Jerusalem's Role in Crusades: Not That Important

1099 Siege of Jerusalem. Taken from commons.wikimedia.org

Jerusalem is a holy city for all three of the world's largest Abrahamic religions: Jews, Christianity, and Islam. This created at least nine attempts of the Christians to take over the city since the First Crusade (1096-1099); nine more major crusades. However, while being a target in many crusades, as in any other conflict, there were many more factors which trigger a war (where indeed, religion took most of the blame). As such, the role of Jerusalem in these crusades are still debatable; to say that the crusades were called only to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land is quite limited.

The applicable definition of a crusade here comes from the Plurals of said debate, which state that the most important part of a crusade is the spiritual one, and not the retaking of Jerusalem. The crusades were a pilgrimage, but the very definition of a "pilgrimage" has become twisted by the Crusaders (Madigan, 2015). Here, Jerusalem was no longer a main goal, rather a justification of the real causes of the crusades: racism and power, both taken in the cover of a pilgrimage by those days' Christians.

The first main cause of the crusades is, without a doubt, discrimination between religions. The Christians, mainly, were aggressors to the other religions, thinking that they are the enlightened, the rightest. When Pope Urban II called for a crusade to retake Jerusalem at 1096, the built-up tension of discrimination to the East were released (Constable, 2001). It was clearly seen during the harassment to the Jews during and in between the crusades, two of the most prominent examples being the Rhineland Massacre of 1096 in the Rhineland, West Germany, and the Peoples' Crusade of 1096 in Asia Minor. Those crimes against humanity were done by fanatics who, in their desire to destroy the enemies of God, strayed from the goal of a crusade to bring "justice" to the Jews, thought as guilty in bringing Christ to the cross (American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2016). 

Cultural harassment did not happen solely to Jews. The fanatical beliefs of Christianity then were also shown to the Muslims. The Muslims (and also Jews) of Jerusalem were treated much harsher than how they treat Christian prisoners (History World, n.d.) Certainly, none of these harassments have any contribution to the goal to retake the Holy Land, and were only the results of the discrimination that made up the burning spirit of the crusaders, the main cause that kept the war ongoing.

The next important factor that started the holy wars were, like other wars, political reasons. The Byzantine Empire asking for help was a great chance for Pope Urban II to bring together the fragmented feudal world of Europe, against a common enemy. The crusaders, most notably the nobles, were enticed to the call to search for new lands and more recognition, in short more power an influence (Runciman, 1995). 

While Jerusalem itself was made as a Crusader State, the crusaders did not limit their search for land just near Jerusalem and the Holy Land. This was most notably seen in the Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) which, due to political reasons, strayed from the Holy Land to take Constantinople, leading to the Latin Empire. This proves that they were merely searching for land and power, and the Holy Land is but one land available to be taken then.

In the end, Jerusalem was made as a target for war merely as a justification. The Just War concept was already accepted that time, which mainly states that a war must only be called if and only if other, more peaceful and humane methods to achieve a morally right goal have been exhausted. The discrimination to other religions were certainly not a morally correct goal, nor was the forceful takeover of land and power. Thus, Jerusalem and its surrounding lands, as an important holy city was actually not the main goal of the crusades, but rather merely a front for the many different factors that started the war.

References - Further reading

American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. (2016). The Crusades. Retrieved from Jewish Virtual Library: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/crusades.html

Bugnion, F. (2004, Oktober 28). Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Non-International Armed Conflicts. Retrieved from International Comittee of the Red Cross: https://www.icrc.org/

Constable, G. (2001). The Historiography of the Crusades. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, 1-22.

History World. (n.d.). The Crusades. Retrieved from Historyworld website: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=fob

Madigan, K. (2015). Medieval Christianity: A New History. New Haven: Yale University.

Runciman, S. (1995). A History of the Crusades, Volume I: The First Crusade. Melbourne: University of Cambridge.

___

This was the final essay for this year's World History class. Translated and edited from Indonesian. This is a response paper, and by no means have been thoroughly studied and accepted as a fact; thus all debates and comments are welcome.

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part V: Conclusion

INDEX
Part I: Introduction
Part II: The Axial Age Religions
Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli
Part IV: The Extremists
Part V: Conclusion

It is without a doubt that religion plays a role, however little or much, in the presence of conflict and war. Though so, its role is not the main cause of war, such as many thought. Hinduism and Buddhism are two perfect examples as they are two very close religions, with similar ideas and the same goal for peace. Both are also misused to initiate war.

As we have learned using those two religions as an example, all religions had their roots during the Axial Age, where widespread conflict at the time led to the integration of moral standards to the preexisting rituals. However, this does not change the role of religion in the human life as central to a human being's desire to understand their world, and as such, remain a sensitive matter.

This sensitivity is used by factions and nations to initiate a war for their cause, either for political or economic reasons. On the other hand, extremists who zealously defend their religion forces their own beliefs, using the difference in religion as a justification for violence. On both cases, the teachings of all religions do not approve the violence, as violence is the exact opposite of the peace sought out since the Axial Ages. Considering that religion is only used as a premise to start a war while nothing in its teachings approve of it, then we could say for certain that religion is actually merely a scapegoat of wars and conflict. 

The fault lies in the humans themselves, the followers of a religion either overly zealous or understands too little of their religion. Those people will not hesitate to use religion to start a conflict, for their own profit. Knowing that, all that is left to be done by everyone is to embody each of their own morals according to their religion. Even people without a religion should understand about how to treat others as humans, appealing to everyone's desires for peace.

References

Bartoli, A., & Coleman, P. T. (2003, September). Dealing with Extremists. Retrieved from Beyond Intractability: http://www.beyondintractability.org/

Blakkarly, J. (2015, May 29). Buddhist Extremism and the Hypocrisy of 'Religious Violence'. Retrieved from ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/

Bugnion, F. (2004, October 28). Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, and Non-International Armed Conflicts. Retrieved from International Comittee of the Red Cross: https://www.icrc.org/

Center for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict. (n.d.). Sri Lanka: Hindus Versus Buddhists. Retrieved from Center for Reduction of Religious-Based Conflict: http://www.center2000.org/

Ranganathan, S. (n.d.). Hindu Philosophy. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/

Schmidt-Leukel, P. (2007, September). Facets of the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism. (F. Usarski, Interviewer)

The Economist. (2008, December 18). Why Wars Happen. Retrieved from dari The Economist: http://www.economist.com/

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part IV: The Extremists

INDEX
Part I: Introduction
Part II: The Axial Age Religions
Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli
Part IV: The Extremists
Part V: Conclusion

The last point to be discussed is about the fact that most religious conflicts, including the cases used in the previous parts, were started by extremists. Extremism is started by the the most fanatic, left-wing members of a belief, who want to impose their ways to others, due to them thinking that they are the rightest ones. The extremists are usually the most conservative believers of an ideology. These conservatives are inflexible, their minds less open to and unchanged by new ideas and other perspectives.

The paradoxical problem is that the conservatives should be the most loyal followers of an idea, so that they should've been the ones most opposed to violence, as it does not match the core tenets of a religion described before. It seems that this is the 'byproduct' of beliefs being one of the most important human natures, sensitive and almost impossible to be changed. They were blinded by their own belief that they alone are right and everyone else are infidels who must submit or be cast away. Evidently, this means that even the most loyal followers are not the ones that understand their belief's teachings completely.

The rebellion in Sri Lanka was made worse by Buddhist extremists who persecute Hindus, further increasing the death toll of the conflict. That case is only one example of extremist groups in Buddhism, widely considered to be a peaceful religion. There are also cases of persecution of Islamic followers in Myanmar by other extremists. In each case, these radicals use the difference in religion as a sort of casus belli, using violence to 'protect' their religion. Once more, returning to the original intent of these beliefs to bring about peace, violence done by these extremists already violate their own central beliefs.

Thus, as all religions promote peace, the fanatics in the religion already stray from their own religion's way of thinking, their desire to preserve their belief merely a clouded justification for violence. Thus, it could be concluded that conflict started by extremists is not caused by the faulty system of a the religion itself, rather the fanatical followers who do not fully understand and enliven their religions' sacred teachings. They themselves consider themselves the most righteous, forgetting the cause of their righteousness. At the end, due to their incompetence, religion is blamed for causing conflict which it never promoted. 

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli

INDEX
Part I: Introduction
Part II: The Axial Age Religions
Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli
Part IV: The Extremists
Part V: Conclusion

However peaceful the goal of a religion is, the fact remains that there are still conflicts and wars on the behalf of religion. Numerous religious wars have happened, even between the two closely related religions that became our exemplification before: Hinduism and Buddhism. As said before, both religions were made to bring about peace and order, however, religions are still an extremely sensitive matter concerning the central belief of humans, and thus even a little difference could spark a conflict.

Hinduism and Buddhism have a central difference, in the belief of castes. Thus, they did not always get along, since the start of Buddhism's rise in India, especially after the death of Emperor Ahsoka Maurya, the religion's most powerful supporter, at the 3rd century BC, where his empire was fractured into different Hindu factions.

This battle continues even until today, such as in Sri Lanka the past decades. Hindu Tamil separatists fight against the Buddhist Sinhalese majority for more political autonomy. Though the center of the conflict is those political reasons, it has been heated up even more with the difference in religious beliefs.

If scrutinized, almost all holy wars among nations have a political background. In the Hindu-Buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka, the political reason was for freedom, and fueled by difference of religion. Wars were, and still are, almost always fought over lands and resources; even holy wars (i.e. crusades) and wars fought over ideology (i.e. the Cold War) always have economic reasons, as a costly war could never logically be fought when there are no profit to be gotten by the belligerents.

However, in international relationships, according to human morality, and reminded even further as the rules of war, Jus ad Bellum, were laid out, a side must have a justifiable cause for war. To further their political and economical reasons, a nation could drag along the sensitive matter of religion and ideology as a casus belli (reason for war). With this, a holy war is started, by pointing out that their rival has a lesser belief according to their doctrine. Thus, a religion is only used as the 'motor' in a conflict, which means that while religion still plays a factor, it is merely a tool to initiate a war, fought over political and economic reasons.

___
Next time, we will discuss the importance of extremists in making religion the scapegoat.

Once more I must say, due to the sensitive matter of these posts, please discuss your disagreements in an educated manner.

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part II: The Axial Age Religions

INDEX

Part I: Introduction

Part II: The Axial Age Religions

Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli

Part IV: The Extremists

Part V: Conclusion

The large religions as we know them today has their roots during the Axial Age (c. 8th-3rd century BC). As its name implies, this age is pivotal to the development of human beliefs as it gives a moral essence to the preexisting rituals. Before the Axial Age, human beliefs are mostly comprised of sacrificial rituals for gods that symbolize the forces or nature, such as the gods of Ancient Egypt and China, or the animistic religions of many secluded tribes. Those gods and forces are stagnant, subject to cosmic law, and even difficult to be reached by the peasants, where only priests and kings could raise their prayers.

Once again, religion was central to the human belief as people always search meaning in life. Without a foundation for their lives, people look away to newer forces of change, such as gods of war. This lack of foundation and morals would form a bloodthirsty, 'barbaric' culture, and so skirmishes and pillaging grow prevalent.

At its heart, religion and belief is something malleable, always being adapted to the need of humans. Philosophers across the world see this degradation of human morals, and thus they construct and spread word of these new beliefs--the Axial Age religions--which remind people of their conscience, by inserting the lost values from before. Across the world, the same background compelled people to spread the main belief, "Do not do to others what you do not want  to be done to yourself." Certainly, this idea is one that support peaceful coexistence.

One, or rather two examples of this axial age religions are Hinduism and Buddhism, two very closely related religions in India in terms of history and beliefs. Hinduism was a very early religion, more than a thousand years BC, formed during the fusion of cultures of the Dravidians of India and the invading Indo-Aryans. At the beginning, the religion existed mostly for the political reason to categorize the Dravidians on the lower castes, thus they would not revolt against the Aryans. Meanwhile, Buddhism was the teachings of Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha, as a protest to the caste system.

Both Axial Age religions have the same core belief, the Dharma (or Dhamma), which governs the relation between living beings and their surroundings. In Hinduism, every person must do Dharma according to their caste, to ensure order and peace. In Buddhism, the caste system is removed; as the goal of every life is to escape suffering, then Dharma must be done to everyone (and everything) to break the chain of reincarnation, according to their karma.

These core teachings remain unchanged through the millennia. Certainly, looking from those teachings and the background for it, both religions certainly have a common goal in mind: social order and peace, by treating humans as human beings. Most, if not all religions today have their foundations during the Axial Age, and were formed based on those principles and morals of keeping the peace.

Thus we return to the case at hand, where religion is considered as the source of conflicts. After looking at their history, we could conclude that religion is not the one to blame for those conflicts, as no religion ever justifies war, due to their goal of creating a peaceful society. Basically, religion and conflict has mutually exclusive ideals, as conflict is the very thing religion sought to eradicate.

___
Next, I shall discuss why there are still wars which involve religion.

As a disclaimer, I acknowledge that this is a very sensitive matter, which I think is important to be discussed. If anyone is uncomfortable or offended with this, please do comment and discuss.

Religion: The Scapegoat of Conflicts, Part I: Introduction

INDEX

Part I: Introduction

Part II: The Axial Age Religions

Part III: Religion as a Casus Belli

Part IV: The Extremists

Part V: Conclusion

Conflict is a natural part of the social nature of humans, so much that there is little doubt that the course of the world's history is shaped by conflict. As a result, the historical events that are most thoroughly recorded in the books and internet are those of war.

Meanwhile, religion is another central belief in a human's nature as social beings. This belief is so sensitive and sacred, that when others violate it, a conflict is inevitable for most of the time. Most of the historical conflicts mentioned before brought with them the morals of a religion, pitting them against each other. Such was the frequency that religion became a highlighted point in a conflict, that in the minds of many people, the names of many religions are soiled, as the cause of war.

However, if we dig further, the place of religion in the human nature is actually to fill the human curiosity, to answer unanswered questions, to search for meaning for every action or phenomenon. This resulted in religion becoming a moral compass for people.

Violence, brought by conflict, is amoral. That fact should be agreed upon by everyone. Looking at the common goal of all religions, to bring peace based off morals, then, logically, religion and conflict are mutually exclusive. Religion could not be the root cause of war, however, it still plays a large factor in many conflicts--as a scapegoat.

Over the next few posts, I shall talk about this problem, using Hinduism and Buddhism as an example, two large religions that embodies the peace a religion should have, but still had their share of conflicts. First, we shall rewind to the Axial Age, where the basis of modern religions were laid out. After that, we seek the true reasons of war, where religion becomes justification for a conflict. Finally, we see the reason why currently many religions become scapegoats: their extremists and radicals.

___

This essay was made as a mid-term assessment for my World History class, on the chapter about Axial Age Religions. I made quite a long essay, where each part could be considered a stand-alone essay, that I decided to cut it up in my blog. Originally made in Indonesian, translated and edited.

Following through on what I said about religions being a sensitive matter, people feeling offended by this problem--most of all Hindus and Buddhists--should comment and we could discuss on what I should edit, or tear down this post. However, I would like to say, please do not let the truth be covered.