The Investiture Controversy

The Investiture Controversy was about the ceremony by which a man became a bishop or an archbishop. During the investiture, the bishop or archbishop, elect was given a signet ring representing his authority to act legally for his territory, a long staff like a shepherd's crook signifying his spiritual leadership of the people of the diocese, a lump of dirt that demonstrated his possession and ownership of the lands with which the churches in his diocese had been endowed, and a white woolen stole to hang around his neck indicating that he was a legitimate successor to a long tradition of spiritual teaching and leadership reaching all the way back to the apostles.





The Investiture Controversy was a political crisis in the 11th century, in which the pope and the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire argued about, essentially, which of them had the supreme power over the other. It also refers to related controversies in other European countries, most notably in England, regarding the dual allegiance of bishops to their sovereign and to the pope. It is also considered as the most significant conflict between secular and religious powers in medieval Europe.

It began as a dispute between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Gregorian Papacy concerning who would control appointments of church officials. Pope Gregory VII condemned lay investiture in 1078 as an unjustified assertion of secular authority over the church; the issue was pivotal in his dispute with King Henry IV and in the larger struggle over Henry's refusal to obey papal commands. Henry successfully drove Gregory from Rome and installed an anti pope, but it would be Gregory's rejection of lay investiture that would ultimately prevail. Henry I of England renounced lay investiture in return for the guarantee that homage would be paid to the king before consecration. The Concordat of Worms forged a similar compromise between Henry V and Calixtus II. (Book Internet) The controversy, undercutting the Imperial power established by the Salian Emperors would eventually lead to nearly fifty years of civil war in Germany, the triumph of the great dukes and abbots, and the disintegration of the German empire, a condition from which it would not recover until the reunification of Germany in the 19th century.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -The Holy Roman Empire - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"The Investiture Controversy had some far-reaching effects. The Church was now under the control of a professional elite and had established the principle that non-professionals shouldn't have any say in how the Church ran its affairs. When the Protestants rebelled against the Catholic Church four hundred years later, one of the things that they demanded was that lay people should have a big role in running the Church. Then, too, the Church had gained its ends through politics and had to continue playing politics. "

The Investiture Controversy also effect Germany. (Book Internet) In Germany, the authority of the emperors had been damaged to the point that the region didn't develop a national government until 1870 with a war against France. The First and Second World Wars, which took about 100,000,000 lives, were continuations of that first conflict. As a result of this it could be said that there wouldn't have been any Adolf Hitler if there hadn't been an Investiture Controversy.

This is what the Investiture Controversy was and how it change the balance of power between the papal authority and the leadership of Europe.

Just War, Jihad and the Crusades

The concepts and actions carried out in the names of Just War and Jihad lead to the Crusades in many ways. Many of the ideas of just war and jihad caused the crusades to occur. They, in a sense, made it okay to go to war and start the crusades.

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns during the time of Medieval England against the Muslims of the Middle East. In 1076, the Muslims had captured Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the most holy of holy places for Christians. This is because Jesus had been born in nearby Bethlehem and Jesus had spent most of his life in Jerusalem. He was crucified in Jerusalem on Calvary Hill. Jerusalem was the most important place on Earth for a true Christian which is why Christians called Jerusalem the "City of God". However, Jerusalem was also extremely important to the Muslims also. This is because Muhammad, the founder of the Muslim faith, had been there and there was great joy in the Muslim world when Jerusalem was captured. A dome, called the Dome of the Rock, was built on the rock where Muhammad was said to have sat and prayed and it was so holy that no Muslim was allowed to tread on the rock or touch it when visiting the Dome. As a result, the Christian fought to get Jerusalem back while the Muslims fought to keep Jerusalem. These wars were to last nearly 200 years.

The jihad is often translated as "holy war on behalf of Islam". To them if a war is for the will of Allah then it is right to fight. This is one way inwhich the idea of jihad influenced the crusades. The Islams thought of the crusades as holy wars. Therefore they agreed to fight in them. (Internet Book)

Most Muslim Scholars see the world as divided into two houses, the House of Peace and the House of War. To them the lands controlled by Muslims belong to the House of Peace, while those who have not yet submitted to Islam belong to the House of War until they are subdued.
So the entire context of the eastern Crusades is one of response to continuous Islamic aggression.

"In the year 1095, people were shocked in Western Europe by the words of Pope Urban II, "The Muslims have conquered Jerusalem". Pope Urban wanted the Christians to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims. People shouted "God wills it". . . Religion was important to the knights in the Middle Ages. One of the results of the Crusades was the founding of new Christian religious orders. Most of the monks were former knights who fought against each other in the Crusades. The knights did capture Jerusalem for a short period of time, but the Muslims kept on re-taking Jerusalem. The knights gained temporary power, but lost many soldiers during the deadly Crusades, not to mention causing the death of many innocent Muslims. The Crusades is a violent reminder of the greed of Middle Ages."

"Unlike Islam, Christianity had not yet developed the notion of a holy war. In the fifth century Augustine described what constituted a just war but excluded the practice of battle for the purpose of religious conversion or to destroy heretical religious ideas. Leaders of nations might decide to go to war for just reasons, but war was not to be a tool of the church. Unfortunately, using Augustine's just war language, Popes and Crusaders saw themselves as warriors for Christ rather than as a people seeking justice in the face of an encroaching enemy threat."

The Pope called for a war of the cross. Both, the Muslims and the Christians, thought that "God" was on their side. However, both sides can not be right. (Internet Book)

Jihad And Just War

Jihad and Just War are often described as the same thing and are often used interchangeably. However, are they really the same thing? Before answering this question it is important to have a basic understanding on both of these concepts.

Jihad can be described as "holy war", or more precisely it means the legal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims. The purpose of jihad is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power. Jihad thus has the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe. Jihad ha two main different meanings. The first is that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore targets of jihad. The second meaning rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth. Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. Jihad is often described as the fifth pillar of Islam. (Internet Book)

"An appeal to the Islamic tradition of defensive jihad by which every Muslim is obligated, as an individual duty, to take up arms against invaders. It lays out the justification not only for the attacks of September 11 but also for other terrorist attacks linked to bin Laden’s al–Qaeda group, notably, the bombings of the two American embassies in East Africa and of the U.S.S. Cole. It also provides a warrant for future attacks by every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it for a continuing war by terrorist and other means by Muslims against Americans and their allies."

Just War can be described as it deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. There are sveral principles of Just War. One of them is that a just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. It continues on to say that a war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. Further, a just war can only be fought with right intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. These are the main principles of Just War. Just War can also be described as a war that needs to be morrally justified. (Internet Book)

While the idea of just war is deeply rooted in Western culture, it is perhaps more strongly rooted today in international law, in American military doctrine and practice, and even in political culture. Though the just war tradition has important Christian roots, it differs from the Islamic juristic tradition in that it can be employed without explicitly religious premises. Similarly, in Western political thought and theology more generally, the nature of the political community, the role of government, and the use of armed force are conceived in secular rather than religious terms. All these features differentiate just war tradition from the juristic tradition of jihad by the authority of the caliph.

In conclusion, Just War and Jihad are very simular, however, just war in a way is an effect of the original idea of jihad.