Fighting over similarities

muhammad_ali_02aPerhaps the ultimate irony of Muslim faith in the public sphere was that of Muhammad Ali. The fighter formerly known as Cassius Clay controversially converted to Islam, then protested the Vietnam War as a conscientious objector.

The complexity of that decision confounded Americans. Some blamed him for refusing to serve his country. As the website This Day In History documents, Ali was penalized in the manner of a high profile figure.

“On April 28, 1967, with the United States at war in Vietnam, Ali refused to be inducted into the armed forces, saying “I ain’t got no quarrel with those Vietcong.” On June 20, 1967, Ali was convicted of draft evasion, sentenced to five years in prison, fined $10,000 and banned from boxing for three years. He stayed out of prison as his case was appealed and returned to the ring on October 26, 1970, knocking out Jerry Quarry in Atlanta in the third round. On March 8, 1971, Ali fought Joe Frazier in the “Fight of the Century” and lost after 15 rounds, the first loss of his professional boxing career. On June 28 of that same year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction for evading the draft.”

That’s right, his case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United states, which overturned his conviction for draft evasion. In other words, Ali was exonerated of wrongdoing in his case against the United States. His faith was also vindicated.

In context with America’s troubled relationship with the Muslim religion and its “peace or no peace” controversies, the case of Muhammad Ali bears recognition as a sign that the Muslim faith does have a tradition of peace at its core.

Conscientious Objector

Ali was justified in his argument that “I ain’t got no quarrel with those Vietcong.” The nation entered the war ostensibly to stop the advance of communism. Instead, America’s involvement in the Vietnam War proved far more costly in terms of lives and political capital, and communism ultimately won the battle for control of Vietnam. One could argue that it ultimately lost the war in that communism ultimately collapsed the Soviet Union.

But in the moment, the Vietnam war was unpopular at the liberal end of the political spectrum, leading to war protests and civil unrest. The nation imposed a military draft and thousands of lives were spent on the guerrilla battlefields where victory and loss often felt like the same thing. In other words, a conscientious objector could find many reasons not to want to fight in Vietnam. That’s why Ali did not go to fight in Vietnam.

The ugliness of the fight game

Yet Ali was quite ironically a fighter by trade. He was also prone to controversial methods of race profiling as a means of fight promotion, calling men such as Joe Frazier “Uncle Tom” and engaging in pre-fight dialogue that was profoundly insulting.

Ali: “Joe Frazier should give his face to the Wildlife Fund. He’s so ugly, blind men go the other way. Ugly! Ugly! Ugly! He not only looks bad, you can smell him in another country! What will the people of Manila think? That black brothers are animals. Ignorant. Stupid. Ugly and smelly.”

Ali: “He’s the other type Negro, he’s not like me,” Ali shouts to the now stunned white interviewer. “There are two types of slaves, Joe Frazier’s worse than you to me … That’s what I mean when I say Uncle Tom, I mean he’s a brother, one day he might be like me, but for now he works for the enemy”

Lennon and Ali

John-Lennon-john-lennon-34078983-1024-768In his violent reproach toward his rivals, Muhammad Ali resembled another public figure of the late 1960s and early 1970s. That was John Lennon, who spoke for world peace even as he engaged in very public fights with his former Beatles partner Paul McCartney. Their friendship for a while became a bitter rivalry.

But men like Lennon and Ali ultimately did apologize to their rivals.

Ali: “Joe Frazier’s a nice fella, he’s just doing a job. The bad talk wasn’t serious, just part of the buildup to the fight. The fight was serious, though. Joe spoke to me once or twice in the middle, told me I was burned out, that I’d have to quit dancing now. I told him I was gonna dance all night.”

Lessons learned

The point here is that personal rivalry drives public interest, and there are commercial and professional reasons why this is beneficial to the advancement of individual causes. Both Ali and Lennon are considered great artists in their trade. Each knew the value of slogans and sound bites. Ali engaged in a form of street poetry and Lennon lyrically crafted songs that appealed to both the common man and universal themes.

These similarities and differences are interesting to note. Ali advocated a religion while Lennon was equivocal about such matters, arguing through his song Imagine that perhaps even religion had its limitations in terms of seeking better understanding. Yet both seemed to arrive in the same place.

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

It is worth nothing that that the statement by Ali that “I ain’t got no quarrel with no VietCong” could serve as a quick summary of the reasons why Lennon also protested the quasi-religious motives of the Vietnam War.

And indeed, communism was not resisted by conservative Americans only as a social and economic system, but because its “godlessness” was judged to be in direct opposition to the supposedly religious foundations of American history.

But it holds true as well that the most vicious of all wars are not fought over lack of a god, but as rivalries between two competing notions of God.

That is the precise reason why one sect of Muslims is killing another, and why ISIL is so committed to creating a caliphate or national state in Iraq. They are attempting to impose their version of Sharia law by conquering territory and forcing people to either convert of die. The entire enterprise is a rivalry over interpretations of God. As a result, ISIL wants to confront Christianity on its “home soil.”

Ali-Frazier redux

That rivalry over who represents the “real deal” is the the same sort of argument Ali foisted on Joe Frazier, who he openly accused of being the “wrong kind of black.” Their mutual anger over issues like these fueled three killer fights between the two men.

The same brand of story unfolded between McCartney and Lennon, who exchanged critical songs as a means to express frustration with the artistic differences that once made them the most dynamic writing team in popular music.

Religious rivalries

It is the same thing with the Muslim, Christian and Jewish faiths in this world. All share the same root histories, yet the advancing interpretations and judgment on what constitutes a prophet or a Messiah are to this day cause a triangulation of horror, murder and prejudice.

It remains to be seen whether these religious differences can be reconciled or forgiven. Some claim the differences are too fundamental or profound. Others point fingers at the murderous ways of the opponent while ignoring their own egregious modes of death and destruction. This is true of the collective efforts by Christian, Jewish and Musliim states.

Great rivals can become great allies, or at least show respect. Ali sooner or later did that with Frazier, as did McCartney and Lennon.

The rule we need to consider is that the more we share in history and the more we are alike, the more bitter the feud can be.

 

Armies of Heaven documents greedy madness of 1st Crusade

The First Crusade and the Quest for ApocalypseThe new book Armies of Heaven, The First Crusade and the Quest of Apocalypse (Basic Books, 2011) is authored by Jay Rubenstein, who takes pains at the end of his work to caution readers that applying the lessons of 1000 years ago to today is tricky business. “From our vantage point, with nine centuries of hindsight, it is tempting to look smugly or dismissively at the dreams and nightmares born of the First Crusade. The expected Apocalpyse, after all, didn’t happen.”

That is true. But the book reveals many other truths about wars of religion and how they can radically change our perspective on what constitutes humanity. And these revelations are just as important.

We learn that several hundred thousand Christian warriors marched from all points in Western Europe to converge in a mission to take back Jerusalem from their perceived enemies, the Muslims or Saracens. Who frankly had done a bit of murderous mischief, torture and taunting of Christian pilgrims to inflame Christian hatred.

On the way, the combined Christian armies led by lords and holy men of various social and economic status first fought battles with people who also happened to be Christians in regions near Greece. Indeed, the First Crusaders seemed willing to fight anyone who stood in their way. The First Crusade pretty much behaved like a column of army ants, devouring anything in its path.

It was a stunning enterprise, traveling more than 2000 miles, buying, selling and raiding their way along the road in a holy war that produced the deaths of thousands of people on the way to the Jerusalem. The process took years, involved many genocides, brutal sieges and greedy detours along the way. The avarice of military leaders interfered with the perceived mission of the Crusade. Prophets and priests who accompanied the armies became so desperate to get the Crusade back on track they even fabricated holy artifacts to trick military leaders into doing their bidding.

But most of all, the armies killed and killed some more, wiping out cities and entire populations of people in battles where literal rivers of blood flowed down the streets and body parts formed dams in the rivers and streams. Horrid decapitations and tortures became part of the psychological warfare employed by Christians to threaten the Saracens, another word for people of Muslim faith who occupied much of the territory east of Italy all the way to Egypt. The other critical talent of Crusade leadership was political wrangling. In some cases it saved lives. In others it simply delayed the inevitable wars for territory and plunder. In which case no one was spared. Not women and children. Yet they marched on.

The First Crusaders caught some lucky breaks. Took some wild military risks. Created what appeared to be miracles of God on the battlefield. Alternately they preyed to heaven even as they were forced to feast on human flesh, depending how their fortunes turned. The Crusaders once conquered the city of Antioch only to be besieged by another Army a day later. But ultimately they charged out of the city walls in desperation and caught a seemingly superior army by surprise, turning tables on its arrogant leader and turing the battlefield into a massacre even though many of the Christian warriors were astride donkeys and mules because their military horses had either died in battle or been eaten for food.

Rubenstein’s painstaking, brilliant work chronicles the religious fervor driving it all. To many of the First Crusaders, repentance meant turning to Christ to beg for victory, then turning around to slaughter the opponent, dismember and maim the dead. The Crusaders never seem to have read the part of the Bible where God denies King David the opportunity to build a house in His honor because David had too much blood on his hands.

In fact the book Armies of Heaven shows Christians 1000 years ago conveniently forgotting a lot of the bible in order to pursue their politically religious and economic passions. Many military leaders became obsessed with plunder, and even poor pilgrims who followed the armies to Jerusalem would sometimes disembowel enemy dead in hopes of finding gold in their guts. Generals bickered over who owned rights to the cities they conquered. Christian princes, having conquered cities, often turned to fighting over individual towers, houses and neighborhoods, promising safety to residents cowering in fear, then killing them wholesale when the doors were flung open. Greed knew no bounds on the First Crusade.

Even when the Christians conquered Jerusalem the biggest question was who they should name to be king. In fact the matter was never completely settled. One of the military leaders who was offered the job refused to accept it, secretly hoping his rivals would admire his humility and name him king anyway. They didn’t. The First Crusade accomplished its mission only to mill around Jerusalem like the hapless knights in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

But we should not be too quick to judge, Rubenstein maintains. The fact that the Apocalpyse was not brought on by the conquering of Jerusalem did come as a disappointment to the First Crusade, which left suddenly aimless and often jealous military rivals to wander back to Europe wondering what the hell really happened?

What the First Crusade really indeed illustrates is that the human propensity for greed and violence supercedes even the most holy objectives. The bible warns us of that. But people are quick to credit God for their luck in war, yet not quick enough to blame their supposed faith in God and Christ when it is used to justify the most base human behaviors imaginable. And so it goes.

The book Armies of Heaven ends with a chapter titled The Never-Ending Apocalpyse. Its main contention is that the atrocities committed during the holy wars of the First Crusade essentially brought back the genocidal traditions of the Old Testament in a scale of murderous behavior that really did border on the Apocalpyse. Some Crusaders did believe at points during the journey they were living through the first phases of the Revelation narrative and the prophecies of John. And who can blame them? They brought the madness on themselves.

But here we are a thousand years later and the utterances of fundamental Christians bear the same ilk and fervor as the First Crusade. Many seem to still want to bring on the apocalpyse. It’s pathetic, really, that Christianity cannot seem to grow up and out of its most murderous traditions. The literalistic interpretations of scripture that drove the First Crusade to first murder Jewish people in Western Europe and then lash out against Muslims in the Middle East continues to stoke the murderous hearts of zealots and theocrats today. The American war in Iraq was reflective of this New Crusade, as is the so-called War on Terror. And just like a thousand years ago, anyone willing to question the fixations of the new crusaders is called naive and anti-religious. It’s a horrid joke in the hands of history.

Whether these new apocalpytic journeys are justified or simply the product of our own teetering fervor for fighting old battles we may apparently never know. But the years keep rolling by, and the modern crusaders keep on looking east, eager for the apocalyptic kill. And if not that, then the plunder.