Henri Pirenne: The Belgian historian who got Islam all wrong
Seventy years since its publication, Belgian historian Henri Pirenne's "Mahomet et Charlemagne" still boggles the mind. The thought that the Middle Ages dawned not with the decline of Rome in the 5th century, but with the rise of Islam about 200 years later, bewildered scholars in the late 1930s and would excite some decision-makers in today's EU had they heard about it.
Being the holy-war faith it is, Pirenne argued, Islam is intrinsically opposed to foreign trade. As such, Christianity's archenemy glorified war, belittled trade and -- in its quest to cripple Europe -- split the Mediterranean down the middle, between crescent and cross, and thus emptied it of its bustling maritime traffic. It was this deliberate design, concluded the great Medievalist, that gradually condemned Europe to centuries of economic and mental isolation.
Pirenne's theory was revolutionary by any yardstick. The only problem with it was that it later proved largely unfounded.
As it turned out, the otherwise gifted historian whose expertise was in Western Europe's post-feudal economics, knew no Arabic and had but a superficial acquaintance with Islam. Thus, for instance, while stereotyping it as a faith of economically primitive nomads, Pirenne ignored Mohammed's professional identity as a tradesman; overlooked the fiercely mercantile character of the Hijaz, where he prophesied; and was oblivious of the rise of an urban, merchant class in the Middle East shortly after the dawn of Islam.
Moreover, Islam allowed infidel traders to pursue trans-Mediterranean trade, provided they pay a very reasonable 10 percent tariff. In fact, the ones who obstructed commerce were Byzantium's Christian emperors, who forbade Muslim maritime traffic along the eastern Mediterranean.
Why is any of this relevant now?
Because in today's Europe, there still are those, from the Élysée to the Vatican, who fear Turkey's admission into the EU....
Read entire article at Amotz Asa-El in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Being the holy-war faith it is, Pirenne argued, Islam is intrinsically opposed to foreign trade. As such, Christianity's archenemy glorified war, belittled trade and -- in its quest to cripple Europe -- split the Mediterranean down the middle, between crescent and cross, and thus emptied it of its bustling maritime traffic. It was this deliberate design, concluded the great Medievalist, that gradually condemned Europe to centuries of economic and mental isolation.
Pirenne's theory was revolutionary by any yardstick. The only problem with it was that it later proved largely unfounded.
As it turned out, the otherwise gifted historian whose expertise was in Western Europe's post-feudal economics, knew no Arabic and had but a superficial acquaintance with Islam. Thus, for instance, while stereotyping it as a faith of economically primitive nomads, Pirenne ignored Mohammed's professional identity as a tradesman; overlooked the fiercely mercantile character of the Hijaz, where he prophesied; and was oblivious of the rise of an urban, merchant class in the Middle East shortly after the dawn of Islam.
Moreover, Islam allowed infidel traders to pursue trans-Mediterranean trade, provided they pay a very reasonable 10 percent tariff. In fact, the ones who obstructed commerce were Byzantium's Christian emperors, who forbade Muslim maritime traffic along the eastern Mediterranean.
Why is any of this relevant now?
Because in today's Europe, there still are those, from the Élysée to the Vatican, who fear Turkey's admission into the EU....