Nonviolence by Mark Kurlansky Read Free Book Online Page A

suffice to say this much at least, that at the temple and portico of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and the bridle reins.
    This was not what Augustine had had in mind, and although the papacy made constant subliminal references to Augustine and his concept of just war, the actual phrase “just war” was carefullyavoided and rarely was the name of Augustine invoked during the two centuries of Crusades.
    At the start of its campaign, the Church manufactured for propaganda purposes both the threat and the evilness of the enemy. The Church had spent many years developing a Western hatred of Muslims so that it could take Muslim lands. This, too, is a lesson: a propaganda machine for hate always has a war waiting. The adversary must first be made into a demon before people will accept the war. This was why during the Cold War, the U.S. government became infuriated at any suggestion that the Soviets were their “moral equivalent.” Eleventh-century chroniclers drastically revised early medieval history to demonize Muslims. A famous example is the beautiful eleventh-century poem Le Chanson de Roland, which depicts a 778 engagement in the Pyrenees between Charlemagne and the evil Saracens, describing an ambush by the deceitful Muslims in which the Christians valiantly defended themselves. Like the Muslims, the Christians, too, could write poetic war propaganda. In truth, Charlemagne had already made a deal with competing Muslim leaders and easily took Spanish cities by a prearranged collaboration. But then, having not fought any real battles, on his way back to France he sacked Pamplona, a Basque city. It was the Basques and not the Muslims who attacked his rear column in the mountain pass. In reality there were not two all-powerful forces, the Christians and the Muslims, but many warring groups. Urban II unified the Christians by creating this myth of a single, all-powerful Saracen, which for a time was a great Christian advantage since there was no unity among the Muslims.
    Another example is the eleventh-century account of the 732 rout of Emir ‘Abdarrahman by Charles Martel near Poitiers, France. At the time this was just one more battle in an endless series between various warlords, some of whom were Muslim and some of whom were Christian. In eighth-century Europe, Christians fought Christians, Muslims fought Muslims, and sometimes Christians fought Muslims. But in the eleventh century this battle took on great symbolic importance because it had been the northernmost engagement of the Saracens and they had lost—thus the Saracenshad been stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel. The myth has endured, helping to keep the fires of anti-Muslim hatred fanned in Europe. Edward Gibbon, the eighteenth-century British historian, wrote that if it wasn't for Charles Martel, the Quran might now be taught at Oxford “and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelations of Mahomet.” In modern times Martel has been adopted as the patron saint of the French extreme right.
    Eleventh- and twelfth-century Christian leaders were troubled and angered by a tendency of Christian lords to make alliances with Muslims. These could have ruined the entire concept of holy war. In the late ninth century, Pope John VIII had forbidden “impious alliances” with Muslims. His reason was uniquely Catholic in its mysticism. Since all Christians were part of the body of Christ, a Christian who joined with a non-Christian was tearing the limbs off Christ's body. This, too, was power politics. How could the Church control Christian peace and war if there were Christian lords making separate deals with Muslim lords over whom the Church had no power?
    When Urban set out to demonize Muslims, he was aided by the fact that the average Christian knew almost nothing about Muslims. There is little historic evidence that the Christians of the Middle East were being oppressed by Muslims. But the Muslims were