Omer Yilmaz printable version send your friend

Book Review: Why the Nations Rage by Christopher Catherwood,

London: Hodder & Stoughton Publications, 1997.

The book, Why the Nations Rage, is an important essay written on how an event that took place 600 years ago can provoke Orthodox Serbians and Muslim Bosnians today, as it happened yesterday and the causes of mass murders which were carried out against Muslim Bosnians especially by the Serbs in the early 1990s. The author maintains that nationalism, religion -which was merged with nationalism- and especially religious nationalism are the main factors of these massacres. The book tries to examine these three factors and wants to answer why the nations of today rage against another. The book is divided into five sections and every section is composed of some sub-headings and an introduction in order to make the reader accustomed on the subject being examined. The language is non-technical to make the book more comprehensible. Meanwhile the appendices give enough information on the East Europe geography and history. They contain valuable knowledge about the subjects of the book. Special terms about nationalism, ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia, the related peoples, some past rulers of the parts of the former Yugoslavia, the split of Christianity are given as different appendices. So it will be easy to understand the subject for the readers who are not familiar with the ethnic groupings, countries, former Empires and events in the region.

The first section is about nationalism and self-identity. Why do some people kill each other in the name of nationalism while others regard their own nationality as comparatively unimportant? To answer these questions appropriately the book examines the psychology not just of ordinary people but of nations themselves and nationalism is considered as a matter of identity. The two issues that separate East and West are religion and nationalism.

What caused Balkan people put their religious beliefs and/or nationalities in the core of their self-identities are supposed to be the French Revolution, Communism, due to its belief to equality and the secular form it has, the Industrial Revolution and the modernity they created. Especially French Revolution is usually assumed to be the main factor of the development of nationalism.
The reason for the Second World War was mainly nationalistic. Although the whole world, especially West want to forget the Second World War and its reasons, but after the demise of communist regime in Yugoslavia the mass murders came back again in the name of nationality. Like a German nationalistic in the 1930s who regarded Jews as the enemy, the Serbs in the 1990s thought of Bosnian Muslims as “Turks”, national enemies to be ethnically cleansed from a pure Serb homeland.   But the most important component of these mass murders, systematically rapes and displacements was ignored or underplayed by secularized and humanistic West: Religion and religious nationalism. Lastly, in the first section the views of nationalism are examined. These views are given as the modernity, primordial and the pragmatic views.

In the second section religion and nationalism are examined as the reasons of the conflicts. The nationalistic and religious history of the Balkan peoples is examined. According to the author what is interesting in the Balkans is that the ethnic distinctions between Serb, Croat and Bosnians are very small and in the core of the conflicts lay the religious differences as the Bosnians are Slavic by ethnicity but Muslim by religion. The examination in this context shows us that the Catholic regions of area had never been under a foreign rule which had different religious belief. Like Croats the Muslim Bosnians were under a Muslim rule and because of their religion they could benefit all opportunities in the Ottoman State. Before Ottomans, although the Bosnian Government was Catholic, there were also a Bosnian Church apart from Catholic Church and Bogomils who were a Manichaean sect and regarded as completely heretical by the Church. But it is a reality that after Turkish invasion Bogomils ceased to exist.

However the situation for the Orthodox Serbia is slightly different. The Serbs became Orthodox in the rule of Eastern Roman Empire. But by the decline of Byzantium, the Serbs and other Balkan peoples became vulnerable against the Islamic invaders; especially the Ottomans who were a Turkish dynasty and Muslim. After the defeat of the Serbian Army by the Ottoman Army in 1389 at Kosovo, Serbians were to remain under Ottoman rule until 1850s. That is to say that the Orthodox Serbs lived under a foreign rule for approximately 450 years. The main thing about Serbs is that they are Orthodox and their religion is what has made them what they are today. To be Serb is to be Orthodox.

The situation for Russia is not different because of the Mongol, Swedish and Polish invasions of its lands. All of the invaders were from different religions or different forms of Christianity. And the author alleges that these invasions made Russians a bit paranoid.

The local Serbs regarded the Bosnian Muslims as enemies and traitors. They were the people whose ancestors were heretics and who were all converted to Islam, the religion of the enemy and the oppressor. And of course they were regarded as the collaborators of the Turks against Slavs. Whoever their descendants are, the Bosnians were regarded as “Turk” by the Serbs during the conflict and consequences of this view were horrifying. In order to illustrate this view the author quoted a speech of Serbian soldier who said to an American Senator: “I have cut throats of three Turks so far…” The use of the word “Turk” for the Bosnian Muslims shows everything.
As for the Huntington’s thesis on the clash of civilizations, the author maintains that Huntington would be arguing that “civilization” is one’s prime self identity. Therefore religion is at the core of civilisational distinction. Also it is alleged that the thesis has an element of looking for a new enemy after Marxism. Unfortunately the Islamic leaders who are angry at West become more radical, fulfilling the role they have given in the thesis. In order to avoid such clashes what we must do is that we must begin to understand the way in which other people think.

The author also argues that Islam sees itself as a nation (ummet) based entirely on religion. In Islam there are two basic religious/political entities; Adobe of Islam (Dar’ul Islam) and Adobe of War (Dar’ul Harb). The most important question in this context to be answered is that whether Islam can unite all Muslims because of the Islamic nation (ummet) understanding it has and as a result of this understanding whether Islam has religious nationalism in its nature.

In the third section, the author examines how nationalism and religious intolerance mingle together. Both Byzantium and Ottoman times are examined in the context of developing intolerance of Orthodoxy. The reasons for the intolerance in Orthodoxy are being sought with comparisons with other forms of Christianity. In both chapters the consequences of this intolerance are illustrated with events took place in 90s.

The dreadful consequences of religious wars in the West emerged secularization and this climate allowed different kind of religious beliefs to flourish. Although Catholics have always had a dual allegiance as politically to the local ruler and religiously to the Pope, Protestantism has never had a Pope. So the secular climate in the West separated the State and religion. But in Orthodoxy the situation is very different. Since the Byzantine Empire, in Orthodoxy, there is a very strong link between Church and the State.

During its political foundation, the Byzantium became also an Orthodox Empire with its own Patriarch. The Orthodox faith was the faith of the Empire. After the Ottoman conquest, the Patriarch still remained. The Patriarch is not only regarded as the guardian of spiritual well-being of the Empire’s Orthodox subjects but also the reminder of the happier days. The link between State and Church was so strong that the obedience to the State was a religious obligation. In the Balkan States almost every state has its own Church. But the distinction between these churches is political rather than religious.
When these national and religious identities of this states combined with their patriotic perceptions of history, their national identities became very strong and exclusivist. These patriotic perceptions generally depend on the Ottoman conquests. The Orthodox people think that the Christians in the West leaved them alone against the Ottomans and despite all cruelty and oppressions they managed to survive. Furthermore because of the Fourth Crusade, due to its destructive consequences, they regard the West as a part of enemy. As the Orthodox states never had a Reformation or an Industrial Revolution which could have emerge a secular or/and tolerant climate, their religious beliefs became more identifying. And the lack of local rivalries as for their form of Christianity, the religious tolerance could not manage to occur. And all these made their national identity very nationalistic, religious, and patriotic and exclusivist.

The mass rapes of Bosnian Muslim women were another form of revenge which was regarded as the ultimate degradation. But the motive for the rapes was not limited by the degradation; the rapes were a part of cleansing operation of Turks from Serbian soil as the children of these women will be Serbian, not Muslims. The Serbs, who regarded the Bosnian government troops as the Turkish Army, also carried out an architectural ethnic cleansing by the destructions of the buildings which were built in Ottoman times and the mosques, the Serbs intended to destroy the Bosnian’s memory from which they could take strength.

In the fourth section, although the author notes that the lands of Islam were culturally far ahead of Europe for centuries, it is stated that tolerance have arisen from a set of particular historic circumstances unique to West, without implying any superiority in their part! However, the tolerance is regarded as a Western concept and the book tries to find its roots in the length of this conception.

The Reformation and especially the Protestantism are noted as the reasons for the demise of the age of Christendom. It is maintained that the birth of choice, tolerance, individualism, freedom were all results of Protestantism. One of the most important and new notions of the Protestantism was the split between territory and religion which has helped the rise of tolerance. According the author the Reformation, Protestantism, the religious wars and the competition between Catholicism and Protestantism had caused tolerance and this climate caused secularism in Western Europe.
But Orthodoxy was isolated, politically and geographically, from the Reformation. It has never had a rival. It was never challenged, either. To the majority of its adherents, it was the form of Christianity, the faith which had survived against both Mongol invasion and Ottoman rule. Islam was not a rival but an enemy. So the link between Church and State was never broken.

Islam has similar problems like Orthodoxy: non-experience of neither Reformation nor Industrial Revolution and feeling deeply unhappy about the invasion of McWorld. So the author assumes that Muslim countries can develop similar characteristics like Orthodox states where there is little chance for tolerance to improve. He continues that to Muslims, the West is “Christian” as they are Muslim. But the author insistently maintains that West does not identify itself as Christian but a secular, modern society. So the importance of mutual understanding between Islam and the West becomes increasingly vital. 

In the last section of the book the author tires to find a solution on future conflicts. In order to find out whether tolerance and religion can go side by side, the author suggests that if religion is a key component of future conflicts then religion can surely be part of the solution as well as the cause of the problem.

In his examination of Christian-based reflections on nationalism, the author notes that nationalism goes to the core of their self identity. All Christians have a tendency to baptize their own views on particular subjects and elevate those particular feelings into absolute Christian truth. In order to illustrate some possible Christian perspectives on nationalism the author uses Bible. In this context, the author notes that racism is wrong and at the core of both Christianity and Judaism is a belief in the central unity of the entire human race. So it is alleged that the message of Christianity is universal. Within Christianity there are no racial divisions, no class distinctions or no gender divisions. Everybody is equal before God if they are Christians. Therefore the nation-state, their ethnic group, cannot command the Christians complete obedience. Just because of these characteristics, Christianity is regarded as a “supranational community”. So Christianity is a deterritorialised faith. It has also no official language, unlike Islam.

The very first step for the prevention of the future conflicts is to accept Christianity spiritually but not territorially. As for Islam, he points out that tolerant Muslims might gain control, granting secular freedoms in their countries. Maybe even Islam itself could give way to pluralism, tolerance and democracy.
                

The content of the book can be summarized as upwards. It is one of the rare works written on the Balkan conflicts which were happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s, whether to hear what we assume about the reasons from a Christian author or the sense it gives to believe that reality is the reality in wherever it is being observed. Why the Muslims got angry to the Christian West during the war was the West’s ignorance on the ongoing events. In most Muslim countries the West was regarded as disingenuous. They were against Saddam Hussein, not in the name of humanity but just because of their national interests; but they had no pragmatic interests in the ceasefire or ongoing conflicts in the Balkans where the oppressor was also Christian, like them. 

One of the most important ways to avoid the clash of civilizations is supposed to understand each other’s way of thinking, as the author argues. But, as we can easily observe, the book have some very critical controversies. 
First of all in the second section of the book the author alleges Islam having some religious nationalistic characteristics because of the nation (ummet) concept Islam has. But in the last section of the book the author, conversely, argues the supranational characteristic of Christianity. It is supposed to be the only uniting factor for the prevention of clash of civilizations in Christianity, as Orthodoxy is regarded as a different civilization in the West. In addition, according to the author, the nation-state, their ethnic group, cannot make Christians completely obey.
The only difference between Islamic nation (ummet) concept and Christianity’s supra-national community is argued to be the lack of an official language. In fact it is now very hard to allege that Islam has an official language. Preaching Koran in Arabic does not make it an official language. It is very difficult to understand how Islamic nation can be regarded to have negative religious nationalistic characteristics whereas Christian supra-national community is supposed to be a uniting factor.

Our second objection is about the origin of tolerance. The author alleges that the tolerance is unique to West and its conception of Christianity. It is also supposed to be the result of Enlightenment, Reformation and Protestantism. Meanwhile the author advises the Islamic countries to give power to the tolerant Muslims in order to create a pluralistic climate. But what the author underplayed was that when Christianity was living its dreadful ages in the West, and even when the names of Enlightenment, Reformation or Protestantism were not heard, the Christians or Jews were enjoying their religious freedoms and praying in accordance to their religions without any kind of oppression in the East, especially in the lands of Ottoman State.

Thus the origins of tolerance must be sought carefully without any prejudice. It is not a secular term in its nature. It is one of the most distinguished characteristic of Islam. Otherwise, how Serbians or Greeks or Bulgarians or Romanians or Southern-Cypriots can still have their religion which is not in a different form than it was in the 14th century? Also it is very attention-grabbing that Ottomans showed great tolerance to its non-Muslim subjects when it was experiencing the peak of its power even when it was every simple to act reversely, in the lack of any real rival. But can we see the same conduct from the super power of our age, which is the most important country where the results of Enlightenment or Protestantism were lived? Nowadays, in the country of liberty, equality and justice (which all are regarded as the consequences of tolerance; and tolerance as the consequence of Protestantism) the echoes of tolerance are heard at the walls of cells in the Guantanamo Base.