To what extent is it fair to compare Medieval Catholicism to Wahhabism?

[badnewsbarrett]

Wahhabism was the key to the rise and overall identity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which emerged as not only the birthplace of Islam, but also the philosophical center. It stands out as a super intolerant form of fundamentalist Islam, seeking to purify the religion of Shiites, Sufis, and others who don’t do Islam the right way, with the goal of uniting Islam as much as possible under a common authority and a common creed. (Using the word “creed” rather loosely, although this is an exact phrase that does come up with some frequency and significance in the writings of Wahhabism’s founder, Muhammad Ibn abu Al-Wahhab.

It started out doing exactly the same things that ISIL is doing now in Syria and Iraq, but it evolved just a bit over time- still very intolerant, still a religious state, but not as violent or expansionist. Instead, there’s been more of a strategy to spread the philosophy of Wahhabism well beyond its borders and cause Wahhabism to be the principle school of thought within Sunni Islam as a whole. Apparently, this has taken hold in the Levant in a big way.

Medieval Catholicism could draw some unfavorable comparisons to this, not least of which is the harsh treatment of heretics, most of whom were put to an end, a far more literal and precise quest to unite Christianity (in the west at least) under a common creed, and of course the hard fought wars of religion against Protestantism, because it was very important that it not survive. For some reason, I’m trying to think of it, what reason was that exactly?

The reasons for unfavorable comparison are mostly obvious to me, but it does occur to me that there may be some reasons not to make such direct comparison that would be far more obvious to Catholics. in particular, the sorts of Catholics who can properly remember exactly why it was so important to put the Reformation down and silence the Reformers permanently. It would be especially helpful if the reasons for doing this are clearly and distinctly of a very different nature than the Wahhabist motives for religious coercion.

For the record, I do fully understand that there are significant points both for and against such a comparison. I’m trying to get a few more details that will more fully explain the extent and nature of points on both sides.

So, without necessarily arguing that there is all that much basis for direct comparison- what can everyone tell me about the various reasons for and against such a comparison? And in the final analysis, just how much does the story of medieval Catholicism translate or relate to the ongoing thing with Wahhabism? As usual, I will probably wind up relating this comparison to religious coercion on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Mintaka]

Your question actually emphasizes one of the main differences between Wahhabism and medieval Catholicism.

Islam, in all of its sects and guises so far, has never believed in a separation between mosque and state, so to speak. The only really just law is Sharia law, and the Commander of the Faithful should ideally be the final arbiter of religion, politics, criminal justice, and legislation.

This was in many ways an echo of, but in many ways a deliberate act against the way that the power of the Christian Byzantine Emperor was very great in matters of religion, but not absolute. A patriarch or a council of patriarchs could tell the emperor what to do, whereas a sultan had the right to command any group of imams to do what he wanted. The current version of the Quran was decided by a sultan, and by his orders, all other versions that could be found were destroyed.

Christianity, and particularly Catholicism, has never had such a strict union of state and church. Even Calvin’s Geneva wasn’t as much of a theocracy.

(However, the idea of forcing Muslims to pay obligatory “charity” to support mujaheddin in their jihad work, and of forcing non-Muslims to pay jizyah tribute, is a sort of twisted parody of both religious tithing and the secular Roman/Byzantine tax system.)

So yes, the Reformers burned and hung and pressed to death Catholics for being heretics (along with Quakers and Anabaptists and whoever was not of the local brand of Reformation), and the Catholic authorities also executed heretics according to the local laws dealing with heretics and similar traitors against the state. But that’s it. Local church authorities on either side generally did not have the authority to directly prosecute or punish heretics; they were used as interrogation consultants or a sort of religious CSI, to determine people’s beliefs and try to persuade them to give them up. But it was the local civic authorities who decided to prosecute and execute people as heretics, or to enact lesser penalties, or not to treat heresy as a crime at all.

Usually heresy was treated as a crime because it had been a crime under Byzantine/late Roman law, and all European law drew from Roman law at some point. The boring reason was that heresy caused riots and unrest, as people agreeing with the heretics fought with those disagreeing with them. The more exciting reason was that many Christian heresies called for the destruction of kings or the overthrow of the present ones, a free for all of sex for everybody, nobody being able to inherit anything, certain trades being evil, property being theft, or other tenets which heretics’ followers often started trying to implement right away. On their neighbors. By force.

Constantinople and Alexandria had a lot more exciting mobs of heretics than Europe ever had, but considering the horrendous mass destruction done by mobs during the Reformation and all the wars… well, it’s obvious that Roman law had its reasons. Maybe not good reasons, but reasons.

Still, whatever was done in Europe was done by the civil authorities, not by the religious ones (unless the religious ones started a mob). That was an important distinction, and it provided for a lot more wiggle room than a theocratic state can ever have, particularly one constituted under Sharia law.

But Wahhabism is purposefully more severe in its practices and its judicial system than most types of medieval Islam (and heck, they weren’t nice to start out with).

 

[Mintaka]

The second major difference is that in Christianity (and Judaism), God has always been said to be the epitome of truth, justice, and reason. There are many Bible verses extolling the “weight and order and measure” involved in Creation. Everything that happens is allowed by God, but God does not directly control humans or events. He has set up causes that lead to effects, and He permits free will. Medieval Catholicism was certainly big on free will, and the saints who suddenly changed their lives completely were popular.

Wahhabism, like all contemporary forms of Sunni Islam, contends that all events are directly controlled by God, and that God is the only cause of any event. Similarly, people do not have free will; they are controlled by the fate and destiny set up by God. (To be fair, there are some sects which believe in a certain amount of human choice, or that God exists in eternity and that the predetermined fate on God’s tablets is known by Him from outside. Shi’ites largely reject the concept of predestination and fate; but they also declare that God twists the course of human events however He feels like at the moment, often changing His mind.) Most groups teach that nobody has the power to benefit or harm anyone else, or even himself; only God determines a person’s fate.

Medieval Catholicism loved reasoning and argumentation, to the point of using debate as one of the most important teaching methods at medieval universities. Medieval Catholicism laid the foundations of experimental and observational science, because exploring nature was exploring God’s greatness.

Wahhabism hates debate, outside very narrow boundaries. It believes science is essentially useless, because God does whatever He feels like at the moment.

So there are a couple of important distinctions.

 

[TheAtheist]

Medieval Catholicism could draw some unfavorable comparisons to this, not least of which is the harsh treatment of heretics, most of whom were put to an end, a far more literal and precise quest to unite Christianity (in the west at least) under a common creed, and of course the hard fought wars of religion against Protestantism, because it was very important that it not survive. For some reason, I’m trying to think of it, what reason was that exactly?

I sometimes wonder if this is a “Western thing.”

Or perhaps a “Semitic Religion/Western Ideology” thing.

Specifically - on the outset of the 3 Semitic Religions, there really isn’t much room for alternative opinions. Conformity of thought (ie: Doctrine) seems absolutely essential in many of these quasi-theocratic societies…and to step out of line is to invite some rather direct consequences.

Same pattern is seen when societies in early Europe start basing their political life around Ideologies - ie: A Marxist can’t abide a Capitalist in his Worker’s Utopia.

 

[abucs]

Well i have a very different interpretation of historical medieval Catholicism than the initial post.

If we are going to choose a period of European history which most closely mirrors the horrors of violent intolerance in the name of ideology then it would have to be in the time of the Enlightenment with the French Revolution.

In that case Europeans went around chopping heads off thousands of people and enforcing the outlawing of other’s culture and thoughts in the name of a totalitarian ideology.

Still waiting for the media to replace ‘medieval Islamism’ with ‘Enlightenment Islamism’ - it is a much closer fit. Not holding my breath though.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Your question actually emphasizes one of the main differences between Wahhabism and medieval Catholicism.

Islam, in all of its sects and guises so far, has never believed in a separation between mosque and state, so to speak. The only really just law is Sharia law, and the Commander of the Faithful should ideally be the final arbiter of religion, politics, criminal justice, and legislation.

This was in many ways an echo of, but in many ways a deliberate act against the way that the power of the Christian Byzantine Emperor was very great in matters of religion, but not absolute. A patriarch or a council of patriarchs could tell the emperor what to do, whereas a sultan had the right to command any group of imams to do what he wanted. The current version of the Quran was decided by a sultan, and by his orders, all other versions that could be found were destroyed.

Christianity, and particularly Catholicism, has never had such a strict union of state and church. Even Calvin’s Geneva wasn’t as much of a theocracy.

(However, the idea of forcing Muslims to pay obligatory “charity” to support mujaheddin in their jihad work, and of forcing non-Muslims to pay jizyah tribute, is a sort of twisted parody of both religious tithing and the secular Roman/Byzantine tax system.)…

Usually heresy was treated as a crime because it had been a crime under Byzantine/late Roman law, and all European law drew from Roman law at some point. The boring reason was that heresy caused riots and unrest, as people agreeing with the heretics fought with those disagreeing with them. The more exciting reason was that many Christian heresies called for the destruction of kings or the overthrow of the present ones, a free for all of sex for everybody, nobody being able to inherit anything, certain trades being evil, property being theft, or other tenets which heretics’ followers often started trying to implement right away. On their neighbors. By force…

But Wahhabism is purposefully more severe in its practices and its judicial system than most types of medieval Islam (and heck, they weren’t nice to start out with).

You raise some very good points, those are some astute distinctions in the church/state relationship. A more lazy assessment of medieval Catholicism asserts something too simplistic much of the time, when in reality the medieval age was a rather unstable and constantly shifting situation in which church and state were often doing entirely new things and redefining how they would operate together…although I do think that as Christendom really came to be Christendom, there were some things that solidified a bit more across the board. That process was quite different from how Wahhabism came to relate with Saudi royalty, though, and that is an excellent point. Perhaps some general points of comparison, but not enough to say they are the same thing happening in different places.

I do want to point out, however, that heads of state were not always free to decide how they were going to treat heretics within their realm, specifically because (depending on circumstances and the ability to oust a ruler without destabilizing things too much) rulers could and sometimes were excommunicated strictly on account of their laxity with heretics. And that excommunication could threaten to extend to a point where the descendants of those excommunicated would simply no longer be royalty. Take a look at Count Raymond VI of Toulouse, and I will ask you why exactly was it that he was excommunicated about six different times. The first time, yes, that had nothing to do with heresy, but let’s take a good look at the next five. And then when he sought refuge in England, the king of England was threatened with excommunication just for having him there. Also, when it came to those particular heretics, they were pacifists. And they hated the ostentatious nature of Catholic places of worship, they built places of worship that were very simple. They were killed because they were very very good at drawing Catholics away from the Church, and the degree to which any heresy was good at doing that was always the most significant predictor of how hard the Church would come after them. These other reasons are excuses that don’t always apply very well, and sometimes don’t apply whatsoever.

I also have to disagree with your assessment of the civil reasons for putting down heresy, the primary motivation was spiritual, the main reason for putting it down was to save the eternal souls of people who might be led astray. If a counterfeiter is punished for passing off false money, how much more does a false teacher deserve harsh punishment for passing off false religion? These are the arguments that are explicitly made by those primarily responsible for the ethics and the philosophy that legitimized it, and that’s what you see from the people who made it happen. What I see from you is embarrassed-looking-away justification after the fact, which does not match up at all with the arguments made by people who made it happen, watched people die for having the wrong beliefs, said it was a good thing and had a celebration. By order of the pope.

I also see some similarities between Wahhabism and medieval Islam in the conflation of national identity with religious identity. You don’t get to pick your nation of origin or change it or betray it, you also don’t get to pick your religion or change it or betray it. The two go hand in hand, and a betrayal of either is a betrayal of everyone around you. I do kind of think that works out about the same in the day to day life of someone who’s a regular person brought up in either environment.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

The second major difference is that in Christianity (and Judaism), God has always been said to be the epitome of truth, justice, and reason. There are many Bible verses extolling the “weight and order and measure” involved in Creation. Everything that happens is allowed by God, but God does not directly control humans or events. He has set up causes that lead to effects, and He permits free will. Medieval Catholicism was certainly big on free will, and the saints who suddenly changed their lives completely were popular.

Wahhabism, like all contemporary forms of Sunni Islam, contends that all events are directly controlled by God, and that God is the only cause of any event. Similarly, people do not have free will; they are controlled by the fate and destiny set up by God. (To be fair, there are some sects which believe in a certain amount of human choice, or that God exists in eternity and that the predetermined fate on God’s tablets is known by Him from outside. Shi’ites largely reject the concept of predestination and fate; but they also declare that God twists the course of human events however He feels like at the moment, often changing His mind.) Most groups teach that nobody has the power to benefit or harm anyone else, or even himself; only God determines a person’s fate.

Medieval Catholicism loved reasoning and argumentation, to the point of using debate as one of the most important teaching methods at medieval universities. Medieval Catholicism laid the foundations of experimental and observational science, because exploring nature was exploring God’s greatness.

Wahhabism hates debate, outside very narrow boundaries. It believes science is essentially useless, because God does whatever He feels like at the moment.

So there are a couple of important distinctions.

You are quite right in pointing out how Sunni Islam (in contrast to Shia) places a large amount of emphasis on predestination and on God’s sovereignty. But let me ask you something- have you taken a good look at Summa Theologica and the specific things that Aquinas gets into at great length on that very topic? He picks up right after Augustine, and I don’t know if you’re aware of this but the two of them basically defined where medieval Catholicism stood on that issue, and it was very much right there with your description of Wahhabist Islam. At least as much as any form of Christianity can be.

To clarify- Catholicism is currently not at all on the Thomistic track where that is concerned, and the Jesuit influence has been in the habit of pushing Summa to the back burner and pretty often right out of the required reading for seminary coursework. But have you read that stuff? It doesn’t apply as much to Catholic thought now, but it is indispensable for an understanding of where medieval Catholicism was at.

That is a nice point about science and reasoning, though. Islam, on a longer timescale, had a nice long run of great scientific achievement. But Wahhabism had nothing at all to do with that, and it stands in pretty stark contrast where that’s concerned.

 

[twf]

This isn’t directly relevant to the discussion at hand, but the OP refers to Catholics persecuting Protestants and waging war against protestantism without acknowledging the reverse. Certainly Protestantism was very political in its inception. Luther allied with the princes of northern Germany and recognized their right to govern religion within their borders and to execute heretics. England executed many, many Catholics enforcing protestantism by the sword. The wars the OP speaks of were not one sided- Catholic civil leaders waged war against protestant civil leaders often for reasons that went beyond religion.

Evangelicalism as the OP knows it today is an Anglo-American animal that simply didn’t exist during the reformation. It evolved much later from Baptist and Methodist movements.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

This isn’t directly relevant to the discussion at hand, but the OP refers to Catholics persecuting Protestants and waging war against protestantism without acknowledging the reverse. Certainly Protestantism was very political in its inception. Luther allied with the princes of northern Germany and recognized their right to govern religion within their borders and to execute heretics. England executed many, many Catholics enforcing protestantism by the sword. The wars the OP speaks of were not one sided- Catholic civil leaders waged war against protestant civil leaders often for reasons that went beyond religion.

Evangelicalism as the OP knows it today is an Anglo-American animal that simply didn’t exist during the reformation. It evolved much later from Baptist and Methodist movements.

You’re quite right, but I would rephrase it as follows.

In acknowledging the reverse, I would state that Catholics waged war against people who had until just recently been Catholics- and people who had just recently been Catholics did some very bad things to Catholics as well.

No, they were not one sided, but the distinction looks rather meaningless when you put it in a certain way.

 

[Peter_J]

There are three ways one can make comparisons between Islamic extremists and Christian extremists: either use completely different levels of the word “extremists” in the respective definitions, or use comparable definitions but accept that Islamic extremists are about 100x more numerous than Christian extremists, or go back centuries (as is the case here).