Summary

This work offers a critique of the civilizational foundations that gave rise to political economy as a European social science. It puts forward the hypothesis that the current political economy is the product of a spirit shaped by three fused elements of European civilization: Roman Christianity, Roman imperial glory, and Greek science. These elements collectively structured the way in which modern Europe perceived, conceptualized, and systematized economic phenomena. The article thus deconstructs the Eurocentric assumptions of this science, showing that its universalization is based on an implicit exclusion of other civilizations. Through this critical reading, the author calls for the liberation of political economy from its Western ideological framework, aiming to make it a human science open to historical and cultural plurality.

Keywords: Critique of political economy; Eurocentrism; European civilization.

The Central Hypothesis

When we examine the essence of political economy and reflect upon its subject matter and methodology, we find that its defining characteristics were shaped in a distinct manner. It emerged from the heart of Europe, for Europe, taking as its field of analysis the phenomena that developed within the continent, while rejecting theological frameworks in its study of the subject. Instead, it seeks to uncover the objective laws governing economic phenomena, grounding its inquiry in material and social realities rather than metaphysical or religious assumptions. To achieve this, it employs the highest degree of abstraction as its primary research method.

How, then, were these defining traits formed? Did European civilization—the cradle of political economy—play a decisive role in shaping this science? This is the central hypothesis that the present study seeks to analyze and substantiate.(I)

The critique of the social sciences first and foremost requires a critique of the components of the civilization that produced them, and consequently a critique of the spirit that shaped this science, in order to uncover its objective laws. Given that political economy is a science of European origin, it is necessary to examine the components of European civilization that gave rise to it, in order to understand the objective and historical conditions that led to its emergence as a social science, as we know it today. Only then can we critique it both from within and from without.

The methodological hypothesis we propose here is that the European civilization which produced political economy is composed of three interconnected, even fused, elements that influenced the emergence of the science of political economy, the definition of its object, as well as its method. These elements are (1):

• Roman Christianity, or more precisely Christianity after its Roman transformation.
• Roman glory, inherited by the Germanic warrior
• Greek science, which historically appropriated the sciences of ancient Eastern civilizations.

Before we begin analyzing each of the components of the civilization that gave rise to political economy and shaped it into the form we know today, it is essential to highlight three critically important observations:

First: The overall aim of this study is not to provide a historical account of events or to analyze historical facts. Accordingly, any historical narrative will be limited strictly to what serves the purpose of the research. It will not extend to recounting events, examining facts, or discussing specific historical figures, as all such matters lie entirely outside the scope and objectives of this inquiry.

Second: The principal aim of this study is to uncover the sources which, in their convergence, gave form to the spirit of political economy. Therefore, the central task of the research is to excavate the spirit of the civilization within which political economy emerged.

Third: Since the study's primary objective is to uncover the sources that shaped the spirit of political economy, the method employed is one of abstraction. Consequently, it is neither necessary nor intended to present numerous events or facts that amount to no more than historical details with no bearing on the phenomenon under investigation.

Beginning with these essential remarks, we can now take a methodological step forward in order to identify the components of the civilization that produced political economy.

First: Roman Christianity

Christianity—named after Nazareth, the town where Jesus grew up—was born in a Jewish environment and continued to develop during its early years, spreading throughout the Roman Empire to Syria, Asia Minor, Antioch, Egypt, and Greece, eventually reaching Rome. For nearly three centuries (58–311), the early Christian groups were subjected to persecution and abuse. The revolutionary aspect of Jesus's message, which opposed Roman oppression, was perceived as a direct threat to an imperial unity based on strict military organization. After Jesus Christ, the conflict between different apostolic directions became a source of tensions that could lead to civil war, prompting Rome to view Christian groups as political opponents or rebels who needed to be suppressed. This official and organized state persecution continued until Emperor Galerius issued his Edict of Toleration in 311 AD, in which the state declared its tolerance of Christianity. With the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, promulgated by Emperor Constantine (272–337), Christianity was officially recognized, and the principle of state neutrality in religious matters was established.

During this period, which extended from the beginning of the first century to the mid-fourth century, the internal structure of the ecclesiastical organization was completed. The Gospels were written, rituals were formed, and prayers were established—prayers that Jesus himself had not performed—and the doctrines of faith were codified. Religious functions and priestly hierarchies were formed within a context of obscurity and the gradual monopoly of teaching and truth by the ecclesiastical institution! When the Germanic tribes (2) invaded the Roman Empire and posed a threat to the capital, Rome, Emperor Constantine moved the imperial capital to Byzantium on the Bosporus in 330. There, Christianity was explicitly endowed with an imperial form. The period from the reign of Emperor Constantine to that of Emperor Theodosius (347–395), that is, from 306 to 395, was amply sufficient for the external edification of the ecclesiastical organization to be completed, and for Christianity to assume a Roman form! Sufficient for Christianity to transform from the pure Christianity of Nazareth into an imperial Christianity! During this period, emperors aligned themselves with the clergy and gained through them sanctity and legitimacy.

At the same time, the Church began to form as a parallel institution to the imperial palace. Indeed, the Church, led by the Patriarch, was subject to the authority of the Byzantine Emperor (3), but it adopted an imperial form aligned with the emperor’s own beliefs. The Patriarch wore the royal mantle, held the jewel-encrusted scepter, donned the golden crown on his head, and resided in sumptuous palaces, surrounded by a glory previously reserved only for emperors. This resulted in an intensified monopoly of the religious institution over teaching, whereby it became a crime to interpret the Holy Scriptures in contradiction to the views of the clergy—the representatives of God—because only they possessed the truth revealed to them by God, and them alone!

Under the reign of Emperor Theodosius, when Christianity had become the official confession of the Empire and no other religious belief was recognized, the Empire was divided between the emperor’s sons: Arcadius and Honorius. The East was given to the former, and the West to the latter. However, the western part did not withstand the Germanic invasions for long; the Western Roman Empire fell, and new kingdoms emerged—kingdoms belonging to the kings of the Germanic tribes.(4)

But the Germanic kingdoms were not founded solely through the conquest of territories. They were continuously faced with the same problem: how to govern the newly conquered lands.(5) When the Western Roman Empire collapsed, Western Europe was left without leadership. Since the Germanic tribes lacked experience in imperial administration and institutional governance—and because it was in their interest to maintain the functioning Roman administrations—and since the Church was, at the same time, the only organized institution that managed to remain the most powerful in Western Europe after the fall of Rome, the Roman Church welcomed the Germanic tribes and cooperated with them. It established administrative systems, rules of governance and politics, and transformed tribal chiefs and pagan barbarian warriors into devout Christians! (6)

The Roman Church transformed the Germanic pagan—the warrior from northern Europe—into a Roman knight. It led the Germanic warrior, fascinated by battle, to fight for divine doctrine rather than for plunder and looting. (7) In fact, the Roman Church not only transformed the Germanic tribes into knights, and not only did it transform tribal chiefs into kings who crowned themselves with royal diadems, but it also made of them a Roman emperor. When Pope Leo III (750–816) placed the crown upon the head of Charlemagne (742–814), King of the Franks, in 800 and proclaimed him Roman Emperor, and when Pope John XII (937–964) crowned Otto I (912–973), King of Germany, as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 962, as the historical heir to the Roman Empire—the Roman Church itself created the emperors!

In any case, when the Germanic armies conquered the territories of the Western Roman Empire, the tribal chiefs, who had become new kings, took control of the regions now lacking central governance. They then granted their military leaders vast lands in exchange for their obedience and protection of their thrones, expanding their influence over an increasing number of regions, which led to the formation of the feudal social system.

Within this system, a bitter and sometimes bloody struggle arose between the kings and the great landowners on one side, and between the kings and the Church on the other. At the same time, superstition spread, and social conditions worsened over a period lasting nearly a thousand years.

During this time, the Roman Church succeeded in asserting its political and social influence as the most powerful institution of the Middle Ages. Through a strict hierarchical system, the Church began to strengthen its religious and temporal influence as the sole institution expressing the heavenly will—and the only source conferring legitimacy to kings and sanctity to their governance. It also saved its subjects from sins!

The Church also continually worked to preserve the enormous economic benefits it had obtained through its role for God, as the greatest feudal lord, the largest tax collector, and the biggest executor of punishments for those who sinned in thought!

Tolstoy (1828–1910) summarized the cultural situation of the era with the following words:

“Take all the scientific references of the Middle Ages, and you will see what faithful spiritual strength and solid knowledge it was—knowledge that could not be questioned regarding what is true and what is false… It was easy for them to understand that the Greek language was the only necessary condition for teaching, for it was the language of Aristotle, whose judgments remained uncontested for several centuries after his death. And how could the monks not demand the study of the sacred Scriptures, which rested on unshakable foundations… It is easy to understand that the school had to be dogmatic when human critical consciousness was not yet awakened, and it was natural for students to memorize the truths revealed by God and Aristotle, as well as the poetic masterpieces of Virgil and Cicero. For several centuries after them, no one could imagine a reality more truthful or more beautiful than what they had advanced, and it was easy for the medieval school to know what should be taught, as there was only one method without alternative, and everything centered around the Gospel and the books of Augustine and Aristotle.” (8)

We can also summarize the social situation of the direct producers at the time through contemporary writings that depicted the poor living conditions of these oppressed peoples:

"They had reached a level where there was nothing below, like the man who drove four lean oxen so weak that their ribs could easily be counted, and their appearance was pitiful... He barely touched the ground before his toes protruded from his tattered shoes, and his trousers barely covered his knees, while his wife walked barefoot beside him on the ice, and bloodstains were visible on her feet." (9)

But this dominance of the Church would be fragmented through three historical phases, beginning with protest, passing through the separation between religion and the state, and ending with a rejection of religion itself. For nearly a thousand years, the total domination of the Roman Catholic Church over the mind and thought of European society knew no deviation (10) until the early 16th century, when Martin Luther (1483–1546) led the religious reform movement, protested against the Church’s monopoly on interpreting the Bible, and proclaimed that salvation would come through faith and not through priests—God’s representatives—who sold indulgences (11).

And if Martin Luther’s movement, which founded Protestantism as a reform movement against Catholicism, was a first step to socially isolate the Roman Church and at least morally purify it, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) represented the second step in the same direction. After a bloody war between Catholics and Protestants, and even between Protestant branches—Lutheranism and Calvinism—that lasted several decades and resulted in thousands of massacres and millions of victims, it was officially decided that the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, particularly in the authority of the Church, would apply, with condemnation and prohibition for princes to impose any religion or sect on their subjects—especially the German princes.

At that moment, Europeans felt freedom for the first time. Moreover, European consciousness understood that the religious conflict was nothing more than a disgusting struggle for power and gold. That is why the collective consciousness turned to science to relearn the world beyond religion, the clergy, and the supremacy of the Church. Thus, the influence of the Roman Catholic Church weakened (12), fundamentally built upon the creation of a false consciousness.

This coincided with the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the decline of the Roman emperor’s influence, after losing about 100,000 square kilometers of territory in the Low Countries following the declaration of independence of the Netherlands, as well as Switzerland, and after Sweden extended its influence to the north. Furthermore, power fragmented among hundreds of German princes who declared their independence, and their authorities were officially recognized.

The French Revolution (1789), which was also an important step in the confrontation with despots among the kings and princes of Western Europe, constituted the third stage in the dissolution of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church. With the French Revolution, religion lost its grip beyond the church doors; social life was freed from the tyranny of God's representatives. In reality, the collective rejection of Christianity, both as clergy and as a religion, was not the result of a scientific reassessment (13), but rather a consequence of harsh social circumstances that led to a hatred of the clergy's power. This, in turn, led to a relentless struggle to crush the power of the religious institution by rejecting the very existence of religion. Thus, it became unacceptable to hold a religious point of view or a theological interpretation of any social or natural phenomenon.

Secondly: The Roman Glory

From the 11th century BCE, the Romans came from Eastern Europe to the Italian Peninsula and founded Rome as their capital. Fascinated by Greek civilization, the Romans organized their state, excelled in the field of law, and began their military expansion, until the Roman armies succeeded in establishing their domination over the entire Italian peninsula, then took control of the ancient kingdoms of the world. From the island of Great Britain and the Atlantic coasts in the west, to Mesopotamia and the Caspian Sea in the east, from Central Europe and the Alps in the north to the Sahara Desert and the Red Sea in the south, the Roman Empire imposed itself as an expansionist and colonial power. When Rome fell in the mid-5th century CE and the Germanic kings inherited the imperial system, the states of Western Europe—particularly Spain, Portugal, France, England, and the Netherlands—emerged as expansionist kingdoms that continued to carry the torch of Roman glory. Thus, the entire world became a terrain for their colonial operations.

It was ideologically impossible to consider the world as a stage for extending the borders of these colonial states without adopting a colonial/exclusionary ideology, based on the idea that everything non-European—just as Rome considered its environment—was outside civilization and awaited Europe to "civilize" it! Just as Rome considered the Germans barbarians, the Romanized Germans—and their descendants—regarded other peoples with the same condescending attitude: the tribes of South America were pagans to be converted or burned, their treasures to be seized, Africans were miserable slaves, Arabs were naturally rough and uncivilized, Muslims were savage hordes, and civilization, in all its expressions and social forms, had begun only in Europe!

With the emergence of these kingdoms, the task of the Germanic warrior became centered on defending the kingdom and protecting the king. At a later stage, even greater and nobler tasks would be demanded of him: the sacred mission became to reclaim the tomb of the Son of God through the Crusades.(14) When these Crusades, which took place from the late 11th century to the mid-16th century and seemed aimed at reclaiming the tomb of the Son of God from the hands of the Arabs, were completed, the sacred mission evolved from reclaiming the tomb to spreading the doctrine of God through colonial expansion (15) among the pagans and infidels in America and Africa! Preaching the religion of God under God’s banner never prevented, at the same time, the seizure of the treasures of these continents, the enslavement of their peoples, and the extermination of their inhabitants! (16)

And in a relatively later historical phase, the warrior’s task lost its religious form and took on a national dimension; the warrior was now recruited to defend the new ruling classes rather than the king or the church. (17) The Industrial Revolution in Western Europe would crush all social ties centered on religious zeal, aristocratic morality, and chivalric ideals, replacing them with relations based on commodity exchange and monetary profits. The constant revolution of the means of production would annihilate the collective will as well as all the superior values and ideals that previously dominated society, replacing them with behaviors marked by absolute individualism and extreme selfishness.

All this required a transition from absolute political power—or even that limited by the influence of parliament or the church—to a state based on institutions that expressed the interests of the emerging capitalist class, which was then becoming the dominant class. This was also followed by a transition from the feudal system, based on vast landed estates and serfs, to a bourgeois social structure founded on economic freedom, private ownership of the means of production, and wage labor.

With this development and change in the structure of the social order and its central institutions, the Germanic warrior—beyond the mission to kill and destroy—was assigned another, more important task: to strengthen the political and economic influence of European states and assert their cultural domination as colonial nation-states in the colonized countries, which, after their apparent independence, would be transformed into politically, economically, and culturally dependent states.

Thus, Europe, through its warriors, imposed its cultural and civilizational domination based on a one-sided worldview, a chauvinistic perspective on the history of humanity, and an exclusive approach that excluded everything non-European from the history of civilization!

Third: Greek Science

The origin of scientific history in Europe—and worldwide—is generally presented as beginning in Greece. It is in this country, as European historians often say, that science was born; it is there that philosophy, astronomy, geometry, etc., emerged. (18) But historical reality confirms that the first foundations of these sciences were formed in Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Phoenicia, and Persia. (19) The Greek philosopher was nothing more than a historical heir—perhaps a talented and diligent heir—of these civilizations. He received these sciences from the ancient Eastern cultures. Perhaps he secretly attributed much, if not all, of this knowledge to himself! In any case, he owes a great deal to these ancient civilizations.

The most important thing that the Greek philosopher inherited from the ancient Eastern civilizations was the way knowledge was produced—and it is the same method that the Islamic world would inherit during its Golden Age, only to reintroduce it to Europe during the Renaissance, where it became the very foundation of the Age of Enlightenment. This method is based on the classification of principles and foundations, the distinction of the common, and the collection of what is similar, emphasizing the phenomenon that occupies the mind, while abstracting everything secondary and irrelevant. (20) This method would be called "abstraction."

The awareness that the Gospels themselves were written in Greek—and that it is rare for a text to be written in a language without that language carrying the culture of that language—along with the fact that many peoples entered Christianity with their Greek cultures and philosophies and tried to merge them with the Christian faith, allowed Greek science (especially its method of knowledge production) to be saved from oblivion through three historical phases.

In the first phase, it survived after the Hellenistic world was dismantled by Roman armies, thanks to the fundamental role that this science played in theological debates within the Eastern Roman Empire (21) concerning the nature of Christ and the Holy Spirit (22)—particularly during the four councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451)—where each faction, as well as the Church itself, found its arguments in Greek science (23) and used its ideas and concepts to strengthen its teachings and convictions against its opponents. Thus, the Byzantine Empire saved Greek science and preserved its method of knowledge by embracing, to some extent, the intellectual conflicts raging between different Christian factions.

In a second historical phase, it was saved by Islamic civilization, which received it through cultural contacts with Byzantium (24) and developed it (in Baghdad, Kairouan, and Córdoba) during the centuries from the 9th to the 14th century, then retransmitted it to Europe—particularly during the Crusades, which became one of the intellectual bridges for transferring the cultural center from East to West.

When Europe, especially the Italian city-states, finally accepted this heritage—which constituted the third phase of preserving the Greek legacy and its method of knowledge—these cities began their astonishing global Renaissance (25), which in turn opened the way to an examination and critique of Greek science itself during the Enlightenment, through the use of the same process of thought for knowledge production from the 17th century onward, marking the birth of modern European thought based on abstraction.

An abstraction that would influence the contemporary world just as it influenced the entire history of humanity’s intellectual creation.

(II)

In this context, political economy was born and developed. It emerged as:

• An abstract science based on the classification of the phenomena it focuses on, elevating them above everything that does not affect the studied phenomenon. It excludes what is secondary, groups similar phenomena, extracts common traits, and deduces uniform principles, without being disturbed by details that hinder a critical understanding of the social phenomenon under study. This was clearly manifested in the writings of William Petty, Richard Cantillon, François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx. Marx explicitly stated in the Preface to the First German Edition (1867) of Volume I of Capital: “In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both.” (26)
• The study of the social phenomenon in question, separated from religion, which was henceforth rejected as a social reality—not through a scientific deconstruction of temporal Christian religion—which could have led to the same result—but by a rejection of Christianity itself, starting with a condemnation of the power of the clergy, the representatives of God, and a liberation from the oppression of the Church, which monopolized social truth and enslaved the souls of millions for a thousand years. (27)
• Starting from Western Europe to explain and interpret phenomena that emerged in Western Europe from the 17th century onward. Thus, Western Europe was both the historical and factual field of analysis. Studies on the history and reality of the phenomenon in other parts of the world were excluded, with a denial of the existence of any other civilization than the European one! Thus, all studied phenomena were considered historically unique and therefore as phenomena born only in Europe and then disseminated from Europe to the entire world. Among the phenomena existing in the economic domain were, as we will see in more detail later, the sale of labor power and production for the market.

(III)

Thus, it becomes possible to understand the science of political economy in a way that not only allows for a critique of its theoretical framework but goes beyond that to challenge the European centrism that dominated the science, defined its foundations, and formulated its principles in an arguably racist manner! This aims to liberate political economy as a social science from the centrism that deprived it of the incredible possibility of being a universal human science. By freeing political economy from this centrism, it becomes possible to use its intellectual tools to study the phenomena of production and distribution in all societies, through the great, slow, and epic historical movement, independent of any blind dogmatic bias, for a just and merciful human future — a future where fools do not govern, a future that human civilizations contribute to creating within the framework of unified human knowledge.

Muhammad Adel Zaky is an Egyptian researcher specializing in the history of economic thought. He is the author of Critique of Political Economy, a book that has gone through six editions. His research explores the evolution of economic ideas in relation to social and historical change.

Footnotes

1. The organization followed according to the methodology of the text does not imply that one component of European civilization is more important than the others.
2. In the first century BC, Germanic tribes coming from southern Scandinavia, northern and western Germany invaded Western Europe, moving south, east, and west. In the fifth and sixth centuries AD, they succeeded in conquering most of the Roman territories in Western Europe, dominating Germany, France, and Spain, and crossed the borders of Rome after subjugating all Italian regions.
3. This was the case in the Eastern Empire, where the emperor was the head of the Church, and therefore his power surpassed that of the patriarch. In the Western Empire, religious power was separated from secular power. Both power institutions had their own establishments, playing a decisive role in the constant conflict marking the relationship between the two powers, such as the conflict between Pope Gregory VII (1015–1085) and Emperor Henry IV (1050–1106) regarding the right to appoint bishops, particularly in Northern Italy.
4. For more details, see: Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), especially Chapter Five.
5. In reality, all the Germanic invasions at the borders of the Roman Empire were nothing but an expression of their desire to plunder some of its resources and gain honor in battles; this was what gave the Germans honor and high status within their tribe. The Germanic tribes had no real plans for military occupation of Roman territories or military expansion and domination. For more details, see: John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe (Collingwood: Black Inc., 2009), p. [page number].
6. See: François-Georges Dreyfus, Roland Marx, Raymond Poidevin, Histoire générale de l'Europe, Volume 1: Europe from 1789 to Our Days (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1980), p. 239.
7. In this way, the Germanic warrior obtained an ideal cause to fight! This cause would develop, as we will see in the text, with social evolution in Western Europe.
8. See: Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy as Teacher: Leo Tolstoy’s Writings on Education, edited by Bob Blaisdell, translated by Christopher Edgar (New York: Teachers & Writers Collaborative, 2000), p. 98.
9. See: M. Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capitalism (London: Routledge, 1947), p. 58. And roughly as: “We see some wild animals scattered in the countryside, black, dusty, exposed to the sun, tied to the land which they dig with unwavering perseverance, and they seem to speak a detailed language. When they stand upright, their features resemble those of humans. In reality, these are humans who seek refuge at night in their holes, where they live on black bread, water, and roots. They free the free men from the hardship of sowing and plowing for their subsistence, and therefore deserve not to be deprived of the love they have sown.” See: Paul Hazard, The Crisis of the European Mind, 1680–1715, translated by J. Lewis May (New York: New York Review Books, 2013). Not to mention the witch burnings! Between the 14th and 17th centuries, about 90,000 people accused of witchcraft were burned, including about 35,000 in Germany alone. The majority were women!
10. If we exclude the great split between the Eastern and Western Churches in the 4th century, where the Eastern Churches were led by the Church of Alexandria and the Western Churches under the leadership of the Church of Rome, the latter starting to be called the Catholic Churches and the former the Orthodox Churches.
11. For example, in 1517, Pope Leo X (1475–1521) issued an indulgence covering the entire Christian world in order to collect funds for the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome! For more details, see: The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 261–264.
12. When the pope, at the beginning of the Westphalia negotiations, refused to sign the peace treaty, he was ignored!
13. Despite Marx and Engels’ critiques of Christianity, which generally focused on criticizing the religious spirit, Bakunin’s book God and the State (1814–1876) might be the first relatively well-known intellectual work (despite its fragmentary nature and lack of method) to criticize biblical verses, especially the gospels. But this remains, ultimately, a critique outside European/Western consciousness. For details, see: Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State (New York: Dover Publications, 2019). This is definitely excepting the work of Spinoza (1632–1677), especially Chapter Seven: Interpretation of the Bible. See: Baruch Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, translated by Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
14. With the flow of civilizational brilliance coming from the sky of the East, spread by the commercial fleets sailing the Mediterranean, and with Rome’s desire to subjugate Constantinople and unify the Christian world under the papal seat of Rome, as well as with the conquest of southern Italy by the Normans and the Church and court’s decision to rid themselves of this threat by sending them to the Syrian coast in the holy war, Pope Gregory VII (1015–1085) sought to gather the crusader armies toward the East under the pretext of reclaiming Jerusalem, the city of the Son of God, from the hands of the Arab Muslims. But he died before he could gather the armies, and his successor, Pope Urban II (1035–1099), continued his project. All social classes of feudal Europe saw a golden opportunity in his speech delivered at Clermont, France, in 1095, where he urged people to march toward the tomb of the Son of God. The peasants wanted to escape poverty and misery. The landed nobles sought to conquer more. Landless nobles, due to the feudal inheritance law, wanted lands, a symbol of honor. The pope himself wanted to unify the Christian world under the papal banner of Rome. The kings wanted the treasures of the East. And as soon as the fleets of the Italian cities, notably Venice, Pisa, and Genoa, entered the Mediterranean heading toward the Syrian coast with thousands of European warriors aboard, these cities gained economic and feudal privileges in the East, and the conflict shifted from Western Europe to the East. The Europeans brought not only their warriors but also all their social problems and class conflicts. They brought with them their feudal system, based on the Germanic model, which was not so foreign to the social system in place in the East. The Seljuk Turks had played an important role in establishing feudal systems, which made it easier for the Christian knight to replace the Seljuk knight. The Europeans also brought all the conflicts between the throne and the Church. For more details, see: J. Dudo, History of Royal Institutions in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099-1291 (Paris, thesis, 1894). Gaston Dodu, History of Monarchic Institutions in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099-1291 (Thesis presented at the Faculty of Letters of Paris, Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, n.d.).
15. The term colonial expansion, for me, encompasses the two phases of geographical discoveries and the colonization of societies in America and Africa, since these two phases shared the same phenomenon: the phenomenon of plundering the wealth of peoples.
16. For the methodology behind the plundering of Latin American and African continents, see: Muhammad Adel Zaki, Political Economy of Underdevelopment (Beirut: Center for Arab Unity Studies, 2012), pp. 224–245.
17. This coincided with the shift from seeking God’s will to interpreting the will of the civil legislator. From awaiting the catastrophic end of the world to the revelation of objective laws governing human life and organizing the movement of the universe. Thus, the Church, and even Christianity itself, found itself in intense conflict with science. The Church was forced to withdraw and give way to scientific theories that proved the historical facts presented in the Holy Scriptures were incorrect and scientifically denied the superstitions described about the nature, origin, and development of the universe.
18. John Hurst’s book, A Short History of Europe, though lively, is a clear example of omitting any influence of previous civilizations on Greek civilization and Greek science, as well as omitting any influence of subsequent civilizations in the critique of Greek science. See: John Hirst, The Shortest History, op. cit., p. 87. Conversely, see the original work of George Sarton, A History of Science, particularly chapter four, where he precisely and objectively analyzes the sources of Greek science drawn from ancient Eastern civilizations. See: George Sarton, A History of Science: Ancient Science Through the Golden Age of Greece (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952). The book The Stolen Legacy by George G. M. James goes even further in attempting to objectively prove the Egyptian roots of Greek philosophy. George G. M. James, Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy, translated by J. Lewis May (New York: Philosophical Library, 1954). Similarly, in Martin Bernal’s book, Black Athena, Bernal, like George James, re-dates the history of Greek philosophy by tracing its origins to Egypt and ancient Eastern civilizations. See: Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Volume I, (New Brunswick: NJ Rutgers University Press, 1987).
19. For the sciences of different nations before the Greeks, and among the Greeks, see for example: Muhammad ibn Ishaq Ibn al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture, translator and editor: Bayard Dodge (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979); ?a?id al-Andalusi, Science in the Medieval World: "Book of the Categories of Nations", translators: Sema’an I. Salem and Alok Kumar (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991); Bar Hebraeus (Gregory Abu'l-Faraj), The Chronography of Gregory Abu'l-Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, translator: E. A. Wallis Budge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932).
20. The world is governed by simple laws, and the mind’s task is only to uncover these laws and logically organize them in a simple way to be able to understand the world around it.
21. Here, the role of the Syrians in translating Greek science and introducing it, especially in the Eastern world, becomes clear. In the East, the Eastern spirit and its schools in Antioch, Nisibis, Edessa, and Qinnasrin, etc., merged with Greek science. See the role of the Syrians: Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Gregory Abu'l-Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, same source, p. 563.
22. Is Jesus creator or created? And if created, does he have the same nature as God or a different nature? Or is he the incarnate God who unites the characteristics of the divine nature with those of the human nature? And if so, how can that be logically reasonable? And what about the Virgin Mary — is she the mother of God? But how can God be born? And is the Holy Spirit eternal like God, or is He created? ... etc.
23. Saints Justin, Clement, Athanasius, and Basil, for example, are considered some of the first Church Fathers who used Greek philosophy and encouraged its study and teaching in order to combat doctrines that contradicted the “official” concepts and principles of the Church, such as Marcionism, Sabellianism, Lucianism, Arianism, etc. To understand the Church’s official position regarding Arianism — a doctrine which would be adopted by the Germanic tribes in the Byzantine East — as well as the conflict between the official doctrine of the Church and the various theological orientations influenced by the Hellenic and Hellenistic heritage in the Mediterranean region during the early centuries of Christianity, see: Matta al-Miskin, The Holy Apostolic Athanasius: His Life, His Defense of the Faith against the Arians, and His Theology (Wadi el-Natroun: Monastery of Saint Anba Macarius, 1993), especially pp. 56–60, 70, 383–440, 464–470.
24. When the Islamic state began to expand under the Umayyad Caliphate, and the cultural encounter with Byzantium, especially under the Abbasid Caliphate, began, with the Syrian peoples having strongly contributed, as we mentioned, to the translation initiative, Greek science, then dominant in Byzantium, was transferred into the Islamic world.
25. In one way or another, it can be said that the great wealth attained in the Italian cities, especially Florence, had a decisive effect on the foundation of modern science. Life in these cities was marked by merchants, wealthy traders, and prominent artisans. When historical circumstances led to an increased focus on improving and developing technical processes related to economic activities, thoughts, particularly among the newly rich, turned toward the revival of ancient literatures and sciences preserved and presented by Muslim scholars and thinkers through cultural exchanges, notably during the Crusades mentioned earlier. Among the prominent figures of the Italian Renaissance were Petrarch, Boccaccio, Ficino, Machiavelli, Dante, Angelo, Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, Titian, Palestrina, and others. This Renaissance extended from the late 13th century until the 17th century and covered much of Western and Central Europe. As Crowther says: “The discovery of new knowledge and the extraction of ancient knowledge stimulated the learning processes... and the Italian universities expanded to meet this need. Besides Italians, talented men from all over Europe rushed to the active centers of new knowledge. Copernicus came from the Baltic coast of Poland, Vesalius from Belgium, and Harvey from England to participate in academic and scientific development.” J. G. Crowther, A Short History of Science (London: Methuen Educational, 1969), p. 59.
26. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review, 1976. Preface to the First German Edition, p. 90.
27. And this later led to the emergence of the critical intellectual project that questioned religion itself and the ethical issues related to it, as seen in the writings of Feuerbach (1804–1872), Max Stirner (1806–1856), and David Strauss (1808–1874). See for example: Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity, translated by George Eliot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). In particular: Part II: The False or Theological Essence of Religion.

Bibliographie

Bakunin, Mikhail. God and the State. New York: Dover Publications, 2019.

Bar Hebraeus. The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l-Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus. Translated by E. A. Wallis Budge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Crowther, J. G. A Short History of Science. London: Methuen Educational, 1969.

Dawson, Christopher. The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review, 1976. Preface to the First German Edition.

Dobb, Maurice. Studies in the Development of Capitalism. London: Routledge, 1947.

Dodu, Gaston. Histoire des institutions monarchiques dans le royaume latin de Jérusalem 1099–1291. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie, n.d.

Dreyfus, François-Georges, Roland Marx, and Raymond Poidevin. Histoire générale de l’Europe, Tome 1: L’Europe de 1789 à nos jours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1980.

Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. Translated by George Eliot. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Hirst, John. The Shortest History of Europe. Collingwood: Black Inc, 2009.

Ibn al-Nadim, Mu?ammad ibn Is?aq. The Fihrist of al-Nadim: A Tenth-Century Survey of Muslim Culture. Edited and translated by Bayard Dodge. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.

James, George G. M. Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy. New York: Philosophical Library, 1954.

Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. Translated by Ben Fowkes. London: Penguin Books, 1976.

Oxford University Press. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

?a?id al-Andalusi. Science in the Medieval World: Book of the Categories of Nations. Translated by Sema’an I. Salem and Alok Kumar. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991.

Sarton, George. A History of Science: Ancient Science Through the Golden Age of Greece. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952.

Spinoza, Baruch. Theological-Political Treatise. Translated by Michael Silverthorne and Jonathan Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Tolstoy, Leo. Tolstoy as Teacher: Leo Tolstoy’s Writings on Education. Edited by Bob Blaisdell. Translated by Christopher Edgar. New York: Teachers & Writers Collaborative, 2000.

Zaky, Muhammad Adel. Political Economy of Underdevelopment. Beirut: Center for Arab Unity Studies, 2012.