Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Throughout history we have seen much unrest exist between competing forces which have led to mistrust, separation, and even war. The following will explore similarities in the course of pivotal occurrences in the deterioration of Christian and Islamic relations. Specifically examining the use of individual faith and organized religion to identify common threads of manipulation among political leaders to better motivate and excite the masses around particular campaigns that ultimately provide both economic and political power.
The first event is Constantine the Great’s conversion to Christianity which united the Roman Empire and allowed western culture shape the ideals that Christians eventually adopt. That leads to the Battle for Constantinople, where Constantine XI had a separated empire due to the clash between the Roman Catholic Church and Greek Orthodoxy. Meanwhile, Mehmed II had a unified army under the religion of Islam and took Constantinople for his own. Next, there were the Crusades, perhaps the most famous clash between the two religions, where the Church misused religion to gain wealth, land, and power from the Muslims. And most recently, the Palestinian land conflict, which has been at the heart of much unrest, not only in the region but also affecting policy and positions across the globe.
The intent is to examine and surface similarities in hopes of identifying that we are more connected than we might think. That faith and religion in the hands of less spiritual leadership – has the capacity to divide exponentially. Surfacing a universal concept that permits the faithful to view the politics behind the initiatives will perhaps lead to a more peaceful existence among the rank and file on each side.

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
Constantine seized power in AD 312. Once in power, he realized his empire was split by the ethnicities of the people conquered. This was exemplified by Bauer’s quote from The History of the Medieval World, “Gaul was a Roman territory, but the Germanic tribes who populated it spoke their own languages and worshipped their own gods.” Bauer continues her argument with, “The Roman Empire held all of these dual identities-Roman and other-together…the other was so strong that the borders of the empire were barely containing it.” Seeing this problem, Constantine searched for a solution. He found Christianity. Anybody could become a Christian, no matter their ethnicity or whether they were free or slave, which made this religion beneficial. Another reason Constantine would have seen Christianity as such an ideal option, was that Christianity had no political homeland (INSERT QUOTE). It could give a sense of identity to the sectionalized empire.
“Constantine, who declared that the Christian god was on his side, confronted Maxentius in Italy. This was a turning point in history of both the Empire and Christianity, which had suffered greatly from the persecutions ordered by Valerian and Diocletian. Maxentius’s troops were defeated in AD 312 in an epic battle at the gates of Rome…and Constantine proclaimed his devotion to the cross.”(superscript) This shows Constantine the Great’s conversion to Christianity, for he felt he was touched by the Holy Spirit and he won the battle against Maxentius, which made him emperor. Once converted, Constantine made the persecution of Christians illegal through the Edict of Milan in AD 313. The Edict of Milan reads, “the Christians, and now any one of these who wish to observe the Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without any disturbance or molestation,” and this seems to have led to making Christianity the state religion easier.
There is a question of whether Constantine the Great’s conversion is a true tale of divine intervention or a ploy to help the advancement of control for Constantine in his newly claimed empire. The motive behind the conversion to Christianity is suspicious, as exemplified by Bourbon and Liberati’s statement in Ancient Rome: History of a Civilization that Ruled the World, Constantine’s conversion is “undoubtedly a political gesture which allowed the victor to pursue unity of the Empire with the support of the new religion.” It seems to lean more toward political advancement rather than a holy development. The evidence shows Constantine was highly involved with the cultivation of Christianity in his empire. Constantine the Great was in the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, when Arius, an Egyptian priest, threatened the unity of Christianity and the empire:
“Arius, who served in...Alexandria had been gathering followers and vexing his bishop, who had finally excommunicated him. This created a potentially serious and major breach, one that might separate a large group of Christians from the main body of the Christian believers”(superscript)
At the Council of Nicaea, the books within the Bible were chosen; in other words, it was decided what information would be given to the public. Also in the Council of Nicaea, the idea of the trinity was formed, to have only one god to follow, thus uniting Rome further. Constantine designed the Church so that it would be organized, orderly, and rational, so controlling the masses of followers would be simpler (INSERT QUOTE).
This is an important event in history because this founds the west as the Christian epicenter, which influenced the ideals Christians adopt, and it shows how religion and church could be used to control the masses. 

CONSTANTINE XI VS. MEHMED II-THE FIGHT FOR CONSTANTINOPLE

CONSTANTINE XI VS. MEHMED II-THE FIGHT FOR CONSTANTINOPLE
In 1451, Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire sought to take Constantinople, under Emperor Constantine XI, for his own. Constantinople was placed on trade routes of both the Aegean Sea and the Black Sea, thus it was an optimal location to conquer. Mehmed II desired Constantinople’s ports and trade opportunities, and with it economic growth and political dominance.
Constantine XI struggled to keep the city together because of a schism within the city of Roman Catholic vs. Greek Orthodoxy, where he could “[submit] to papacy and betray the Orthodox faith” or he could support the Orthodox Church. Not only among his people was there dissonance, but also within Constantine’s advisors. With the growing power of the Ottoman Turks, there were many different solutions, the problem was that Constantine’s advisors wanting glory, verbally attacked one another and their ideas, which led to minimal accomplishments. The competition among Constantine’s advisors “severely hindered his ability to reach decisions regarding a policy toward the Ottoman Empire.” (Adam William Hellebuyck).
One solution, proposed by the advisor Notaras was “that any relationship with the Turks had to focus upon dissuading them from attacking the Imperial capital,” and that the best action at that point was to “stall for time while Byzantium asked the Western Christians for aid.” Another advisor, George Sphrantzes, saw Mehmed II to be incredibly power hungry
“This man, who just became Sultan, is young and an enemy of the Christians since childhood; he threatens with proud spirit that he will put in operation certain plans against the Christians…If God should grant that the young Sultan be overcome by his youth and evil nature and march against our City, I know not what will happen. Indeed, God would have granted a joyous occasion if this man, Murad’s son, had died instead.” George Sphrantzes
Even though all advisors disagreed on tactics, all supported calling for help from the Papacy. “The relationship between the papacy and Constantine XI’s administration represents a success in Byzantine personal diplomacy.” However, no aid came to Constantinople; even more, the pope used the conflict between the Byzantines and Ottomans “to gain religious concessions from the Greeks.” (Adam w. h.superscript)
When the Turks did attack the city, the Byzantines could do little. Many went to Hagia Sophia, the Church of Holy Wisdom, for refuge. Before fighting the Ottomans, Emperor Constantine XI addressed his people one last time. “The enemy…are supported by guns, cavalry, infantry, and their numerical superiority, but we rely on the name of the Lord our God and Savior, and secondly, on our hands and the strength which has been granted to us by the power of God.” Appealing to the Christian populous, whether Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox, of Constantinople.
This made taking the last city, in the east, of Christian importance (“Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem in the eastern half of the Roman Empire were regional centers that made claims of independence in the running of regional churches under their care” FactsOnFile-Catholicism and Orthodoxy) easier for Mehmed II, with a unified army to take. As well as having studied the classic empire builders, such as Alexander the Great, Mehmed II had the best weaponry possible (“Mehmet had been assembling his army in Thrace, where his armourers and engineers had been at work throughout the winter to prepare weapons, armour, artillery and siege machines” The Grand Turk, Freely). Mehmed II breached the city and he intended on making it “the capital of his Empire” (The Fall of Constantinople, 1453, Dr. Hatzopoulos).
Once inside, “the first thing that he [Mehmed II] did after conquering [Constantinople] was to go to Hagia Sophia and take an ax and break down the Christian alter there to prove that another faith had taken over.”(Dr. Maier) Mehmed II later transformed the Chapel of Hagia Sophia to a Muslim mosque, to solidify that Constantinople was now under Muslim control. To even further cement his control over the city, he renamed the city from Constantinople to Istanbul.
It could be argued that Mehmed II, on the same logic of Constantine the Great, used a united religious front to advance his empire as well. Constantine the great made Christianity the state religion and supported it heavily and it made the empire of Rome united. Mehmed II, with Islam, successfully overtook the last city “from the mighty Christian Roman Empire and its presence, in the midst of the dominions of the powerful new rulers of the lands of Romania” (The Fall of Constantinople, 1453)
This event is important because it exemplifies Constantine the Great’s logic. Constantinople wasn’t unified together under one religion because of the divide between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox. Constantine XI seemed to not understand the unifying factor of his empire and the schism led Constantinople to crumble easily when confronted by an opponent.

THE CRUSADES

THE CRUSADES
The crusades were first called for by Pope Urban II, and “were great expeditions undertaken by the Christian nations of Europe for the purpose of rescuing the holy places of Palestine from the hands of the Mohammedans.” (www.middle-ages.org.uk). The Church called for the Crusades in the eleventh century and “the notion of a Holy war, crusade, entered Christianity in the eleventh century, and was directed against the religion which from its earliest days had spoken of a Holy war, Islam.” (Christianity: The First 3000 Years, Diarmaid MacCulloch).
On the other side of the conflict, Islam “divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of war. Christianity…has no abode. Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As a faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East where it was born. The Christian World, therefore, was [a] prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders from the next thousand years.” (www.thearma.com)
The objective of the crusades was to hold off Muslim influence in Europe, for Islam was conquering many territories and breaching into European, or Christian,
Domain. Pope Urban II addresses his followers in an attempt to rally men together to fight the Muslims invading into their territory.
“The noble race of Franks must come to the aid of their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulcher is in the Muslim hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land.” (Gbgm-umc.org)
The European powers in Europe were feeling threatened by the amount of land the Muslims had conquered and “at some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam.” (www.thearma.org). Later, the Catholic church saw, according to Dr. P. V. N. Myers in a General History for Colleges and High Schools, that the “Crusades influenced the wealth and power of the Catholic Church, Political matters, commerce, feudalism, intellectual development, social effects, [and] material effects.” In addition, “when the crusaders returned from the Middle East, they brought back Chinese silks, Persian carpets, sugar, spices, and other exotic goods which were previously unknown in Europe. The growing demand for these luxury imports lead to the launching of a final crusade, to conquer Constantinople and the eastern half of the old empire. This gave Italian merchants control over the trade routes to Asia, and Italian cities soon grew famously wealthy (Politics and Religion-The Rise of Democracy)”. Which later led leaders, such as King Richard the Lionheart, to go on the Third Crusade, called for by Pope Gregory VIII, in hopes of ruling Jerusalem (“he [Richard] and Philip began to squabble over who would be king of the soon-to-be-restored Jerusalem” FactsOnFile), as well as imposing taxes for his benefit at conquered territories (when King Richard the Lionheart conquered the island Cyprus, he “sold the island to the Knights Templar after exacting a 50 percent tax from the liberated Cypriots.”-FactsOnFile).
Religion was used, evidently by the Catholic Church calling for the Crusades. Though it appears that the crusades were called for, originally, to keep Christianity strong and to reclaim Jerusalem, it developed into a way to gain wealth and the Church and crusaders alike used it to gain political prominence and fortune.  

THE PALESTINE CONFLICT

THE PALESTINE CONFLICT
Although this region has been an epicenter of conflict throughout the ages, the specific area of focus for this paper is aligned with the western influence in a post-World War I era.
Theodor Herzl, a noted advocate for the early Zionist movement articulated the need for declaration of an independent Jewish state in his book “Der Judenstaat 1904 – The Jewish State” when proclaiming “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migration. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution. This is the case in every country, and will remain so, even in those highly civilized – for instance, France – until the Jewish question finds a solution on a political basis”. In this passage of Herzl’s book, the broader issue of continued struggles and persecution will plaque the Jewish thereby citing need for a safe harbor existence of a sovereign homeland.
It was during this same time period that the Ottoman controlled Palestine, Syria and Lebanon was surrendered to Britain and France at the defeat of the Ottoman supported Germans in World War I. Although in Efraim and Inari Karsh’s book “Empires of the Sand”, it is argued that European imperialism was more benevolent than threatening and coexisted with Middle Eastern imperialism, “this amounted to a ‘scramble for Palestine’ in the classic imperialist tradition …for the simple reason that none of the region’s Arab regimes viewed Palestine as a distinct entity and most of them had their own designs on this territory”. This would suggest that Britain had no immediate plans to make changes in the region. It was during this same time frame that the United States, who had supported the advances of Europe against Germany in World War I were also being influenced to help address the plight of the Zionist movement. In 1916 U.S. President Woodrow Wilson appointed Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. Brandeis was a strong proponent for the advancement of Zionist ideology as illustrated in a speech he delivered in April 1915 at the conference of Rabbi’s where he outlined a position of support when saying “When men and women of Jewish blood suffer, because of that fact, and even if they suffer from quite different causes, our sympathy and our help go out them instinctively in whatever country they live.” It was clear to Britain that American supported the Zionist advances. So clear in fact that in 1917 Arthur Balfour (Britain’s Foreign Minister) authored the Balfour Declaration and asked President Wilson to endorse (INSERT QUOTE BALFOUR), which he eventually did after encouragement from Brandeis which would lead to the passage of the Lodge-Fish Resolution 1922 in the U.S (“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”).
Clearly the objectives for the Zionist were to end suffering and secure a safe haven of sovereign unification as outlined in Brandeis speech of 1915. As victors in the conflict with Ottoman ruled Palestine and an obvious ground swell of support for a Jewish State, an inevitable migration of Jews to the region began to take hold.
For the part of the Arabs in the region, under Ottoman rule which was aligned with the Germans in World War I, strategic positioning of support behind the British would eventually lead to opposition of Ottoman rule in the region and collaboration with Captain T.E. Lawrence(INSERT QUOTE) in the north, to help secure a victory for the British. Early in the war, the Arab leader Sharif Hussein supported the organization of region Arabs in support of the Ottoman cause, however Hussein’s son Abdullah Hussein convinced Sharif to begin negotiations with the British sensing the power shift and momentum of the war efforts. Abdullah later went on to become King Hussein after the war and further supported the British agenda of creating a Jewish State alongside an Arab ruled Transjordan. In 1937 Abdullah supported the Peel Commission efforts to establish a Jewish State(“Executive in 1944 supported partition accompanied by transfer, and that is why Jordan's Emir Abdullah and Iraq's prime minister Nuri Said, among other Arab statesmen, supported such a population transfer if Palestine was to be partitioned” super- http://www.standwithus.com/pdfs/flyers/Response%20from%20Benny%20Morris.pdf), which although was never adopted, did illustrate Abdullah’s support for the separation.
In opposition to the efforts of Abdullah, was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni the Mufti (Sunni Religious Spiritual Leader) of Jerusalem. Using a religious battle cry and creating opposition to the call for a Jewish State, al-Husayni called for all Islamic faithful to join in violent protest to the establishment of Jewish settlement in the region.
Abdullah and al-Husayni were early players in the disagreements in the region between an Arab desire for Statehood and acceptance alongside a broader western supported initiative of a Jewish State in the same region. Given the geographical proximity to Jerusalem and the religious history of the area for Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, a battle for land and power, political, and religious sensitivities have led this region to play a major role in the agendas of much larger nations.
In this brief review we examine how the changing of control through war, the agenda of a people who have been mistreated and are simply looking for a place to call home, and the protective nature of a people seeking to hold on to their land, heritage and way of life that has been encroached upon previously end up in a boiling pot of distrust and self-serving positioning. In addition to outside influences from supportive nations with greater wealth and underlying intentions to secure natural resources from the region, and the continued lack of a genuine quest for peace becomes more prevalent.
It should therefore be inferred that the great many of people simply looking for the basic necessities of life; home, shelter, food, water, safety are being thrown into constant turmoil by the leaders seeking not to create a world of harmony and peace, but instead to cultivate an environment of fear and distrust for the sake of personal, power, political, economic, and geographical agendas. In many cases the most effective way to excite the needed masses to conduct the bidding of the leadership agenda is to speak to the sensitivities of the religious beliefs as a means to ask the common man to risk life and limb to advance the cause of the leadership.
 

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION
Three areas of focus to consider are the constant misuse of religion to excite the masses towards political ends by leaders with ulterior motives, that the common person of faith – be it Islamic or Christian, share a rich set of values in their teaching and moral code and finally that class separation has existed throughout history, and that the control of information and knowledge by the elite few, allows for better control over the masses, although the elite are far outnumbered.
Most recent examples of the masses become more informed and taking action today can be seen in the use of social media tools to inform and excite participants in the Egyptian uprising in the middle east, as well as an organized “Occupy” movement within the United States to protest the division of wealth and misuse of the economic system to exploit the working class while further inflating the wealth of the elite and suspect criminal banking system.
People look to leadership from both a secular and spiritual approach as a means to compensate for their own lack of knowledge and or experiences. In today’s information age of social media and internet access, it becomes the responsibility of the masses to self-educate and know their world. Only then will the exploits of the informed become challenged by the numbered masses to ensure that as a people, we are all moving in a direction that benefits the whole over the few.

Impressum

Tag der Veröffentlichung: 29.11.2011

Alle Rechte vorbehalten