The Relevance of History

A military officer’s occupation is to protect the United States, and a vital function of that objective is to know the enemy. Learning about the Arabian Peninsula and the rise of Islam continues to be relevant today, as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a serious threat. From the events of 9/11 to bombings in Brussels, shootings in Orlando, and train attacks in Germany among other acts of terrorism, world security is at stake. Although ISIL represents a radical jihadist sect of Sunni Islam, it is critical to understand their religious tenets and explanation for violence to come to a solution or to predict and preclude patterns of violence. Although jihad is not one of the five Islamic virtues, the Quran states

“When you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters – then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom – until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if ALLAH had so pleased, HE could have punished them Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of ALLAH – HE will never render their works vain” (47:5).

Therefore, the radical Muslims have a strict, literal interpretation of the Quran and believe it to be their religious obligation to purge anyone with a different ideology, including fellow Muslims with varying doctrinal beliefs. Further, it is also important to understand the basic tenets of Islam to avoid generalization or profiling. The majority of Muslims do not condone violence and follow a religion similar to Christianity in some aspects. To illustrate, according to Pew Research, “most people in several [Middle Eastern] countries with significant Muslim populations have an unfavorable view of ISIS, including virtually all respondents in Lebanon and ninety four percent in Jordan. Relatively small shares say they see ISIS favorably” (Pew Research). As an officer, acknowledgment of this fact is crucial to leading a unified, diverse team. Approximately six thousand people serving in the United States military identify as Muslim and a prominent portion of the Middle East is Muslim. It is essential in leadership to embrace and understand this diversity to create a team in which everyone has valuable input.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_in_the_United_States_military

Word Count: 409

The Fight for Jerusalem

The first Crusaders, motivated and incentivized by Pope Urban II, sought to defend Constantinople and spread Christianity. Subsequent to their successful defense, they marched toward the holy city of Jerusalem and captured it. Their initial religious zeal transformed into power lust and political corruption, and they used Jerusalem’s namesake and religious significance as a guise to conquer the city.

Due to the growing power of the Seljuk Turks and the Islamic caliphate, the popularity and stronghold of the Church in Arabia was very weak. Thus, when Emperor Alexius I appealed to Pope Urban II for aid against the encroachment of the Turks, Rome was very interested in helping because the Christians felt threatened by a rival religion, which was rapidly expanding. In his speech, Pope Urban unifies the Christians by identifying a common enemy: the Muslims. He claimed that through him, “Christ commands… people of whatever rank… to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. All who die… shall have immediate remission of sins”(Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont. Pope Urban also emphasizes that the Muslims “are a despised and base race that worships demons” (Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont). Pope Urban uses his ethos as the divine representative to religiously motivate the crusaders and prizes of land and money to galvanize others.

This does not justify the religious imperialism of the Christians. Similar to Rome’s initial fear of Christianity, the Christians feared the Muslims because their religion and culture was completely foreign. Their portrayal of the Muslims as demon-worshipers was misguided; in fact, both religions are monotheistic, but whereas Christians recognize Jesus as part of the Trinity, Muslims regard Jesus as a central prophet. By portraying the Muslims as murdering, evil foes, Pope Urban II was able to unite the Church and attract more crusaders. Most people simply did not understand the reality of Islam; that it is very similar to Christianity.

No one, specific religion has a greater claim to Jerusalem than the other because they all have special histories. To Jews, it is the historical homeland and setting of many stories, such as the one of Abraham and Isaac. To Christians, it is the city where Jesus was crucified and resurrected. To Muslims, it is the city where Muhammad ascended into heaven. The Crusades and capture of Jerusalem was the culmination of the clash between the expanding Caliphate and Church. Each wanted to monopolize their geopolitical sphere and assert their religious dominance, but Jerusalem happened to be the coveted prize of each religion.

Word Count: 425

The Confucian Controversy

According to Confucian tenets, Emperor Wan-Li should have appointed his first-born son and traditional successor Changluo as heir to the throne. The government operated on Confucius’s teachings, and “Social order and the stability of the empire depended on those hierarchical precepts” (6). Emperor Wan-Li would have contradicted the basis of his own rule and lost the respect of his people had he appointed Changxun as successor.

Many of the Grand Secretariats argued that it was solely the emperor’s opinion that was relevant to solving the succession controversy. He had the right to exercise imperial judgment; the Emperor was the Son of Heaven, and his title required everyone to obey him according to the Confucian principle of wu-lun, or hierarchical relationships. However, following this one virtue would violate all other axioms of Confucianism.

Expanding on wu-lun, passing over Changluo would violate the principles of the privilege of age and sex. Changluo is the proper, affirmed first-born son and inherently has the right to succession. Further, “obedience– to elders, to fathers, and to the emperor– is a cornerstone of Confucianism” (7). If Emperor Wan-Li wishes to practice his philosophy, he should not pick and choose which laws to obey according to his preference. He should respect the tradition, or Li, of handing down rule to the first-born son.

The Emperor would also be violating the concept of Dao if he were to appoint Changxun. The natural order of succession is for Changluo to become the next emperor. Despite this fact, the Emperor Wan-Li sought to oppose “the way” and stir up controversy by appointing the son of his favorite concubine. Supposedly, the emperor felt Changxun was more fit to rule and would be more benevolent to society, but there are several faults with this reasoning. The boys were younger than ten years old, and it is impossible to determine aptitude at such an early age. Moreover, “the emperor only associated with three main groups of people: the Grand Secretariat, three thousand palace women who do chores and act as concubines, and thousands of eunuchs” (7). Therefore, due to limited contact and the isolation of the Forbidden City, the emperor was disconnected from society and unable to properly determine the problems (and possible solutions) of the Chinese.

Jen and ren were more tenets of Confucianism that should have guided the Emperor Wan-Li. Jen signifies virtue and goodness; on the contrary, it was neither virtuous nor good of Wan-Li to cheat on his wife. He further had the audacity to scorn his wife and their rightful child by attempting to appoint his bastard son to the throne. Confucius asserted that a bad leader led to bad government. The Emperor Wan-Li has selfish motives, and he corrupted the government, eventually causing the downfall of the Ming dynasty.

Word Count: 462

Source: Carnes and Gardner. “Confucianism and the Succession Crisis of the Wanli Emperor.” Barnard, Reacting to the Past.

A Rival Religion

Romans had a valid fear of Christianity and of the societal changes it would incur. Although Christian and Roman beliefs diverged in many aspects, Christianity’s idea of offering salvation was not foreign to the Romans. The Romans had similar cults that worshipped the gods Isis and Mithra to attain immortality. Although not necessarily shocked about the existence of a god and belief in the afterlife, the Romans feared Christians due to their disturbance of society. The Christian faith ultimately undermined Roman relationships with the gods, the emperor, and each other. The Romans believed that they had a pact with the gods in which they would offer sacrifices in exchange for protection. They even utilized tax money to support different cults and their sacrifices to specific deities for immortality, peace, and bountiful harvests. However, because of their monotheism, the Christians refused to participate in these sacrifices and validate the existence of pagan gods. The Romans feared this lack of participation would subject them to the wrath of the gods and cause many misfortunes. Further, Christian beliefs undermined the authority of the princeps and the class system. The princeps had diminished religious ethos because the Christians refused to validate him as a deity; they believed in only one true God. Moreover, because Christianity was inclusive, the patricians were level with the plebeians. The Romans also feared the Christians to be cannibals who ate flesh and drank blood. In reality, the Christians were meeting for mass and ate transformed bread and wine, referred to as transubstantiation.

Because the Christians refused to conform to Roman culture, they caused a deep Roman suspicion. Roman religion and government were intertwined, so the Christian’s lack of participation was construed as disloyalty to the Roman empire. Political leaders were often also cult leaders, and if there was social unrest, they would allow the mobs to lynch Christians. The Christians were also convenient scapegoats due to their outsider status and threat to the emperor’s rule. For example, Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, which initiated persecution against the Christians.

However, the Christians were persistent, firm believers and remained in the Roman empire. Christianity did not become a dominant religion until the rule of Constantinople, who issued the Edict of Milan decriminalizing the Christian faith. Subsequently, and confirming all previous fears, the Christians gained spots in government and began to change Roman culture and religion. Christianity eventually became the official religion of the Roman empire.

Word count: 411

The Evolution of Democracy

Today’s American democratic system is similar to the Athenian model in terms of the presence of political parties and Assemblies resembling the House of Representatives; however, the two systems also greatly differ due to the context of their time period and degree of social advancement. The most significant distinction that separates ancient American democracy from Athenian democracy is the participating electorate and officials.

America has implemented the electoral system to place public officials in office. According to the Fifteenth Amendment, a citizen cannot be denied the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The Nineteenth Amendment granted women the right to vote. The only restriction on voting eligibility lies in the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which states that a citizen must be eighteen years or older to vote. The overall constituency is very inclusive, and everyone is encouraged to cast a vote.

On the contrary, in Athens, the right to vote depended primarily on citizenship status, which was very choice. Despite the reforms of Solon and Cleisthenes (which included a diversity of socioeconomic strati), to be a citizen and vote, a person must have two Athenian parents and further have the means to go and participate in the Assembly. The Assembly was wholly male and excluded metics and slaves, many of whom have fought for Athens in the Peloponnesian War and civil war. A quote from The Old Oligarch illustrates this point:

“The poor and the people generally are right to have more than the highborn and wealthy for the reason that it is the people who man the ships and impart strength to the city far more than the hoplites, the high-born, and the good men. This being the case, it seems right for everyone to have a share in the magistries”(39).

Another difference is that voters in America can suggest laws and amendments, as well as elect public officials to represent them. Constituents indirectly vote on legislation by choosing officials who will represent their opinions; in other words, only House representatives, Senators, and the President vote on legislation, not the common people. However, in Athens, positions in public office were not determined by Assembly but rather random lottery. The pure purpose of the Assembly was for male citizens to exercise their opinions regarding the government’s operation and assert policy reforms. The Assembly resembled the First Amendment in action, and participating male citizens could suggest policy reforms, propose laws, and directly vote on legislation.

Interestingly, both democracies utilized different approaches to combat mob rule, causing discrepancies between the systems; Athens limiting the vote to citizens, and the United States implementing indirect democracy. As a result, there are discrepancies between the systems.

Tyranny in Modern Context

Given the democratic, ‘by the people and for the people’ reputation of the United States of America, President Donald Trump’s election to the oval office was controversial. Despite losing the popular vote by almost three million to Hillary Clinton, Trump won three hundred and six electoral votes, thus earning the title of President of the United States of America. Jeffrey Sachs, author of the CNN opinion editorial “Trump is taking US down the path to tyranny,” claims the checks and balances system is failing. He references Trump’s nondisclosure after his summit meeting with Vladimir Putin, such as Putin’s invitation to Washington. Further, Sachs criticizes Trump’s invocation of executive authority to impose a travel ban on several Islamic states, to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement despite treaty-bound obligations, and to extend the presence of US troops in Syria without Congressional oversight. Sachs asserts that Trump’s presidency is becoming tyrannical because he is taking advantage of “the relentless growth of the national security state” and “the rise of corporate power in driving federal policy” to quiet opposition from Congress and the Supreme Court (Sachs).

According to the ancient definition, a tyrant was a person who gained power in an unorthodox way, and whose rule could very well be beneficent and popular. President Trump indeed won the presidency in an atypical way; although he is not the first president to win the electoral college but not the popular vote, he exposed a flaw in the electoral system. He utilizes his powers of executive authority to fulfill his policies, such as the travel ban and military presence in Syria. However, President Trump does not exercise a true one-man rule; he is constrained by Congress and the Supreme Court in the checks and balances system. He is also responsible to account for the opinions of the American population, as the government still functions as a democracy. If he fails, he could be impeached.

An ancient tyrant drew support from the politically powerless to include the newly wealthy and poor farmers. On the contrary, Trump’s constituency includes a majority of formally educated people who are generally conservative and part of the working middle class (Democracy Fund Voter Study Group).

A tyrant was also usually a member of the ruling aristocracy with a personal grievance, and who has military ability. Trump embodies this definition as a maverick in the corporate world and executive director of Trump Industries. He ran for president because of personal ambition and belief in his capability to satisfy the job. He also has military experience from his attendance of the New York Military Academy and is inherently Commander in Chief.

I believe that the term ‘tyrant’ is used as hyperbole in Sachs’s article to enforce his bias. Trump has promoted a strong executive branch and utilized many executive powers; however, the government is not the perfect definition of a tyranny by virtue of the three branches. The power still ultimately lies with the people, and people are using their freedom of speech to give their opinions (and to convince others that their perspective is correct) on the presidency.

Works Cited

Sachs, Jeffrey. “Trump Is Taking US down the Path to Tyranny.” CNN, Cable News Network, 24 July 2018, http://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html.

“The Five Types of Trump Voters.” Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, 30 Jan. 2018, http://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters.