Medieval Theocracies it Has Been

Medieval Theocracies

It has been said that the middle Ages were a time of faith rather than reason. This statement is proven to be true when one looks at the political and religious structure of the major ruling powers of the middle Ages. While many people believe that Europe and the vestiges of the Holy Roman Empire were the dominant world leaders during the middle Ages, one cannot underestimate the power held by Arabic countries during that time period. In fact, many of the advancements credited to Europe during the Renaissance that followed the Middle Ages were borrowed or stolen from prior advances in the medieval Arabia. Therefore, in order to understand the interaction between religion and politics during medieval times, it is important to study both Christian and Islamic medieval theocracies.

Before one can appreciate the differences and similarities between medieval Christian and Islamic theocracies, one must have a thorough understanding of the mechanics of a theocratic political system. In a theocracy, "the divine power...governs an earthly human state, either in person...or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s)..., either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s)." (Wikipedia Contributors). Therefore, technically the Papal States in Italy were Europe's only real example of a theocracy. (Wikipedia Contributors). Likewise, when Medina was ruled by Muhammad and Muhammad's theocracy in Mecca are considered Islam's true early theocracies. (Wikipedia Contributors). However, the reality is that, in medieval times, many countries were practical theocracies. While they were nominally ruled by monarchs or other political figures, these leaders were oftentimes so heavily influenced by religious leaders that it became impossible to separate political and religious doctrine.

To anyone with a basic understanding of Islam, it is hardly surprising that the middle Ages were marked by practical theocracies in Arabic lands. In fact, even modern Islamic states are not generally led by secular rulers. This is largely due to the fact that Islam is more than a religion; it is a lifestyle. For example, the law in Islamic countries was derived completely from religious rules and mores. The result was that "Islamic Judges were religious jurists." (Ross). Furthermore, these judges played an essential dual role in Islamic society. "Such jurists were also the principal institutional existence of Islam, which otherwise had no priests or religious hierarchy." (Ross). The result was that there was no practical separation between church and state. Islam truly governed all aspects of daily life.

In contrast, the Christian theocracies of the middle Ages were built on the back of the Roman Empire. As a result, "European states had a legal tradition from Roman Law that was independent of Christianity." (Ross). At least nominally, this distinction helped foster the idea of separation of church and state. However, this separation was oftentimes not recognized by those in power. For example, many medieval European rulers claimed to have direct authority from God, and imposed their will upon the followers, without regard to the traditional distinctions granted in Roman law. This differed from Islamic rulers. While many of them claimed to be direct descendents of Muhammad, Muhammad was a prophet, rather than god. Therefore, Islamic monarchies did not make claims of actual divinity.

Despite their differences, Christian and Islamic theocracies shared the same concept of expansion. Central to both religions was the concept that world religious domination was a religious and political duty. In fact, while crusading is now associated solely with Christianity, the fact is that early crusading began with Islamic crusades in the early middle Ages. The Islamic crusades and the later Christian crusades were both religious and political efforts to spread religion. Both were based on the notion that areas that did not share the religion in question were somehow unjust or unholy. Furthermore, while these crusades targeted other religions, they also resulted in increased wealth and political power for the rulers of the theocracies. According to scholars like Arlandson, Pope Urban II's call to crusade against the Muslims was purely a reaction to earlier Muslim aggression against Christians. (Arlandson). However, the reality is that, just like the earlier Muslim crusaders, the Christian crusaders obtained benefits far beyond religious conversion and reconquering the Holy Land. As in modern times, these wars resulted in the large-scale conversion of the control of certain areas of land. However, the religious change that resulted from the theocracies was not due merely to wars, but also to complex political systems that made faith an essential part of everyday life.