World Forums

The New York Sun

Islamism Brews in Britain
London Letter

BY DANIEL JOHNSON
May 10, 2005


Every election has its memorable moment. For the 2005 British general election, that moment came when the Islamist George Galloway defeated the black, Jewish pro-war member of parliament, Oona King, for Bethnal Green and Bow in the East End of London. Mr. Galloway overturned a Labor majority of more than 10,000. As the result was announced, Mr. Galloway yelled exultantly at his ecstatic devotees: "Tony Blair, this is for Iraq!"

Mr. Galloway is not just a demagogue, but a defender of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Yasser Arafat. Mr. Galloway is now the leader of Respect, a party dedicated to mobilizing disaffected Muslims and left-wing yuppies who are against Mr. Blair. A year ago, he was thrown out of the Labor party for inciting British troops in Iraq to mutiny. Mr. Galloway used to spend Christmas with his friend Tariq Aziz - Saddam's erstwhile foreign minister, who is now awaiting trial - whom he insists is a "political prisoner." Saddam's propaganda footage showed him with the dictator. But there he is, still sitting in the mother of parliaments.

The precise nature and extent of Mr. Galloway's involvement with the Saddam regime is, to say the least, still unclear. Since the regime fell, his conduct has been investigated by parliamentary, party, and charity officials. None of these inquiries found proof of corruption, and the Daily Telegraph lost a sensational libel case after it alleged (on the basis of documents found in the Baghdad foreign ministry) that he had been in Saddam's pay, though the newspaper is appealing. Mr. Galloway's name surfaced again in the course of the Volcker inquiry into the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, though the degree of his involvement in the scandal is yet to be seen.

Mr. Galloway boasted that he had "come back from the dead," as he basked in publicity, evidently enjoying his humiliation of feisty little Ms. King. He is proud of his nickname, "Gorgeous George," which he acquired as a result of his public admission of extramarital affairs that ended his first marriage. In mid-campaign, Mr. Galloway's Palestinian Muslim second wife, Amineh-Abu Zayyad, gave an interview to the London Sunday Times. She told the press that when she heard he would call his new party "Respect," she wept. "How can he call it this when he doesn't even treat his own wife with respect?" After Ms. Zayyad alleged that she received calls from women who claimed to have had affairs with him, she said that Mr. Galloway tried to persuade her to stay in Beirut until the election was over. "George said it was the intelligence services, his enemies, that were trying to get at me." She now says she wants a divorce.

Pressed by a BBC anchorman, Jeremy Paxman, to say whether he felt proud of unseating one of the few black women members of Parliament in Westminster, Mr. Galloway lost his temper. "All those New Labor members of parliament who voted for Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush's war have on their hands the blood of 100,000 people in Iraq ... That is a more important issue than the color of her skin," he said, accusing Mr. Paxman of insulting all 15,801 Londoners who had voted for him. He then stormed out of the interview.

It is those voters, overwhelmingly Muslim, who should concern us at least as much as Mr. Galloway. Across the country, city after city with a large Muslim minority showed an above average swing against Mr. Blair and Labor. It seems pretty clear that the great majority of Britain's 2.5 million Muslims obeyed the instructions of their imams or community leaders and voted en bloc for whichever antiwar party seemed to have the best chance of defeating the Blair government. The Muslim defection from their traditional allegiance to Labor cost Mr. Blair up to half of the seats he lost and partly accounts for the unusually strong anti-Blair vote in London.

That Muslim vote is now also Islamist, in the sense of subordinating all other considerations to religious objectives. This is a new political phenomenon for a country that still fondly imagines itself to be a United Kingdom. It is also a phenomenon that is likely to outlast the coalition presence in Iraq, or even the present phase of the war on terror. Since the results of a recent Guardian opinion poll, among others, provides evidence that a large proportion of British Muslims not only thought the attacks of September 11, 2001, were justified, but would like to be governed by shariah law, it makes sense now to talk about an Islamist vote in Britain.

The implications of the emergence of a European Islamism are profound and worrying. The greatest Western scholar of the Islamic world, Bernard Lewis, has already warned that Europe may well become a Muslim continent by the end of this century. If that comes to pass, it may be that the British election of 2005 will be seen as a milestone on the road to what another eminent expert, Bat Ye'or, has already dubbed "Eurabia."

Garbage. Apparently, the world will seize if Europe is no longer predominantly Christian.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0508-30.htm
Democracy, What Democracy? Troops Out Now.
by Laura Flanders
From the Laura Flanders Show, May 7, 2005
Did Prime Minister Blair get reelected? Yes, and as you've heard, he's starting an historic third term. But what was also historic was the beating he took -- losing more than half of his majority in Parliament "down from around 160 seats to 66. It's especially stark, given the state of the British economy. Britain's booming, but the voters are mad, and they're mad about one thing: the war.
In case you're in any doubt about that, check out a BBC poll published election night. Hostility to the war was the big issue. Among those who were reluctant to vote for Blair's party, Labour, 23 % said it was the war specifically; 21% said they just didn't trust Blair. The party took a special beating in Muslim districts, and places heavy with young people and students. People were mad and they had a third party to vote for. The Liberal Democrats. Labour' s share of the vote went down 4 percent. The Lib-Dems went up by the same amount.

Read the New York Times, the Wash Post, AP and your eyes will go blurry before you see it stated clearly. Labor's support is said to have "eroded"" shrank""reduced"and "weakened"but let's be clear: lots of British Labour voters chose Lib-Dem candidates this election because Liberal Democrats, unlike Labour, are the only political party that opposed the invasion of Iraq. Why does the war take a higher toll on Blair than Bush? Because there's somewhere for anti-war sentiment to go and because thousands of British voters, even many with a long loyalty to the Labor Party, voted against Blair this year. Even people with a huge stake in the economy -- or people who depend on Blair's social policies -- took the gamble and voted against him. And they could, because there's not a two-party lock down electoral system. And they got what they wanted, a Labour Party victory, but chastened. Blair's still PM but sobered up. People took a risk and didn't succumb to the bully media who told them the sky would fall if they voted their dissent. And that' s exactly what it'll take right here.

Last year, one of our guests, a retired Washington Post reporter who covered Vietnam, said the political winds shifted on that war not because of anti-war protests but because Americans got tired of the war. They simply stopped giving the president the benefit of the doubt, and started doubting the war.

They started calling not just for the war to be deemed wrong, but for it to be ended; for troops to be brought home, now. Not one more death for a lie. It 's not going to get better; it's only going to get worse.

That's exactly what they've been saying in the UK and it's exactly what we' ve got to say more, more loudly, right here.

I got into an e-mail debate with John Walsh, this week. Walsh wrote a piece for Counterpunch in which he called Al Franken a big fat phony and said that Air America Radio supports the war.

Whaddya you mean, I said. Check out our very first show of the year "we dedicated ourselves to the withdrawal of troops on day one. Conservative John McClaughlin, points out Walsh, tracks the Iraqis killed and the Americans killed and wounded "but Air America doesn't" he wrote. Well we do, on the Laura Flanders Show, weekends. Check out our in memoriam segments. Check out the roll calls we've done.

OK, point made. Defensive splutter ended. You can never say this loud or clearly enough. Progressives don't have a proactive vision, we're told. We're too damn reactive, too negative? Well not on this. On this, we're the ones with the positive vision, nay demand. Troops out now. They're not going to do a bit of good. And they're just going to keep on dying, and killing.

I've looked at tons of polls in the last few weeks and it's all but impossible to find one simple question asked: should US troops be withdrawn from Iraq now (or within the year?) Pollsters seem to ask everything but that. One WSJ/NBC poll quoted by the Institute for Policy Studies this March said that 59 percent of the public believes the United States should pull its troops out of Iraq within 12 months. Just a week ago, a Gallup poll revealed that given the chance to talk to President George W. Bush about any topic, Americans said their first choice would be the war in Iraq. About three-quarters of those who said Iraq said they would tell the president to end it and bring American troops home.

According to the Washington Post account of the 4/28/05 poll by Gallup, among Democrats, the top two things they would say to Bush are "get out of Iraq" and "you're doing a bad job." The top two things independents would say are "get out of Iraq" and "leave Social Security alone." The top two things Republicans would say are "you're doing a good job" -- and "get out of Iraq."

So, the leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom hold their countries up as the world's greatest democracies (they're certainly the most internationally arrogant) but in neither place does the majority view on the war have a voice in government leadership? It says something about our democracies, don't you think?

I’m Laura Flanders. Welcome to Air America Radio.

Eugene

Garbage. Apparently, the world will seize if Europe is no longer predominantly Christian.

The world indeed would most likely suffer in the absence of a robust and historically evolved Judeo-Christian cultural impact. Unfortunately, too many people believe that so called moral norms are common sense. They're not. They seem that way only because they have been synthesized and long upheld by Judeo-Christian cultural traditions and religious dogmas, especially in the West.

Take away this Judeo-Christian cultural component and it is probable that what was once common sense morality won't be anymore.

mate wrote:Eugene

The world indeed would most likely suffer in the absence of a robust and historically evolved Judeo-Christian cultural impact. Unfortunately, too many people believe that so called moral norms are common sense. They're not.

Yes, they are. All these norms are present, in one way or another in every major organized religion. Thus, it is obvious that neither Judeo-Christian nor Judeo-Islamic tradition can claim authorship to it.

They seem that way only because they have been synthesized and long upheld by Judeo-Christian cultural traditions and religious dogmas, especially in the West.

They have been existing in many cultures since before Christ and, in the case of Zarathustra, since before the writing of Torah (7th BC the most likely date)

Take away this Judeo-Christian cultural component and it is probable that what was once common sense morality won't be anymore.

Ridiculous, most of these norms had been there before Christianity. At least we find some of them in Aristotle.

In any case, Christianity is not going anywhere. It is just not guaranteed to always remain the leading or dominant religion. And since Islam shares most of moral norms with Christianity (hell they recognize the same commandments and Quran looks like it could have been written by a Jew)

Eugene

Yes, they are. All these norms are present, in one way or another in every major organized religion. Thus, it is obvious that neither Judeo-Christian nor Judeo-Islamic tradition can claim authorship to it.

The operative word I used is evolved. Nobody has as complete an evolution of religious and moral taxonomy...especially in light of advances in other domains of knowledge...as Judeo-Christian traditions. These indeed can make claim of authorship to advanced mega-narratives that, in light of contextual interpretation and historical refactoring, balance best the spiritual and secular realms.

Just look at the culmination of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the manifestation of the United States...all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. Nobody but nobody featured such a clear, but yet symbiotic, delineation of the spiritual and the secular.

And nobody but nobody, in practice and in doctrine, proscribes moral norms as consistently and logically tight as do Judeo-Christian traditions.

mate wrote:Eugene

The operative word I used is evolved. Nobody has as complete an evolution of religious and moral taxonomy...especially in light of advances in other domains of knowledge...as Judeo-Christian traditions. These indeed can make claim of authorship to advanced mega-narratives that, in light of contextual interpretation and historical refactoring, balance best the spiritual and secular realms.

It has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Look at Islam and its historically tolerant view of "infidels". They did not have Crusades or Inquisition. Sure, they would tax infidels more (bloody savages!)

Now THIS has a lot to do with their religion.


Just look at the culmination of the Judeo-Christian tradition in the manifestation of the United States...all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. Nobody but nobody featured such a clear, but yet symbiotic, delineation of the spiritual and the secular. [/quote]

The advancement of the civil society in the West has nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with Enlightenment. And, note - the enlightenemnet comes from the East (Morea, Constantinople, where all the artists, scientists, and schools of thought come from to Italy), from the Christianity's contact with other more-enlightened religions, like Islam.

And nobody but nobody, in practice and in doctrine, proscribes moral norms as consistently and logically tight as do Judeo-Christian traditions.

Not true, Quran proscribes their moral norms no less clear and consistently. And, what's even more interesting, for most of its history, these norms are actually followed better than in Judeo-Christianity.

"They didn't have have Crusades" - LOL

Sure, Moslems came to the possession of huge land tracts by a peaceful propaganda:)


Mate

Did you know that Fra Angelico, Donatello and Michelangelo came to Italy from Byzantium?

No? You're welcome to visit Metropolitan Museum in New York and compare Islamic art to the Western European one...

I'm just kidding - commie stooge knows as much about fine arts as history. Talking to a wall about Christian medieval scholars, lawyers, philosophers and scientists and what they meant to the Christendom would be more rewarding.

Who do you think you're preaching Judeo-Christian values to? Doesn't he remind you of the notorious Soviet "academician" Lysenko?

He's a fucking riot:)

Leonid wrote:"They didn't have have Crusades" - LOL

Sure, Moslems came to the possession of huge land tracts by a peaceful propaganda:)

Sure, they let rivers of blood flow from the captured land? Nope. Christians did.

Did you know that Fra Angelico, Donatello and Michelangelo came to Italy from Byzantium?

For those hard of reading, the schools these artist represented developed in the buoyant schools of Mistra (Byzantine Morea). In fact, don't believe me. Believe historians:

http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#prince

"In the western hills above the ancient city of Sparta, Mistra grew into a surprising center of art and learning. Indeed, one could even say that the Renaissance began there, since many of its scholars, with their books, fled the Turkish Conquest to Italy, which was ready for them"

http://www.mistraestates.gr/mistra.htm

"Mistra lies in the midst of a country, rich in history, near the birthplace of Helen of Troy and the cradle of the famous Spartans. It was the actual seat of the first manifestations of the Renaissance."

"It was in Plethon's honour that Cosimo dei Medici founded the Academy at Florence" Runciman says. The first stirrings of the Renaissance were felt in Mistra"

http://www.ralph-abraham.org/ficino/synthesis/ren.htm

"Byzantine scholars made an enormous contribution to the philosophical foundations of the Florentine Renaissance. First of all, they brought Greek texts with them and taught the Greek language. Manuel Chrysoloras was perhaps the first of these, arriving in 1397, with texts of Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and other classics. The Byzantine scholars brought a new style of teaching. They translated texts from Greek to Latin and supervised translations by others. Finally, along with the texts of the philosophers, they brought texts of commentators, especially on Aristotle."

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english ... lds_3.html

"In the Byzantine East, where pure Platonism was usually suspect to the church, the last significant revival of genuinely Platonic thought took place in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries at Constantinople and especially at Mistra, near ancient Sparta. There the philosopher and social reformer Gemistos Pletho had founded a virtual cult of Platonic studies.(30) In the West, on the other hand, Plato had been practically unknown since antiquity (despite the good intentions of Boethius in the sixth century and the pervasive Neo-Platonic thought reflected in Augustine). And it was not until the coming to Italy of Pletho and other Greeks to attend the famous Council of Florence in 1438-39 that the original Platonic texts once again were brought into direct contact with the mainstream of the western tradition. To save Constantinople, now completely surrounded by the Turks, the Greek Emperor, in a last desperate measure, had assembled a large number of his prelates and officials (many of whom were also scholars) and gone to Florence in the hope of securing military aid through religious union with the West. The papal price for western help against the Turks of course was the submission of the Greek Church to Rome. The proceedings of this Council, the greatest medieval confrontation between East and West, lasted one and a half years, during which period opportunity was afforded for the westerners to acquire from the Greeks a knowledge and appreciation of Platonic philosophy. Cosimo de' Medici, the ruler of Florence, was in fact so impressed by Pletho that he soon founded his Platonic Academy, whence, ultimately, interest in Plato became diffused throughout the entire West.(31)

On the purely religious side the Florentine Marsilio Ficino achieved a synthesis of Platonic and Christian thought, which had an important impact on the religious outlook of many western humanists.(32) According to some modern scholars the reception of Plato's philosophy did more to widen the intellectual horizon of the West during the Renaissance than any other single factor. Certain other authorities, however, take a narrower view. They believe that the most significant contribution of Platonic philosophy consisted rather in an emphasis on a mathematical type of thinking derived from certain Pythagorean materials incorporated in Plato. It was this mathematical emphasis, in contrast to the medieval western Aristotelian stress on logic that, according to this theory, paved the way for the advent of modern western science, especially acceptance of the Copernican theory"

http://home.earthlink.net/~mistahrick/mystras.htm

"Contrary to our expectations of the word, during these two centuries of despotism (as outlined in the guide­book we purchased there —Mistra, by Nikos V. Georgiadis, Athens, 1989), Mystras “became 'the Florence of the East' and the intellectual movements it engendered and fostered came to be regarded with respect beyond the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire and throughout the countries of the West.” According to the Lonely Planet guide, a school of human­istic philosophy was founded at Mystras by Gemistos Plethon (1355-1452), and “his enlightened ideas attracted intellectuals from all corners of Byzantium.” After the younger brother of Emperor Constantine, Demetrios, ultimately surrendered Mystras to the Turks in 1460, many of the pupils of Plethon moved to Florence, where they influenced the Italian Renaissance. "

http://travel.independent.co.uk/europe/ ... ory=555700

"Towards the last days of the Byzantine Empire, the heavily fortified citadels of Mistra and Monemvasia in the Peloponnese grew increasingly important. As the Turks closed on Constantinople, slowly whittling away the last Greek possessions in Anatolia, many of Byzantium's nobles and a disproportionate number of its savants, artists, writers, philosophers and intellectuals fled to the Morea, where life was less edgy and uncertain and there was far greater intellectual freedom. Here, princes of the imperial family ruled over a prosperous province where flourished the great neo-Platonist Plethon and his friend George Scholarios. Together they brought about a great revival in the study of Plato and the thinkers of classical Greece.

Plethon, in particular, was an extraordinary figure: a free thinker who left Constantinople to study both the teachings of Aristotle and Kabbalistic mystical lore under an Ottoman Jew named Elisaeus. He also probed the mysteries of Zoroastrianism and the teachings of the Brahmins of India. All this - but especially the teachings of Plato and Pythagoras - was a torch that Plethon later handed on to the Italians, so stimulating the beginnings of the Renaissance in Western Europe: it was in honour of Plethon that Cosimo de Medici founded the Academy at Florence."

I'm just kidding - commie stooge knows as much about fine arts as history. Talking to a wall about Christian medieval scholars, lawyers, philosophers and scientists and what they meant to the Christendom would be more rewarding.

So, who's the ignorant here. Why do you insist on being slapped around? What Christendom scientists? Those that Christians had the propensity of burning on the stakes? There were few great Scientists in Christian lands in late Middle Age to be sure (Copernicus, Tacho Brago, etc), but the torch of knowledge and literacy from the learned Greeks to the Industrial Age was carried by the Middle Eastern Jews and Arabs.

But, then, what else should one expect from a Commie Judenrat as yourself?

Educate yourself, dumbo

The advancement of the civil society in the West has nothing to do with religion. It has more to do with Enlightenment. And, note - the enlightenemnet comes from the East (Morea, Constantinople, where all the artists, scientists, and schools of thought come from to Italy), from the Christianity's contact with other more-enlightened religions, like Islam.

Enlightment would have been impossible without the church's reformation - which was a process that took place strictly inside Christianity. Luther nailed his theses to the door not becaus he had heard of some new ideologies from Constantionople, but because, in a nutshell, he found that the then-current state of the Church did not quite meet Biblical requirements, and nothing else. The reformation may only have been a small step towards religious freedom and free speech, but certainly no less than, say, the Magna Charta was to the development of modern democracy.

Also, the idea of strict separation of church and state is essentially incompatible with Islam (presumably because Mohammed, its founder, claimed both worldly and spiritual authority at the same time) and can therefore not possibly have emerged from there. Such is the idea of religious tolerance as we understand it today. (Yes, Islam does tolerate Christians and Jews. But it does not tolerate any religions that do not originate from "The Book". Nor does it allow Muslims to convert to Christianity or Judaism if they want to.)

Felix K wrote:Enlightment would have been impossible without the church's reformation - which was a process that took place strictly inside Christianity. Luther nailed his theses to the door not becaus he had heard of some new ideologies from Constantionople, but because, in a nutshell, he found that the then-current state of the Church did not quite meet Biblical requirements, and nothing else. The reformation may only have been a small step towards religious freedom and free speech, but certainly no less than, say, the Magna Charta was to the development of modern democracy.

As you yourself say, reformation is but one of many steps. But, in any case, the Enlightenment here has nothing to do with Luther or even Reformation as such. I am talking Renaissance. I am talking liberalization of European mind through the process of learning, to which Church, for a long time, was an enemy.

Also, the idea of strict separation of church and state is essentially incompatible with Islam (presumably because Mohammed, its founder, claimed both worldly and spiritual authority at the same time) and can therefore not possibly have emerged from there. Such is the idea of religious tolerance as we understand it today. (Yes, Islam does tolerate Christians and Jews. But it does not tolerate any religions that do not originate from "The Book". Nor does it allow Muslims to convert to Christianity or Judaism if they want to.)

Actually, for the longest time, Popes have tried to exert both spiritual and worldly authority. Suffice it to say, even the Emperors of Holy Roman Empire would be in trouble if excommunicated by Popes.

Popes also exerted a real political and administrative power, and had tried, most often - in vain, to control the authority in this realm.

And, do not forget, Popes for a longest time, were sovereigns of their own domain, where they were a head of state - the Papal States.

Now, on to Muslims. While Muhammed was both a spiritual and political leader (much like English king a leader of the state and head of Anglican Church?), after the fourth Caliph of Arab Caliphate, the spiritual power was no longer in the same hands as the worldly power (which is, even today, still resented by the Shiites). So, for about 1270 years, your statetement of separation of Church and State in Muslim lands based on Quran and Muhammed would be wrong. It is not impossible but for the reality of life in those parts of the world.

Now, Christianity also does not guarantee or even suggest the separation of Church and State. In fact, the separation is due to the Enlightenment and not to Christianity. No wonder, the Christian countries that would be subjected to Enlightenment and Liberalization later would achieve (if they, in fact, achieve it) this separation later. What gives?

On to Islamic tolerance... According to Quran, all people, muslims and non-muslims are equal before Allah. And one can not persecute a non-muslim on religious grounds alone. The Quran does seem to single out Christians or Jews, however does not limits to them (see the quote below). It is quite possible that only they were meant, but we will never know. Besides, the first editions of Quran were probably written when many Arab tribes were still desert savages, not familiar with a multitude of Eastern religions but all too familiar with Christianity and Judaism.

I did some googling, and the first site that came up on Tolerance in Islam (http://www.kuftaro.org/English/WOT/Isla ... erance.htm) says:

"Islamic tolerance is not limited to the People of the Book, but extends to all faithful, sincere, and righteous lovers of truth. Allah affirms in the Holy Quran that:

Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabaeans, any who believe in Allah, and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. T.Q., Sura 2 of 114, The Cow, verse 62.

The sincere believers of all religions, in fact, form one company of the righteous, and Allah extends His grace to them with complete justice:

For Muslim men and women, (for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise), for them hath God prepared forgiveness and a great reward. T.Q. Sura 33, The Confederates, verse 35."

I did a little more googling and came upon another muslim site:

http://www.alhewar.com/habeeb_salloum_i ... ndalus.htm

"Let there be no violence in religion", and "Fight against the unbelievers until they cease persecuting you, but if they desist, then let there be no hostility." These Qur'anic words were taken to heart when the Arab-Muslims occupied the Iberian Peninsula and formed their state which they called Al-Andalus. The tolerance they showed their former enemies had little equal in the history of conquerors."

Yes, you'd say, this is a muslim site that might be interested in putting Quran in the best light possible.

But wouldn't this be a coincidence that Jews are thrown out of Spain the same year Arabs are?

As you yourself say, reformation is but one of many steps. But, in any case, the Enlightenment here has nothing to do with Luther or even Reformation as such. I am talking Renaissance. I am talking liberalization of European mind through the process of learning, to which Church, for a long time, was an enemy.

If the fact that the Church had been an enemy of learning for a long time is an important point here (and I absolutely agree with this), then you are really underestimating Luther's work. In fact, Luther was the one who forced the church to give up their monopoly on knowledge, wisdom and Bible interpretation. It was his translation of the Bible into German that forced the Church to abandon their (clearly contrabiblical) policy of keeping people ignorant for the sake of their own power.

Actually, for the longest time, Popes have tried to exert both spiritual and worldly authority.

While at the same time worldly leaders tried to impose their will on the church. Normal power struggles. The actions of the popes did not always conform to Biblical standards.

much like English king a leader of the state and head of Anglican Church?

The Anglican Church is led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the king. Even the Magna Charta had already guaranteed the church's independence from the crown.

Now, Christianity also does not guarantee or even suggest the separation of Church and State.

Jesus Himself had said that "(His) Kingdom is not of the world". IOW, He claims spiritual authority, but not worldly authority. It comes as no surprise that most of His non-Christian contemporaries misunderstood Him, thinking that He really wanted to overthrow the Roman Empire and become a worldly king of Israel. Much like many liberals today believe today's conservative Christians are thinking.

BTW, which states have true separation of church and state today? How come most of those are of a Christian heritage?

Felix K wrote:In fact, Luther was the one who forced the church to give up their monopoly on knowledge, wisdom and Bible interpretation. It was his translation of the Bible into German that forced the Church to abandon their (clearly contrabiblical) policy of keeping people ignorant for the sake of their own power.

Ticho Brage burned at the stake in 1601 (I believe), this means, at least to me, that people continued to be discouraged by Church from secular learning even after Luther's 95 theses.

BTW, which states have true separation of church and state today? How come most of those states are of Christian heritage?

It is a difficult question to answer. Bernard Lewis does it best in his "Middle East: What Went Wrong".

In this book he shows that while Islam is, indeed, the most tolerant, most democratic, and most egalitarian religion (according to the Quran, not always in practice), it is often used to serve those holding the real power.

He further states, that Islamic states having reached the supremacy over the Europeans in Middle Ages in learning, in military technology, in political power, had become ignorant of advances in technology and in sociology that were being achieved elsewhere (interestingly, in early Middle Ages, it was the Arabs who were so quick to learn from others). Complacent and certain of their supremacy, islamic rulers had refused to accept whatever learned foreigners might have to offer them. European scientists, inventors, navigators were looked upon with disdain as inferior. This, among other things (such as being cut off from transoceanic trade, political devisiveness, etc) had prevented islamic countries from breaking out of this stagnation. That led to eventual stagnation, which is common thing occuring in World History, regardless of religion. The 15th century's China is a prime example of a powerful technologically advanced state deciding not to continue on this path and slowly sliding towards oblivion

Now, Europeans, who viewed their superior (sometimes indestructible) Islamic enemy, were undergoing the processes of unification, political and social. The inability to compete with Arabs for the Eastern seafare, had been the boon to transoceanic navigation (lucky for Western Europeans, they had a geographic advantage for that). Finally, Renaissance brought new winds, new theories, new concepts into Europe, allowed enlightened people to learn from other religions, art, and technologies (the process of renaissance itself was heavily influenced by other religions). None of this was possible in Muslim countries, but not due to their religion, rather due to their political and social stagnation brought upon by their complacency and refusal to learn, wherever necessary, from others.

Eugene,

I think it's simplistic to imply the Reneissance occurred only because learned people from the East moved to Italy and W Europe. While it's true the Arabs (even in Western places like Sicily) were caretakers of the "ancient learning," people in Italy didn't have far to look for inspiration from the ancient Romans (and through them the ancient Greeks).

Bineaz

Well, they did not, indeed, have to look to "people from the East", they looked to the Byzantine Greeks of Mistra (and they really did not have to literally "look", these Greek scholars, artists, and philosophers came to Italy as they escaped Turkish conquest of Morea in 1458 - 1461). Now, Greeks in Byzantine times were amazingly interested in what foreigners had to teach them. Byzantines had no problems accepting knowledge from leading minds of that time. The rest of Europe was not very forthcoming with that, thus losing the light of ancient Greeks and Romans during the Dark Ages.

Hell, who do you think brought the teachings of Aristotle back to the Europeans (and Copernicus, in particular)? Greeks themselves, who were reinventing Platonian learning in their center of late Byzantine learning - Mistra.

Of course, Greeks or no Greeks, no Renaissance was possible if there had been no talent of Michelangelo and others, but their thought, their art, and their science was heavily influenced by Mistra.

Leo & Felix

I should have known better than to engage him in a meaningful debate. The following says it all about his notion of scholarship:

I did a little more googling

Unfortunately for Eugene, googling can only get you so far when it comes to vertical depth in domain knowledge. Let's not even talk about basic comprehension skills!



By the way, wish me luck boys. I'm interviewing for Google after I get back from vacation next week. I'm strictly approaching it as a hedge opportunity, as I am pretty happy where I am. If I do make an impression and get an offer I can't refuse, then what the hell.

If I ever do work at Google, I am sure Eugene's name will rank high among the greatest users ever.

:P

Now, there's some contribution...

Aren't we happy to drink from THAT well of wisdom?

Mate

Sure, googling is always a useful short-cut. The path to learning, including the history of the European art, is more treacherous:)

"Albrecht Duerer was without doubt the greatest artist of the Northern Renaissance. Living in Nuremberg, half-way between the Netherlands and Italy, he found inspiration in the work of painters of both the major European artistic centres of his time"

Damn, I thought his inspiration came from mullahs:)

Your inspiration, however, came from Lazar Kaganovich and Klimentiy Voroshilov.

P.S. Mate, good luck with your interview.

Berko the stooge, relax, will you? Your pathetic parroting isn't going to repair your commie reputation:)

I shouldn't worry about my "commie reputation". I'm just glad I do not have yours!

Mate

Italians say NO to Judeo-Christian values and Ten Commandments!:)

Eugene:

I did some googling, and the first site that came up on Tolerance in Islam (http://www.kuftaro.org/English/WOT/Isla ... erance.htm) says:

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with googling for information, but you should really have read the article that you are quoting from. Let's take a close look at the part you've quoted.

"Islamic tolerance is not limited to the People of the Book, but extends to all faithful, sincere, and righteous lovers of truth.

Sounds good. What would be interesting, though, is, what the author means by the expression "the righteous lovers of truth". What he certainly does not mean is "those who consider themselves righteous lovers of truth."

Allah affirms in the Holy Quran that:

Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabaeans, any who believe in Allah, and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. T.Q., Sura 2 of 114, The Cow, verse 62.

This sura does nothing at all in respect of tolerance. In fact, it misses the subject of tolerance completely. Religious tolerance is about allowing people of other faiths to practice their religion, live according to it and state their religious views. It is not about assuring believers of other religions that their religion is true, takes them closer to God / to heaven or something like that. I for one believe in Jesus, Who has said that there is no way to God but Him. I cannot possibly tell a Muslim that his faith will take him to God. If that makes me intolerant, so be it. But I do insist that this is a misconception of "tolerance". Tolerance is not the same as religious pluralism, plain and simple.

Another observation: Note that it only speaks about those who believe in Allah. From the context of the entire text, it becomes clear what this means: It clearly refers to monotheists only. This also includes monotheistic religions from outside the Biblical realm, but clearly does not include polytheistic religions such as Hinduism (especially since belief in the "Last Day" is required as well, which clearly contradicts the Hinduistic belief in "circles of life")

Oddly enough, (and I didn't even know that before closely reading your post), Qu'ran appearantly even demands "work righteousness". This would clearly disqualify Christians from the "reward with their Lord", for the Bible is very clear in stating that your works can never ever make you righteous before God. And you don't even need Pauline theology for that. The Old Testament will do.

Mate

Yeah, Google is a great tool, but URLs without knowledge, understanding and validation are pretty worthless most of the time.

Ah, and good luck with your interview!

Ticho Brage burned at the stake in 1601 (I believe), this means, at least to me, that people continued to be discouraged by Church from secular learning even after Luther's 95 theses.

I don't mean to discredit your belief, but all information sources I can found indicate that Tycho Brahe died not of burning, but of an infection, and his fatal attempts to cure it with a medicament containing mercury. (Now, this is a historical fact that is very easily verifiable with Google. You had better done it ;) )

Of course, you are right that Luther's work did not stop all religious intolerance at once. Nor did I claim that. One step towards free thought and tolerance. No more, but no less either.

Felix K wrote:This sura does nothing at all in respect of tolerance. In fact, it misses the subject of tolerance completely. Religious tolerance is about allowing people of other faiths to practice their religion, live according to it and state their religious views. It is not about assuring believers of other religions that their religion is true, takes them closer to God / to heaven or something like that. I for one believe in Jesus, Who has said that there is no way to God but Him. I cannot possibly tell a Muslim that his faith will take him to God. If that makes me intolerant, so be it. But I do insist that this is a misconception of "tolerance". Tolerance is not the same as religious pluralism, plain and simple.

Not the same of course, but it does say that non-Muslims have nothing to fear. That is a certain degree of tolerance that "infidels" were not getting from the Christians. And, by the way, religious pluralism is one of the manifestations of religious tolerance. Being able to practice their religion openly is more than Jews got in 15th Century Spain, for example.

And another point. Quran was written when the Arab tribes had been mostly in contact with monotheists in and around Arabian peninsula.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 0&letter=S
"Among the Sabean gods the most important were Almaḳah ("the hearing god"?), Athtar (a protective deity and the male form of "Ashtaroth," to whom the gazel seems to have been sacred), Haubas (possibly a lunar deity), Dhu Samawi ("lord of heaven"), Ḥajr, Ḳainan, Ḳawim ("the sustaining"), Sin (the principal moon-god), Shams (the chief solar deity), Yaṭa', Ramman (the Biblical Rimmon), El ("god" in general), Sami' ("the hearing"), Shem (corresponding in functions to the general Semitic Ba'al), Ḥobal (possibly a god of fortune), Ḥomar (perhaps a god of wine), Bashir ("bringer of good tidings"), Raḥman ("the merciful"), Ta'lab (probably a tree-god), and Wadd (borrowed from the Mineans). A number of goddesses are mentioned, among them Dhat Ḥami ("lady of Ḥami"), Dhat Ba'dan ("lady of Ba'dan"), Dhat Gaḍran ("lady of Gaḍran"), and Tanuf ("lofty")."

However, I believe their polytheist bases are covered as the phrase mentions Sabeans (or Sabaeans), who entered Arabian peninsula around 12th century BC from the North and settled in what became the Kingdom of Sheba (Saba). They were polytheists. Their pantheon consisted of the supreme national God Almaqah (could Arabs confuse him with Allah, I wonder) and many lower gods such as a god of the moon and a god of the Sun. Sabaeans were idolators.

Another observation: Note that it only speaks about those who believe in Allah. From the context of the entire text, it becomes clear what this means: It clearly refers to monotheists only. This also includes monotheistic religions from outside the Biblical realm, but clearly does not include polytheistic religions such as Hinduism (especially since belief in the "Last Day" is required as well, which clearly contradicts the Hinduistic belief in "circles of life")

Oddly enough, (and I didn't even know that before closely reading your post), Qu'ran appearantly even demands "work righteousness". This would clearly disqualify Christians from the "reward with their Lord", for the Bible is very clear in stating that your works can never ever make you righteous before God. And you don't even need Pauline theology for that. The Old Testament will do.

Felix, "work righteousness" does not contradict Bible. You seem to conclude the it exludes those who sin, but it does not. SO it does not clearly disqualify anybody.

Felix K wrote:I don't mean to discredit your belief, but all information sources I can found indicate that Tycho Brahe died not of burning, but of an infection, and his fatal attempts to cure it with a medicament containing mercury. (Now, this is a historical fact that is very easily verifiable with Google. You had better done it ;) )
.

Actually, you might as well discredit it, since it wasn't Ticho Brage but Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake in 1601 (or was it 1600?). I must have got confused because I used Ticho Brage in the post right before it.