Merchants and Trade: Muslim and Christian Perspectives

As has become very obvious in the past few days in class, the postclassical period witnessed an important expansion of trade, within many civilizations and across their fluid boundaries. Merchants gained a growing role in West Africa, throughout the Islamic world, in Europe (both east and west), and in East Asia. Many traded locally, although international merchants made the biggest impression. Chinese commercial centers grew rapidly, supporting a more urban environment. The search for wealth had never been so extensive, the willingness to take risks had never been so great, and the desire to promote commercial interests in government circles had never been so strong. At the same time, many societies had reservations about merchants. Aristocrats worried about their social claims; rulers might envy their wealth; priests and philosophers questioned their motives. The clash of cultures, between religion and materialism, was particularly intense because of the complex new forces at work in these centuries. A genuine ambivalence about merchants was common throughout the postclassical world--and it could affect merchants themselves, as well as how they were treated, and it could also shift. Comparison and assessment of change over time are both essential analytical approaches to the issue of the merchant's role. Christian tradition was uneasy with merchants' motives, fearing that they diverted people from religion. As trade increased, Christian concern relaxed somewhat. But efforts to find ways to accommodate the very different goals of capitalist trade and the holy life continued. Islam was initially more favorable to merchants, whose activities seemed compatible with religious obligations so long as they obeyed basic rules of fairness and gave to charity. It was no accident that Islam had up to that time sponsored the most intense merchant activity known in world history. The Middle East had long been a center of trade, even in the classical period. Muhammad, originally a merchant, praised the life of commerce, so long as it did not violate the primacy of religious goals, and so long as it was accompanied by active chants. But experience introduced greater caution, and toward the end of the postclassical period, as Muslim trade continued, though with slightly less dynamism, ambivalence became more obvious. What value did Muslim thinkers see in trade? What were the danger signals? How do Christian and Muslim views compare at this point?

Given the attitudes and policies suggested for the two societies--Western Europe and the Middle East--which society, in your opinion, was becoming most favorable for merchant activity, and why? Do cultural values really shape trade activities, or is a universal desire for profit more significant? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

The values tensions surrounding merchant activity were very real in the postclassical period in both civilizations. They translated into individual ambiguities. Many European merchants--even some less holy than Godric, whom you are about to read the words of--repented of their goals later in life and gave money away or entered a monastery.

The tensions also reflected a fascinating interaction between economic opportunities and cultural norms. None of the civilizations yielded entirely to one extreme or the other--which is why comparison must be subtle. A search for stark contrasts would be overly simple. The fact that some civilizations changed their balance of power over time adds more complexity. Nevertheless, certain of the differences were real, and they mattered in world history. China, to take the most obvious example, could have played a far larger trade role than it did, but it deliberately held back because of its own internal success (remember, it did not need the outside world) and because of its cultural hostility to trade (Confucian views still hold true there during this period). Europe's growing commercial role required an adjustment of religious concerns, which did prove possible but caused wide anxiety about moral directions.

I would like you to read two documents to solidify the comparisons between Muslim and Christian society regarding trade during the postclassical period. The Muslim description of merchants' vices and merits comes from the great historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (our boy is back! This is the same Ibn Khaldun, or course, that was responsible for the 3 Generational Theory), a North African who wrote in the fourteenth century. The description of the twelfth-century British merchant Godric was written by a biographer attracted to his saintly life (most merchants did not, it should be emphasized, become saints). It suggests both actual activities and cultural values. You can read both documents by simply clicking on the link here .

When you have finished reading both documents, I would like for you to read and discuss the following: What kinds of uneasiness did Muslim observers have about trade? How did Islam offer a distinctive combination of trade and cultural goals--a combination relatively favorable to trade without slighting religion? In what ways did Islam and Christianity, such similar religions in many respects, differ over the validity of trade? Would a story like Godric's have been probable in Islam? What exceptions do the sources suggest, even as they emphasize high ideals? What kinds of activities in Europe clearly represented more materialistic motives than those of a holy merchant like Godric? Why, in fact, did Godric not enter a holy calling initially? What kinds of motives drew him to trade? Do the sources demonstrate that Europe was becoming wealthier than the Islamic world by the late postclassical period? In light of the documents you just read, how would you rate the argument that no matter what their professed values, most people and societies are motivated by a desire for profit and will expand commercially whenever they can? In your opinion, is a desire for economic gain an inherent part of human nature? In your opinion, which came first in world history: concern about trade or economic limitations? Did Christianity cause Western Europe's initial commercial lag in the postclassical period, or did economic decline encourage Christian concerns? How did Islam affect actual Middle Eastern economic patterns in the postclassical period? Your thoughts... (I know we haven't gone too deeply into postclassical Europe in here yet, but we will. Consider this a bit of a comparative preview!)