On Luther and the Muslims

[ontheway1]

I have been looking at the history of the Ottoman conquest of southern Europe and long suspected that the reformation had a role to play there. Then I found this astounding statement in wikipedia.

“the consolidation, expansion and legitimization of Lutheranism in Germany by 1555 should be attributed to Ottoman imperialism more than to any other single factor”.[[23]] Goody, Jack (2004). Islam in Europe . Cambridge, UK:

Islam was at war with Catholic Europe, as was Luther, so the statement does make some sense. Anyone here have some insights or can recommend a source?

 

[otjm]

I would look at what Jack had to say, if you can obtain his work - not that I would necessarily put much if any stock in it.

The Church starting somewhere around 500 to 600 AD became involved in civil affairs as the Roman rule started to disintegrate, various tribes rose and fell in conquest, and the Church was the single surviving organization capable of providing a counter balance. By then significant parts of Europe had either been Christianized or were on their way to being so. Over time, the Church exercised more and more influence on rules, at times opposing those trying to ascend to the throne, and often being part of the entourage around a king and court, in part because they (particularly bishops) were the most educated - sometimes the only educated.

by the time we get to Luther, there are princes rebelling against papal and episcopal “interference” and seeking to reduce or ignore the power and influence of the churchmen. By the time we get to Vatican 1, the Church has largely been reduced to trying to rule the papal states and is under the protection of French troops. The troops leave for the Franco-Prussian war, the Papal States rebel, and try to take over Rome, leaving the Pope the “prisoner of the Vatican”

So we can see an arc of gaining influence, consolidation, and eventually a loss of influence.

Whatever the source was re: Islam by conquest, I am not sure that it had that much, if any real influence concerning Luther’s reach and the fact that he and others at the time formed a counter influence to the Church. It may be a bit “chicken and egg” to sort out how much influence the spread of Protestantism was due to theological differences, and how much due to the use of Protestantism by civil authorities to rid themselves of Church control or perceived control.

Matthew Komescher in his Catholicism Tody gives part of a chapter to this, and I came across another source which at the moment escapes me; but neither made mention of Islam as it relates to Protestantism.

Hope that helps.

Then, again, I am no historian. I would be interested in what you find.

 

[ATraveller]

I found the Wikipedia page you cited:

Protestantism and Islam - Wikipedia

By chance, I found a link to a different page and these quotes offer some insight:

The [Smalcaldic] League was officially established on 27 February 1531, by Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, and John Frederick I, Elector of Saxony, the two most powerful Protestant rulers in the Holy Roman Empire at the time. It originated as a defensive religious alliance, with the members pledging to defend each other should their territories be attacked by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor.

The formation of the Smalcald League in 1531 and the threatening attitude of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent […] caused Ferdinand of Austria to grant [Nuremburg] religious peace. Ferdinand had made humiliating overtures to Suleiman and as long as he hoped for a favorable response was not inclined to grant the peace which the Protestants demanded at the Diet of Regensburg which met in April 1532. But as the army of Suleiman drew nearer he yielded and on July 23, 1532 the peace was concluded at Nuremberg where the final deliberations took place. Those who had up to this time joined the Reformation obtained religious liberty until the meeting of a council and in a separate compact all proceedings in matters of religion pending before the imperial chamber court were temporarily paused.

[The League] rarely provoked Charles [the Holy Roman Emperor] directly, but confiscated church land, expelled bishops and Catholic princes, and helped spread Lutheranism throughout northern Germany.

For fifteen years the League was able to exist without opposition, because Charles was busy fighting wars with France and the Ottoman Empire. Overall, the Ottoman–Habsburg wars lasted from 1526 until 1571.

Schmalkaldic League - Wikipedia

 

[ontheway1]

Andre Clot summarizes very well this causality:
This is a quote from a book on Suleyman the Magnificent. Catholic Europe was under siege by the protestants and the Ottomans at the same time, and lost ground to both. I wouldn’t claim collusion here, for lack of sufficient documentation, but this is interesting.
‘‘Due to the Turkish threat, the Habsburgs were embarrassed, if not paralyzed in their fight
against the Reformation. Charles and Ferdinand could not devote all the forces fighting
against the heathen, being constantly forced to fight the Protestants. Because he could not
simultaneously pursue two goals - the return of Protestants to the Church and to drive the
Turks out of Europe - they dropped the crusade against the Ottomans. The Ottomans knew
that too well when they encouraged Protestantism everywhere. Forcing the Habsburg to
divide their forces, the Turks and the Protestants of the sixteenth century were probably
saving one another.’’7

 

[Hodos]

I don’t know if I would agree here or disagree. Certainly Charles the Vth recognized that he needed the armies of the Lutheran princes in order to fight against the expected Turk invasion. Knowing that he could not get them to renounce their faith, he eventually gave up. However, there are a lot of factors that led to the quick spread of Lutheranism in Germany. Technological advances such as the printing press made Luther’s writings easy to distribute. Essentially Luther was the first best selling author outside the Bible in the print era. Also, the war over Spain and the Papal states involving Charles the V had a lot to do with giving the Lutheran princes time to consolidate the Church in their regions. Also, the doctrinal integrity of the movement provided a compelling argument to many in Europe at the time.

 

[ontheway1]

Yes, This is clear post factum. Some historians however maintain that Lutheranism would have shared the fate of the Albigensians had it not been for the Ottoman incursion.

 

[ltwin]

Islam was at war with Catholic Europe, as was Luther, so the statement does make some sense.

Luther was not “at war” with Catholic Europe. Luther was a theologian, not a warrior. And Muslims were at war with Europe and Christians in general. I doubt Muslims much noticed or appreciated the abstract theological differences between Lutherans and Catholics in any case. Do you have much of an idea why Sunnis and Shias don’t get along? Do you much care?

It was the Lutheran princes who waged war but not against “Catholic Europe”. It was rather against the emperor and others within the empire who sought to re-impose Catholicism upon their states. The religious issue became the catalyst for a political dispute over the rights of princes to determine the religion of their lands.

Yes, the fact that the emperor was distracted by the Ottoman advance probably did give the Protestant princes more of an advantage. However, I’d be amazed if there was any evidence that Protestants were actually rooting for the Muslims.

 

[ontheway1]

Itwin. Your post is a little disappointing. First, your statement - “Muslims were at war with Europe and Christians in general” is factually incorrect.
Moving along, you are not in any way addressing the points made in the articles I have quoted in my previous posts. There seems to be plenty of evidence suggesting that the Ottomans were very much interested in European politics and were in fact supporting the French king, as well as Netherlands and others. The Muslims may not have concerned themselves with the finer points of the theological dispute between Luther and the papacy, but they certainly understood the importance of the political struggle, and were more than happy to support the dissidents (protestant states).
In the same paragraph, you suggest that I don’t know much about the reasons for the struggle between Sunni and Shia Muslims. First of all, this has nothing to do with this discussion. Secondly, I happen to know quite a bit about the Islamic history and the differences between the two. Finally, my knowledge of Islam has nothing to do with the merit of the arguments put forth by the scholars I have quoted in my posts. A personal attack against me does not disprove their statements, but can suggest that you have no counterargument to present.
I could go on, but I will conclude by agreeing with your final statement that there is no evidence that the Protestants were actually rooting for the Muslims. They did, however, have a common enemy, and, as the ancient proverb says, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.