Has there ever been a theocracy worth living in?

Great Debates
21

KarlGrenze: If you’ll allow me a nitpick :slight_smile: :

Well Damascus was out of the picture by 756, hence the whole necessity of having to found a scismatic emirate in Cordoba :wink: .

But I get your point. The Umayyad emirs did accept the principle of caliphal authority, they just didn’t recognize the particular caliphs being produced by their rivals in the Abbasid dynasty.

When Abd al-Rahman III proclaimed himself Caliph in 929 it was to counter a very particular political danger - The founding of the Fatimid Caliphate in 909. The Fatimids were at that time very strong in Tunisia and presented both a direct military, and a potent ideological, threat. Adopting caliphal titles and preogatives was purely a defensive move ( though it was probably influenced by some genuine piety ). I suppose it is sort of accurate to call that state a theocracy, but then all Islamic states in that period were already halfway there, since the ulama generally supplied once branch of the government in the form of jurisprudence.

So Muslim Spain was under a theocracy from 711-755 and 929-1030. In both cases using a slightly loose definition of the term. I agree that in terms of actual intellectual achievement, material prosperity, and, in some respects, personal freedom, it surpassed its Christian contemporaries, immediate predecessors, and immediate successors. But it is a fact that Christians and Jews were second-class citizens.

Just as an aside, to anyone interested specifically in the Caliphate of Cordoba, I’d recommend The Second Umayyad Caliphate, The Articulation of Caliphal Legitimacy in al-Andalus, by Janina M. Safran ( 2000, Harvard University Press ). It’s actually a pretty quick read.

A couple of other related volumes ( for completists :wink: ) culled off Tamerlane’s dusty shelves:
The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710-797, by Roger Collins ( 1989, Blackwell Publishing ). Another reasonably quick read.
Islamic Spain, 1250-1500, by L.P. Harvey ( 1990, University of Chicago Press ). Just a little longer than the other two, but pretty decent.

Sadly I don’t seem to have anything covering 797-929 or 1030-1250. One of these days :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
22

I would call ancient Egypt and the Jewish kingdom in the time of Kings David and Solomon truer theocracies than Athens, but it is actually very interesting to ask if Athens was a theocracy because that raises the question of whether Rome was a theocracy. Ceasar was a god for a long period, but Rome’s religion of choice nonetheless managed to change rather significantly.

23

Tamerlane, it’s okay, I don’t mind the nitpicks. Less ignorance, right?

Humble Servant, I was not the one who originally asked that question. I just answered it with my opinion. The original quote was from Menocchio.

24

Oops, sorry** KG**. I got confused because you didn’t use the quote coding–forgive me if you know this, but all you have to do to quote, when you’re ready to reply to a thread, is to hit the quote button below the post you want to quote instead of hitting the post reply button at the bottom of the thread–you can then delete the stuff you don’t want to quote and add your own comments.:slight_smile:

25

I am wondering why no one has seriously discussed the Shaolin in China, or Shinto in Japan. Are we not debating those ‘theocracies’? Or are they not considered such? Is Buddhism or Hindu not relevant? Just wondering, I am actually in a little rush right now and I was checking out the boards. But it seems to discount Heathen theocracies would make this a one sided disputation…

26

Phlosphr: Whelp I think it is a little problematic labeling those as theocracies. Yes the Japanese Emperors claimed to rule through divine fiat and indeed claimed a second-hand divinity of sorts themselves. But they didn’t rule through a Shinto priesthood. And in fact they generally ( after the early Yamato period ) didn’t rule directly at all. All real governmental power ( or most of it anyway ) was vested in secular bodies.

Similarily in China, although Taoism and Buddhism did intrude into secular bodies. But the ShaoLin priesthood, for example, never really ruled anything in the name of the government ( I don’t think, anyway ). The rebellious Tai’Ping “state” in the 19th century, on the other hand, probably could be labeled as a theocracy of sorts.

In India, I suppose Hindu states could be considered de facto theocratic in so much as the caste system dominated society. And at times members of the Brahmin caste certainly ruled. Although Kshatriya or related castes were just as likely ( perhaps more so, considering their martial identity ) to take dynastic power. But you start getting into the problem of ddefining “theocracy” again :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
27

My favorite timeline of the late middle ages and renaissance:

http://www.netcom.com/~rogermw/millennium.html
:wink:

28

Correction - I think that should be T’ai P’ing ( two separate words ).

  • Tamerlane
29

Well, somebody did bring up Tibet. As for Japan and China…Japan, during periods of its history might count as a theorcracy…the Emperor was seen as a god and decended from gods, but for a lot of Japanese history, the emperor didn’t have much actual power…most power was held by military aristocrats.

As for China, was it theocratic?

30

I wonder why nobody mentioned the ONLY pure theocracy in the modern world.

Vatican City’s head of state is the Pope.

I would assume that it is a nice place to live…but I’ve never been there, so don’t take my word for it.

-Soup

31

Somebody did :slight_smile:

32

PD. Humble, I did know how to make a quote before you told me, I was just lazy that time. :stuck_out_tongue: