Robert Reilly, author of the superb and essential book The Closing of the Muslim Mind, was kind enough to grant Jihad Watch an exclusive interview:
In your fascinating new book The Closing of the Muslim Mind, you expand in important ways on the insight Pope Benedict XVI expressed in his famous Regensburg address--that Islam, as it currently exists in all "orthodox" forms, is fundamentally at odds with reason. Surely, you don't mean that Muslims don't employ reason in their daily lives or even their political conduct. So what do you mean?
I mean what the Pope meant when he spoke of the dehellenization of Islam - its loss of philosophy and reason. I mean that the premise from which many Muslims start is unreasonable in the sense that it is not subject to critical examination. It is not subject to critical examination because the principal theological school of Sunni Islam discredited reason.
In other words, a paranoid person behaves reasonably once you accept the paranoid delusion upon which he is acting. But it is his delusion that is unreasonable, not his behavior. The problem is getting him to see that his delusion does not comport with reality. In the majority of Sunni Islam today, access to realty is blocked because of the abandonment of reason. The premise on which reason was discredited is the delusion from which they are suffering. It is very hard to get them to realize this because the premise is a theological one - that God is pure will and power, not reason.
In your book, you identify several turning points in the intellectual development of Islamic thought. I would like you to expand on them:
1) The rejection of free will on the part of Islamic exegetes, and their embrace of predestination--their assertion that man's actions are not in fact free, but are infallibly dictated by the divine will. How and why did this counter-intuitive position win out over the theory that man acts freely? Are the Islamic texts more weighted in favor of absolute divine sovereignty?
You refer to the oldest argument within Islam, which was about predestination and free will. The advocates of free will were called Qadarites, or Qadariyya, after the Arabic word qadar, which can mean divine decree or predestination, or power. They stood for the opposite to predestination: man's free will and consequent responsibility for his actions. Man has power (qadar) over his own actions. If men were not able to control their behaviour, said the Qadarites, the moral obligation to do good and avoid evil, enjoined by the Qur'an, would be meaningless.
Contrary to this view, the Jabariyya (determinists; from jabr - blind compulsion) embraced the doctrine that divine omnipotence requires the absolute determination of man's actions by God. One of the names of God in the Qur'an is Al-Jabbar, the Compeller (59:23), whose power cannot be resisted. God alone authors man's every movement. To say otherwise ties God's hands and limits his absolute freedom. One of the exponents of this view, Jahm b. Safwan (d. 745), argued that man's actions are imputed to him only in the same way as one imputes "the bearing of fruit to the tree, flowing to the stream, motion to the stone, rising or setting to the sun - blooming and vegetating to the earth." As twentieth century Muslim thinker Fazlur Rahman summed up the dispute, "In the eyes of the orthodox, this freedom for man was bondage for God." Their theology made free will anathema. Reality was distorted to fit a deformed theology. Thus we have statements such as this from Ibn Taymiyya, the medieval thinker so in favor with Islamists today: "Creatures have no impact on God since it is God Himself who creates their acts." So freedom for God ended up meaning bondage for man.
The Qur'an offers support for both positions. It is the Hadith that weigh decisively in favor of the predestination position but, as you know, the Hadith were not codified until around the ninth century and after. The struggle between these two views was particularly intense at that time.
2) The abandonment of reason as a tool for understanding the divine nature--and indeed, the insistence that it was blasphemous to assert that Allah had any consistent, knowable "nature" at all, that might constrain his absolute, arbitrary freedom of action. What Qur'anic texts were adduced to support this radical voluntarism? What effect did this have on the development of an Islamic theology?
It had a very dramatic effect on Islamic theology. It ended it. How can theology explore a God who acts for no reasons? By definition, He becomes incomprehensible. "Allah does what he wills." - Qur'an 14:27 "Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?" - Qur'an 2:106 This aspect of Allah was also remarked upon by the Islamist radical Sayyid Qutb in The Shadow of the Qur'an: "Every time the Qur'an states a definite promise or constant law, it follows it with a statement implying that the Divine will is free of all limitations and restrictions, even those based on a promise from Allah or a law of His. For His will is absolute beyond any promise of law." You may also recall the famous remark by Ibn Hazm that the Pope used in the Regensburg Lecture that "God is not bound even by his own word."
Also, God is unknowable in Sunni Islam because of God's utter transcendence. This is the doctrine of tanzih. There is nothing comparable to Him. God does not reveal Himself to man; He reveals his rules, and that is all. This is another reason why Islam reduced itself to jurisprudential matters only. The only thing that matters is knowing the law.
3) Western multiculturalists eager to praise Islamic achievements frequently cite Averroes and Avicenna as pioneering philosophers who recovered the insights of Aristotle--and served as the transmitters of the defunct Aristotelian tradition to the West. What was the fate of these philosophers within their own cultural sphere? Why were they rejected? Was "philosophy" as a discipline itself dismissed in orthodox Islamic circles?
I just returned from Cordoba, Spain, where Averroes lived and worked. It was a thrill to walk the same streets as he and Maimonides had. Avicenna and Averroes represent the highest attempt to assimilate Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy into Islam - to reconcile reason and revelation in the Muslim world. Averroes did have a huge impact, but it was mostly on Europe, not Islam. If you want a date on which the Muslim mind closed, 1195 A.D. might serve as the marker. It was then that Averroes's books were burned in the city square, that he was sent into exile, and that the teaching of philosophy was banned. His works in Arabic today have been back translated from either Latin or Hebrew, the languages in which most of his books were preserved.
Reason was rejected because it is too corrupted by self-interest. But the real, deeper reason is because there is nothing for it to know. Reality is composed of a series of instantaneous miracles directly caused by God's will. Everything is directly done by God, who acts for no reasons. The catastrophic result of this view was the denial of the relationship between cause and effect in the natural world. Therefore, what may seem to be "natural laws," such as the laws of physics, gravity, etc., are really nothing more than God's customs, which He is at complete liberty to break or change at any moment. The consequences of this view were momentous. If creation exists simply as a succession of miraculous moments, it cannot be apprehended by reason. As a result, reality becomes incomprehensible. If unlimited will is the exclusive constituent of reality, there is really nothing left to reason about. In The Incoherence of the Philosophers, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), perhaps the single most influential Muslim thinker after Mohammed, vehemently rejected Greek thought: "The source of their infidelity was their hearing terrible names such as Socrates and Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle." Al-Ghazali insisted that God is not bound by any order and that there is, therefore, no "natural" sequence of cause and effect, as in fire burning cotton or, more colorfully, as in "the purging of the bowels and the using of a purgative." Things do not act according to their own natures - they have no natures - but only according to God's will at the moment.
What was the fate of the great philosophical legacy in Islam from Averroes, Avicenna, Al-Razi, Al-Kindi, etc.? Here is a stark assessment by reformist thinker Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, a current member of the Saudi Shura Council: "What I wanted to clarify is that these [achievements] are not of our own making, and those exceptional individuals were not the product of Arab culture, but rather Greek culture. They are outside our cultural mainstream and we treated them as though they were foreign elements. Therefore we don't deserve to take pride in them since we rejected them and fought their ideas. Conversely, when Europe learned from them it benefited from a body of knowledge which was originally its own because they were an extension of Greek culture, which is the source of the whole of Western civilization."
In fact, the rejection continues to this day. Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi states that "because rational disciplines had not been institutionalized in classical Islam, the adoption of the Greek legacy had no lasting effect on Islamic civilization . . ." Indeed, "contemporary Islamic fundamentalists denounce not only cultural modernity, but even the Islamic rationalism of Averroes and Avicenna, scholars who had defined the heights of Islamic civilization."
4) You go into considerable detail in the book on how the rejection of philosophy, and the radical voluntarism asserted of the divine nature--God's freedom to make anything happen, in any way, at any given moment--impaired the development of empirical science within the Muslim world. The connections among those things might not be immediately apparent to all readers. Can you explain how that worked?
The denial of natural law removed the very objective of science from the Muslim mind. Since the effort of science is to discover nature's laws, the teaching that these laws do not, in fact, exist (for theological reasons) is an obvious discouragement to the scientific enterprise. How can science proceed without cause and effect? You must say that a rock falls because God made it fall at that instant. To say gravity did it becomes a blasphemous statement. The extent of the discouragement and the paucity of scientific research this has produced is, if predictable, still astonishing. Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy has noted the major scientific contributions of Islam's Golden Age in the 9th to 13th centuries. Then he writes, "But with the end of that period, science in the Islamic world essentially collapsed. No major invention or discovery has emerged from the Muslim world for well over seven centuries now." I give the statistics from the UN on the paucity of science in the Arab Muslim world in my book.
5) Central to the triumph of the anti-rationalist strain in Islam was the conflict over the nature of the Qur'an, its status as either an uncreated, perfect book co-eternal with Allah--or a human manifestation of a divine truth that can be interpreted in the light of cultural factors. Can you tell the story of how these conflicting interpretations were defended, and point to the reasons why the anti-rationalist faction won out? Were the texts more on their side?
Yes, part of the dispute about free will concerned the nature of the Qur'an. Was it created in time, or has it coexisted with Allah in eternity? The Qur'an does not say either way. If it had, the dispute could not have arisen in the first place. Doctrinally, the traditionalist school held that the Qur'an was not created in time; the Qur'an has forever co-existed with Allah on a tablet in heaven in Arabic, as it exists today. God, in other words, speaks Arabic. The Qur'an is outside the scope of history; it is ahistorical. The time at which it was revealed and the culture into which it was received are irrelevant. Although coeternal with God, the Qur'an is somehow, like his attributes, distinct from God's essence. The profound problem with this position, which the Mu'tazilites pointed out - that this made the Qur'an another God, and those who held this position were therefore polytheists - was dismissed by Hadith collector al-Bukhari (d. 933), who said, "The Qur'an is the speech of God uncreated, the acts of men are created, and inquiry into the matter is heresy."
Nevertheless, to the utter dismay of the traditionalists, the Mu'tazilites did inquire into the matter, and this difference between them became the most bitter and costly of their disputes. The Mu'tazilites held that the Qur'an had to have been created; otherwise, the historical events it relates would have to have been predetermined. The doctrine of Khalq al-Qur'an, the createdness of the Qur'an, means that room would be left for free human choice. And why, asked the Mu'tazilites, would commandments exist before the creation of the human beings to whom they apply?
The Mu'tazilite teaching was made state doctrine by Caliph al-Ma'mun (813-833), a great supporter of free will and Greek thought. However, three caliphs later, al-Mutawalkil (847-861) reversed the teaching and made it obligatory to hold that the Qur'an is eternal. Since then, this has become the general orthodox view. Unless it changes, Islamic reform is not going to get very far.
6) You point to the period of Mu'talizite domination in Islam as a kind of golden age of philosophical reason, intellectual innovation, and openness--followed by a very long dark age of irrationalism, mysticism, intellectual rigidity and intolerance that culminated in the 19th century with the backwardness and subjugation of the Islamic world. You suggest that the Mu'talizite precedent can be used today by Muslims who wish to "re-open" the Islamic mind. Can you point to Islamic thinkers today who are trying to do this? How are they faring?
There are some extraordinarily intelligent Muslim scholars who would like to see something like a neo-Mu'tazilite movement within Islam, a restoration of the primacy of reason so that they can re-open the doors to ijtihad and develop some kind of natural law foundation for humane, political, constitutional rule. They know that the issue of the status of the Qur'an has to be reopened in order to create some latitude in interpreting the Qur'an. They point to this precedent to show that Islam was once open to this position. In fact, Indonesian scholar Harun Nasution (1919-1998) was willing to wear the neo-Mu'tazilite label openly, despite the imprecation of heresy that it carried. He explicitly called for the recognition of natural law and opposed Ash'arite occasionalism and determinism as inimical to social, economic, and political progress. He insisted on man's free will and accountability. Reformist Tunisian-born thinker Latif Lakhdar calls for a revival of "Mu'atazila and philosophical thought that subjected the holy writings on which the religion is based to interpretation by the human mind." He said "it is absurd to believe the text and deny reality." In Egypt, Nasr Abu Zaid tried this. Unfortunately, he was declared an apostate and had to flee the country with his wife, whom he would have been forced to divorce (or rather she would have been forced to divorce him). Safely in exile, he said, "One important school of Koranic scholarship, Mutazilism, held 1,000 years ago that the Koran need not be interpreted literally, and even today Iranian scholars are surprisingly open to critical scholarship and interpretations." Unfortunately, Zaid died last year. So, the model is there but it is a dangerous one to use.
How are they faring? Unfortunately, as Bassim Tibi has warned, "Those intellectually significant Muslims who . . . still hope to apply reason to Islamic reform, had better do so in their Western exile, be it Paris or London or Washington. Their ideas are discussed in Scandinavia, but not in the Islamic world." Even in Europe, such Muslims have problems and have to confront the dangers of being labeled apostates. For several years in Germany, Tibi himself required armed body guards provided by the German state to protect him from assassination. Taj Hargey, a British imam, laments that "iconoclastic thinkers, liberals, and non-conformists who dare to challenge this self-assumed religious authority in Islam by presenting a rational or alternative interpretations of their faith are invariably branded as apostates, heretics, and non-believers."
7) Critics of your book have argued that the Mu'talizite movement is almost universally vilified as rank heresy in Islamic circles--and suggested that attempts to revive it are as likely to succeed in the Muslim world as a push to revive the Arian heresy would fare at the Vatican. How do you answer that criticism? Are there real grounds for hope?
My book attempts a diagnosis of the problem. Like the Regensburg Lecture, I believe the most profound woes in the Muslim world stem from its dehellenization. If this is so, then the prescription for recovery would be its re-hellenization, which is also what the Pope says. Does this mean that it is likely? No, it does not. It would require a sea-change in the Islamic world for this to happen. Unfortunately, things are headed in the opposite direction. However, the diagnosis is still valuable for understanding the nature of the problem we are facing. The correct diagnosis shows at least that most of the solutions proffered by Western governments in terms of social and economic reforms are a waste of time and resources because they do not touch upon the fundamental theological problem.
Still, outside of prayer, I think it is the only hope, and by this I don't mean only a neo-Mu'talizite movement, but also a resuscitation of the heritage of Muslim philosophy, especially Averroes. As Fatima Mernissi says so poignantly, "the fact that the rationalist, humanistic tradition was rejected by despotic politicians does not mean that it doesn't exist. Having an arm amputated is not the same as being born with an arm missing. Studies of amputees show that the amputated member remains present in the person's mind. The more our rational faculty is suppressed, the more obsessed we are by it." As a twentieth century Moroccan Muslim philosopher put it, either the future of Islam will be Aristotelian or it will not be. That is how critical this matter is.
8) What is the connection between the rejection of philosophical reason, and absolute voluntarism regarding Allah, and political/cultural supremacism, intolerance, and jihadi terror?
If reason is illegitimate, how are differences to be adjudicated? Force will decide. The stronger will decide. Why does Islam use violence to affirm its theology? Because it is the theology of power, of the doctrine that "right is rule of the stronger," raised to the level of God. The primacy of the will always seeks success through force.
Benedict XVI told his audience in Regensburg that not only is violence in spreading faith unreasonable and therefore against God, but that a conception of God without reason, or above reason, leads to that very violence. This is the problem in Islam. That which is unreasonable is against God only if God is reason. This is not so in majority Sunni Islamic theology. He is pure will and power, unconstrained even by his own word. Therefore, there are no solid barriers between the statement that God is pure will and power, and the startling declaration of Abdullah Azzam, which Osama quoted in the November 2001 video, released after 9/11, that "Terrorism is an obligation in Allah's religion." This can only be true - that violence in spreading faith is an obligation - if, as Benedict XVI said, God is without reason. This is why the problem we are facing is primarily a theological one.
The Closing of the Muslim Mind tells the extraordinarily dramatic story of the struggle within Islam over the relationship between God and reason - in other words over who God is - and of the dreadful effects of embracing a conception of God without reason. The deformed theology that resulted from this produced a dysfunctional culture. It has also produced a spiritual pathology that seeks it success in death.
... the theology of power, of the doctrine that "right is rule of the stronger," raised to the level of God. The primacy of the will always seeks success through force.
No wonder Adolf Hitler so admired Islam.
If Islam cannot be reformed, then it must be destroyed. The whole stinking slum is built upon a foundation of sand, that foundation being the credibility of Mohammed.
Wash the sand away by revealing Mohammed as the charlatan and conman that he was, and the entire structure will come tumbling down.
"...most of the solutions proffered by Western governments in terms of social and economic reforms are a waste of time and resources because they do not touch upon the fundamental theological problem." -- from Point 7 above.
Indeed. But since it is not in the cards for any Western government committed to Multiculturalism to analyze the situation in terms that include theological considerations (and, frankly, given the religious passions involved I don't see how it is even possible for them to do so), where does that leave us?
It appears that what is shaping up is the classic irresistible force (what Muslims would consider Islam to be) meeting the immovable object (what, hopefully, the West is, or at least should be). Which one will prevail? I'll put my money on a Gordian Knot solution, with the West being the one wielding the sword.
"When all that says "it is good" has been debunked, what says "I want" remains."---C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Aren't there logical contradictions between 'compassionate' Allah's unfettered power to do as he wills, and Allahs's omniscience about all events past, present and future?
There is a contradiction in the idea of a supreme being who is omniscient, compassionate and yet creates souls in the knowledge that they are damned to eternal agony burning in hell. If Allah is omniscient then He knows all events past and future, including how people will behave, and their ultimate fate before they are even born. The future is already laid out before him like the frames of a movie.
And that leads to an even more serious contradiction:
If Allah is omniscient about the future, then he can never make a decision or choose a course of action, because he knows in advance exactly what his future actions will be for all eternity. He cannot decide to change his mind because he will know in advance when and how he will decide to change his mind, so his mind will already be made up. Such a supreme being would be totally paralysed by his own pre-ordained future, and would be incapable of performing any voluntary action whatsoever. http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/tawhid-or-tawheed-versus-christian.html
In a nutshell:
ISLAM IS HOLY INSANITY.
And Allah is Irrationality apotheosized.
Kudos to Robert and Mr. Reilly for the most profound posting ever to grace Jihadwatch.
This penetrating and pertinent analysis of the major crippling element inculcated into Islam (by the theocratic tyrants who found, and find, that Power is gained more effectively by despots through unleashed Unreason rather than restrained Reason) should be on the front page of every major publication in the West by tomorrow morning.
Our future and the survival of a free human species depend on absorbing this terrible truth: Islam worships Absolute Irrationality.
With such a belief system there can be no reasonable compromise.
I finished reading this book several months ago and was impressed with Mr. Reilly's depth and coverage of the philosophical basis that led to the decline of intellect in the Muslim world. His thesis is a fascinating one and is borne out in the state of affairs of Islamic thinking today. You need only consult the ideas and statements of the devout followers of Islam to see this. Clearly there exists an obsessive popularity with an ossified view of Quran/Hadiths/Traditions among Muslims, which unfortunately has prevented any real, reform efforts within Islam.
A question for Mr. Reilly:
How would "Islamic scholars" answer this reort:
Isn't the declaration in the Hadiths that Mohammad is the "last prophet" a restraint upon Allah?
Why should Allah not put forth as many more prophets as He pleases, if He changed is mind tomorrow?
How do we know that every further Islamic "prophet"- from the Amadiya's to the Baha'i's to the Sikh's -was not a valid "changing of Allah's unrestrainable mind", since to chain His will and forbid Him the power to create new "prophets" is a clear confining of the Unconfinable and and an illegitimate "rationalizing" of the Supra-rational?
Any such enforced Closing of Allah's Mind by men would seem to be a presumptuous and arrogant kind of human blasphemy against their deity.
They chain Allah to their own dogmatic needs, failing to see the fatal paradox.
This is one great interview, no fluff and right down to business. As I read it and thought through some of the ideas presented, I realized there is a parallel struggle now in some evangelical Christian churches, viz: Devine Will vs Man's Free Will. In fact, three of the churches I have attended have been "taken over" by Pastors who passed through the vetting process, only to later reveal they were "5-point Calvinists". Calvinists also believe in the total, unchangable authority of G-d's will, that it will be done despite anyone's choices or intentions. Makes a mockery of personal responsibility. And how could a Creator punish any who were led wily-nily by Him, and who had no say in matters whatsoever?
If these Calvinists win, and they wage a keen battle, the effect will be the same on Christiandom as was the closing of the debate in Islam.
Elohym - Mighty G-d - gave humankind free will so that we can choose to obey His will, not be shaved and branded and castrated by it.
Why follow a being as irrational and changeable as Allah? For all you know, tomorrow he could change his mind and decide that all Muslims are the worst of creatures and all mushrikeen are the best! Maybe every time you pray to him you are reaching a deeper level of hell! He sure doesn't sound worthy of worhsip to me, anyway.
Living a contradiction is essential for creating fearless warriors who want 'heaven' more than life itself.
what kind of freedom do muslims fight for?
The freedom from allah's unbreakable yolk. Though most muslims don't really understand why their unconscious is directing them to find the quickest way off this earthly hell islam creates.
islam inculcates the need to shahid.
You can't have your warriors wanting anything less. Rejecting reason is a very pragmatic choice by the early muslim ruling class.
It's obvious to me anyways.
Thanks for this review. Great reading day at JW.
*worship*
If one rejects reason one rejects explanation since explanation is reasoning based on a set of givens (axioms). Where the gives are the cause and the conclusions are the effect. If there are no explanations there can be no interpretation of the Quran.
The result is not so much a closed mind but a decomposed mind. A mind that incessantly plays the whack the mole of reason.
So where do the Islamo-Socialists find common ground? Or are they just using each others zobies?
Islam is evil whether "reformed"or not! It trivializes sin and the consequences of it, and each one's personal responsibilty for their own sins against God. Instead of "Allah wills it",the bible says we are responsible for our own decisions and actions. If we are led away by temptation into sin, there is no excuse possible. We are quilty as charged (by God) and THE PENALTY IS HELL OF FIRE forever! there is no GOOD WORKS off setting our sins as Islam teaches, only death and hell. The whole world, including me, is guilty! The one true God how ever loves the world and has given us a way for the penalty of our sins to be payed without the mandatory death penalty we all deserve! Jesus the "lamb of God" was sacrificed for our salvation.
The other big difference is that unlike muslims the true followers of Christ are being treansformed into His image by the internal workings of His HOLY SPIRIT! Thus Christians are comanded to not only love their brothers and sisters that are in Christ but our neighbors and even our enemies as well! How different the world would be if all were followers of Christ instead of Mohammed and his alter ego Allah!
This sounds like an extraordinary work and one of great importance for everyone who is deeply concerned about the encroachment of Islam upon Western Civilization. What both "practical" and "hard-headed" politicians and nihilist or at least relativist academics have in common is their impulse to dismiss such examinations of the current state of Islam as "irrelevant", when instead Mr. Reilly's analysis is of the deepest, gravest importance, uncovering the depth of the self-imposed psychosis under which today's Islamic "scholars" and jihadists operate. My admiration to Mr. Reilly for writing it and Robert for this discussion.
And then there are the John Spielman's of the world, who will not be the least bit interested in the critical importance of Sunni Islam having explicitly renounced reason centuries ago because he is a good bible-thumping fundie Christian who would rather rant about "sin!" and "Hell!" and "Jesus the Lamb of God!" and the "Holy Spirit!" and all the other thought-stopping words and phrases that make him feel warm and safe and comforted in the bossom of his Brothers and Sisters.
As Christians with at least a stated commitment to reason, I know you will nevertheless not allow yourselves to understand how those of us whose commitment to reason is absolute, with no room for "miracles" performed by bearded flying old men in nightshirts or their "sons" or their son's "virgin" mother, shake our heads in wonder and dismay at the emotional hold that belief system maintains over you.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of wishing to be as well prepared as possible when these holy psychotic warriors of Islam finally make something go boom loudly enough for even the fools currently infesting Western Civilization to start paying attention again, "Closing of the Muslim Mind" has just shot to the top of my list of "must-reads".
The article doesn't say who it is who's conducting the interview. Presumably it's Robert Spencer, but maybe not. Is Robert there? Yes, it does matter.
This is an excellent and very revealing book, which will make any rational reader realize that Islam is not as stupid as one thought but far more stupid than one would have thought.
It also reveals the nonsense disinformation that Islam has made great contributions to Western Philosophy & Science (as the Obamanation has said). Islam is anti-science and the best thinkers in the medieval Muslim world, like Averroes, were nearly killed for it and were lucky to be exiled. As Ibn Warraq writes in the Intro to his Why I'm Not A Muslim ,
"For the orthodox, Islamic philosophy was a contradiction in terms, and Islamic science futile."
But I take issue with Robert Reilly's " the prescription for recovery would be its re-hellenization..."
How could Mr. Reilly even suggest such a foolhardy effort?
Islam can only be dumped and dumped totally by any sane person. A re-hellenization would only elevate something that's profoundly stupid to something pathetically stupid with torturous mental gymnastics endeavoring to create coherence from what clearly was only a clumsy concoction out of the head of a brutal 7th century con man.
Hi John - I hope you don't think you are personally responsible for what God does. I'm not. Can you choose whether God will do this or that? I can't. I have will power, lots of it, but I can't force God to do what I want Him to do. Every human being has the faculty of Will, the faculty of Reason, and faculties of sense perception (regardless of whether a person has been instructed in some philosophy). I normally don't get into discussions about these things, but there's nothing wrong with maybe approaching the free-will question with new presuppositions in order to hopefully settle it. Life is not supposed to be one long endless debate. Debate is necessary and usually useful only in politics.
A deity who misuses his own divine freedom to make things happen, in the universe and among humans, in any old which way, in unexpected ways with no rhyme or reason, who is often unpredictable, who often deceives human beings, is a deity who is simply conducting a war against human beings and also trifling with and misusing the very physical universe itself. However, a deity does not have to misuse his own freedom this way unless he chooses to do so. Freedom does not imply the misuse of freedom. Having the power of Will doesn't automaticaly mean there has to be the abuse of the Will. Unless that deity is literally engaged in a war of destruction against the human species itself, and with hateful malice.
Whenever I read the Quran that's the sense I get of what this "Allah" entity is all about. It's some cold, imperious, cruel force who mocks and tortures human beings relentlessly. No philosophy course, or lack thereof, gives me this sense of that entity portrayed in the Quran. I get it from the Quran. And I can't imagine how that could be modified by adding a philosophy component as a part of and a guide to the Scripture of Muhammed. But adding a Greek-style philosophy component could be a very crafty and devious way of trying to trick unbelievers, but it wouldn't fool me.
Similarly with the Bible. I've studied Aristotle's philosophy somewhat, but when I read the Bible I don't hear Aristotle speaking. Whether I know Aristotle or not has no effect on how I interpret the Bible. Nor does it effect my interpretation of the Quran. And why should it?
The God revealed in the Bible is usually fairly predictable because He wants to be predictable because He's not waging war against His creatures.
The following is a very disturbing—and very common—view of Islam and the rational mind:
From Tawfiq Hamid, from 'The Development of a Jihadist's Mind' (Thanks to Dumbledore's Army, who posted this story originally)
"During my first year of medical school [in Egypt], a Jamaah member named Muchtar Muchtar invited me to join the organization.
"Muchtar was in his fourth year, and Jamaah had given him the title amir (prince or caliph) - a designation taken from early Islamic writings that is associated with the Islamic caliphate or amir almomenin (prince of the believers).
"I accepted his invitation, and we walked together to Jamaah's mosque for noon prayers.
"On the way there Muchtar emphasized *the central importance in Islam of the concept of al-fikr kufr, the idea that the very act of thinking (fikr) makes one become an infidel (kufr) (In Arabic both words are derived from the same three root letters but have different meanings.)
"He told me, "Your brain is just like a donkey [a symbol of inferiority in the Arab culture] that can get you only to the palace door of the king [Allah]. *To enter the palace once you have reached the door, you should leave the donkey [your inferior mind] outside*."
'By this parable, Muchtar meant that a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks but automatically obeys the teachings of Islam."
'The very act of thinking FKR makes one become an infidel KFR'
'a truly dedicated Muslim no longer thinks'.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200475901923&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[I don't think the link to the original Jerusalem Post story works any longer—I included it in the interest of thoroughness—GI]
"Isn't the declaration in the Hadiths that Mohammad is the "last prophet" a restraint upon Allah?"
Take that back to the most basic element of Islam: Isn't designating the Muslims themselves "the best of people" a restraint upon Allah? Why can't Allah change his mind and make the Jews his chosen people?
Between reason and Islam there can be no agreement, just as there can be no reconciliation between liberty and Islam. The first six hundred years or so of Islam saw achievements in the Islamic world, but these were always, and ultimately, in spite of Islamic doctrine and not because of it (and a damn hell of a lot of it was pilfered).
Islam is a dead end---for liberty, for science, for philosophy, for democracy, for women, for all mankind. This is its real epitaph. And that's why it's doomed to extinction once reason and knowledge are fully shined upon its deeply warped founder and many noxious doctrines.
How would "Islamic scholars" answer this reort:
Isn't the declaration in the Hadiths that Mohammad is the "last prophet" a restraint upon Allah?
Why should Allah not put forth as many more prophets as He pleases, if He changed is mind tomorrow?
---------- o -------------
Possible responses of the irrational Islamic scholars:
Option 1 (the "nicer" option): Islamic scholars will respond by saying, "That is blasphemy! Muhammad was the last prophet. Do not question it!" Then some imam or imams will issue a fatwa against you to have you killed. This means you have a chance to run and hide (nice!).
Option 2 (the "that's it" option): Islamic scholars will accuse you of blasphemy. They will pull out their guns and shoot you to death. They will exclaim "Allahu Akbar", and so forth...
The philosophical roots of Islam’s problem would be bad enough if it only affected Islam’s intellectuals.
It is the training and acceptance of irrational beliefs by literally countless unseen devout jihadis that drive Islam. The unseen jihadis are what make reformation within Islam impossible. Anyone who speaks up, risks death at the hands of some devout religious thug. “As Bassim Tibi has warned, ‘Those intellectually significant Muslims who . . . still hope to apply reason to Islamic reform, had better do so in their Western exile’.”
Read my complete thesis on Islamic fear created by these unseen killers at http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/
Muslim "reformers" make a big deal about "ijtihad." That the Shia never abandoned its use suggests that this is another dead end. Their doctrines are no better than those of the Sunnis.
This is coming from someone who is not a Muslim, and, in Shia doctrine, considered "nayas" or unclean, like urine, feces. etc.
The fundamental doctrines of Islam are absurd, whether reason is applied or not.
I echo the several posts of thanks for the sharing of a very thoughtful commentary, a commentary that hits to the heart of the issues in very unique ways - That the most crucial points of conflict are theological, about how we know ourselves in the realm of creation, how we interact with the Creative process, how we discover new truths and new possibilities. In this respect it would seem that both theological and rational solutions need to be examined?
A few reflections on these commentaries:
** The Qur'an adapting to cultural realities? Would this not be seen in the Jihad teachings themselves. Clearly Jihad is not an option and does not appear in the Meccan teachings? It would seem that there is also a progression and evolution of the Jihad Teachings between the first Medina Surah, the Cow #2 vs the second to the last Surah #9:29 and :111? Does the tone become more forceful? (To be fair and balanced, are there changes in the Qur'ans? guidance re. Peace?)
** It could be argued that "power over reason" began with the ascendancy of Muawiyah I over Ali and the defeat of Muhammand's grandson Husayn ibn ‘Alī? From that point on the "Law of the Sword" dominated Islamic rule and cultural practice - a rule that dramatically impacted the spirit of Islam. A major exception could be the rise of the "thinkers of Medina" such as Jafar al-Sadiq and the Islamic Schools of Law that came to emerge around 750 AD, 120 year's after the death of Muhammad. While Islamic law became quite intricate it did not have the moderating effect of reason and "consultative moderation" that appear in Grecian and British democracies. The practical application into British law is also very significant?
** At some point the Muslim World needs to be invited to closely examine how reality has shifted and consider if (and how) the Will of God may be at play in realignment of military power on the planet. It could be argued that modern nuclear arsenals from the US, to Britain, France Russia, China and India have rendered the law of Holy War using all means available, obsolete? Suffice it to say the Muslim world would probably not want full modern war waged upon them a-la Germany and Japan in WWII? Given that abrogation and substitution for something better is allowed
106. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)
...is there a process for finding new possibilities?
** One very interesting aspect of Mr. Reilly's approach is that it suggests a dialog with Muslim thinkers about what is the Will of God for this Day? Has there been a shift? How do we understand this very new reality of the World Coming together in ways never before dreamt of? If the Will of God has shifted does this change past laws and guidance, issues re. blasphemy being a prime example?
** The major, very deep, transformation of religious thinking much, much longed for, both re. Islam but also in regards to Calvinistic Christian thinking, has historically occurred with the appearance of a new Messenger with a Message capable of authoritatively cutting through entrenched belief systems? Moses did a good job of that as he stood before Pharaoh?
** Profitsbeard makes a sound logical argument when he observes that the claim Muhammad is the last Messenger EVER would be to limit God and chain up God's hands? It was an argument Muhammad himself refuted using the same logic.....
64. The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth
(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 5)
Over and out, Ts
Truthseeker, you need to stop lying.
The book is a good analysis, but hoping for the world to change for the better through Islam reforming itself is like Waiting for Godot.
Whipping the dead horse of Islam is an exercise in futility. Ali Sina believes Islam can be destroyed by showing Muslims the Truth about Muhammad:
http://alisina.org/understanding-muhammad/
Wellington, I like to read one and two star reviews on books at Amazon. I read a one star review this morning, written by "Baby Sister" which generated some controversy:
http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Muslim-Mind-Intellectual-Islamist/product-reviews/1933859911/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
In fairness, perhaps she should have given the author more than one star, yet her central point, Islam was and is violent from its inception - the prophet and the central text itself were / are violent - is a valid one.
Beyond reason (or lack thereof), there is also 'conscience' or heart. I do not know if Robert Reilly delves into that important human quality as Mr. Spencer does in his book, "Islam Unveiled," in the section "The Quality of Mercy," pages 68-71.
By the way, I did respond to your earlier thought, "I wish you would finally grasp that had Pope Pius XII acted as you think he should have, it would have resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of more Jewish lives being lost during WWII."
It occurs to me, having done some catching up on my Jihad Watch reading over the weekend, Christendom today (some or much of it?) appears to be repeating some of the costly mistakes it made during the reign of Pope Pius XII.
My apologies. Here is where I responded (Jan, 23, 2011, 5:19 AM and 5:54 AM, near the bottom):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/peter-king-dhimmi-out-of-his-league.html
the bottom line - in 1400 years, Islam has failed to reform itself.
Posted by Robert, so presumably he conducted the interview.
May I suggest the following book:
How Early Muslim Scholars Assimilated Aristotle and Made Iran the intellectual Center of the Islamic World
A Study of Falsafah by Farshad Sadri
Publisher: Edwin Mellen Press (June 2010)
http://www.payvand.com/news/10/aug/1316.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0773437169/netnative
@Wildjew,
You wrote in answer to Wellington:
"Christendom today (some or much of it?) appears to be repeating some of the costly mistakes it made during the reign of Pope Pius XII."
What exactly where those "costly mistakes" made during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII? Surely you don't mean to label saving hundreds of thousands of Jews as a mistake?
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Thanks Sagunto. I will try to answer your question by means of linking it to a fairly recent Jihad Watch piece: "Exclusive: Archbishop Cyril Bustros clarifies his remarks at the Vatican Synod"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/exclusive-archbishop-cyril-bustros-clarifies-his-remarks-at-the-vatican-synod.html
Mr. Spencer wrote at the top: "I owe the Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros an apology: when I wrote about his remarks at the recent Vatican Synod, I was relying on incomplete and inaccurate press reports, and did not fully understand his position...."
Please read the Archbishop's remarks on Israel, then I will attempt to explain why I wrote what I did above.
If Allah is omniscient about the future, then he can never make a decision or choose a course of action, because he knows in advance exactly what his future actions will be for all eternity. He cannot decide to change his mind because he will know in advance when and how he will decide to change his mind, so his mind will already be made up. Such a supreme being would be totally paralysed by his own pre-ordained future, and would be incapable of performing any voluntary action whatsoever.
Very true, Sean. And what about the idea that even the koran had to be abrogated so often, and was so repetitious? Isn't that virtually proving that it was Mo made, imperfect, and not even as sophisticated as a child could write it now?
Thank you @Wildjew, for linking to that piece about Archbishop Bustros.
I replied in the comments section (Sagunto | November 11, 2010 6:53 AM). If you'd be so kind as to read what I said about Bustros over there and clarify your statements about Pius XII, I'll be more than happy to enlighten you ;-)
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Thanks Sagunto.
I've got to respectfully disagree with your view that the Archbishop is moderately anti-Israel. I see him vehemently anti-Israel. Worse he justifies his anti-Semitism by means of a perverse interpretation of the Almighty's word to His ancient prophets in our Bible.
And yet, Pope Benedict supports him and his anti-Semitic interpretation of God's word.
So apparently does Robert Spencer. Otherwise, why did Mr. Spencer apologize to this man? You wrote: 'According to some, these views of the archbishop are understandable from a dhimmi position, and indeed they are, representing Christian religion under Islamic "protection".'
In what way are they understandable? Would the Archbishop's lord prostrate himself before his enemies in such an dishonorable way? In light of this immoral position of inferiority, Mr. Spencer wrote earlier, "Accordingly, we cannot judge either Patriarch Emmanuel nor Archbishop Cyril harshly."
Why? Why can't we judge this man? Because he speaks for and represents the Church? What has changed since the days Pope Pius XII ruled the church?
Why did Robert Spencer apologize to this man?
Thanks Wildjew,
Perhaps it would have been less confusing if I'd placed the word "moderately" between quotation marks. No disagreement about Bustros between you and me.
Now I'd like you to clarify your position on Pope Pius XII, one of the few truly great heroes of the 20th century. Exactly in what way is he comparable to this dhimmi bishop?
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sangunto, Pope Pius XII was silent in the face of a monstrous evil. Abraham Lincoln wrote: "To sin by silence when they know they should protest, makes cowards of men."
I agree. Don't you?
But let's go back to Pope Benedict. Since you agree with me Archbishop Bustros is a Jew-hater and he justifies his hatred, of the Jews and Israel, on the basis of scripture, how can Pope Benedict stand by him? How can any Christian stand by him?
@Wildjew,
You are obviously completely ignorant about the heroic behaviour of Pius XII in the face of evil. What are your sources?
Although it doesn't apply to Pope Pius XII at all, I agree with the quote, of course.
Sources: Professor Michael Phayer, "The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965, Professor David I. Kurtzer, "The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism," Guenter Lewy, "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany," Daniel Johah Goldhagen, "A Moral Reckoning," Susan Zuccotti, "Under His Very Windows," John Cornwell, "Hitler's Pope, The Secret History of Pius XII." Cornwell was unmercifully hounded in to issuing a partial retraction by his church.
What are your sources Sagunto?
Why don't we explore the Vatican's position on Israel TODAY, since there are those who say we should not obsess on what happened in the past. How do we justify the Vatican's / Pope Benedict's anti-Semitic position on Israel today in light of this Vatican Synod?
I think the question is most relevant considering that 'the "Voice" of (most recent anti-Semitic) Synod Is Final Message'.
http://www.zenit.org/article-30755?l=english
Pope Benedict stands by the position of his Archbishop. How are we to understand Pope Benedict's anti-Semitism in light of historic Church teachings about the Jews and our criminal acts?
As Reilly said, "Al-Ghazali insisted that God is not bound by any order and that there is, therefore, no "natural" sequence of cause and effect, as in fire burning cotton or, more colorfully, as in "the purging of the bowels and the using of a purgative." Things do not act according to their own natures - they have no natures - but only according to God's will at the moment.”
But the Muslim world is building universities which teach technology even if they avoid those subjects which by their natures question the creationism of the Koran (see http://www.kaust.edu.sa/)
The point about technologies is that they build upon the observed and experimentally established regularities of the world codified by the sciences upon which they are based. Staff and students at universities are bound in their studies and research by these regularities. They are usefully described as laws but other words would do such as “Allah’s will”.
If al-Gazali is right, (and let us generously concede for the sake of bringing his followers with us that he is) then from observation, Allah is seen to have decided that at this stage in the world’s development and history, all substances are to behave with the detectable regularities we now observe and He continues to so require them day to day. Upon these we can build our technologies until such time as He wills otherwise.
Having discovered these regularities, we are in a position to say that Allah has introduced a rationality, albeit a possibly temporary one, consisting of the observational and experimental sciences, and we bear in mind at all times that Allah has the power to revoke them whenever He wills it.
This argument would appear to allow a Muslim philosopher to have it both ways:-
1. It is in accordance with Allah’s will, and not according to an intrinsic nature, that the world (in the sense of the universe) manifests its regularities,
2. The all-powerful Allah retains his power to change these at any time,
3. Until such time as He does, humanity is able to discover and exploit these regularities for its welfare.
4. Observing, establishing and exploiting these regularities would appear also to be in accordance with Allah’s will as He has the power to stop humanity doing this at any time.
Clearly I am naive to think that there is such an easy way out of the philosophical difficulty that the likes of Al-Gazali have put an orthodox muslim. Will someone please correct my naiveté?
So you have gathered some a-historical agitprop by the likes who side with an extreme leftist German playwright who is close buddies with noted Holocaust-denier David Irving.
I mean, Cornwell ("unmercifully hounded", poor little thing), Zuccotti, and of course non-historian cum propagandist Mr. Goldhagen.
My sources:
Pinchas Lapide, Jewish historian and theologian, prominent member of the Israeli corps diplomatique. He wrote in "Three Popes and the Jews" (1967):
"Pius XII was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands."
Another good source and one that I think you should read, is by the historian Rabbi David G. Dalin, "The Myth of Hitler's Pope" (2005). The second part of this book is dedicated to the true friend of Hitler, the notorious grandmufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini.
The best and most elaborate studies on Pius XII have been conducted by Prof. dr. Hans Jansen, who currently holds a senior position as a researcher at the Simon Wiesental Institute in Brussels.
He wrote "De zwijgende Paus?" (The Silent Pope?)(2000)and also, "Pius XII, chronologie van een onophoudelijk protest" (chronology of a protest without end) (2004). In this last work, Jansen painstakingly documents all the many protests and further actions by Pius XII, from May the 3rd, 1938 to the first of March 1947. Both of his books have been widely praised for their scholarship and thorough use of sources.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
I don't want to argue about the merits of your apologists for evil-doers; Pinchas Lapide, Rabbi David Dalin, et al. We Jews have had our history of traitorous / self-loathing, even foolish Jews like former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir who is responsible for countless innocent Jewish souls slaughterd at the hands of Islamic killers, because of her folly. (I do not know Professor Jansen.) President Barack Hussein Obama's court Jews - Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod - are a case in point.
Let's talk about the Vatican today and it's anti-Semitic position on Israel. How can you defend it? Isn't Pope Benedict XII following in the steps of Pope Pius XII? If not, why not?
Rabbi David Dalin is currently a professor of history and politics at Ave Maria University, in Florida.
"Founded in fidelity to Christ and His Church in response to the call of Vatican II for greater lay witness in contemporary society, Ave Maria University exists to further teaching, research, and learning at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the abiding tradition of Catholic thought in both national and international settings....."
"Pope Pius XII greeted the news (of the establishment of Israel) by calling for a “crusade of prayer” for “the sacred land” (“terra sacra”), says Mordechay Lewy, Israel’s ambassador to the Holy See.
"On the day of Israel’s foundation,” says Lewy, “the Osservatore Romano [the official Vatican daily] described the situation as ‘another milestone on the Palestinian Via Cruxis.’ The reference to Christ’s passion was not accidental.”
“The founding of the State of Israel was seen in the Vatican as a Communist-Atheist threat,” says Lewy. “On June 12, 1948, an editorial in the Osservatore Romano stated, ‘The birth of Israel gives Moscow a base in the Near East from which the microbes can multiply and spread.’
“However, opposing demonizing comparisons were also used. The bulletin of the [Catholic] Congregation de Propaganda Fide, at that time, even went so far as to defame Zionism as ‘the new Nazism,’” Lewy said.
Aversion to the Israeli state lasted for decades. As late as 1957, recalls Lewy, Pius’s foreign minister, Domenico Tardini, wrote to the French ambassador, “I always felt that there was no overriding reason to found this state. It was a mistake of the Western countries. Its existence is an immanent factor for the danger of war in the Near East. Since Israel exists, of course there is no possibility for destroying it, but we are paying the price for this mistake day by day.”
This negative attitude, says Lewy, was rooted in a prevailing theology that considered Jews “a deicide people who lost God’s grace and with it their right to the Holy Land. The goal of the Zionist movement was in open contrast to traditional Catholic doctrine.”
The current era of bilateral relations with Israel was ushered in during the 1980s by Pope John Paul II, the first pope to speak openly of “the right of the people of the State of Israel to live in peace and security,” initiating the process that led to diplomatic recognition of Israel in 1994.
Regarding the controversy over Pius XII’s “silence” during the Shoah, which was accompanied, however, by the opening of church institutions to Jewish and political refugees, Lewy echoes the repeated calls by Jewish leaders to suspend historical evaluation until scholars have access to the secret archives of the wartime years of Pius’s papacy...."
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishFeatures/Article.aspx?id=171940
Who would want people to mindlessly follow unquestioningly and without criticism laws preserving (manly male) power and pride and sexual domination and plunder? Who would want people to give up their freedom and their ability to reason and their own conscience? Who would promise people eternal sexual indulgence for obedience in oppressing, abusing, and murdering others? Replace the word allah with satan, and it makes sense. It is another, parallel form of satan worship.
Obama needs to be sent this book, perhaps asking him to explain his stand on Muslim contribution to science.
Add all the "reformers" you can find, the main law of Islam is that Muhammad is "allah's prophet" and the "perfect man" (example). Islam is boiled down to the two basic concepts of allah being supreme power and Muhammad being allah's spokesman. When liberal/progressive elitists are finally (after their money and power runs out or is taken) required to say that sentence, what will they do?
Hi wildjew,
Facts:
Calls to protest and resist the persecution of Jews in encyclicals, speeches, letters and instructions by Pius XII
- speech by cardinal Eugenio Pacelli on 05-29-1938.
- radio message of 03-03-1939 and in
- homily on 04-09-1939.
- in speech on 06-24-1939 and in
- radio message on 08-24-1939.
- in encyclical Summi Pontificatus of 10-20-1939.
- in Christmas speech on 12-24-1939 and in
- letter to cardinals and archbishops of France, 06-29-1940.
- instructions to cardinal Marchetti-Salvagiani spring 1940.
- in French broadcasts of Radio Vaticana in 1940.
- in homily of 10-24-1940.
- in instructions Opere et caritate for bishops in Europe, 12-23-1940.
- in radio speech on 06-26-1941.
- in radio message (Christmas message) of 12-24-1941.
- in letter to priests en students in Germany of January 1942.
- in letter to F.R. Bornewasser, bishop of Trier, 02-20-1942.
- in letter to bishop Andreas Rohrbacher, 10-15-1942.
- in radio message (Christmas message) of 12-24-1942.
- in speech to the priests of Rome, 03-13-1943.
- etcetera..
Humanitarian interventions by Pius XII and his associates to save persecuted Jews: diplomatic protests by Pius XII, secretary of state and nuntii, public protests by bishops and actions to save Jews:
- interventions by Pius XII in Poland.
- interventions by Pius XII in Germany and Austria.
- interventions by bishops in the Netherlands (unfortunately leading to intensified persecution of Jews by the nazi occupiers of Holland).
- in Belgium.
- interventions by Britisch cardinal Arthur Hinsley and the American episcopate.
- interventions by Pius XII in France; Spain; Portugal and Latin America; Greece; Slowakia; Croatia; Romania; Hungary; Bulgaria and Italy.
During the War, my grandfather was a prominent member of the Dutch resistance in Holland (he kept Jews in hiding, among many other things) and he was betrayed by NSB collaborators. In the camp were the Nazis kept him, there were many of the resistance keeping their fingers crossed that Pope Pius XII or the Dutch bishops wouldn't protest too loudly as they did time and again. Everybody knew that the National-Socialists would enhance the persecutions of the Jews even more, each time the voice of Pius XII was heard.
The beforementioned encyclical by Pius XII, "Summi Pontificatus", was dispersed in mini-version by the thousands above Germany. This was done by Air France in the fall of 1939, on orders from the French secret service (after consulting with Pius XII).
Why would they have done that, wildjew? Any idea?
Also in the fall of 1939, Pius XII even acted as a go-between and intermediary in a plan by colonel-general Ludwig Beck, to bring down Hitler.
Facts, wildjew..
You don't seem to handle them very well, while prove yourself very adept at crying "anti-Semitism!", just like other activists are eager to cry "islamophobia". Moreover, you support Googled-up propaganda aimed at the Vatican the way other conspiracy fanatics ascribe all kinds of sinister schemes to Jews. I'm sorry to say that, in a way, you strike me as the mirror image of a Muslim dawa'ist.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.
Sag, why do you give me your "Kind regs from Amsterdam"? Comparing me to jihadists that "cry Islamaphobia" is not kind but obscene.
Your grandfather (to his credit) was a prominent member of the Dutch resistance in Holland. (Are you and your family Catholic?) There were courageous "Righteous Gentiles" and Christians like your grandfather who fought Nazism; who saved Jews and other "subhumans" from the Nazis at the risk of their lives. Was this resistance specifically directed by Pius XII from the Vatican? We do not know because the Vatican has yet to open its archives to scholarly research. You say many of the resistance kept their fingers crossed that Pope Pius XII or the Dutch bishops wouldn't protest too loudly as they did time and again.
According to my sources, throughout September, as Pius (Eugenio Pacelli) "pondered the appalling news from Poland with its population of 35 million mainly Catholic souls, he remained silent. Was he frightened by the retaliatory impact a protest might provoke against the Catholic populations of Germany and Poland? As far as the Poles were concerned, there was nothing worse that Hitler could inflict upon them." The same could be said for the Jews.
When Pius finally did speak out late October 1939, his language was evasive and equivocal, even as he he assured his audience, "As Vicar (of Christ)....For this I was born, and for this I came into the world: that I should give testimony to the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice."
Did this man testify to the truth? Did he condemn Nazi atrocities and genocide against innocent Jews, Poles, gypsies, Slavs and other sub-humans? Did Pope Pius XII condemn Adolf Hitler by name? What can you produce Sagunto. Provide some specifics from any of his speeches whereby he condemned the murderous aggressor (Adolf Hitler) and the Nazis by name. Or did he like Archbishop Cyril Butros -- who condemned terrorism "from WHEREVER it may proceed" -- say, "Our heart sickens from the dark seeds of violence and animosity...from the well-loved country of Poland"? Did he denounce Nazi Germany, Sangunto, as his LORD WOULD HAVE DONE?
According to historian Guenter Lewy, the Gestapo considered the Pope's pronouncement innocuous and ambiguous enough to allow the encyclical to be read from the pulpits.
I do not believe in hell. Nevertheless, speaking of Pius and others who remain neutral and non-committal in the face of a great evil, Dante Alighieri wrote: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality."
More to the point. I asked you above, how can you defend the Vatican's theologically-based war against the Jewish state?
My point to Wellinton earlier was this: Western nation-states, including America, are essentially Christian nation-states. (Israel - a Jewish state - is on the front lines, bearing the brunt of the global jihad.) America (today) is the leading Christian nation-state in the earth. The clash today is demonstrably and increasingly between Islamic nations and Christian nations. But on one thing Christendom [though NOT, by any means, all Christians!] and Islam agree; that is on the destruction of Israel. Official Christian American (and EU) policy has been the establishment of a Muslim-terror state, dedicated to Israel's destruction, for many decades. What has changed from antiquity?
Now we see the Vatican and the Pope laying the theologically-based justification for the destruction of Israel. Yes or no?
This bears repeating:
Now we see the Vatican and the Pope laying the theologically-based justification for the destruction of Israel.
Yes or no Sagunto?
Sagunto, you wrote above: "You are obviously completely ignorant about the HEROIC (emphasis mine; see below) behaviour of Pius XII in the face of evil. What are your sources?"
This reminds me of something historian Paul Johnson wrote in his "A History Of The Jews."
Johnson: "....the evidence against the Jews was all there in the Bible, which they had written themselves. Therein of course, lay a terrible problem for the Jews. One of their greatest gifts was the critical faculty. They had always had it....But they were not only critical; they were, perhaps above all, self-critical....They saw the truth, sometimes the ugly truth, about themselves, and they told it in the Bible. Whereas other peoples produced their national EPICS to endorse and bolster their self-esteem the Jews wanted to discover what had gone wrong with their history, as well as what had gone right. That is why the the Bible is littered with passages with which the Jews are presented as a sinful people, often too wicked or obstinate to accept God's law, though they know it. The Jews, in fact, produced the evidence for their own prosecution...." (page 206)
epic–adjective: heroic; majestic; impressively great: the epic events of the war.
Peter Clemerson, an interesting attempt. What you propose might be something like what some pious orthodox Muslims think when they are trying to justify studying science and technology.
But even if one provides a kind of band-aid justification in that way, one does not thereby transform Islamic culture into something different.
One must keep in mind the difference between a culture that organically gives birth to science, and a culture onto which science is grafted, and only with difficulty. The graft remains an external growth, not integral to the whole plant. You no doubt are aware that one can sometimes graft one species of plant onto another. The host plant does not thereby turn into the grafted plant. Similarly with Islamic culture and science. Science is to a significant extent a graft of something alien onto Islamic culture. By contrast, in the culture that gives birth to science, assumptions at least moderately in favor of reason permeate the whole culture, to some degree.
Some cultures that did not give birth to science have learned to do so, because those cultures were not inimical to reason. But Islam, at least over the last thousand years, and in many ways right to the beginnings in Muhammad, has been profoundly inimical to reason. An argument such as you make, a sort of band-aid argument a pious Muslim might use to justify studying science, would not by itself penetrate and permeate the whole of Islamic culture with the assumption that reason provides access to reality. Islamic culture is permeated with a thousand and more years of assumptions and practices rejecting reason. Those assumptions and practices have a huge amount of momentum.
A logically persuasive argument, such as you provided, is not all that is needed to transform Islamic assumptions and practices. Islam's rejection of reason, not any failure to come up with a clever argument, is what keeps Islam's traditional assumptions and practices going forward.