The Myth Of The Barbarous Middle Ages Is Part Of The Ignorance Of Our Age
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature1.htm
Monasteries and Madrassas:
Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages
By H. W. Crocker III
Does Islam need a Reformation? Not unless you think it would benefit
from additional dollops of Puritanism; further encouragement to smash
altars, stained glass, and other forms of "idolatry"; prodding to
ban riotous celebrations like Christmas and Easter; and support for
fundamentalist Islamic schools that insist on sola Korana and sola
Sunnah . Indeed, it would seem that Islam has already had its
reformers. Railing against the corruption of the West (let's call it
"Rome" for short) have been such modern Islamic Luthers as the late
Ayatollah Khomeini, the cave-dwelling Osama bin Laden, the voice of
young Islam-the Taliban (literally, the Islamic students)-and the
puritanical Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia, which is most assuredly
modern as it was not even founded until the 18th century, the age of
the Enlightenment.
What would a Reformation bring to Islam that it does not already have?
The Calvinists imposed stiff penalties for infringements of dress codes
and behavior, but these rules don't go beyond the sharia law of Saudi
Arabia. Luther denied the divine right of the pope and affirmed the
divine right of princes (uniting church and state, which were
previously separate), but that doctrine is already well-established in
Islam, where mosque and state are meant to be united. The Protestant
reformers repudiated the Catholic Church for dallying too much with
classical thinkers and decadent artists (like Raphael); many of them
condemned the Catholic doctrine of free will (believing, as do the
Muslims, in a kind of fatalism); and they damned Catholics for putting
too much emphasis on Thomistic logic and reason, and not enough on the
literal interpretation of the Scriptures.
No one accuses Islam of such sins. When it comes to taking Islam back
to its pure, uncorrupted form, as embodied by the Prophet himself-an
assassination-approving † , polygamous leader of jihads-it would be
hard to outdo bin Laden and his fellow reformers.
Granted, the West is not what it once was. Rather than Michelangelo
painting the Sistine Chapel, we have Andres Serrano and his infamous
Piss Christ . Instead of the optimism of the Renaissance, we have the
modern (pagan) pessimism that sees Nature's gods plotting their revenge
on over-populating, polluting humanity. Instead of a confident West
seizing its imperial mission to spread peace, commerce, and Christian
charity and morality, the modern West is ambivalent about asserting its
own values. There are even some in the West-including its Muslim
converts-who think the Mohammedans' stronger strictures against
abortion, homosexuality, and secularism (if not Judaism, Christianity,
Hinduism, et al .) give them a certain moral superiority over such as
the Dutch and liberals everywhere. Still, this remains, I trust, a
minority view.
But let it suffice that clearly Islam does not need a Reformation. If
the printing press, as it is often said, fanned the Protestant revolt
against united Christendom, the Internet has just as surely fanned the
Islamist revolt against the West. We've had quite enough jihadists
posting their "I protest" theses on the Internet, thank you very
much.
But if Islam doesn't need a Reformation, it would definitely benefit
from a Counter-Reformation. Just think of it. Wouldn't it be wonderful
if Kabul were to become a center of baroque art, if the street corners
of Tehran were dotted with choral groups singing the hymns of
Palestrina, if the vibrant artists' quarter of Islamabad were full of
painters dabbling in the style of Rubens, Caravaggio, and Poussin? Ah,
yes, if only. Alas, few expect this to happen within our lifetimes-or
ever.
Despite the alleged glories of Islam's past, we're told that militant
Islam is now stuck in the Middle Ages. But Islam is no more stuck in
the Middle Ages than it is stuck in the Renaissance or the
Counter-Reformation. As Margaret Thatcher's official biographer (and
Catholic convert) Charles Moore has written, "' Mediaeval' should
not be a synonym for 'barbarous.' Ely Cathedral and trial by jury and
Giotto are mediaeval." So, indeed, are the Magna Carta, Chaucer, and
Dante. So are the great monastic orders, the invention of the
university, and the development of science. So are chivalry,
capitalism, and the idea of progress. We don't associate any of these
things with modern (or for that matter, historical) Islam.
Granted, the Middle Ages represent a thousand years of history, and the
early Middle Ages (roughly 500 to 1000 A.D.), sometimes known as the
Dark Ages, certainly had their chiaroscuro moments. The rough
playfulness of the Vikings was not universally admired. If you were a
pope between the waning days of the ninth century and the opening of
the eleventh, you had about a one in three chance of being murdered in
office, and survivors could be exiled or deposed. And aside from a
variety of barbarians, Magyars, and Mongols, there were the Muslims who
in this period jihaded their way over half of Christendom, and were
only kept from completely swamping the West by the valiant Charles
Martel, who defeated them at the Battle of Tours (and at subsequent
battles).
But chiaroscuro is both light and dark, and there was light in the
early Middle Ages. It shone most brightly in the monasteries, which not
only-and famously-preserved classical learning, but also led the
West in innovation in agriculture, technology, and trade. The Church
provided schools, charitable houses, and the theological rationale for
abolishing slavery (as it was abolished in the medieval West, while
flourishing in Islam, which was then enjoying its alleged "Golden
Age"). Being still Roman, the Church took on many of Rome's
administrative governmental duties as well.
The achievements of the "Dark Ages" were monumental. As the
historian Christopher Dawson noted, "In reality that age witnessed
changes as momentous as any in the history of European civilization;
indeed, as I suggest in [ The Making of Europe ] it was the most
creative age of all, since it created not this or that manifestation of
culture, but the very culture itself-the root and ground of all the
subsequent culture achievements [of Europe]." Here, as Dawson adds,
the Catholic historian has the advantage because he can better
understand that these were "not dark ages so much as ages of dawn,
for they witnessed the conversion of the West, the foundation of
Christian civilization, and the creation of Christian art and Catholic
liturgy."
The result was that Europe blossomed in the high and late Middle Ages
(1000 to 1500). Wealth and learning spread, and in place of the ruins
of Rome, medieval man created a society that was far more humane, far
more respectful of women, far more elevating of the individual, far
more bourgeois (that is, with a far larger middle class), and far more
inventive than the glorious civilizations of the Classical world. The
Middle Ages were a wonderful bloom of their own even before they
flowered into the Renaissance.
Islam, it should be clear, is not stuck in any previous incarnation of
the West, and it is certainly not stuck in the Middle Ages, the
Catholic "Age of Faith," when monks, priests, farmers, merchants,
kings, bishops, and knights created the dynamic civilization-the
admixture of Classical, Catholic, and Germanic culture-that is the
West. Even in his humblest estate, as a peasant, medieval man was not
Taliban man. His assumptions were wildly different. He believed in a
suffering Christ who came into the world as a helpless babe and died on
the cross, rather than in a conquering prophet who thought it
blasphemous to believe God would lower Himself to such indignities.
Medieval man believed in honoring God and making merry and for this
world gave not a cherry, to paraphrase the poet (and priest) William
Dunbar, "the Chaucer of Scotland." While medieval man loved feasts,
celebrations, gay colors, and merrymaking, he also believed that
service, labor, and commerce were honorable; that self-improvement and
progress were possible; and that God had created a world that every man
could understand through reason, so that every common farmer-no
matter his vassalage to his feudal lord-could find ways to improve
his agricultural techniques, improvements that benefited himself as
well as his lord, because every man was entitled to his own rightful
share of his labors.
He was, as we are, Western man, with everything that assumes. As the
popular medieval scholar Morris Bishop put it, even today (or in 1968,
when he was writing), "A highland farmer in Macedonia, a shepherd in
the Auvergne mountains, live a life more medieval than modern. An
American pioneer of the last century, setting out with oxcart, axe,
plow, and spade to clear a forest farm, was closer to the Middle Ages
than to modern times. He was self-sufficient, doctoring himself and his
family with herbs, raising his own food, pounding his own grain,
bartering with rare peddlers, rejoicing in occasional barn dances for
all the world like medieval karoles ." The American pioneer and the
medieval peasant were us, and we were them, and neither one of us is
Muslim. And for some of us, the idea of conversing with a man from the
Middle Ages (or from the American frontier) is a much more attractive
prospect than the thought of trying to converse with an iPod-attached,
text-messaging 20-something whose life is lived in the aptly named
"blogosphere."
The myth of the barbarous Middle Ages is part of the ignorance of our
age. Protestants originally propounded the myth, secularists have
promoted it, and the facts deny it. So let us sally forth like medieval
knights to lance five of the biggest myths about the Middle Ages.
Myth One: Medieval Christendom was barbarous, while Islam was refined .
Since we've been talking about the Mussulmen, let's start with the myth
that in the Middle Ages, Christendom was barbarous, while Islam was
refined. Here's a simple test: Have you ever heard and enjoyed
Gregorian chant? If you're lucky, you've done more than that; you've
actually heard the work of medieval composers performed on period
instruments. Both the music and the instruments are recognizably our
own. It bridges naturally to what most people generically call
"classical music." (Our system of
musical notation dates from the Middle Ages, coming from the
monasteries, and most especially from the eleventh-century Benedictine
monk Guido D'Arezzo.) Mohammed, on the other hand, like his Talibanic
followers, prohibited music. Allah, he said, commanded him to abolish
musical instruments, and warned that "Allah will pour molten lead
into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress"-or,
needless to say, a medieval troubadour.
Thanks to Danish cartoonists, we're all pretty familiar with Islamic
attitudes about drawing or painting a likeness of Allah or his Prophet.
The Prophet himself, however, actually forbade to his people any visual
art that represented any form of fauna, from men to cattle, which puts
rather a crimp on artistic freedom-freedom that was widely enjoyed in
the Middle Ages, let alone the Renaissance. While Islamic architecture
is rather attractive-to my taste, anyway-it is not often noted that
it took its inspiration from Byzantium, and in some cases was even
built by Byzantine workers. Islamic literature-aside from The
Thousand and One Nights and a handful of other poems or stories-is
paltry compared with the Western stuff; and unlike the Western stuff,
it is largely the work of dissenters and heretics. It seems that Muslim
literateurs have always tended to play the role of Salman Rushdie to
the reigning imams.
As for science, mathematics, and technology, the Muslims were quite
good at preserving and adopting the Classical heritage of the
Christians (and the achievements of the Zoroastrian Persians and
Hindus) whom they conquered. They were rather less good at going beyond
it, which is one very large reason why the West made progress and Islam
did not. The other big reason is that while Western medieval churchmen
taught natural law and that God had created a rational and orderly
universe, Islamic theologians countered that nothing-certainly not
reason-could limit the power of Allah; he was beyond all such
constraints; and Muslim leaders were contemptuous of the West. In the
twelfth century, Muslim philosophers emphatically turned against the
pagan Classics. Practical Western man, on the other hand, cared not for
Muslim religion, but he was certainly willing to accept and advance on
Islamic learning, just as he accepted and advanced on Classical
learning. The West's adoption of Arabic numerals (and the zero, which
the Mussulmen got from the Hindus) is one striking example. Another is
that when the Islamic philosopher Averroes wrote his glosses on
Aristotle, they were more influential in the West than they were in the
Islamic world. And the much-maligned Crusaders were no bigots-they
happily adopted Eastern foods and dress and trade.
It was not medieval man whose civilization faced a millennium of
marching into the darkness; it was the Mussulman. By the end of the
Dark Ages, Islam's "Golden Age" was just about finished. As Norman
Cantor, the celebrated scholar of the Middle Ages, has written, "The
Islamic world had not yet entered its deep decline in 1050...but by and
large the greatest days of Islam had ended.... In the year 1050, in
every country in western Europe, there were groups of people engrossed
in some kind of novel enterprise. Europe no longer lagged far behind
Byzantium and Islam in any way, and in some respects it had surpassed
the greatest achievements of the two civilizations with which the
Latin-speaking peoples now competed for hegemony in the
Mediterranean." The West was always inventive-even in the Dark
Ages. It is part of our spirit, just as the supremacy of the Koran
before all else is part of the spirit of Islam.
Then as today, fundamentalist Islamic schools drilled their students in
rote recitation of the Koran. Catholic schools, then as now, taught
religion, philosophy, mathematics (from accounting to higher
mathematics), and Latin, among other subjects. It is a common
Protestant jab that Catholics don't know Holy Scripture. It's a jab one
can't make at a madrassa -educated Muslim.
In the Middle Ages, it is true, most Catholics knew Scripture from what
they heard in church or saw represented in stained-glass windows or
what they read-or heard recited-from such books as The Heliand ,
the Saxon Gospel wherein Christ the Champion enters Fort Jerusalem for
the last mead-hall feast with His warrior companions. But they accepted
the teachings of their authoritative Church and kept themselves busy
building breweries, creating intoxicating liquors, laying roads,
building towns, and inventing and mass-producing the stirrup, the horse
harness, and the water mill (technically, the water mill was invented
by the Romans, who made but slight use of it; it came into its own in
the Middle Ages). They also created an agricultural revolution with
three-field crop rotation and improved agricultural tools and
technology, product specialization, land and naval transportation, and
the sanctification of commerce.
The sole cultural advance that one might grant Islam over the medieval
West is the invention of the harem. Nevertheless, even the male
chauvinist might think that the harem rather shortchanges women. The
rationalist might add that it creates social pressures that can be
rather unhealthy (leaving lots of unattached, untamed men about). The
churchman might reasonably add that the celibate monks, nuns, and
priests made rather better use of their sexual sacrifice than did the
eunuchs who guarded the harems. The Western clothier would suspect that
the burkha was invented to hide some of the shortcomings (by Western
standards) of the odalisques. And finally, medieval monarchs, like
modern Western man, could always get around Church teaching by
practicing serial hypocrisy rather than by stockpiling women in special
quarters. This monarchical practice has filtered down into business
management where overstocked warehouses (harems) have given way to
"just-in-time inventory" (serial monogamy), another tribute to
Western efficiency.
Myth Two: Medieval women were oppressed.
While we're on the subject of the fairer sex, let's dispense with the
feminist idea that the Catholic Middle Ages were an era of oppression
against women. That's rather hard to square, on the face of it, with
medieval devotion to the Virgin Mary; the medieval invention of
courtly, romantic love; the practice of chivalry; and the existence of
queens and princesses. In every case, we have men making pledges of
loyalty, fidelity, honor, and protection to women-women, it might be
noted, with power and favor, whether it be royal, romantic, or divine.
The New Testament has a rather higher estimation of women than does the
Koran. Jesus consistently treats women with respect. Christians, from
the beginning, did as well. The idea of woman as a "sex object" is
profoundly un-Christian in a way that it is not unpagan or un-Islamic.
Christianity has no temple prostitutes or harems, no slave girls or
houris. The New Testament never recommends scourging women, nor does it
compare women to a field to be plowed (as the Koran does). In Islamic
law, divorce is a matter of three words ("I divorce you"); women
are property, and women have essentially two purposes (you can guess
what these are).
In the medieval West, both polygamy and divorce were illegal. Women
could govern from thrones or pontificate from the libraries of
nunneries, and they could rule the roost of a middle-class home just as
any other Western hausfrau has done over the last 2,000 years. Women
were free to dress as they liked and could go to the tavern-even brew
the beer-if they liked. They held jobs and learned crafts and trades.
If peasants, they worked the land with their husbands. They could
become saints and lead men into battle (like Joan of Arc). Especially
if they were in religious orders, they were well-represented in
elementary education, nursing, and the other "caring professions"
(as we would call them today). If they were noblewomen, they inherited
and wielded property (and received all due feudal obligations), joined
their husbands on hunts (or on Crusades), and went to a court school
where they were taught art, manners, and household management
(everything from medicine to oenology, from sewing to accounting, from
gardening to how to handle servants). They were also patrons of the
arts. If women were barred from classical schools and universities,
which they were, it was less on Christian grounds, strictly speaking,
than on classical ones-on the Aristotelian insight that women are the
subordinate sex.
Just how "subordinate" women were might be seen in the bawdy-and
quite "liberated"-Wife of Bath in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales .
She should put paid to any idea that medieval women were oppressed. The
Wife of Bath, after all, selects her husbands-five in total-on the
basis of money (she boasts of picking the first three clean of cash
before they died) or manly chests, including the handsome pallbearer of
the fourth. She finds happiness with her fifth (and favorite) husband
after trading blows with him and convincing him of her rights. (The
fight starts when she angrily rips a page from the book he has been
reading aloud, The Book of Wicked Wives .) In all this, she cites
Scripture, noting that "I have the power during al my lif / Upon his
proper body, and nat he: / Right thus th'Apostle tolde it unto me, /
And bad oure husbandes for to love us weel." Her tale-and life-is
rather more hilarious and scandalous than today's "medieval" Islam
would allow. In the Western Middle Ages, however, she was a recognized
type, as she would be if she were plopped down in your living room
today.
Myth Three: Medieval culture was crude and ignorant.
Chaucer brings us face to face with medieval culture, and far from
being crude and ignorant, we regard it as being a still-bright feature
of our literary heritage. If medieval castles and cathedrals, art,
crafts, and music aren't enough; if Beowulf , the Song of Roland , the
Poem of the Cid , and the Morte D'Arthur don't speak to you; if
Boethius, Boccaccio, Dante, Petrarch, and Machiavelli are as nothing;
if you have no respect for St. Anselm, St. Francis, and St. Thomas
Aquinas, to select a mere handful of the literary riches of the period,
there's really not much more to say.
Myth Four: Medieval politics were despotic.
Similarly, medieval politics were neither crude and ignorant, nor
totalitarian and despotic. Far from it; the Middle Ages-from the
start-practiced separation (and conflict) between church and state.
It was the Reformation, the desire of the state to absorb the Church,
that combined church and state with the creation of state churches.
Medieval politics supported a wide dispersion of power, which is what
feudalism was, and why England's nobles-led by the Catholic
archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton-were able to hold King John
accountable with the Magna Carta. Medieval man believed in the great
hierarchy of society, where every man and woman had rights and
responsibilities and was individually responsible before God.
Medieval man was never threatened by totalitarianism. A totalitarian
state was not even possible until the Reformation abolished the Church
as a check on state power. Before that, feudalism preserved an extreme
form of federalism, where even city-states (like Italy's merchant
republics) flourished. In the Middle Ages, not only could a merchant
launch his own business, but twelve-year-old enthusiasts could launch
their own Crusade (the Children's Crusade), and a failed crusader like
St. Francis could launch his own religious movement. The Middle Ages
might be torn by war, conquests, political rivalries, knightly
jostlings, and wars against the Albigensian heretics or the Muslim
infidels. But politically, the Middle Ages were, if anything, a time
when the dispersal of secular power was closer to anarchy than
despotism, and the Church was generally on the side of political-if
not religious-libertarianism in order to protect itself from
ambitious monarchs and princes.
Myth Five: The Middle Ages were uniquely violent.
The Middle Ages were certainly violent enough, but they had no Hitler,
Stalin, or Mao. The Middle Ages did have its inquisitors, but the
various myths surrounding the inquisitions are nowadays pretty well
debunked, and anyone who wants to can know from the relevant historical
scholarship that the inquisitional courts of the Middle Ages did not
strike fear into the people of Western Europe. Their scope was limited,
their trials and punishments more lenient than those of their secular
counterparts. Inquisitional punishment was often no more than penance,
and throughout much of Europe, the inquisition never appeared at all.
It was not a major feature of the Middle Ages. From its 13th-century
imposition against the Albigensians through the Spanish
Inquisition-the most "notorious" inquisition, which operated
under a royal rather than a papal charter-the history of
inquisitional courts runs over the course of roughly 600 years,
expiring in early 19th-century Spain. In the 350 years of the Spanish
Inquisition, for which meticulously kept records have been preserved,
the grand total of those sentenced to death is perhaps 4,000.
When it comes to body counts, the thousand years of the Middle Ages
can't come close to the hecatombs of the enlightened 20th century. If
the wars of the Age of Faith are to be regarded as a scandal that
discredits Christianity, what are we to surmise from the
state-authorized genocides, mass murders, and class eliminations of the
pagan national socialists and the atheistic communists, who managed in
the course of 70 years, less than one man's lifetime, to kill
incomparably more people-by a factor of untold tens upon tens upon
tens of millions-than were killed in the entirety of the Middle Ages?
There was fighting aplenty in the Middle Ages. There were outrages on
the battlefield, murders in cathedrals, and massacres in cities. But
modern man is in no position to sit in judgment on medieval man as his
moral inferior. In the Middle Ages, the national socialists would have
been denounced as heretical, a papal Crusade would have been called
against them, and today we would be reading books about how the
Catholic Church violently and unjustly suppressed-through inquisition
and Crusade-a "heretical" German movement that only wanted to
wear shorts, hike through the forests, sing pagan songs, free the
people from Romish superstition, advance secular learning and science,
and break the political and religious power of Rome. We've heard that
story many times before, as with the romanticization of the Cathars.
But medieval man has had to suffer many such slurs, from the myth that
he believed the world was flat (a myth foisted against him by
anti-Catholic propagandists in the 19th century) to the myth that
Islamist homicide bombers are "stuck in the Middle Ages" rather
than part and parcel of 21st-century Islam. The Middle Ages were more
glorious and commendable than many seem to know. Medieval man deserves
our toasting tankards; better medieval man than MTV or al-Jazeera man.
Cheers.
† The original "assassins" were dissident Shiites; the word is
Arabic;
Mohammed himself urged his followers to "kill any Jew that falls into
your power."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. W. Crocker III is the author most recently of Triumph: The Power and
the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History . His
prize-winning comic novel The Old Limey and his book Robert E. Lee on
Leadership are available in paperback. His latest book, Don't Tread on
Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian-Fighting to
Terrorist-Hunting , will be published this September.
Hatter
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature1.htm
>
> Monasteries and Madrassas:
> Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages
>
> By H. W. Crocker III
>
>
Wow a what a lengthy attempt to say 'up' is down and 'black' is white.
Lets take a few of them:
> What would a Reformation bring to Islam that it does not already have?
Poor understanding #1: Reformation is alway to the conservative. Tell
the to a "reformed" Jew
> Granted, the West is not what it once was. Rather than Michelangelo
> painting the Sistine Chapel, we have Andres Serrano and his infamous
> Piss Christ .
But lets ignore the actual high art done by the Tromp Loi movement and
focus on the most decadent excesses of the arts establishment
> Instead of the optimism of the Renaissance, we have the
> modern (pagan) pessimism that sees Nature's gods plotting their revenge
> on over-populating, polluting humanity.
Pagan is Modern. Weclome to the Bizzarro universe that theist
perception turn the world into.
> Instead of a confident West
> seizing its imperial mission to spread peace, commerce, and Christian
> charity and morality
And slavery, colonialism, religous intolerence, and
genocide....Christian Morality indeed!
We've had quite enough jihadists
> posting their "I protest" theses on the Internet, thank you very
> much.
I've had enough of these diatribes everywhere I look, about 200 of them
for every Islam one I've ever seen. Have I mentioned I've only seen the
Islamic ones contained within a Christian screed?
>
> Despite the alleged glories of Islam's past, we're told that militant
> Islam is now stuck in the Middle Ages. But Islam is no more stuck in
> the Middle Ages than it is stuck in the Renaissance or the
> Counter-Reformation. As Margaret Thatcher's official biographer (and
> Catholic convert) Charles Moore has written, "' Mediaeval' should
> not be a synonym for 'barbarous.' Ely Cathedral and trial by jury and
> Giotto are mediaeval." So, indeed, are the Magna Carta, Chaucer, and
> Dante. So are the great monastic orders, the invention of the
> university, and the development of science. So are chivalry,
> capitalism, and the idea of progress. We don't associate any of these
> things with modern (or for that matter, historical) Islam.
Each one of those items are inventions within Mediaeval times that were
not actually the rule until said times were over. You can no more say
trial by jury was characteristicly Mediaeval than the Introduction of
Univac made 1942 the information age.
But none the less the whole point is bullcrap. To the modern mind,
Mediaeval is synonomous with about 800ad. This is a barbarous time.
Period. Trying to rewrite what word means to the masses is ludicrous.
Surely, there are merits and civility to that period. Some I may even
personally cherish and admire. None the less, I prefer the modern
notion of not having to be executed for disagreeing with the
Pope...capiche?
> >
> Myth One: Medieval Christendom was barbarous, while Islam was refined .
>
At about 700 AD that was true.
> As for science, mathematics, and technology, the Muslims were quite
> good at preserving and adopting the Classical heritage of the
> Christians (and the achievements of the Zoroastrian Persians and
> Hindus) whom they conquered. They were rather less good at going beyond
> it, which is one very large reason why the West made progress and Islam
> did not.
I don't know if you noticed, we use Arabic nomenclature for math,
accounting, and money.
It wasn't till fundamentalism and a movement towards a less secular
society stopped them in their tracks.
raven1
<soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>Does Islam need a Reformation?
No, it needs an Enlightenment.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Pastor Kutchie
Sound of Fuckwit wrote:
> http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature1.htm
>
Three words, Fuckwit: Thirty Years War.
quibbler
soundof...@myway.com says...
>
> http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature1.htm
>
> Monasteries and Madrassas:
> Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages
>
> By H. W. Crocker III
>
>
>
> Does Islam need a Reformation?
Yep.
> Not unless you think it would benefit
> from additional dollops of Puritanism;
There's no reason to think that their reformation would be identical to
the a particular sect of the protestant christian reaction to the
excesses of the catholic church. The idiotic assumption that history
must repeat in exact detail marks H. W. Crocker as an intellectual
lightweight. The fact that he puts III in his name confirms this
conclusion.
> further encouragement to smash
> altars
What would be wrong with smashing altars, not that mosques have quite as
grandiose versions of them to begin with.
> stained glass,
Ah, the quaint assumption that mosques necessarily have stained glass,
just because catholic churches have them.
> and other forms of "idolatry"; prodding to
> ban riotous celebrations like Christmas and Easter;
What would be wrong with that?
> and support for
> fundamentalist Islamic schools that insist on sola Korana and sola
> Sunnah
That would be reform in the wrong direction. True reform would get rid
of the koran and madrassa altogether.
> Indeed, it would seem that Islam has already had its
> reformers. Railing against the corruption of the West (let's call it
> "Rome" for short) have been such modern Islamic Luthers as the late
> Ayatollah Khomeini,
Thanks for intentionally missing the point, but you can't expect other
people to purposely engage in your delusion. We aren't asking for that
kind of "reform", since it's not really a reform at all, but rather a
return to all that is wrong with islam. When we ask for reform, we mean
a change from the radicalism of Khomeni and other maniacs like the
Wahaab.
>
> What would a Reformation bring to Islam that it does not already have?
Sanity, for one. Tolerance for another.
> The Calvinists imposed stiff penalties for infringements
Again, the abject stupidity of assuming that reform in islam must march
in lock step with reform in christendom from 500 years earlier is
staggering.
> of dress codes
> and behavior, but these rules don't go beyond the sharia law of Saudi
> Arabia.
Islam already is obsessed with policing fashion. What they need is a
relaxation of that. Ever considered that type of reform, moron.
> Luther denied the divine right of the pope and affirmed the
> divine right of princes (uniting church and state, which were
> previously separate), but that doctrine is already well-established in
> Islam,
Then, naturally, reform in islam would involve separation of church and
state instead of uniting it, since that is the problem with radical
islam.
> where mosque and state are meant to be united.
And the chaos created by this theocratic meld of church and state power
is compelling evidence that we should not go down that road. The
problem with islam is a lack of liberalism, not a lack of conservatism.
What reform would bring to islam would be liberalism.
> No one accuses Islam of such sins.
Therefore it needs to adopt them, fool.
> When it comes to taking Islam back
> to its pure, uncorrupted form,
That's not the goal whatsoever. Reform doesn't have to return something
to a former state. It can correct the presently flawed state with new
doctrine.
> Granted, the West is not what it once was. Rather than Michelangelo
> painting the Sistine Chapel, we have Andres Serrano and his infamous
> Piss Christ.
The latter being a far superior work to the former in terms of veracity.
> Instead of the optimism of the Renaissance,
You've ignored that up to now. You concentrated on the protestant
reformation, which was only tangentially related to the renaissance.
> we have the
> modern (pagan) pessimism that sees Nature's gods
No, you have realism, but also reason for hope if we are up to the
challenge of meeting and mastering these powerful forces of nature. But
wishing will not make it so.
> plotting their revenge
> on over-populating,
Thank the RCC for that.
> polluting humanity.
Thank the fossil/fissile fuel industries for that.
> Instead of a confident West
> seizing its imperial mission to spread peace
Yeah, that's about as oxymoronic as you can get. Imperialism is
constant terrorism of lesser nations by a warlike overlord. It's the
equivalent of slavery on a national scale.
>, commerce, and Christian
> charity
We've seen the reality of your "Christian charity" and want none of it.
<remaining crock of H. W. Crocker shit flushed>
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
VtSkier
> http://www.crisismagazine.com/julaug2006/feature1.htm
>
> Monasteries and Madrassas:
> Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages
>
> By H. W. Crocker III
>
>
>
> Does Islam need a Reformation? Not unless you think it would benefit
Once again Strumpet has cut and pasted an article which
has enough truth to be beguiling (or be-gulling) to the
gullible but with enough propaganda to be ludicrous.
I find the use of words like "Mussulmen" and "Mohammedan"
indicative of ignorance of his subject matter.
True, the "Middle Ages" were less barbaric than has been
imagined in the past, but most of here know this. Most of
us have studied the glories of the period.
Slavery? I think you'll find that it wasn't outlawed in
Britain until the early 19th century and in the US in the
1860's. Yes, it's still practiced in some countries.
In the middle ages, the predominant social position was
one of serf. That can only be defined as a slave whose
owner is the land on which (s)he works as opposed to a
human owner. Serfdom in Western Europe simply wore itself
out as an institution, but a sharecropper or a crofter
which institutions still exist today, are a pretty good
imitation of serfdom. Serfdom was not outlawed in Russia
until the late 19th century.
Yes, the author is correct that much of the conservatism,
puritanism in Islam is modern. This suggests what we have
read in stories like "Ali Baba" that the Islamic empires
which parallel the Medieval West were not so much different
from the West. The turning point seems to be the Turkish
invasions of the the Arab empires. The Arab states of the
Caliphate in the Levant were fairly tolerant of Christian
pilgrims. And where did the statement, 'Mohammed himself
urged his followers to "kill any Jew that falls into your
power."' come from? Jews and Christians both were "people
of the Book" and could retain their religion for the simple
act of paying a "head tax". Pagans, of course, were
"converted by the sword", not unlike the Christianization
of Europe.
In short, the upper classes and the talented *who were
recognized* (the last is VERY important) had a pretty good
life in both the West and the Islamic world, while the
masses could look forward to a life of drudgery punctuated
by a few festive occasions to relieve the boredom and
backbreaking labor. Remember, these societies were agrarian
with little to replace the labor of human beings.
The blessing of the West in modern times is that more people
get to share in the intellectual and artistic life that was
once the peculiar province of only the rich and privileged.
What Islam needs is not a reformation. It needs an
"Age of Enlightenment" as the West had in the 17th and
18th centuries. It needs a John Locke more than it needs
a Magna Carta. It needs to find "Islam 102" as we now
have "Christianity 102" and "Judaism 102" which have
filtered those two religions (Christianity 101 and Judaism
101) through the filter of the Enlightenment.
Look at the roots of both Christianity and Judaism and see
the similarities between those and Early Islam. Many
parallels. Except, Islam never had an "Age of Enlightenment".
James A. Donald
> not already have? The Calvinists imposed stiff
> penalties for infringements of dress codes and
> behavior, but these rules don't go beyond the sharia
> law of Saudi Arabia. Luther denied the divine right of
> the pope and affirmed the divine right of princes
> (uniting church and state, which were previously
> separate), but that doctrine is already
> well-established in Islam, where mosque and state are
> meant to be united. The Protestant reformers
> repudiated the Catholic Church for dallying too much
> with classical thinkers and decadent artists (like
> Raphael); many of them condemned the Catholic doctrine
> of free will (believing, as do the Muslims, in a kind
> of fatalism); and they damned Catholics for putting
> too much emphasis on Thomistic logic and reason, and
> not enough on the literal interpretation of the
> Scriptures.
>
> No one accuses Islam of such sins. When it comes to
> taking Islam back to its pure, uncorrupted form, as
> embodied by the Prophet himself-an
> assassination-approving † , polygamous leader of
> jihads-it would be hard to outdo bin Laden and his
> fellow reformers.
Actually they damned Catholicism for putting too much
emphasis on the continuing authority of the Church to
make up doctrine long after all living memory of christ
had expired.
What is objectionable about our Islamic enemies is
Sharia, and the Dhimmi status that Sharia gives those
who are not Muslim, or the wrong kind of Muslim. Sharia
is an elaborate institutional arrangement that was
constructed long after the death of the prophet, just as
the Catholicism the protestants objected to was and is a
similar construction. It is based on the example of the
prophet's own conduct - mass murder, pillage, and rape -
but is not an actual direct proclamation of the prophet
- so one can reasonably argue that the Muslims could
reconstruct a more civilized Sharia on the basis of a
more civilized interpretation of the Prophets conduct.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> Yes, the author is correct that much of the
> conservatism, puritanism in Islam is modern. This
> suggests what we have read in stories like "Ali Baba"
> that the Islamic empires which parallel the Medieval
> West were not so much different from the West. The
> turning point seems to be the Turkish invasions of the
> the Arab empires. The Arab states of the Caliphate in
> the Levant were fairly tolerant of Christian pilgrims.
> And where did the statement, 'Mohammed himself urged
> his followers to "kill any Jew that falls into your
> power."' come from? Jews and Christians both were
> "people of the Book" and could retain their religion
> for the simple act of paying a "head tax".
A common practice, however, was to smack each Christian
in the head when he paid his head tax, which
considerably discouraged retaining one's religion.
Islam at its best was considerably better than
Christianity at its worst, but that is not saying much.
> What Islam needs is not a reformation. It needs an
> "Age of Enlightenment" as the West had in the 17th and
> 18th centuries.
I think it has had its age of enlightenment - the
counter enlightenment won in the middle east, as it came
close to winning in the west. Nasser and Baathism was
the face of secularism in the Middle east, much as
Stalin and communism came mighty close to being the face
of secularism in the west.
We have two problems: One is that the dreadful personal
example set by the prophet makes reform of Islam
difficult. The other is that the alternatives to Islam
in the Middle East are equally dreadful. The Iraq
project was an attempt to remedy this problem by
exporting the highly successful secular western
democratic capitalist social order at gunpoint. That
project may have failed. Perhaps in the long run the
only solution is to steal the oil and wall off the rest
of the middle east, expanding Israel's separation wall
the whole way around, and ethnically cleansing the
vicinity of the wall.
> What Islam needs is [...] a John Locke
The Iraq project was an attempt to export John Locke at
gunpoint. It might still succeed, but things are not
looking good.
VtSkier
> VtSkier:
>> Yes, the author is correct that much of the
>> conservatism, puritanism in Islam is modern. This
>> suggests what we have read in stories like "Ali Baba"
>> that the Islamic empires which parallel the Medieval
>> West were not so much different from the West. The
>> turning point seems to be the Turkish invasions of the
>> the Arab empires. The Arab states of the Caliphate in
>> the Levant were fairly tolerant of Christian pilgrims.
>> And where did the statement, 'Mohammed himself urged
>> his followers to "kill any Jew that falls into your
>> power."' come from? Jews and Christians both were
>> "people of the Book" and could retain their religion
>> for the simple act of paying a "head tax".
>
> A common practice, however, was to smack each Christian
> in the head when he paid his head tax, which
> considerably discouraged retaining one's religion.
> Islam at its best was considerably better than
> Christianity at its worst, but that is not saying much.
On the one hand, Mohammed did dirt to the Jewish tribes
of Medina, but the Muslims and Jews had a long, more
or less happy, time together in Spain.
>> What Islam needs is not a reformation. It needs an
>> "Age of Enlightenment" as the West had in the 17th and
>> 18th centuries.
>
> I think it has had its age of enlightenment - the
> counter enlightenment won in the middle east, as it came
> close to winning in the west. Nasser and Baathism was
> the face of secularism in the Middle east, much as
> Stalin and communism came mighty close to being the face
> of secularism in the west.
Baathism, while secular, wasn't particularly "enlightened"
as you point out by comparing to Stalin and communism.
But tell me, why does an "enlightenment" need to be secular?
As I understand, nothing in Islam can be secular. There can
be no separation of church and state as there is in the west.
Or weren't you referring to the Baathists as enlightened?
If not, what do you think the "Islamic Enlightenment" was and
when?
> We have two problems: One is that the dreadful personal
> example set by the prophet makes reform of Islam
> difficult. The other is that the alternatives to Islam
> in the Middle East are equally dreadful. The Iraq
> project was an attempt to remedy this problem by
> exporting the highly successful secular western
> democratic capitalist social order at gunpoint. That
> project may have failed. Perhaps in the long run the
> only solution is to steal the oil and wall off the rest
> of the middle east, expanding Israel's separation wall
> the whole way around, and ethnically cleansing the
> vicinity of the wall.
As I think I understand, trying to introduce any idea,
whether by gunpoint or any other means, if it is secular,
simply won't fly in the Islamic world in the long run.
Turkey is having the closest success we can see in
the Islamic world with its experiment with a secular
republic. But even Turkey has its problems with
Islamic fundies and Turkish nationalism doesn't seem
to allow for other ethnic groups, even if they are
Muslims. Think Kurds here. And the don't like non-
Muslims of any stripe, think Greeks and Armenians
here.
>> What Islam needs is [...] a John Locke
>
> The Iraq project was an attempt to export John Locke at
> gunpoint. It might still succeed, but things are not
> looking good.
I don't think it has a prayer of succeeding. I think
Bush and the neo-cons have such a warped world-view
to think that they should even try. I'm really fed
up with that bunch.
James A. Donald
> > Islam at its best was considerably better than
> > Christianity at its worst, but that is not saying
> > much.
VtSkier:
> On the one hand, Mohammed did dirt to the Jewish
> tribes of Medina,
A polite way of saying he massacred the men and raped
the women.
> but the Muslims and Jews had a long, more or less
> happy, time together in Spain.
Apart from rape, frequent violent death, and casual
confiscation of property.
> Or weren't you referring to the Baathists as
> enlightened?
The counter enlightenment is part of the enlightenment,
is the dark half of the enlightenment - the sleep of
reason that produces monsters.
The Baathists are part of the enlightenment in the same
way, and to the same extent as Rousseau, Hobbes, Marx,
and Heidegger are part of the enlightenment.
Baathism rests on Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger,
all which are both part of the enlightenment, and also
part of the reaction against the enlightenment, the
counter enlightenment.
Consider the french enlightenment: Rousseau was both the
enlightenment, and the counter enlightenment - the two
are hard to distinguish. The enlightenment celebrated
reason, and Rousseau celebrated unreason. Marx
purported to celebrate reason and science, while
rejecting the proposition that theory is based on
experiment, and answerable to it. Kant reasoned his way
against reason, and Hegel found an alternative to
reason, the alternative to reason sounding suspiciously
like the state and often in practice becoming the
rejection of observation and experiment.
VtSkier:
> Turkey is having the closest success we can see in the
> Islamic world with its experiment with a secular
> republic. But even Turkey has its problems with
> Islamic fundies and Turkish nationalism doesn't seem
> to allow for other ethnic groups, even if they are
> Muslims. Think Kurds here. And the don't like non-
> Muslims of any stripe, think Greeks and Armenians
> here.
Yep.
VtSkier:
> > > What Islam needs is [...] a John Locke
James A. Donald:
> > The Iraq project was an attempt to export John Locke
> > at gunpoint. It might still succeed, but things are
> > not looking good.
VtSkier:
> I don't think it has a prayer of succeeding.
Split Iraq into four parts - one predominantly Kurdish,
one predominantly Sunni, and two predominantly Shia. it
would surely succeed in Kurdistan, and would very likely
succeed in at least one of the two Shia states. We do
not need to save the whole bundle. The sunni portion
would go like Gaza, and we could no longer be blamed for
it.
VtSkier
> James A. Donald
>>> Islam at its best was considerably better than
>>> Christianity at its worst, but that is not saying
>>> much.
>
> VtSkier:
>> On the one hand, Mohammed did dirt to the Jewish
>> tribes of Medina,
>
> A polite way of saying he massacred the men and raped
> the women.
And blamed them for the attacks by the king of Mecca.
>> but the Muslims and Jews had a long, more or less
>> happy, time together in Spain.
>
> Apart from rape, frequent violent death, and casual
> confiscation of property.
Common for the times regardless of who was
in power.
>> Or weren't you referring to the Baathists as
>> enlightened?
>
> The counter enlightenment is part of the enlightenment,
> is the dark half of the enlightenment - the sleep of
> reason that produces monsters.
>
> The Baathists are part of the enlightenment in the same
> way, and to the same extent as Rousseau, Hobbes, Marx,
> and Heidegger are part of the enlightenment.
>
> Baathism rests on Hobbes, Hegel, Marx, and Heidegger,
> all which are both part of the enlightenment, and also
> part of the reaction against the enlightenment, the
> counter enlightenment.
>
> Consider the french enlightenment: Rousseau was both the
> enlightenment, and the counter enlightenment - the two
> are hard to distinguish. The enlightenment celebrated
> reason, and Rousseau celebrated unreason. Marx
> purported to celebrate reason and science, while
> rejecting the proposition that theory is based on
> experiment, and answerable to it. Kant reasoned his way
> against reason, and Hegel found an alternative to
> reason, the alternative to reason sounding suspiciously
> like the state and often in practice becoming the
> rejection of observation and experiment.
I'd like to know more about this reasoning. Most of the
philosophers you cite IRRC are romantics of the 19th
century who were often reactionaries against the cold
reason of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th
centuries. It's been a while since I studied such,
so a continuation of the line of thinking would be welcome.
>
> VtSkier:
>> Turkey is having the closest success we can see in the
>> Islamic world with its experiment with a secular
>> republic. But even Turkey has its problems with
>> Islamic fundies and Turkish nationalism doesn't seem
>> to allow for other ethnic groups, even if they are
>> Muslims. Think Kurds here. And they don't like non-
>> Muslims of any stripe, think Greeks and Armenians
>> here.
>
> Yep.
>
> VtSkier:
>>>> What Islam needs is [...] a John Locke
>
> James A. Donald:
>>> The Iraq project was an attempt to export John Locke
>>> at gunpoint. It might still succeed, but things are
>>> not looking good.
>
> VtSkier:
>> I don't think it has a prayer of succeeding.
>
> Split Iraq into four parts - one predominantly Kurdish,
> one predominantly Sunni, and two predominantly Shia. it
> would surely succeed in Kurdistan, and would very likely
> succeed in at least one of the two Shia states. We do
> not need to save the whole bundle. The sunni portion
> would go like Gaza, and we could no longer be blamed for
> it.
Interesting you should say this. The administration is
denying that there is a civil war and doing its damndest
to hold together a country that is an artificial construct
and could only be held together by force (Sadaam). This is
not unlike Yugoslavia which could only be held together
by Tito.
From the movie "Gandhi" I recall the images of the movement
of Muslims toward Pakistan and Hindus toward India. There
will be something of this in Iraq if it's "Balkanized"
But two Shia states? I understand the Euphrates marsh
and estuary but where would the other be? And wouldn't
the Shia state(s) become clients of Iran?
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
I'm happy to see someone else here who recognizes that we are
indeed animals. Particular and peculiar animals, but just
that.
Martin Edwards
> On 24 Oct 2006 08:41:01 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Does Islam need a Reformation?
>
>
> No, it needs an Enlightenment.
> --
>
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx
VtSkier
> raven1 wrote:
>> On 24 Oct 2006 08:41:01 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>> <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Does Islam need a Reformation?
>>
>>
>> No, it needs an Enlightenment.
>> --
>>
> Or a drink.
Cannabis is not forbidden to Muslims.
They all need to get stoned.
Oops, it was Cannabis that gave the
Assassins their courage. Sorry.
James A. Donald
> I'd like to know more about this reasoning. Most of
> the philosophers you cite IRRC are romantics of the
> 19th century who were often reactionaries against the
> cold reason of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th
> centuries.
The Baath party walked int the footsteps of the
committee for public safety. Lenin, Hitler, and Saddam
in the footsteps of Robespierre. The differences
between Marx, Heidegger, and Rousseau are insignificant.
The commonality of their philosophies is represented in
the book "Leviathan and the air pump", which reviews
Hobbes controversies with the intellectuals. The
distinguishing feature of postmodernism is the belief
that truth is mere fashion, or power, or consensus
formed by power, a belief most forcefully expressed, and
most widely believed, in the 1930s. "Leviathan and the
air pump" by Shapin and Schaffer in 1990 is just
Hitler's epistemology recycled. According to Shapin and
Schaffer, reality itself is merely what power proclaims
it to be, and their book neatly connects the most recent
attacks on the enlightenment, postmodernism, with
earliest attacks, with Hobbes's attacks on the
enlightenment in his controversies on Leviathan, the air
pump, and squaring the circle.
James A. Donald:
> > Split Iraq into four parts - one predominantly
> > Kurdish, one predominantly Sunni, and two
> > predominantly Shia. it would surely succeed in
> > Kurdistan, and would very likely succeed in at least
> > one of the two Shia states. We do not need to save
> > the whole bundle. The sunni portion would go like
> > Gaza, and we could no longer be blamed for it.
VtSkier:
> Interesting you should say this. The administration is
> denying that there is a civil war and doing its
> damndest to hold together a country that is an
> artificial construct and could only be held together
> by force (Sadaam). This is not unlike Yugoslavia which
> could only be held together by Tito.
Anyone who wants to hold Iraq together, must use the
methods that Saddam employed. Wide area bombing of
entire cities with poison gas, and cut off the water to
vast areas of the countryside. The British started
this, and Saddam continued it.
> From the movie "Gandhi" I recall the images of the
> movement of Muslims toward Pakistan and Hindus toward
> India. There will be something of this in Iraq if it's
> "Balkanized"
When Saddam held the place together, there were enormous
massacres. When it breaks up, there will be enormous
massacres.
> But two Shia states? I understand the Euphrates marsh
> and estuary but where would the other be? And wouldn't
> the Shia state(s) become clients of Iran?
Iraq is traditionally the vatican city of the Shia
world, and the Ayatollahs that hold the key shrines are
moderate by Muslim standards - "moderate" meaning less
dreadful than usual. Certainly they are pretty damned
moderate and civilized compared to the Iranian
Ayatollahs. Give them a state gerrymandered so that the
religious "moderates" can keep control of the key
shrines, and let them do what they can with it. Then
Iran has worry about becoming a client of Iraq.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
VtSkier
So you are still quoting 19th century philosophers here.
I see that the Baath and maybe other Socialist Islamic
movement have their roots in the "anti-enlightenment".
From what you say and what I've read elsewhere, I'll
agree with this.
However, Your first response to my post stated that Islam
DID have an "enlightenment". Something I was wishing for
in my post.
I still don't see it.
> James A. Donald:
>>> Split Iraq into four parts - one predominantly
>>> Kurdish, one predominantly Sunni, and two
>>> predominantly Shia. it would surely succeed in
>>> Kurdistan, and would very likely succeed in at least
>>> one of the two Shia states. We do not need to save
>>> the whole bundle. The sunni portion would go like
>>> Gaza, and we could no longer be blamed for it.
>
> VtSkier:
>> Interesting you should say this. The administration is
>> denying that there is a civil war and doing its
>> damndest to hold together a country that is an
>> artificial construct and could only be held together
>> by force (Sadaam). This is not unlike Yugoslavia which
>> could only be held together by Tito.
>
> Anyone who wants to hold Iraq together, must use the
> methods that Saddam employed. Wide area bombing of
> entire cities with poison gas, and cut off the water to
> vast areas of the countryside. The British started
> this, and Saddam continued it.
Agreed.
>> From the movie "Gandhi" I recall the images of the
>> movement of Muslims toward Pakistan and Hindus toward
>> India. There will be something of this in Iraq if it's
>> "Balkanized"
>
> When Saddam held the place together, there were enormous
> massacres. When it breaks up, there will be enormous
> massacres.
Agreed, but I could wish it weren't so.
>> But two Shia states? I understand the Euphrates marsh
>> and estuary but where would the other be? And wouldn't
>> the Shia state(s) become clients of Iran?
>
> Iraq is traditionally the vatican city of the Shia
> world, and the Ayatollahs that hold the key shrines are
> moderate by Muslim standards - "moderate" meaning less
> dreadful than usual. Certainly they are pretty damned
> moderate and civilized compared to the Iranian
> Ayatollahs. Give them a state gerrymandered so that the
> religious "moderates" can keep control of the key
> shrines, and let them do what they can with it. Then
> Iran has worry about becoming a client of Iraq.
Hmmm, interesting. I hadn't thought of it this way.
James A. Donald
> However, Your first response to my post stated that
> Islam DID have an "enlightenment". Something I was
> wishing for in my post.
Islam was influenced by the enlightenment almost as much
as the rest of us - for the west, the counter
enlightenment damn nearly destroyed us. For the middle
east, the counter enlightenment did destroy them.
When you say "enlightenment" you perhaps mean that in
the bad old days, people took religion seriously,
resulting in heretics being burnt at the stake and all
that, and lo, the enlightenment happened, and all was
lovely.
It does not look like that to me. Looks to me that as
religion declined, even deadlier memes took its place -
that the horrors of the twentieth century were repeated
recapitulations of the French Revolution, and we are not
through with them yet. The enlightenment cannot be
separated from the counter enlightenment, the counter
enlightenment is part of the enlightenment, and Islam
has clearly had its counter enlightenment - the middle
east is a hell hole more because it is dominated by
deadly western ideologies born in the enlightenment,
than it is a hellhole because of Islam. Even today's
Islam is counter enlightenment Islam. Bin Laden's Islam
owes more to Heidegger than to Mohammed. Bin Laden
mingles Koranic and PoMo talking points, plus a fair
touch of volkishness. We might be better off bombing
Berkeley university than the caves of Afghanistan. The
problem with the arabs is not that they are very
different, but that they are too much the same. Islam
is a problem, but people in the middle east are turning
to Islam because the alternatives are pretty bad also.