U
unstoppable_II
Guest
That would be rather difficult since the word “Islam” has been banned from any such discussion.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Interesting, I wonder why? Muslims are not protesting the White House for banning the word Islam be spoken among the president’s administration staff?That would be rather difficult since the word “Islam” has been banned from any such discussion.
Would it not be logical for Muslims to protest the “Christians” for banning the word Islam in the White house? Where are they?
Which is more politically logical Islam or Christianity?
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
You said,Interesting, I wonder why? Muslims are not protesting the White House for banning the word Islam be spoken among the president’s administration staff?
Would it not be logical for Muslims to protest the “Christians” for banning the word Islam in the White house? Where are they?
…
so I took it literally that the instruction you mentioned would be about which Islam we are at war with. The administration has gone to great lengths to scrub out any negative references to Islam.…I think Warner should instruct the White house administration which Islam we are at war with from the dual contradiction of Islam.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Yes, I think Warren’s facts should be presented to the White house in regards to the Logical dualism of Islam.You said,
so I took it literally that the instruction you mentioned would be about which Islam we are at war with. The administration has gone to great lengths to scrub out any negative references to Islam.
You responded; “That would be rather difficult since the word “Islam” has been banned from any such discussion”
My first thought was, How is it that the president of the U.S can violate a Constitutional first amendment right, when he refuses and restricts the right of free speech to his staff?
The Word Islam is not a subject of the OP which you introduced.
I think restricting the God given right of freedom of speech to say the word Islam in the White house blemishes Islam in a negative way.
But I respect your opinion here in the hopes of not going off topic.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
I’m not an attorney, but I think the constitution doesn’t protect one in a work environment, because you would be representing your employer.…
My first thought was, How is it that the president of the U.S can violate a Constitutional first amendment right, when he refuses and restricts the right of free speech to his staff?.
No, but you brought it up.The Word Islam is not a subject of the OP which you introduced.
Worse yet, the president is denying himself some opinions that might be valuable.I think restricting the God given right of freedom of speech to say the word Islam in the White house blemishes Islam in a negative way.
C
Contarini
Guest
So just some dude with an axe to grind and masking his prejudice under the banner of supposedly “critical thought” (nothing critical about it, actually, from a historian’s point of view).
Edwin
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Instead of attacking the man, why don’t you critique his work?So just some dude with an axe to grind and masking his prejudice under the banner of supposedly “critical thought” (nothing critical about it, actually, from a historian’s point of view).
Edwin
E
epan
Guest
I would be wary of trying to find logical consistency in either religion. It just won’t work.Which religion is more logical?
God
Islam: God is One.
Christianity: god is one in three?
Jesus
I: The Prophet of God and his Word. He said to him be and he was.
C: god? son of god?
Mary
I: The mother of Jesus. A virgin who gave birth to Jesus by the miracle of God without being touched by any man.
The best woman of all nations.
C: Mother of god?
Creation
I: God is the creator and He created Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the universe, and He is the only one to be worshiped.
C: Is Jesus a creator or a creation?
Quran
I: The word of God revealed to his final messenger Mohammed through Angel Gabriel.
The unchanged book.
A book with no author except God.
C: A false book?
The author is Muhammed?
Bible
I: A revelation sent to Prophet Jesus as the Torah was revealed to Prophet Moses.
Muslims believe in all the revelations of God but follow the Quran only as God preserves it from change and corruption.
C: Was the Bible not changed?
Perfection
I: God is perfect who does not need to eat or sleep or any human needs.
God does not die.
C: god eats and sleeps and dies too?
Forgiveness
I: No one can forgive sins but God.
We seek forgiveness from God directly.
No mediation between a man and God.
C: god forgives sins after confessing to a priest?
Isn’t priest a man who can sin too?
Images and idols
I: It is forbidden to make images and idols of God and his Prophets.
C: Images and idols of god are allowed?
C
Contarini
Guest
Source?That would be rather difficult since the word “Islam” has been banned from any such discussion.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Where’ve you been?Source?
foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/obama-bans-islam-jihad-national-security-strategy-document/
econjobrumors.com/topic/white-house-bans-the-use-of-radical-islam
washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/25/obamas-cleansing-of-islamic-terms-suppresses-commo/?page=all
townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/13/white-house-still-refuses-to-even-say-the-phrase-radical-islam-n1942527
judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/u-s-bans-linking-terrorism-to-muslims-in-agent-training/
P.S. Save both of us some time by not bothering to reply if all you’re going to post are negative motives and ad hominems of the sources.
C
CommonWeal
Guest
Chapter 2: How to argue with unbelievers
First of all I wish to warn you [Christians] that in disputations with unbelievers about articles of the Faith, you should not try to prove the Faith by necessary reasons. This would belittle the sublimity of the Faith, whose truth exceeds not only human minds but also those of angels; we believe in them only because they are revealed by God.
Yet whatever come from the Supreme Truth cannot be false, and what is not false cannot be repudiated by any necessary reason. Just as our Faith cannot be proved by necessary reasons, because it exceeds the human mind, so because of its truth it cannot be refuted by any necessary reason. So any Christian disputing about the articles of the Faith should not try to prove the Faith, but defend the Faith. Thus blessed Peter (1 Pet 3:15) did not say: “Always have your proof”, but “your answer ready,” so that reason can show that what the Catholic Faith holds is not false.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Reasons for the Faith Against Muslim Objections.
First of all I wish to warn you [Christians] that in disputations with unbelievers about articles of the Faith, you should not try to prove the Faith by necessary reasons. This would belittle the sublimity of the Faith, whose truth exceeds not only human minds but also those of angels; we believe in them only because they are revealed by God.
Yet whatever come from the Supreme Truth cannot be false, and what is not false cannot be repudiated by any necessary reason. Just as our Faith cannot be proved by necessary reasons, because it exceeds the human mind, so because of its truth it cannot be refuted by any necessary reason. So any Christian disputing about the articles of the Faith should not try to prove the Faith, but defend the Faith. Thus blessed Peter (1 Pet 3:15) did not say: “Always have your proof”, but “your answer ready,” so that reason can show that what the Catholic Faith holds is not false.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Reasons for the Faith Against Muslim Objections.
C
CommonWeal
Guest
Chapter 3: How generation applies to God
First of all we must observe that Muslims are silly in ridiculing us for holding that Christ is the Son of the living God, as if God had a wife. Since they are carnal, they can think only of what is flesh and blood. For any wise man can observe that the mode of generation is not the same for everything, but generation applies to each thing according to the special manner of its nature. In animals it is by copulation of male and female; in plants it is by pollination or generation, and in other things in other ways.
God, however, is not of a fleshly nature, requiring a woman to copulate with to generate offspring, but he is of a spiritual or intellectual nature, much higher than every intellectual nature. So generation should be understood of God as it applies to an intellectual nature. Even though our own intellect falls far short of the divine intellect, we still have to speak of the divine intellect by comparing it with what we find in our own intellect.
Our intellect understands sometimes potentially, sometimes actually. Whenever it actually understands it forms something intelligible, a kind of offspring, which is called a concept, something conceived by the mind. This is signified by an audible voice, so that as the audible voice is called the exterior word, the interior concept of the mind signified by the exterior audible word is called the word of the intellect or mind. A concept of our mind is not the very essence of our mind, but something accidental to it, because even our act of understanding is not the very being of our intellect; otherwise our intellect would have to be always in act.
So the word of our intellect can be likened to a concept or offspring, especially when the intellect understands itself and the concept is a likeness of the intellect coming from its intellectual power, just as a son has a likeness to his father, from whose generative power he comes forth.
The word of our intellect is not properly an offspring or son, because it is not of the same nature as our intellect. Not everything that comes forth from another, even if it is similar to its source, is called a son; otherwise a painted picture of someone would be a son. To be a son, it is required that the one coming forth from the other must not only resemble its source but also be of the same nature with it.
But in God understanding is not different from his being. Consequently the word which is conceived in his intellect is not something accidental to him or alien from his nature but, by the very fact that it is a word, it must be coming forth from another and must be a likeness of its source. All this is true even of our own word.
But besides this, the Word of God is not an accident or a part of God, who is simple, nor something extrinsic to the divine nature, but is something complete, subsisting in the divine nature and coming forth from another, as any word must be. In our human way of talking, this is called a son, because it comes forth from another in its likeness and subsists in the same nature with it.
Therefore, as far as divine things can be represented by human words, we call the Word of the divine intellect the Son of God, while God, whose Word he is, we call the Father. We say that the coming forth of the Word is an immaterial generation of a son, not a carnal one, as carnal men surmise.
There is another way that this generation of the Son of God surpasses every human generation, whether material, as when one man is born from another, or intelligible, as when a word is brought forth in the human mind. In either of these cases what is born is younger than its source. A father does not generate as soon as he begins to exist, but he must first mature. Even the act of generation takes time before a son is born, because carnal generation is a matter of stages. Likewise the human intellect is not ready to form intelligible concepts as soon as a man is born, but when he matures. So he does not always actually understand, but after potentially understanding he actually understands and again stops actually understanding and remains understanding only in potency or with habitual knowledge. So a human word is younger than a man and sometimes stops existing before the man.
But these two limitations cannot apply to God, who has no imperfection or change, or going from potency to act, since he is pure and first act. The Word of God, therefore, is co-eternal with God.
Another difference of our word from the divine is that our intellect does not simultaneously understand everything, or with one act, but by many different acts; therefore the words of our intellect are many. But God understands everything simultaneously by one single act, because his understanding must be one, since it is his very being. It follows therefore that in God there is only one word.
There is yet another difference: The word of our intellect does not measure up to the power of our intellect, because when we mentally conceive one thing we can still conceive many other things; thus the word of our intellect is imperfect and can be composed, when several imperfect notions are put together to form a more perfect word, as happens in the process of formulating a definition. But the divine Word measures up to the power of God, because by his essence he understands himself and everything else. So the Word he conceives by his essence, when he understands himself and everything else, is as great as his essence. It is therefore perfect, simple and equal to God. We call this Word of God a Son, as said above, because he is of the same nature with the Father, and we profess that he is co-eternal with the Father, only-begotten and perfect.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Reasons for the Faith Against Muslim Objections.
First of all we must observe that Muslims are silly in ridiculing us for holding that Christ is the Son of the living God, as if God had a wife. Since they are carnal, they can think only of what is flesh and blood. For any wise man can observe that the mode of generation is not the same for everything, but generation applies to each thing according to the special manner of its nature. In animals it is by copulation of male and female; in plants it is by pollination or generation, and in other things in other ways.
God, however, is not of a fleshly nature, requiring a woman to copulate with to generate offspring, but he is of a spiritual or intellectual nature, much higher than every intellectual nature. So generation should be understood of God as it applies to an intellectual nature. Even though our own intellect falls far short of the divine intellect, we still have to speak of the divine intellect by comparing it with what we find in our own intellect.
Our intellect understands sometimes potentially, sometimes actually. Whenever it actually understands it forms something intelligible, a kind of offspring, which is called a concept, something conceived by the mind. This is signified by an audible voice, so that as the audible voice is called the exterior word, the interior concept of the mind signified by the exterior audible word is called the word of the intellect or mind. A concept of our mind is not the very essence of our mind, but something accidental to it, because even our act of understanding is not the very being of our intellect; otherwise our intellect would have to be always in act.
So the word of our intellect can be likened to a concept or offspring, especially when the intellect understands itself and the concept is a likeness of the intellect coming from its intellectual power, just as a son has a likeness to his father, from whose generative power he comes forth.
The word of our intellect is not properly an offspring or son, because it is not of the same nature as our intellect. Not everything that comes forth from another, even if it is similar to its source, is called a son; otherwise a painted picture of someone would be a son. To be a son, it is required that the one coming forth from the other must not only resemble its source but also be of the same nature with it.
But in God understanding is not different from his being. Consequently the word which is conceived in his intellect is not something accidental to him or alien from his nature but, by the very fact that it is a word, it must be coming forth from another and must be a likeness of its source. All this is true even of our own word.
But besides this, the Word of God is not an accident or a part of God, who is simple, nor something extrinsic to the divine nature, but is something complete, subsisting in the divine nature and coming forth from another, as any word must be. In our human way of talking, this is called a son, because it comes forth from another in its likeness and subsists in the same nature with it.
Therefore, as far as divine things can be represented by human words, we call the Word of the divine intellect the Son of God, while God, whose Word he is, we call the Father. We say that the coming forth of the Word is an immaterial generation of a son, not a carnal one, as carnal men surmise.
There is another way that this generation of the Son of God surpasses every human generation, whether material, as when one man is born from another, or intelligible, as when a word is brought forth in the human mind. In either of these cases what is born is younger than its source. A father does not generate as soon as he begins to exist, but he must first mature. Even the act of generation takes time before a son is born, because carnal generation is a matter of stages. Likewise the human intellect is not ready to form intelligible concepts as soon as a man is born, but when he matures. So he does not always actually understand, but after potentially understanding he actually understands and again stops actually understanding and remains understanding only in potency or with habitual knowledge. So a human word is younger than a man and sometimes stops existing before the man.
But these two limitations cannot apply to God, who has no imperfection or change, or going from potency to act, since he is pure and first act. The Word of God, therefore, is co-eternal with God.
Another difference of our word from the divine is that our intellect does not simultaneously understand everything, or with one act, but by many different acts; therefore the words of our intellect are many. But God understands everything simultaneously by one single act, because his understanding must be one, since it is his very being. It follows therefore that in God there is only one word.
There is yet another difference: The word of our intellect does not measure up to the power of our intellect, because when we mentally conceive one thing we can still conceive many other things; thus the word of our intellect is imperfect and can be composed, when several imperfect notions are put together to form a more perfect word, as happens in the process of formulating a definition. But the divine Word measures up to the power of God, because by his essence he understands himself and everything else. So the Word he conceives by his essence, when he understands himself and everything else, is as great as his essence. It is therefore perfect, simple and equal to God. We call this Word of God a Son, as said above, because he is of the same nature with the Father, and we profess that he is co-eternal with the Father, only-begotten and perfect.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Reasons for the Faith Against Muslim Objections.
C
Contarini
Guest
There’s nothing to critique. He cites very few sources and bases his whole argument on statistics cherry-picked to support his case.Instead of attacking the man, why don’t you critique his work?
Certainly talking about how much of a religious text is devoted to a particular subject is a worthwhile piece of analysis, but it’s all he does, other than make sweeping claims with no documentation.
If someone is making big methodological claims about how to interpret a religion, a basic requirement is that he actually have citations from members of that religion showing that they accept the methodology. Since he doesn’t do that, nothing he says has any value. He’s creating a paradigm and imposing it on Muslims, and then judging them by the standard he invented. (No dispute that what he calls the “trilogy” is authoritative in Islam, though I haven’t seen Muslims put the Sira quite as high as he does.)
He imposes a dichotomy between politics and religion that is thoroughly modern and then says that politics is more important.
But the fundamental problem is that his “statistical method” is ludicrous. You can’t put all three of these sources on the same level when Muslims say that one of them is the Word of God and the others are human documents containing reports of what the Prophet said and did. He ignores the careful distinctions Islamic scholars make between different hadith in terms of trustworthiness, treating them all as the same.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No evidence of a ban on mentions of Islam, just a reluctance on the White House’s part to speak as if they think Islam as a whole is linked to terrorism. (For instance, they got rid of materials that accused moderate Muslims of not being really moderate but just seeking world dominacne by different means–and quite rightly.) You may disagree with that, but it’s not a ban. Some of the headlines use the word “ban,” but that isn’t borne out by the content of the articles. It’s an example of scurrilous journalism. Yes, if you want to call that an ad hominem do so. I call it telling the truth. When you use the word “ban” in the headline and there isn’t any ban mentioned in the body of the article, there really isn’t any nice word to use to describe such a tactic, is there?Where’ve you been?
foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/obama-bans-islam-jihad-national-security-strategy-document/
econjobrumors.com/topic/white-house-bans-the-use-of-radical-islam
washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/25/obamas-cleansing-of-islamic-terms-suppresses-commo/?page=all
townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/13/white-house-still-refuses-to-even-say-the-phrase-radical-islam-n1942527
judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/u-s-bans-linking-terrorism-to-muslims-in-agent-training/
P.S. Save both of us some time by not bothering to reply if all you’re going to post are negative motives and ad hominems of the sources.
Edwin
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
In retrospect; in keeping with the OPI would be wary of trying to find logical consistency in either religion. It just won’t work.
**Not logical; **Jesus born of a virgin, Jesus walked on water, The wind and the storming seas obeyed Jesus Word, Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, gave sight to a man born blind, changed water into wine, fed four and five thousand people with just a few fish and some bread, healed a die-ing Jewish slave from a afar with just His Word, was crucified, died, buried and raised from the dead after three days, was seen by eyewitnesses for fifty days and ascended into heaven.
Logical; Muhammad born of a man and a woman, claims an angel choked him three times to Quran = recite, converted Arab tribes to Islam with the threat of death. Muhammad died.
Which prophet viewed by logical reason, is the one to believe revealed divine revelation of God to all of humanity?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
He proves this assumption- “The assumption is that the more content that is devoted to a subject, the greater the importance of the subject is.” where?Instead of attacking the man, why don’t you critique his work?
O
obennis1
Guest
Quran Chapter 32:
( 2 ) [This is] the revelation of the Book about which there is no doubt from the Lord of the worlds.
Quran [Chapter: 21 Verse: 30]
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece,
then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Quran [Chapter 20 Verses: 1-6]
Ta, Ha.
We have not sent down to you the Qur’an that you be distressed
But only as a reminder for those who fear [Allah]
A revelation from He who created the earth and highest heavens
The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.
To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on the earth and what is between them and what is under the soil.
Quran [Chapter: 5 Verse: 75]
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him.
His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them;
yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (75)
Quran [Chapter 17 Verse: 88]
Say: “If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.” [Quran 17:88]
( 2 ) [This is] the revelation of the Book about which there is no doubt from the Lord of the worlds.
Quran [Chapter: 21 Verse: 30]
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece,
then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Quran [Chapter 20 Verses: 1-6]
Ta, Ha.
We have not sent down to you the Qur’an that you be distressed
But only as a reminder for those who fear [Allah]
A revelation from He who created the earth and highest heavens
The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.
To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on the earth and what is between them and what is under the soil.
Quran [Chapter: 5 Verse: 75]
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him.
His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them;
yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (75)
Quran [Chapter 17 Verse: 88]
Say: “If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.” [Quran 17:88]
C
CommonWeal
Guest
Does anyone else think it’s strange that the Quran goes to great lengths to glorify and praise the Quran itself, as in the last chapter and verse quoted here? In my view, this is strong evidence that the Quran was not inspired, because only a man, with all his faults and insecurities, would continually tell his readers that his creation is a thing of beauty and that they should admire it for all eternity!Quran Chapter 32:
( 2 ) [This is] the revelation of the Book about which there is no doubt from the Lord of the worlds.
Quran [Chapter: 21 Verse: 30]
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece,
then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
Quran [Chapter 20 Verses: 1-6]
Ta, Ha.
We have not sent down to you the Qur’an that you be distressed
But only as a reminder for those who fear [Allah]
A revelation from He who created the earth and highest heavens
The Most Merciful [who is] above the Throne established.
To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on the earth and what is between them and what is under the soil.
Quran [Chapter: 5 Verse: 75]
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him.
His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them;
yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (75)
Quran [Chapter 17 Verse: 88]
Say: “If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.” [Quran 17:88]
As far as I know, there is no similar language in the Bible. True, in many places the Bible states that it is trustworthy, useful for correction, etc., but never with the same kind of vanity and emphasis we see in the Quran.
What do others think about this?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
It is written by Arabs to Arabs in Aramaic, which has a strong cultural and language take which can be enlightening from an Arab cultural interpretation.Does anyone else think it’s strange that the Quran goes to great lengths to glorify and praise the Quran itself, as in the last chapter and verse quoted here? In my view, this is strong evidence that the Quran was not inspired, because only a man, with all his faults and insecurities, would continually tell his readers that his creation is a thing of beauty and that they should admire it for all eternity!
As far as I know, there is no similar language in the Bible. True, in many places the Bible states that it is trustworthy, useful for correction, etc., but never with the same kind of vanity and emphasis we see in the Quran.
What do others think about this?
From a Western mindset some of these paragraphs do not place God in the first person speaking, but a second, third person giving his opinion of what God thinks and who God is?
For example;
Truth should be simple and logical. That is why the Word of God became flesh Present. Because God’s Essence and ways supersede human logic and understanding.Quran [Chapter: 5 Verse: 75]
Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him.
His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth! (75)
The Trinity is a testament of God, revealed to our humanity which our human logic can never exhaust in a definition of logic because God is outside of human logic, thus the Trinity reveals God’s presence, not His Essence.
C
CommonWeal
Guest
Truth should be simple, but not simplistic. I think it was Chesterton who said that Islam was an oversimplification of God.
Yes, here it is, from the New Jerusalem:
"Islam was a reaction toward simplicity; it was a violent simplification, which turned out to be an oversimplification.
I love the way he puts this from Orthodoxy. Such insight.
“. . . but out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.”
And this:
“There is in Islam a paradox which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy out of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. It affirms, with no little sublimity, something that is not merely the singleness but rather the solitude of God. There is the same extreme simplification in the solitary figure of the Prophet; and yet this isolation perpetually reacts into its own opposite. A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude of lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets. Of these the mightiest in modern times were the man whose name was Ahmed, and whose more famous title was the Mahdi; and his more ferocious successor Abdullahi, who was generally known as the Khalifa. These great fanatics, or great creators of fanaticism, succeeded in making a militarism almost as famous and formidable as that of the Turkish Empire on whose frontiers it hovered, and in spreading a reign of terror such as can seldom be organised except by civilisation . . . .” - Lord Kitchener
Yes, here it is, from the New Jerusalem:
"Islam was a reaction toward simplicity; it was a violent simplification, which turned out to be an oversimplification.
I love the way he puts this from Orthodoxy. Such insight.
“. . . but out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.”
And this:
“There is in Islam a paradox which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy out of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. It affirms, with no little sublimity, something that is not merely the singleness but rather the solitude of God. There is the same extreme simplification in the solitary figure of the Prophet; and yet this isolation perpetually reacts into its own opposite. A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude of lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets. Of these the mightiest in modern times were the man whose name was Ahmed, and whose more famous title was the Mahdi; and his more ferocious successor Abdullahi, who was generally known as the Khalifa. These great fanatics, or great creators of fanaticism, succeeded in making a militarism almost as famous and formidable as that of the Turkish Empire on whose frontiers it hovered, and in spreading a reign of terror such as can seldom be organised except by civilisation . . . .” - Lord Kitchener
- Status
- Not open for further replies.