to determine the verdict of Secular Liberalism upon it.

The founder of Secular Liberalism, John Locke concluded that Muslims had no right to be tolerated in a Liberal world order, due to their religion/ideology’s insistence on their theologically motivated obedience to a Caliph – posed a political threat to the Liberal state the same as Catholics did.

The English government official and poet, and founder-advocate of the concept of ‘free speech’, John Milton argued that Catholics should be exterminated due to the threat of ‘popery’, and judged Islam to be no different than Catholicism.

The famous 19th century Liberal Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, and employee of the British East India company, exclaimed that colonialism and the use of despotic control over colonialised natives was legitimate until they became Liberal . In his book on Liberty, he considered Algerians and Indians to be ‘barbarian’ nations which necessitate conquest (and couldn’t be justified in being conquered if they were like Liberal states) , to which the usual civil conduct between ‘civilised’ nations towards each other need not apply in their case .

Charles-Louis Montesquieu, famous French philosopher and politician said: ‘It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded ’

The influential Scottish philosopher, David Hume stated
‘But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals? Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers ’

Liberal philosopher and French political thinker, Alex de Tocqueville (1805-1859), an open supporter of brutal French colonial methods in Algeria , said that Islam, unlike Christianity, is incompatible with Liberal ideas, and will vanish in the face of its removal from the political life of Muslims

The sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams (1767 – 1848) remarked during the Russian-Ottoman wars: ‘As the essential principle of his [i.e. the Muslim’s] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated’

The British governor of British occupied Egypt, Lord Cromer said: ‘It is absurd to suppose Europe will look on as a passive spectator whilst the retrograde government based on purely Muhammadan principles and oriental ideas [i.e Islam], is established in Egypt. The material interests at stake are too important …the new generation of Egyptians has to be persuaded or forced into imbibing the true spirit of Western civilisation’

Dr William Hunter, magistrate in Bengal, and member of the council of the governor-general in British colonial India “We should instead develop a rising generation of Muhammadans no longer learned in their own narrow learning nor imbued…with the bitter doctrines of their medieval law but tinctured with the sober and genial knowledge of the West”

William Muir, a member of the British governor committee for India, and orientalist historian on the life of Muhammed (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said: “The sword of Mahomet and the Koran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, truth, and liberty which the world has yet known.” (he later set up a school to teach native children in India).

Winston Churchill, a figure known for becoming the Prime Minister of Britain, but had a long career serving in the British army and foreign offices, in India and Egypt said
It is, thank heaven, difficult if not impossible for the modern European to fully appreciate the force which fanaticism exercises among an ignorant, warlike and Oriental population. Several generations have elapsed since the nations of the West have drawn the sword in religious controversy, and the evil memories of the gloomy past have soon faded in the strong, clear light of Rationalism and human sympathy…But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries [i.e. followers] have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness…In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed’

From the beginning of Liberal thought, to its flowering amongst the Liberal revolutions and the colonial projects for the world – the need for Liberalism to conquer and ‘civilise’ the world (i.e. convert to its way of life) immediately put Liberalism and Islam into a natural clash. Islam, like early Catholicism, contained an entire way of life that naturally would be antithetical to the Liberal political project.

Therefore, Liberal philosophers, thinkers, and politicians came to a general consensus as to what to do with Islamic lands – they would be invaded or culturally and politically influenced until they would submit to the Liberal paradigm. Although the Europeans had the Christian-Muslim wars of the past etched into their psyches, this was not the main cause of their antipathy towards Islam. Islam doesn’t believe in applying its laws on non-Muslims, nor force converting them. However, Islam does believe in proselytization of itself to the world, and beckoning others to believe it is values and worldview.

The ‘threat’ of Islam according to the Secular Liberal worldview, was not that it would convert the world by force, but that it was a competitor to Liberalism, in offering the world a way of life.

Islam was simply judged to be an obstacle and rival to the new Liberal world order – a world order mandated by the Liberal claim to its own universality.

In response, Islam would be have to be defeated, but not by directly destroying the books from where it came, since that was impossible. Rather, Liberalism would using intellectual, cultural and military assault, create a change of political system in Muslim lands, and render Islam obsolete from political life. As Alex de Tocqueville posited, a detachment of Islam from political life would whither it, and cause it to die. Early Liberal thinkers didn’t have a problem with Islam existing in a limited ‘defeated’ form as merely a spiritual belief – because most Liberals were Protestant Christians, and believed that what they had done to Christianity, and Catholics, could be repeated with the theology of Islam. But the first step would be to politically gain control and cultural influence of the Muslim world, in order to execute the Liberal program.

New Opportunities for Colonialism – the Muslim World and China
Previously, the Western countries had satisfied themselves with conquering low-technology tribes and kingdoms. However, their level of wealth, military organisation and advanced military technology led to a growing realisation amongst Western profit-makers and foreign policy ministers – previously unconquerable civilisations were no longer unconquerable.

Following the British victory in 1757 against the Muslim armies of Mughal India, along with the defeat of the Ottomans during the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774, It became clear to the leading Western powers that the Ottomans and other Muslim states were no longer able to resist Western military invasion.

Indeed, the spectacular French victory against the Ottomans in Egypt in 1798 could only be stopped by British naval forces.

After the British East India Company, a private company with its own private army managed to successfully win battles and conquer parts of Mughal India in 1757 in pursuit of its economic interests, led it to employing military forces against Imperial China in 1839 in an attempt to force Chinese to buy Western goods (they started with opium – yes, forcing the Chinese to become addicts in order to obtain their wealth).

The Beginning of Western Political Penetration in the Middle East
The first policy enacted by Western nations was pushing aggressively for trade concessions, and using their trade to open up favourable markets for Western goods in the Muslim world. However, each European power encountered a major problem when dealing with the Ottoman Caliph – competition from other European powers.

Pursuing economic policies became difficult due to competing European powers also trying to deal with and influence the Ottoman Caliph. European powers found it easier to deal with (i.e. influence, cajole and bully) the individual Ottoman governors (‘beys’, ‘pashas’, ‘walis’ etc) of the different regions of the Muslim world, like Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco – and attempt to monopolize them.

To achieve better ease of economic exploitation of these individual Muslim lands, the colonial powers, primarily Britain and France actively sought to weaken and detach these Muslim lands from Ottoman control, by the creation of divisions amongst the Muslim peoples of the Ottoman lands, and detaching them from central control by the Ottoman Caliph without officially announcing the independence of any state at that early stage.

To this end, the various powers used their diplomatic clout (mostly obtained as concessions to end/prevent threatened Western military campaigns) to build missionary schools, ambassadors, funding of dissident movements, churches and various diplomatic and political maneuvers to encourage the peoples of Ottoman/Muslim lands to become more isolated from the Caliph and each other. To achieve this they taught and spread a notably new type of Western concept which would create a sectarianism designed to overcome the bonds of Muslim brotherhood/sisterhood (Ummah) upon which Ottoman political attachment rested. This new and artificial sectarianism would be known as
nationalism and, with European deniability, knowingly lead to full blown nationalist movements that would detach completely the various Muslim lands from control by the Caliph.

To weaken Ottoman control over predominantly non-Muslim areas, the leading Western powers then used a number of false pretexts to increase their influence, by interfering in the internal affairs of the Ottoman state unilaterally appointing themselves ‘protectors’ of the non-Muslim minorities within the Ottoman Caliphate. Russia declared its protectorate over Orthodox Christians, France over Catholics, and Britain over Jews.

They then regularly used this to put pressure on the Ottoman government to influence its domestic policy, even when then non-Muslim minorities did not want them. One example of this was the European pressure behind the Ottoman ‘Tanzimat’ reforms of 1856, which removed the Jizyah tax from non-Muslims, but removed their own law courts and law systems from them, and required they be reservists in the Ottoman army, something that non-Muslims didn’t want.

The separation of the Balkans (Rumelia) from Ottoman control in the late 19th century was an artificial crisis created by Austria and Russia creating and nourishing nationalist movements to the point that they were ready to rise up. Russia then attempted to use this as a pretext to militarily intervene and carve up large segments of the Balkans into Russia lands and some ‘independent’ pro-Russian states.

Britain and France, not wanting to see this Russian monopoly, attempted to intervene and bring the revolution to a controlled result, in order to prevent Russia from gaining a monopoly of control upon the resulting new ‘independent’ states. This conflict led to the creation of Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Albania. Russia, similarly attempted to inflame Armenian uprisings.

The ‘Ottoman Question’

The leading terrorist powers, England and France, became concerned that other European powers, such as Russia or Germany, may interfere and claim the resources of the Ottoman lands for themselves.

This competition between the European powers created a strange ‘Great game’ where each tried to expand their influence in the Ottoman state and obtain outrageously favourable economic concessions to European interests, without allowing the other any pretexts to invade and take portions of the Ottoman lands for themselves.

The demolition of the Ottoman Caliphate had to be controlled, as it concerned Britain and France – if the Ottoman Caliphate collapsed too soon, Russia would move in to take the lion’s share of the prize, and exclude Britain and France.

If Britain invaded and annexed Ottoman lands, Russia could invade. If France invaded, so could England etc. Due to Germany’s aspirations to match Britain’s colonial ambitions, and due to Russia’s shared land borders with the Ottomans, Britain (which could only access Ottoman lands by traveling a distance by sea) adopted the official stance of the preservation of the integrity of Ottoman lands, in order to discourage France, Germany or Russia. It did not always work, leading to wars where Ottoman armies were backed by British and French troops to push Russia back from invasion, like the Crimean war (1853–1856).

France however, through clever maneuvering to protect its financial interests, managed to invade and colonise North Africa. It managed to invade the Wilayah of Algiers (1830) on the pretext that the Algerian Dey had ‘insulted’ its diplomat when asking for France to pay its financial debts to Algiers. France later claimed that Algeria was not an Ottoman land, so they were not ‘technically’ taking Ottoman land (despite Algeria being semi-autonomous from Ottoman control, it was still albeit nominally, Ottoman land).

France then created a pretext to invade the Wilayah of Tunis (1881), claiming that their invasion was to pre-empt Tunisia who was ‘planning to launch military action’ against French controlled Algeria. To placate Britain from protesting, France had previous agreed for Britain to take Cyprus (1878), which Britain then accepted while officially keeping the pretense that it was still ‘Ottoman controlled land’ (until World War I, when they dropped the pretense).

Western missionary and cultural activity in the 19th century to support nationalist movements amongst Turks, Arabs, Kurds and Armenians became successful, and the Ottoman state was greatly shaken by revolt after revolt, including a Turkish nationalist coup by the ‘Young Turks’ to keep the Ottoman Caliph weak and unable to reverse the Liberal reforms underway in Ottoman lands.

The rise of the resurgent pan-Islamic Caliph, Sultan Abdul-Hamid II, who leveraged German desires for their own colonial interests, to play the Western powers off against each other, had alerted European to the potential threat Islam still posed to their designs. Britain then decided that the Ottoman state was too dangerous to maintain, and would have to be fully and completely dismantled.

The multiple revolts and nationalist tensions made the coming British, French and Russian invasions and division of the Ottoman state easy; and following World War 1, they would pursue three main objectives against the Muslim world – strategic control of the region, the permanent division of Muslim lands, securing long term exploitation of it resources, and the removal of Islam as a way of life.