Give The Devil His Due Examination Of The Doctrine Of The Devil: Fill & Download for Free

Ancestral vs. Original SinThe first thing that we need to understand is what we’re saved from. Orthodox Christians believe that we are saved from sin and its products corruption and death. Catholics and Protestants tend to put more emphasis on the wrath of God; if we anger Him, He will cast us into hell. Some go as far to say that God hates sinners, but this is a foreign concept to Orthodoxy.In Genesis, God tells Adam “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16). He does not say, “in the day that you eat of it I will surely kill you.” Sin is any way we “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23), and it separates us from God. God is the source of life, so naturally “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). God knows this, and so He warns Adam of the consequences of sin; He does not threaten Adam. Afterward He even goes so far as to seek Adam and Eve out and ask them about what happened, to see if they will repent, “’For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,’ says the Lord God. ‘Therefore turn and live!’” (Ezekiel 18:32).Adam, of course, blames Eve, and Eve, in turn, blames the serpent. God, seeing their hardheartedness punishes them like any loving parent—not to appease a divine sense of justice—but so that they will repent and be healed [1]. This is important because it undermines the Catholic and Protestant idea of hell as a place where God punishes people for all eternity. Why would He want to do that? All punishment has a purpose: to teach us the right thing to do so that we can correct our behavior. If the punishment lasts for all eternity, then we will never have a chance to change our ways.Due to this juridical view in the West, the idea of Original Sin developed, which says that we inherit Adam’s guilt. The alternative Orthodox view is called “Ancestral Sin.” St Athanasius, says “Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case” (On the Incarnation of the Word, Ch. 2). We have not inherited the guilt of Adam, which would only require repentance, but the corrupted human nature that arose as a result. St. Paul says “just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12), now “the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish (Galatians 5:17)”. We therefore continue to sin and die “For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death” (Romans 7:5)—no extra guilt needed.The Salvation of the World in Christ“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son . . .” (John 3:16)We know that “all sinned” (Romans 3:23), and therefore all need salvation. This was accomplished in everything that Jesus did when He became Man.His Incarnation: St. Athanasius explains “You know what happens when a portrait that has been painted on a panel becomes obliterated through external stains. The artist does not throw away the panel, but the subject of the portrait has to come and sit for it again, and then the likeness is re-drawn on the same material. Even so was it with the All-holy Son of God. He, the Image of the Father, came and dwelt in our midst, in order that He might renew mankind made after Himself” (Ch. 3). St. Gregory Nazianzus supports this by saying “For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved” (Gregory of Nazianzus - Critique of Apollinarianism).His Baptism God had no need to be cleansed, but rather He cleansed the waters and all of creation in preparation for our own baptisms, as the priest prays at the blessing of the waters “You sanctified the streams of Jordan by sending down from heaven Your All-holy Spirit and You smashed the heads of the dragons that lurked there.” He was also fulfilling the law in doing this and made the worship of the Trinity clear when the Holy Spirit descended on Him and the voice of the Father spoke.His Ministry Christ is the great Teacher, and He explains to us the path to salvation. “Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105). He also proves that He is God with acts of mercy and forgiveness [2].His Crucifixion God is immortal and cannot die, but took on our mortal nature in order to take on the consequences of our sins—our suffering, our feelings of helplessness (He cries out “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Matthew 27:46), and even death itself. St. Iraneaus says “He destroyed the handwriting of our debt and fastened it to the Cross, so that as by means of a tree we were made debtors to God, so also by means of a tree we may obtain remission of the debt.”His Resurrection The Crucifixion has the Resurrection as its purpose, as Christ says “A woman, when she is in labor, has sorrow because her hour has come; but as soon as she has given birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world” (John 16:21). Since God is immortal, death could not hold Him. He “trampled down death by death”, as we sing at Pascha. He broke open the gates of Hades. St. Paul says “if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! . . . But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:17, 21–22).His Ascension When Christ ascended into heaven, He sealed the gift of His Resurrection. It was a type of our own future ascension into heaven, and we sing in the kontakion for the day “O Christ our God, upon fulfilling Your dispensation for our sake, You ascended in Glory, uniting the earthly with the heavenly.”“Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Hebrew 2:14–15). This is the “free gift [that] came to all men, resulting in justification of life” (Romans 5:18).Personal Salvation in His Body the Church. . . that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)Jesus gave specific practices to the Church with which we can accept this great gift. We call them Mysteries. Of particular importance are baptism and the Eucharist:Baptism The Lord tells us “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). The reason is simple: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). As we have already determined, these two are at odds with one another as the passions and lusts of the flesh lead to death, but the Spirit gives us life. Baptism is able to renew us because “we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4).The Eucharist Now that we are being healed, we can partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life again, but we discover that the tree is now the Cross and the fruit is now the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus says “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed” (John 6:53–55).Through baptism, we are allowed reentry into paradise. Through the Eucharist, we eat the fruit of the Tree of Life. The question then becomes, are we prepared for this?After Adam and Eve had fallen, God “drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life” (3:24). Did God do this to show His wrath and hatred of the transgressors? No. Adam and Eve had lost the life and grace that was in them, and God’s presence had become a torment to them. In their shame, they tried to cover themselves and to hide from God. St. Isaac the Syrian says “I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment” (I.28, p. 266). To be in the presence of God forever without first being healed is hell. As the Lord says, “this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed” (John 3:19–20). We need to be healed before we can be in the revealing presence of God.Jesus came to do just that as Christ says “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (Mark 2:17). Our therapy, then, is repentance, to turn away from our evil deeds that cause us to love darkness rather than light. God frees us from our sins in Confession through the appointed successors of the Apostles who have the power to bind and loose sins (Matthew 18:18). Many are not ready to receive Christ if they have not repented and so receive this same condemnation of Light, as St. Paul says “For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep” (1 Corinthians 11:29–30). His solution: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. . . For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.” (1 Corinthians 11:28, 31).PurificationRepentance is our starting place, since Jesus begins his ministry with “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matthew 3:2). Repentance does not mean just saying you’re sorry; It literally means “turning away from”. It must be accompanied by spiritual warfare which helps us completely turn away from the way of death, to “Fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12), to “not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Romans 6:12). In addition to fighting against our passions, we also with the help of God fight against the demons who incite passions in us: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:11–12). In this struggle God helps us because “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13), and since “without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Then, every time we fall, we return to the Church to confess openly our sins, to receive the forgiveness of God our Physician, and, if needed, obtain a specific prayer rule to help us fight against this sin.In practice, purification is achieved through fasting, prayer, acts of charity, and other forms of asceticism—all with the goal of purifying the heart. These are forms of self-denial and are ways of fulfilling Christ’s command “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:34). It teaches us virtue, subdues the passions, gives us a way to meet our many temptations, and protects us from the demons as St. Theophan the Recluse says “If this kind [of demon] goes out by the prayer and fasting of another person, then it is even less able to enter one who fasts and prays. What protection!” Ultimately, though, spiritual purity is not the end of the Christian life, only the beginning.In contrast, Fr. John Romanides describes the purification that developed in non-Orthodox traditions saying “when the patristic interpretation of things was dismissed, purification was dismissed, purification was reduced to abstention from sins . . . It ended up being merely ethical teaching that did not cure man’s personality. So . . . man was concerned about external acts and had a very hypocritical disposition. He pretended he had no temptations, whereas in fact he did. And he thought he could surmount them, but afterwards he saw that he couldn’t. He therefore thought that no one else had temptations, and felt guilty. Young people are shocked at the temptations they have” (Purification, Illumination and Glorification Are EVERYTHING in Orthodoxy (1 of 3). St. Paisios reminds us “The goal is to rise spiritually, not simply to avoid sin.”IlluminationOrthodox Christian illumination is in contrast to the rationalistic “enlightenment”, which relies on human reason. C.S. Lewis says in his book Miracles “It is Reason herself which teaches us not to rely on Reason only in this matter. For Reason knows that she cannot work without materials. When it becomes clear that you cannot find out by reasoning whether the cat is in the linen-cupboard, it is Reason herself who whispers, ‘Go and look. This is not my job: it is a matter for the senses’. So here. The materials for correcting our abstract conception of God cannot be supplied by Reason: she will be the first to tell you to go and try experience—‘Oh, taste and see!’” (Ch.11). However, God is not material or sensible. He can be reached with neither pure reason nor with the five senses.Fr. Seraphim Rose says “Why is the truth, it would seem, revealed to some and not to others? Is there a special organ for receiving revelation from God? Yes, in a certain sense there is such an organ, though usually we close it and do not let it open up: God's revelation is given to something called a loving heart" (p. 27). Purification prepares the heart (or the nous as it’s often called in Orthodox theology) to God’s direct revelation that the other senses cannot grasp as Jesus says “Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). We are illuminated by God, “the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life” (John 8:12). In Orthodoxy this is maintained through prayer of the heart, the Jesus Prayer, until, as one Orthodox monk explains, the Holy Spirit prays for you, or “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16).DeificationThe ultimate goal of all of this is deification or theosis. St. Athanasius proclaims “Therefore He [Jesus] was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us” (Ch. XI, 39) and again “the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh, and henceforward inherit life ‘everlasting’” (Ch. XXVI, 34). St. Peter also says “as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, . . . that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 1:3–4). This is the fulfillment of Psalm 82:6 “I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High.”This may sound rather jarring and even blasphemous to someone not familiar with this doctrine, but, to be clear, no person becomes a fourth member of the Trinity or anything like that. We become by grace what God is by nature. Jesus Christ is the Son of God by nature, “but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, ‘Abba, Father’” (Romans 8:15). St. Maximos the Confessor clarifies this saying “Nothing in theosis is the product of human nature, for nature cannot comprehend God. It is only the mercy of God that has the capacity to endow theosis unto the existing... In theosis, man (the image of God) becomes likened to God, he rejoices in all the plenitude that does not belong to him by nature, because the grace of the Spirit triumphs within him, and because God acts in him” (Letter 22). St. Maximos mentions the image of God because we, being in the image and likeness of God, become more human even as we become more divine. We do not just return to the pre-fallen state of Adam and Eve. We grow and become more perfect in our communion with God, just as He always intended us to do and as we will continue to do in heaven.1. Evan Rodick's answer to Were Adam and Eve saved? Did they go to heaven? If not, would they have gone to heaven if they had not sinned? They sinned while they were perfect; same as Satan. How can one believe they will go to heaven if Satan won't go to heaven?2. Evan Rodick's answer to Did first century Christians believe Jesus was God?

Antisemitism is nothing if not a complex topic. Discussing why it exists is therefore going to take a while (this answer is pushing about 7000 words), and there’s no simple answer. However, boiling it down to its crux: people hate Jews because they choose to do so. A slightly longer answer can be found by skipping down to Part VII, but for the full historical context, well, you don’t have to read this all at once.Part I: Judaism and ChristianityThere are, in general, two ways of how people hate Jews. The older of the two ways is hatred of Judaism, which is to say, hatred of the people due to their religion. Scholarship usually refers to this as “anti-Judaism,” although the term “religious antisemitism” also pops up in literature. At most, anti-Judaism goes back about two-and-a-half millennia, mostly because Judaism itself — or at least, Judaism in a form recognizable to modern-day Jews — only really came to be in an Exilic[1] and post-Exilic context. One can also make an argument that, insofar as modern Judaism is descended exclusively from Pharisaism during the Second Temple Era, anti-Judaism can only date back about two thousand years.Anti-Judaism predates Christianity. The works of Josephus, a first century Jewish general and historian, include Against Apion, a critique and refutation of an anti-Jewish text by a Greek pagan named, unsurprisingly, Apion. However, it was generally not a significant force during that time, with most negative feelings towards Jews being political in nature, resenting the Jewish state that existed at the time, the Hasmonean Kingdom. Even during subsequent Roman rule, anti-Judaism was a weak force: Judaism and the Roman state cult may have been incompatible, but participation in the Roman state cult was only desired by the Romans insofar as it demonstrated loyalty to Rome, and so long as the Jews proved themselves loyal in other ways, Rome generally did not care about the difference in religion.The reason anti-Judaism came to be as powerful as it was — and to a lesser extent is — was not actually external to Judaism, but rather, internal to it. In the first century, a small apocalyptic cult-cum-reform movement centered around a Nazarene itinerant preacher started gaining traction within Judaism. At the time, this wasn’t a particularly interesting development, because apocalyptic cults were actually quite common during the Second Temple period. The interaction between the adherents of the new branch and the various other sects of Judaism at the time was generally, and unsurprisingly, hostile.We frequently see this sort of thing in world history. As an example, the Protestant Reformation saw Protestants and Catholics declaring each other servants of the devil. Thus, it’s unsurprising that even the holy texts of Christianity, composed when it was still a Jewish sect, contain some fairly obvious potshots at mainstream Judaism. In particular, when we look at the Gospel of Matthew, the text refers to Jews as Israelites until the crucifixion, at which point they are referred to as Judah-ites. This difference in naming is important: the name “Israel” was given to the patriarch Jacob by a messenger of the Almighty, and therefore symbolizes the special relationship between Jews and the Almighty. By stripping the Jews of the name Israelite, therefore, the author of Matthew was stating that, in taking the responsibility for crucifying Jesus,[2] the Jews had abandoned their relationship with the Almighty. Putting it more simply, the author of Matthew states that mainstream Judaism is not true Judaism, and that only Judeo-Christianity counts as such.This being said, it would be difficult to claim the author of Matthew to have been anti-Jewish, as he was himself Jewish — we don’t claim Martin Luther to have been anti-Christian for having written scathingly about the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century. The author of Matthew was scathingly anti-Pharisee — as were the authors of Mark, Luke, and John — but not anti-Jewish. Within two centuries, however, the differences between “Pharisee” and “Jew” had essentially disappeared,[3] with Pharisaic Judaism being the only surviving sect of Judaism from the Second Temple Era. Thus, texts written in the context of an intra-religious feud were now considered holy by a separate religion, and the intra-religious feud morphed into an inter-religious feud.This was not a battle Judaism could win. Pharisaic Judaism — now called “Rabbinic Judaism” or just plain “Judaism” — required adherence to both the Written Law (the Torah) and the Oral Law (what would subsequently be compiled into the Talmud). Judeo-Christianity also required this adherence in the early stages, with Jesus and the people who knew him being observant Jews. However, the Apostle Paul began a push within Judeo-Christianity to reject the Law, or at least, aspects of it. This position made evangelism among gentiles significantly easier.[4] The result of this was that Christianity grew in a way that Judaism could not.However, rejection of the Law and the growth of Christianity through conversion precipitated massive changes within Christianity. Certainly rejecting the Law led to differences in practice between Rabbinic Jews and Judeo-Christians, but the religious rationale for such a rejection also essentially mandated theological differences to arise. Additionally, without the Law existing to enforce some sort of Overton Window of theology, the new converts changed Christianity significantly on their own. St. Augustine of Hippo, for example, introduced elements of Neoplatonism and Manichaeism that would almost certainly have been rejected in Judaism, but proved foundational to Christianity.By the time of Emperor Constantine I, Christianity was clearly a separate religion from Judaism,[5] and a far more popular one. However, the legacy of internecine fighting within Judaism remained, and would continue to have a significant impact on Jewish-Christian relations for centuries to come.Part II: Judaism and IslamAnti-Jewish sentiment during the Early Middle Ages was a largely disorganized affair. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, as virtually all entities during the Early Middle Ages (500–1000) were highly decentralized, with the dominant political system being feudalism. In the Byzantine Empire, the integration of Church and State meant there were discriminatory laws on the books, although persecution of Jews tended to be rather less severe than persecution of other groups, such as the Manichaeans.Instead, it’s more interesting during this time to look at another Abrahamic religion’s relationship to Judaism. Judaism had a significant presence in the Hejaz, particularly in the city of Yathrib,[6] starting from the Second Century. There were also Christians present in the region, and as one would expect, the two groups didn’t get along. Another important player in the region was the pagan religion native to it.Starting in 610, a man named Muhammad, who lived in Mecca, began preaching a new religion. Thanks to his teachings not being written down and compiled until after his death, we don’t know exactly what he preached,[7] but it certainly bears non-incidental resemblances to both Judaism and Christianity — and a few grabs from local paganism.[8] Like what had happened with Jesus some six hundred years earlier, the local authorities did not much care for the disruption in the social order — unlike what happened to Jesus, Muhammad fled rather than die. Specifically, in 622, he and his followers ran to the city of Yathrib.[9]Muhammad’s early position towards both Jews and Christians was one of respect. However, he was not met with any particular warmth or respect, and most Jews remained Jews.[10] His attitude toward both Jews and Christians therefore hardened, and eventually culminated in open warfare between Jews and Muslims in the city, as well as forced conversions to Islam following the military defeat of the Jews.[11]This being said, most of early Islam’s antipathy towards the Jews appears to have been rather weaker than Christianity’s. Islamic empires would subsequently lump Jews and Christians into the category of dhimmi — second-class citizens responsible for paying a tax called the jizya — but most Islamic empires were otherwise tolerant of their Jews, and generally spent far less time and effort in degrading them than Christian societies did. This being said, second-class citizens often engender feelings of contempt in the first-class citizens, and these feelings had centuries to harden.Discussing anti-Judaism in any other context besides a Christian or Muslim one really isn’t all that interesting. The overwhelming majority of Jewish people lived either among Jews or among Christians, and those who forged communities elsewhere — most notably India and China — experienced little to no hatred from the surrounding society.Part III: Anti-Judaism’s Horrific PeakIn general, documentation from the Early Middle Ages is scarce, hence the epoch’s former name of “the Dark Ages.” The era was one of great decentralization, with local warlords exercising most of the power, and weak trade networks. What this means is that, for the most part, displays of hatred of Jews were, as much as they could be, banal: the structures in place disadvantaged Jews, but virtually all incidents were small, contained, and unremarkable.However, the decentralized state of affairs started shifting in the 800’s, and by the year 1095, France, England, and the Holy Roman Empire were certainly in the process of consolidating power, and feudalism was generally in decline. However, the centralization of power required vast sums of money, and frequently more than tax income alone could provide.[12]Modern states and institutions use bonds and other similar securities for a quick infusion of money. However, a thousand years ago, there was neither a bond market nor any conception of securitization of debt. What these kingdoms, baronies, monasteries, bishoprics, et cetera, required was a moneylender. However, Christianity at the time strictly forbade charging interest on loans, and Christians at the time did not find ways of skirting that law as Muslims did with regards to Islam’s strict prohibition on charging interest.[13] Of course, nobody was about to loan thousands of marks without the potential for profit, as that would constitute significant risk without any, let alone commensurate, reward. Had Europe been strictly Christian, feudalism would have taken much longer to die than it actually did. However, because Judaism does not forbid its adherents for charging interest on loans to gentiles, Western Europe had a viable lending system.To be clear, most people had little-to-no interaction with Jewish moneylenders. The peasantry would have had no need of it — the home mortgage didn’t yet exist, and small businesses were “you work on a farm, keep working on the farm.” However, aristocrats and churchmen did interact with the Jews so as to secure otherwise unavailable loans. The potential for profit here was gigantic, to the point that the richest man in twelfth century England was Aaron of Lincoln, who, at his death in the late twelfth century, was owed no less than £15,000.[14] He was not the only Jew to get wealthy off of this business.In 1095, Pope Urban II launched the First Crusade, and things went to hell for Jews in a big way.Transcriptions of Urban’s address that November don’t agree with each other. However, the transcriptions do share common themes, and what most of the speech boils down to is a call for Christians to stop killing each other in Europe and start killing the infidel in the Holy Land. The way the peasantry in Europe seems to have taken this, however, came out to “kill the infidel” — and the nearest ones were their Jewish neighbors, who also happened to be wealthy (or at least perceived to be).The result was tragically predictable. About 8000 Jews were murdered during the Rhineland massacres of 1096. There had been massacres of Jews in western Europe prior to this, but the Rhineland massacres dwarfed them in scale. It took until the Holocaust for the Rhineland massacres to be displaced in the Jewish cultural memory. The massacres also seem to have set off a wave of other attacks on Jews. The blood libel was invented about fifty years later. This was a pernicious lie that stated Jews killed Christian children to consume their blood — it may have come about from deliberate misrepresentation of stories of Jews committing suicide and killing their own children rather than being forced to convert or being even more gruesomely murdered. And while the blood libel was a horrible lie, one can at least try to argue that had it been true (and it had not been), massacre of those responsible may have not been completely inappropriate. The same cannot be said over the numerous Jews murdered over rumors that they had tortured communion wafers.There were essentially two different groups acting in the massacres. The peasantry, for the most part, would have been religiously motivated: centuries of telling people their neighbors are responsible for murdering their god has that sort of effect. However, in the case of the petty aristocracy, arms and armor for going on a Crusade weren’t cheap, and many borrowed money to be able to afford them. Killing their creditors would release them from debt, or at the very least, interest payments.[15]For the most part, those higher up in the totem pole tended to protect Jews in these situations. Even in cases where monarchs expelled Jews, they usually granted safe conduct out of the country, as with England’s Edict of Expulsion, or France’s expulsions of 1182, 1306, and 1394. In cases beyond expulsion, protection of the Jewish community was roughly equivalent to protection of the finance sector: while the ruling class almost certainly held the same anti-Jewish views as the peasantry, letting the moneylenders be murdered en masse and also have their property be appropriated by the rabble hardly constituted self-interest. This protection wasn’t always effective — the Jews of Worms were massacred in 1096 despite the protection of the local bishop — but it was frequently proffered, even if only from naked and obvious self-interest and usually not from the simple moral truth that murdering people is wrong.As the section header for this part points out, I consider the Rhineland massacres and most of the murders of the High Middle Ages to be the fullest flowering of anti-Judaism. This is far from a universally held opinion, but insofar as the majority of the massacres were explicitly religiously motivated and as the victims were usually offered a way out through conversion to Christianity, religious-based hatred is the obvious culprit here. This would change with the dawning of the modern era.Part IV: Alhambra, the Zaporizhian Sich, and the Birth of AntisemitismUp until this point, we’ve explored anti-Jewish sentiment almost entirely through a religious lens. Although there were economic considerations in play during the mass murders of the High and Late Middle Ages, without the religious hatred, they wouldn’t have occurred. This becomes significantly less true when we look at the incidents of the Early Modern Period.On 2 January 1492, the last Muslim enclave on the Iberian Peninsula fell, bringing over seven centuries of Muslim rule of Al-Andalus to a close. Less than three months later, the rulers of Christian Spain, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, signed the Alhambra Decree, expelling the Jewish population. Christian Spain had been virulently and, to be frank unusually, hostile towards Jews during the late stages of the Reconquista, and after an especially massive wave of violence against Jews in 1391, roughly half the Jewish community of Spain converted to Catholicism.Throughout most of European history to this point, those conversions probably would not have been heavily scrutinized. Of course, in most places in western Europe, the Jewish community was somewhat dispersed. This was not the case in Spain, which had a large Jewish community of about 200,000 before the conversions. As the conversions were forced, there were legitimate questions of their sincerity and durability — forcing a conversion when there isn’t a large community of other forced converts (called anusim) is more likely to stick simply on the basis of effective isolation from the old community.Even though a century had passed since the 1391 conversions, the Spanish state still believed there were many crypto-Jews among the conversos. These crypto-Jews, who faked adherence to Catholicism and practiced Judaism in secret, are now frequently known by the pejorative marrano, a Spanish word meaning “swine.” The presence of crypto-Jews in Spain enraged Isabella, leading to her choosing to expel the openly practicing Jews from Spain.This seems like another case of anti-Judaism, but there are enough differences here that we’re actually looking at a somewhat different type of hatred of Jews. Specifically, when we look at the Jews who converted to Catholicism rather than move, things look very different indeed.Traditionally, Christianity has not made a distinction, theologically or doctrinally, between a new convert and someone descended from generations of Christians. Following the mass conversions of 1391, however, Spain started making those distinctions, creating tests of limpieza de sangre — the purity of blood. So-called “New Christians” were considered to have tainted blood, and were subject to various legal restrictions on rights. Documentation regarding one’s blood purity became important in Spain and subsequently Portugal. Any convert to Christianity in one’s genealogy going back four generations (to one’s great-grandparents) would be enough to make a person a New Christian.[16]This isn’t anti-Judaism. Anti-Judaism’s prejudices end should a Jew convert, but the Inquisition was enforcing discrimination against New Christians decades after their forefathers had died, let alone converted. This, combined with a formal concept of blood purity, points to a hatred of Judaism that transcends religion. This is a race-based hatred, and this is what we talk about when we talk about antisemitism generally: the sneaky, cunning Jew blood will eventually out.For the other massive shift in antisemitism in the early modern period, we have to skip over to the Rzeczpospolita — the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Jews only started moving to Poland in appreciable numbers during the First Crusade. Poland had, at that point, only been a Christian state for slightly more than a century, and it would not be until the thirteenth century that Catholicism would become the dominant religion in Poland. As such, there was no history of anti-Judaism within Poland, and it was a safe place for Jews.The problems came from the success of the Rzeczpospolita. The Rzeczpospolita ended up expanding into Ruthenia (what is now Ukraine), but the absorption wasn’t on equal terms, and the Ruthenian nobility of the area was generally crapped on by the Polish and Lithuanian nobility. Additionally, the nobles who owned property in the area were frequently absentee landlords. Combine this with the religious differences between the Ruthenians — who were Eastern Orthodox — and the Poles — Roman Catholic — and there was a decidedly unstable situation.Violence exploded in Ruthenia in 1648. Led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, the Zaporizhian Cossacks rampaged through the region, massacring large numbers of people.[17] Jews in particular were targeted, but not for any religious reason: the aforementioned absentee landlords usually used Jews to manage their properties, including collecting rents.[18] In other words, the slaughter had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with class. However, even after the mass murder ended and the social structure of Ruthenia stood permanently altered, the resentment and hatred of the Jewish population remained.This modality of hating Jews hadn’t previously been a massive phenomenon. Again, previously, most hatred of the Jews was religiously based. But in moving to class- and race-based hatred, Europe was giving birth to modern antisemitism, a phenomenon both intimately concerned with and completely unrelated to Jews.Part V: Antisemitism from the Eighteenth Century until the Mid-TwentiethStarting in the eighteenth century, Europe started asking what would come to be known as “the Jewish Question.”[19] Jews had spent most of the preceding centuries in Europe essentially being a nation within other nations, but in the aftermath of the Thirty Years War, the general European adoption of the idea of Westphalian sovereignty, and the blooming of liberal thought in the Enlightenment, the idea of the nation-state came to the fore, which also had the effect of making the nation-within-nations state of affairs seem suboptimal.One of the more commonly proposed answers to the Jewish Question was emancipation: the elimination of discriminatory laws targeting the Jews, and the enabling of Jewish integration into society as a whole. For poorer Jews — in other words, the overwhelming majority — this would have been a highly attractive option, but for the wealthier court Jews — those who had served as financiers to church and aristocracy — emancipation was actually undesirable as it would strip them of privilege.[20]It’s this privilege we have to discuss. As mentioned in Part III of this answer, the relationship between the state and its Jews was often a paternalistic one in Western and Central Europe: the state provided explicit protection against the remainder of the population to its Jews. This identified the Jew with the state in the mind of the population, including the Jews. There were obvious exceptions — Russia, for example, had virtually no Jewish population until the eighteenth century, and therefore did not go through the same process as the rest of the continent — but this identification was common.What this also meant was that, as Hannah Arendt describes in The Origins of Totalitarianism, gentile Europe’s view of Jews was strongly correlated with its view on government. The Prussian aristocracy prior to Napoleon freely associated with Jews, but when the state became a French puppet, this association ended, only to be restarted after Napoleon’s defeat.This state of affairs continued even in post-emancipatory states. France’s Dreyfus Affair, for example, took place from 1894 to 1906, over sixty years after full emancipation of the Jews. Dreyfus was an army officer framed for espionage and convicted by a kangaroo court. Within two years, an investigation turned up the actual culprit. Rather than exonerate Dreyfus, the military exonerated the guilty party, then tacked more charges onto Dreyfus. French society split over whether or not Dreyfus was guilty. Specifically, liberals usually fell into the Dreyfusard camp and conservatives usually fell into the anti-Dreyfusard camp.When we talk about fin-de-siècle France, the term “conservative” does not map to the ideology of, for example, Les Républicains of today’s electoral politics. France was less than three decades out from having been an empire, and only about a half century out from having been a monarchy. The Third Republic was still quite new, and conservatives disdained it. Bonapartism and monarchism (in both Legitimist and Orléanist forms) were not fringe movements at the time: the French had almost reformed the Bourbon monarchy in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871. Thus, when we say that opinion on Dreyfus correlated with views on the government, don’t think Democrats complaining about Trump or Republicans complaining about Obama, think people who don’t trust democracy. In particular, think the Catholic Church, the aristocracy, and the military. This is not to say antisemitism was a strictly conservative phenomenon, because it wasn’t. For example, identification of the Jews with the Weimar Republic brought the NSDAP to power in Germany and destroyed the republic.Left wing antisemitism was also common. Emancipation of European Jewry bred resentment among the lower classes. Where before emancipation, the social and legal structures of Europe had made even the lowliest Christian the superior of any Jew, emancipation ended that state of affairs. It didn’t matter that most Jews were not particularly wealthy, nor did it matter that the ruling classes hadn’t changed: Jews were the target of hatred. It is for this reason German social democrats often said “antisemitism is the socialism of fools”: from a socialist perspective, the left-wing antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was a thoroughly misguided attempt at class consciousness.The sudden improvement in social standing for Jews bred resentment among the lower classes, and resentment can be lethal. During the Second World War, the USSR occupied part of Poland, including the town of Jedwabne. The Soviets reshuffled the ruling order there, putting communists in charge, many of whom were Jews. When the Germans seized the town about two years later, the Polish population — without prompting from the German occupiers — rounded up the Jews of Jedwabne, locked them in a barn, and burned the building down. In towns nearby, such as Vilna (now Vilnius, Lithuania), where Jews had not been placed in positions of power, the Nazis had to do their own dirty work. In Jedwabne, where Polish Catholics saw Jews (not even the whole population) rise at their own expense, the Nazis only had to stroll into town.It’s resentment in particular that explains the rise of antisemitism in the Islamic world. Again, Jews had almost always been held in contempt in Muslim societies, with low-grade violence occasionally flaring up. However, with the beginning of waves of European Jewish emigration to the Levant in the nineteenth century, the image of Jew as pathetic, helpless, forsaken, impoverished target of derision became increasingly unreflective of reality.[21] Unsurprisingly, antisemitism within the Muslim world increased with the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine (which destroyed the legal superiority of Muslims), the 1947-1948 War (which permanently weakened the image of the Jew as weak), and the 1967 War (which utterly destroyed that image).Part VI: Racism and The HolocaustI have, to this point, briefly alluded to the Holocaust, but if we're going to discuss antisemitism, we're going to need to take a deeper dive into its most horrific incarnation.National Socialism is sometimes portrayed as a confused ideology. It is not. Although there is much National Socialists are willing to compromise on, including many issues other political philosophies would not view as incidental, National Socialism is a race-based political theory. The only consideration National Socialism views as non-negotiable is race. This explains, among other things, why trains kept going to the death camps even as the resources expended in making those runs could have been put to far better use in defense against the Soviet Union. It also explains why Warsaw was demolished, even though the enemy was at the gates.In Part IV of this answer, we saw the birth of a racist antisemitism in the Spanish Inquisition. However, the Spanish approach to race had been quite simple: define race as of a particular time, and go from there. So yes, there was a racial hierarchy in Spain and its colonial possessions, but this was largely facilitated by comparatively recent contact with both Amerindians and with non-Maghrebi Africans, and also the pragmatic approach of not going back too far in history to search for Jewish ancestry. Nazi racial theory, however, sought to subdivide further, including races within Europe itself. There was precedent for doing this, although only about a century of it. While linguistic, religious, and cultural differences between various European ethnic groups had always been acknowledged, they weren't seen as anything deeper: Germans were different from the French because they spoke a different language, not because of blood. Starting in the mid-nineteenth century, this view changed, largely thanks to the work of a Frenchman named Artur de Gobineau. Gobineau was highly conservative and saw France as being on a downward spiral, and he sought to explain it. His thesis was that France was, in fact, composed of two different races. The nobility were descended from the Germanic tribes that had conquered Rome, while every other Frenchman was descended from the Romans' slaves. Centuries of interbreeding between the two races had weakened the stock of the aristocrats, leading to their decline in prestige and power. Gobineau's formulation proved popular among the French upper classes, but also among German liberals, who wanted to unite Germany under one banner. The Germanic race (and yes, Gobineau used the word "Aryan") being superior, and they themselves being that race's modern-day descendants, created a degree of romantic nationalism that had not previoulsy existed within the Germanophone reaches of Europe. This would later be fused with Darwin's theory of evolution to create "scientific racism.""Scientific racism" is a contradition in terms. There was no evidence to suggest Gobineau's conception of the French people was correct, and the identification of the Germanic people's superiority similarly had no evidence to support it. However, these theories were excellent for "scientifically" and "rationally" justifying irredentism, colonialism, and antisemitism. In other words, Gobineau's race theories were devised not to explain, but to justify, the heinous abuses and attitudes of the day. By itself, this would have been pernicious, but race theory is a particularly degrading worldview. While Marxist thinking can easily lead to abuses, class is a fundamentally mutable state: the proletariat may ascend to the rank of the capitalist, the capitalist may descend to the rank of the proletariat, and in the event of a revolution, the capitalist can share in the resulting society as though he had been a proletariat all along.[22] Race, however, is immutable, so that someone born a Jew will never have a place in a Germanic race state, even if she were to abandon her religion and attempt full assimilation. Thus, to a race theorist, the only possible answer to the Jewish Question is exclusion.The first choice of these race theorists was the exile of the Jews from Europe. Famously, the NSDAP considered a plan to relocate all of European Jewry to the African island of Madagascar; less famously, the Polish government had previously examined a similar policy for its own Jewish population. By the same token, Jews were allowed to leave Germany prior to the start of the Second World War, albeit with Germany robbing them blind first. However, the start of the Second World War made displacement of the Jewish population impractical, leaving only one option for the race theorists in the Third Reich: wholesale murder.To say this is depravity is, of course, understatement. However, if one (abandons all pretense of humanity and) accepts the premises of National Socialism's race theories, wholesale murder is a logical consequence. If one rejects these theories, tying up resources to murder one's own population rather than defend the realm against an invader is lunacy, but if one accepts these theories, these murders are necessary for there to be a realm to defend. According to the warped moral calculus of National Socialism, one cannot leave the people of this race alive within the borders of the state, for it is within their very blood to bring about the corruption, decline, and fall of the National Socialist state.These theories are hogwash, but they are continuous with attitudes toward Jews in Europe before that time. But while these race theories were intimately concerned with Jews, they were also curiously completely indifferent to them. Hatred of Jews as a class may be irrational, but it is at least somewhat grounded in some conception, or misconception, of what Jewish behavior is. Anti-Judaism cares deeply about actual Jewish values, Jewish behaviors, and Jewish beliefs. Race theory is unconcerned with all of this, for race theory views behavior, values, and beliefs as natural consequences of blood. The hatred here is pure, for the only supposed crime the Jew has committed to earn this enmity is existing.However, what we ought note now is that, while other antisemites may claim more sensible grounds for hatred of Jews, this is almost never true. The Third Reich was openly and nigh-mindlessly antisemitic, but it was also honest, and under it, antisemitism practically became an ouroboros.Part VII: Psychological Mechanisms of AntisemitismAntisemitism, as Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in his 1946 essay Réflexions sur la question juive (literally translated to "Reflections on the Jewish Question," and more commonly translated as "Anti-Semite and Jew"), is first of all a passion. It is not an opinion, and it is not a conclusion drawn from evidence. It is a premise, one irrationally adopted and then equally irrationally defended. However, what Sartre also pointed out was that this irrational defense was conscious.In an early passage of the essay, Sartre relates the story of a classmate of his who failed an entrance examination, while a Jew passed. The classmate freely admitted he had not studied for the examination, but also stated the exam was rigged, for how could an Ashkenazi Jew understand French or Latin better than a Frenchman? However, there were twenty-six people who had scored better than Sartre's classmate, fourteen of whom had failed, and only one Jew had passed. Simply, either Sartre's classmate was a great fool, a description Sartre does not give, or else he was aware of the contradictions in his claims and did not care about them.Indeed, antisemites are usually aware of the contradictions in their worldview, and not only do not care, but are actively amused by them. Because antisemites have given themselves over to not being bound by rationality, attempts to rein them in using rationality can only serve to amuse them, in the same way watching a man try to dig holes for fence posts using a dessert fork is humorous: the wrong tool for the job is being employed. Antisemitism thus often goes hand-in-hand with some form of irony.[23]These contradictions are obvious and easily found. The antisemite may value intelligence generally, but should a Jew display it - and antisemites will freely grant this is common - "intelligence" will be renamed "cunning," and will be derided. The antisemite may be cheated by a Jewish haberdasher, but will only feel resentment towards Jews generally, not also haberdashers generally. The antisemite may bar the Jew, either formally or informally, from "respectable" positions, and will then deride the Jew for engaging in "disreputable" ones - and Heaven help the Jew should she make a grand success of that career.[24] Again, we must conclude the antisemite either a fool incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, or else consciously unconcerned with rationality and sense.In other words, antisemitism is a choice people make. Because of this, we may once again quote Sartre in saying "if the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him" - if there were no Jews, there would still be people inclined to bad faith and hatred, and they would need a target.[1] “Exilic” here refers to the Babylonian Exile, a fifty year period when the Neo-Babylonian Empire relocated a significant portion of the population of Judah to Babylon. Archaeological finds dating back to before and after the Exile show that the theological effects of the Exile were huge: a polytheistic religion turned into a monotheistic one.[2] An incident that almost certainly did not occur — the idea that the unquestioned dictator of Judea could have been forced to crucify a man he wanted to pardon to is laughable, and there is no evidence outside of the Gospels that suggest a tradition of granting one prisoner clemency during Passover.[3] This statement assumes that the Samaritanism is not a branch of Judaism. Arguments can be made either way on this point.[4] If I’ve learned nothing else from eating with gentiles, it’s that they sure love telling Jews just how much one misses out on by not eating pork and shellfish. By the way, if you do not keep kosher, please, please, please, please, please do not do this. It’s not that the person who keeps kosher will likely be tempted to eat the bacon in question, it’s just that this got old for them a very long time ago.[5] Although “Judaizers” would continue to maintain a significant presence in Asia Minor, the Levant, and Egypt until at least the fifth century.[6] Now called Medina.[7] Oh boy, am I saying some controversial stuff right here. As should be fairly clear by what I’ve written so far, I am not a Muslim, and therefore do not believe the Quran to be of divine origin. It is undeniable that the Quran was not written down until after Muhammad’s death, and with that being the case, at the very least, transcription errors were likely. Indeed, considering the very order of the text was not settled until after the time of Muhammad’s successor’s successor (legitimate if you’re a Sunni Muslim, usurper if you’re Shi’a), the chances that the text of the Quran perfectly matches what Muhammad said is fairly small.This is not to say that the Quran isn’t a perfect transcription, only that to say it is requires faith few (if any) non-Muslims have. Comments that take me to task for not having this faith (or any other faith, for that matter) will be summarily deleted.[8] Although the historicity of the so-called Satanic Verses incident (qissat al-gharaniq) is an open question, the Kaaba and the Black Stone were both important elements in the Meccan pagan religion. Islam states that neither were originally pagan artifacts and were simply corrupted by paganism, but there’s no archaeological evidence of this being true.[9] This journey is called the Hegira, and the Islamic calendar reckons time based on how many years before or after the Hegira something occurred (BH and AH).[10] A common enough occurrence: it’s not as though Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard were taken seriously by their contemporaries, either.[11] Another common enough occurrence, with Martin Luther being another great example of “I was nice enough to you, you didn’t convert, screw you.”[12] Taxation at this time largely involved going one rung lower than yourself on the social ladder, figuring out how much you could squeeze out of them all without them rising up to kill you, and then doing that. However, since this was before auditing and bureaucracy, the process of figuring out the sum was highly inexact.[13] Discussed further here: Harold Kingsberg's answer to How did Muslim traders raise investments given Islam's prohibition of usury? (Harold's answer to How did Muslim traders raise investments given Islam's prohibition of usury?)[14] It is difficult to compare this to modern prices. However, we do know a footsoldier in the English army would earn 2d per day, and there were 240d per pound. A private in the modern British Army gets paid about £35 13s (yes, I’m going with pre-decimalization schemes here for purposes of comparison, I said this was difficult) or £35 165d. Assuming the value of the daily wage has not changed — which is a crap assumption, but that’s all we’ve got — this translates to £15,000 in 1150 being worth about £64,000,000 now.This still understates Aaron’s wealth. Putting it in less mathematical terms, when Aaron died and the crown took over his estate, the crown opened up a new branch of government just to deal with it.[15] With interest rates frequently being in excess of 30% per annum — much of which would then be paid to the crown as tax — eliminating the obligation to pay interest was just as much worth murdering over as eliminating the obligation to pay back the principal. Which is to say that it wasn’t worth murdering over at all, but did it anyway.[16] The concept of blood purity was far from universally accepted, and Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, who was to Spanish what Shakespeare was to English and what Ferdowsi was to Persian, made hay of mocking and deriding the idea in his writings.[17] Khmelnytsky is a controversial figure in world history. In general, he is viewed positively within Russia (for bringing Ukraine into the Russian sphere of influence), negatively within Poland (where he is often viewed as a traitor), positively within Ukraine (where he is on the 5 hryvnia bill, which is worth about $0.20 USD), and as a murderous, if not genocidal, scumbag by Jews. If you’re looking for an unbiased account of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, I’m not the person to ask, since I usually have to stop myself from spitting when I hear his name.[18] Property management is easier when you’re literate and numerate, and Jews were usually both, while also being explicitly limited in potential growth of social status.[19] The term dates back to at least the mid-eighteenth century.[20] See The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt.[21] Something similar also happened with the Armenians. The Armenian Genocide did not begin purely because of the subsequent resentment, but it only could have occurred under those circumstances.[22] Not that this has usually happened in large-scale communist revolutions. Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War and Paris during the Commune are examples of how this can work, but the GULAG, Cultural Revolution, and Kampuchean Killing Fields are bloody examples of this theory not being remotely adopted in practice.[23] This is why the "ironic antisemitism" on display in such forums as 4chan is something to be taken seriously. As genuine antisemitism is often couched in ironic terms, "joking" antisemitism, regardless of what the denizens of those forums might claim, is essentially identical to it.[24] Motion picture production, for example, was considered most disreputable in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Jews entered the business because they could do so free of discrimination, and founded most of the major Hollywood studios in the process. This, of course, was warped by the antisemite into "the Jews control the media."

It is not contempt of Court but is a nullity in law i.e.of no value, prior suit will survive, or you can apply to withdraw the first suit, to keep alive the second suitRes Sub Judice, Res Judicata and Constructive Res JudicataThe first provisions related to avoiding multiplicity of suit starts with the provision of the concept of Res Sub Judice as provided under,Civil Procedure Code: Section 10: Stay of Suit"No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court".Explanation- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.As the heading of the section says ‘stay of suit’, means no court should proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue with the previously instituted suit between the same parties and the court before which the previously instituted suit is pending is competent to grant the relief sought.The purpose of the section is to bring finality in the judgment and to avoid the contradictory decision by the two different court, as there is a very good possibility that in case when matter is simultaneously being decided by different courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the courts may come up with different decisions and then it will be very difficult to finalize which decisions to be abided by.In simple word, the very authority of law will come at stake, there will be no finality of judgment. So, with the objective to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause of action, the same subject-matter and the same relief, this section is provided in the Code. However, this rule only applies to trial of a suit and not the institution thereof. Although, it does not preclude a court from passing interim orders, but it applies to appeals and revisions.The policy of law is to confine a plaintiff to one litigation so as to protect a person from multiplicity of proceedings and also to avoid a conflict of decisions by courts in respect of same relief.However, this section can only be applied if the following condition are satisfied. These are:# Two suits – Previously Instituted and Subsequently Instituted# Matter in issue in subsequent suit – directly and substantially in issue in previous suit# Both suits between same parties or their representatives# Previous suit must be pending in same or in any other court in India# The court dealing with previously instituted suit competent to grant relief claimed in subsequent suit# Parties litigating under the same titles in both the suit.The word ‘shall’ in the section makes it mandatory and the moment court finds that the above conditions are satisfied, the court will not proceed with the subsequently instituted suit, that is, the court will stay with the proceeding of subsequent suit.The court have inherent power under section 151 of the Code and using it, the court may stay or consolidate the proceedings, but it is not mandatory and it depends upon the discretion of the court, whereas if the condition so mentioned is satisfied under section 10, the court has to mandatorily stay the subsequent suit.However, in the light of the explanation to section 10, there is no bar on the power of an Indian court to try a subsequently instituted suit if the previously instituted suit is pending in the pending in a foreign court.It is further important to remember that a decree passed in contravention of section 10 is not a nullity, and therefore, cannot be disregarded in execution proceedings. Again, as stated above, it is only the trial and not the institution of the subsequent suit which is barred under this section. Thus, it lays down a rule of procedure, pure and simple, which can be waived by a party. Hence, if the parties waive their right and expressly ask the court to proceed with the subsequent suit, they cannot afterwards challenge the validity of the subsequent proceedings.Res Judicata and Constructive Res JudicataCivil Procedure Code: Section 11: Res Judicata"No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court".Explanation I- The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.Explanation II. - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.Explanation III. - The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.Explanation IV. - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.Explanation V. - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.Explanation VI- Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.Explanation VII.- The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and reference in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to proceedings for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.Explanation VIII.-An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in as subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.Section 11 embodies the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment. It enacts that once a matter is finally decided by the competent court, no party can be permitted to reopen it in subsequent litigation. To bring an end to litigation and to save the parties from constant troubles, harassment and expenses this rule was made in the Code.To bring the finality of the judgment, such rule is required and this rule is not an exception in Indian law. Almost every civilized legal system have this rule by one name or another, such as, under Roman Law, it is in the name of ‘ex captio res judicata’, that is one suit and one decision is enough for any single dispute. The doctrine of res judicata is conceived in the larger public interest which requires that all litigation must, sooner than later, come to an end. The principle is also founded on justice, equity and good conscience which require that a party who has once succeeded on an issue should not be harassed by multiplicity of proceedings involving the same issue.The doctrine of res judicata is based on three maxims:a) Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa (no man should be vexed twice for the same cause)b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the interest of the state that there should be an end to a litigation); andc) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur (a judicial decision must be accepted as correct)The leading case on the doctrine of res judicata is the Duches of Kingston's Case (2 Smith's L.C. 13th edn. 644, 645.), wherein Sir Williams de Grey made the following remarkable observations:"From the variety of cases relative to judgments being given in evidence in civil suits, these two deductions seem to follow as generally true : first the judgment of a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, directly upon the points, is as a plea, a bar, or as evidence conclusive, between the same parties, upon the same matter, directly in question in another Court; secondly that the judgment of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction, directly upon the point, is, in like manner, conclusive upon the same matter, between the same parties, coming incidentally in question in another Court, for a different purpose. But neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within their jurisdiction, nor of any matter incidentally cognizable, nor of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment."In CORPUS JURIS (vol. 34, p. 743), it has been stated: Res Judicata is a rule of universal law pervading every well regulated system of jurisprudence and is put upon two grounds, embodied in various maxims of the common law; the one, public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the state that there should be an end to litigation; the other, the hardship to the individual that he should not be vexed twice for the same cause.It is not every matter decided in the former suit will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit. To constitute a matter as res judicata following conditions must be satisfied;1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (Explanation III) or constructively (Explanation IV) in the former suit (Explanation I). (Explanation VII is to be read with this condition)2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim. (Read with Explanation VI)3. Such parties must have been litigating under same title in the former suit.4. The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised. (Read with Explanation II & VIII)5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the former suit. (Read with Explanation V)Constructive Res JudicataRule of constructive res judicata is engrafted under Explanation IV of Section 11 of the Code. It is artificial form of res judicata and provides that if a plea could have been taken by a party in a proceeding between him and his opponent, he should not be permitted to take that plea against the same party in a subsequent proceeding with reference to the same subject-matter. That clearly is opposed to considerations of public policy on which the doctrine of res judicata is based and would mean harassment and hardship to the opponent.Besides, if such a course is allowed to be adopted, the doctrine of finality of judgments pronounced by the courts would also be materially affected.Thus, it helps in raising the bar of res judicata by suitably construing the general principle of subduing a cantankerous litigant. That is why this rule is called constructive res judicata, which, in reality, is an aspect or amplification of the general principle of res judicata.State of U.P. V. Nawab Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680A, a sub-inspector of police was dismissed from service by D.I.G. He challenged the order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the high court on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the passing of the order. The contention was, however, negatived and the petition was dismissed. He then filed a suit and raised an additional ground that science he was appointed by the I.G.P., the D.I.G. had no power to dismiss him. The state contended that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata. The trial court, appellate court and the high court held that suit was not barred, but the Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by constructive res judicata as the plea was within the knowledge of the plaintiff and could well have been taken in the earlier writ petition.Res Judicata and Public Interest LitigationEven in a public interest litigation procedural law is applicable though not strictly. Hence, the principle of res judicata is also applicable.Where the prior public interest litigation relates tom illegal mining, subsequent public interest litigation to protect environment is not barred.In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. it was held on this aspect:The writ petitions before us are not inter-party disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defense when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court.Writ Petitions and Res JudicataIn M.S.M sharma V. Dr. Shree Krishna, AIR 1960 SC 1186, for the first time Supreme Court held that the general principle of res judicata applies even to writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Thus, once the petition filed under Article 32 is dismissed by the court, subsequent petition is barred.Similarly a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 is considered on merit as a contested matter and is dismissed, the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind unless it is otherwise modified or reversed in appeal or in other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution.In the leading case of Daryao V. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1457, the Supreme Court has placed the doctrine of res Judicata on a higher footing, considering and treating the binding character of the judgments pronounced by competent courts as an essential part of the rule of law.Applicability of Constructive res Judicata in Writ PetitionThe question arose for the first time before the Supreme Court in Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. V. Janapada Sabha, AIR 1964 SC 1013, whether the concept of constructive res judicata can be applied in writ petition or not?. In Devilal Modi V. STO, AIR 1965 SC 1153, Supreme Court clarified the stand and said the principle of constructive res judicata also applies in writ petition. A direct question, however arose before the Supreme Court in State of U.P. V. Nawab Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680, the Court held that principle of constructive res judicata is applicable.It should be noted that the principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata are held not applicable in Habeas Corpus Petition by Supreme Court in Ghulam Sarwar V. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1335 and in Lallubhai V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 728, respectively.______________________Civil Procedure Code: Order 2 rule 22. Suit to include the whole claim.- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court.(2) Relinquishment of part of claim—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.Explanation: For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action.IIIustration.- A lets a house to B at a yearly rent of Rs. 1,200. The rent for the whole of the years 1905, 1906 and 1907 is due and unpaid. A sues B in 1908 only for the rent due for 1906. A shall not afterwards sue B for the rent due for 1905 or 1907.The relevant provision in regard to above is prescribed under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that if different reliefs and claims arise out of the same cause of action then the Plaintiff must place all his claims before the Court in one suit and cannot omit one of the reliefs or claims except without the leave of the Court.[Coffee Board vs. M/S. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd.] (SC, 09.05.2014)In effect the provision bars a Plaintiff from omitting one part of claim and raising the same in a subsequent suit. In other words, the grounds or cause of action on which the first suit was filed if forms the foundation of the subsequent suit wherein the reliefs claimed could have been claimed in the former suit and also the suits are between the same parties, the subsequent suit shall attract the bar provided under the above provision.The opposite party or Defendant must specifically plead the above position in the suit and there should be a specific issue framed by the Court to examine the pleading of the former suit, thereby giving Plaintiff an opportunity to demonstrate that the cause of action in the subsequent suit is different.In order to examine the position, it is necessary that both the plaints are read as a whole to identify the cause of action and once the same are found to be identical and also that the relief claimed in the subsequent suit could have been pleaded in the former suit, the subsequent suit shall be barred as per Order 2 Rule 2.