"Chaos and destruction in the house of Islam"?
Charles Paul Freund | September 28, 2004, 6:00pm
"The struggle against Islamist terrorism is neither the rosy success story painted by [Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad] Allawi and President Bush nor the disastrous free-fall described by John Kerry," writes my old boss David Ignatius in his Washington Post column today. "Instead, it is one unresolved battle in the long-term struggle summarized by the title of [French Arabist Gilles] Kepel's new book, The War for Muslim Minds."
Ignatius writes that according to Kepel, "the West has been misreading the aftermath of bin Laden's Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He cites a December 2001 pamphlet, 'Knights Under the Prophet's Banner,' written by al Qaeda's key strategist, the Egyptian doctor Ayman Zawahiri. The jihadists should attack the 'faraway enemy' in the United States, Zawahiri urged, because it would help mobilize the Muslim masses to overthrow their rulers in the 'nearby enemy.' Instead, "the followers of Osama bin Laden have created chaos and destruction in the house of Islam" by murdering many of their fellow Muslims, causing Islamist regimes to weaken or fall, and alienating millions of moderate Muslims.
Kepel is "sharply critical of U.S. policies" in Iraq, writes Ignatius. "But that doesn't mean the jihadists are winning. Quite the contrary, their movement has backfired. Rather than bringing Islamic regimes to power, the holy warriors are creating internal strife and discord."
Among the jihadis' problems: "The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been toppled; the fence-sitting semi-Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia has taken sides more strongly with the West; Islamists in Sudan and Libya are in retreat; and the plight of the Palestinians has never been more dire. And Baghdad, the traditional seat of the Muslim caliphs, is under foreign occupation. Not what you would call a successful jihad."
Jason Bourne | September 28, 2004, 11:22pm | #
Joe L.,
You really need a refresher course on the history of Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Your attempt to paint Luther as a pillar of modernity is laughable, and wholly ahistorical. Read Luther's
On the Jews and their Lies for an example of his "modernity." Honestly, what is it with people turning theocratic-minded individuals like Luther and Calvin into heroes of "tolerance."
Some of Luther's thoughts on Jews:
"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves..."
"We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."
"The blind Jews are truly stupid fools..."
"Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people."
"What then shall we do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?"
"Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews..."
"I shall give you my sincere advice: first to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews."
"Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them..."
"If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words 'I baptize thee in the name of Abraham'."
gaius marius | September 29, 2004, 9:59am | #
It has nothing to do with whether Luther was "perfect" or not; the man supported religious tyranny; he was no reformer in other words,
now that we're waaay off topic, my two pennies:
mr bourne, i think it fair to say that luther was not an intentional reformer. he had no notion of upsetting a uniformly catholic europe (and it SO was, in every meaningful way, uniformly catholic). he did support a religious tyranny -- the roman catholic church.
luther's importance isn't in what he intended, but in what his action precipitated -- he was an accidental reformer, i like to think. joe L isn't perhaps making the most articulate argument of this point, but it must be acknowledged.
before we hammer luther's antisemitism again, shall we acknowledge that professing antisemitism in his day was akin to professing a love of football today? it doesn't make it moral, i agree, but condemning a man for being of his times is not historical understanding.
and i would contend that indulgences, while clamored after by the hoardes for what they represented, did in fact pay for the new saint peters. they were but one of many grievances, so i agree perhaps too much is made of them -- like any revolution, the causes are manifold and sometimes contradictory -- but to pretend that the onerous nature of a schedule of religious obligations that is hard to imagine today played no role isn't entirely honest.
i tend to adopt barzun's view of the reformation -- unlike weber, who imagined the spark of capitalism in calvin, i think the revolution luther sparked was rather a manifestation of a societal revolt against the local collectivism that had been the advent of the fall of the roman empire and perhaps peaked with the black death of 1348. what luther's followers and fighters (though not luther himself) were fighting for was the first war of emancipation in modernity -- a rebellion against the weight of obligation placed on them by the church like so many straws on the camel's back (of which indulgences were one).
the ascent of individualistic emancipation has persisted throughout, a defining characteristic of modernity, today being taken to every absurd (and decadent) end in the west.
whether that be what muslims *should* or will adopt depends on your point of view, imo. emancipation taken to the lengths we take it necessarily means irresponsibility, and irresponsibility means antisociety and decline. i cannot blame traditionalists such as exist in islam for fearing that.
gaius marius | September 29, 2004, 10:50am | #
back (or at least closer) to topic:
The breakdown of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in 2000 was the first turn in a downward spiral of violence and retribution.
i have to disagree -- this is too small a frame, though a locally important event.
as i said above, in any revolution, the causes are manifold and sometimes contradictory. there is, imo, a revolution ongoing in the muslim world. perhaps its core is a battle within islam for the direction of the society under the influence of western ideas -- "modernity" vs traditionalism, the "war for muslim minds".
but the part that most directly affects the west is less philosophical; there is widespread resistance to the imperialism of the west, now particularly america, in the third world. as cicero once said (and i have to paraphrase), 'the hatred of the provinces for rome is ensured by the men we've sent to rule them'. as mr freund noted, the notion is that "The jihadists should attack the 'faraway enemy' in the United States... because it would help mobilize the Muslim masses to overthrow their rulers in the 'nearby enemy.'"
al-qaeda represents -- at least in large part --an insurgency against western rule by proxy (particularly, american indirect empire through the house of saud). they oppose not only the cultural invasion of the east by the west as traditionalists, but also the mechanisms of trade, largesse, debt and warfare that the west is reknowned for. and it is the widespread antipathy of western influence that allows al-qaeda -- despite their mistakes (rightly noted by kepel) and method -- to continue to derive the sympathy of the wider society that every insurgency must have.
the lack of recognition in the west of the nature of AQ's appeal was never more apparent than in its invasion of iraq -- which not only made zawahiri seem prescient, but opened an entirely new theater for the insurgency to operate in. the erection of a "democracy" in iraq (in which only approved candidates are eligible) is, from that point of view, not a solution to any problem but yet another manifestation of western empire and cultural invasion. "Not what you would call a successful jihad", indeed, but all the more evidence of the need to fight it.
until the west learns that they are fighting an insurgency against their rule, ideals and culture, and then adopts the proven methods of starving an insurgency -- which has less to do with bombing city blocks than addressing and removing the reasons for public sympathy -- i think we have little chance of success anywhere in the east.
Jason Bourne | September 29, 2004, 11:04am | #
dhex,
Since capitalism in Europe emerged in the 14h century, I would say no.
joe,
See my comments to Jason Ligon.
Jason Ligon,
...Truth giving power of the Chuch.
The problem with that is that its a myth; even Luther admits this when he rages against the "ignorance" of the people who really controlled the churches in Northern Europe - the laity. Indeed, what's particularly interesting is Luther does a great deal to destroy lay control of the late medeival church (how many times do I have to repeat this?). So anything like democractization happens DESPITE their efforts.
gaius marius,
he did support a religious tyranny -- the roman catholic church.
The Church in northern Europe was controlled by the laity; it was far less tyrannical than the churches that Luther and Calvin sought to create. Indeed, this is the great irony here; by their efforts, Calvin and Luther destroyed the control that the laity had over their local churches, and, by bringing about the Council of Trent and the counter-reformation that followed, strengthened the role of Rome in the Church's affairs.
before we hammer luther's antisemitism again, shall we acknowledge that professing antisemitism in his day was akin to professing a love of football today?
No, we can't. Luther's anti-semitism was especially virulent even for his time. He generally went beyond the pale even for his own time.
it doesn't make it moral, i agree, but condemning a man for being of his times is not historical understanding.
Ignorance of the historical times is your sin.
and i would contend that indulgences, while clamored after by the hoardes for what they represented, did in fact pay for the new saint peters.
Indulgences were popular not because the clergy forced them upon people, but because people liked them; and they were largely found - again - in Northern Europe.
they were but one of many grievances...
They weren't true grievances against Rome; if they were grievances against anyone, they were grievances against the desire of the laity; and again, they were attacked by the coercive power of the state; Luther and his ilk couldn't kill them by argument, so they killed them via state power.
...but to pretend that the onerous nature of a schedule of religious obligations...
And again, these were controlled by the laity, not by Rome. Please, don't get sucked into the self-serving myth making of the early Protestants.
...a rebellion against the weight of obligation placed on them by the church...
Again, no such obligation existed; the northern churches were almost wholly the domain of lay control. I've detailed why this is the case above. You can choose to ignore this reality if you like. Lay control was paramount in the 14th and 15th centuries. What Luther was rebelling against wasn't Rome, he was rebelling against the lay church control that created the "corruptions" that he didn't like.
Again, I suggest that the lot of you read some of the newer material on the Reformation; I've provided you with one source, and it will point you to others.
Jason Bourne | September 29, 2004, 2:31pm | #
gaius marius,
mr bourne, i wholly agree that your main point is part of the historical record -- i don't conceive of any organization as complex as the church being uniform (nor do i view it as bad, as many protestants and atheists assume it to have been). though europe was uniformly catholic, the catholic church was not a simple or uniform institution.
That was not your tune earlier.
but how does that mean the rcc of northern europe wasn't tyrannical or a heavy obligation on northern europeans?
Because the laity controlled it, that's why; be it the salaries of the priests or the making of shrines, etc., they controlled how the money was spent. Power of the purse means power over one's destiny.
whether the church served the papacy directly or only indirectly through the laity is only ancillary to my point, it seems to me.
Its not ancillary; indeed, its directly contrary to your earlier claims of Church tyranny. If anyone was tyrannical, it wasn't the Church; it was its lay members. Realizing this fact brings one to a much closer view of the historical reality; Luther really had far more issues with his fellow northern Europeans than he ever had with Rome, and he tried to use the coercive power of the state to bring out the changes he desired.
gauis marius,
Actually what has bothered me is how you and other earlier characterized the Roman church as all powerful; when in fact, as I state over and over again, the northern Church was controlled by the laity. Rome was indeed scapegoated; but in reality, the laity had far more control over their Church prior to Luther's efforts, than after it (at least until the schisms in the Protestant movement became more apparent, and you had various "primitivist" movements spring up like the Baptists).
dhex,
...that business and the merchantile class did not become dominant in the same way that we understand them today until after the collapse of religious authority as a military/political authority.
I think that you are mistaken. Business and mercantile classes were very powerful from the 14th century onward; so much so that in some countries (particularly England and France) that they could depose monarchs.
...they were still beheading people in france for reading voltaire well into the 18th century, etc.
They were? People caught reading illegal books were larged fined and imprisoned.
and yes, this was due to the power vested in the french church into local parishes, not rome directly.
The French monarchy nearly always liked to treat its Church as independent of Rome; and if possible, to control Rome at the same time (moving the Papacy to Avignon if they could get away with it). Rome was never as powerful Protestants tried to make it out to be.
Eric II,
But I think he downplays the extent to which the Reformation was also a backlash to the growing worldliness of the Church and its increasing embrace of the humanist values of the Renaissaince.
But most of what Luther was backlashing against, such as indulgences, was not a common practice in the mediterranean (indeed, strangely enough, it was not until the 17th century that they became common).
Partly a reaction to a wealthy, autocratic, and corrupt entity whose local authorities they feel are lording over them...
That is simply pure Reformation era Protestant myth; again, it was the laity that ran the northern churches; this is evidenced by the role of the guilds in a whole host of affairs, from paying the priests to creating shrines.
Eric II | September 29, 2004, 11:39pm | #
"That is simply pure Reformation era Protestant myth; again, it was the laity that ran the northern churches"
Jean-Gary Bourne, that doesn't matter a whole lot, other than that it makes the word "autocratic" something of a stretch. We live in a democracy, and there are still plenty of people who are fed up with what they see as the wealth, power, and corruption of our government institutions. Hell, this site is a pretty strong testament to that fact. In third-world democracies, most of which are more civilized than 16th-century Germany was, we often see this angst boil over into revolutionary movements seeking to install authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. So the fact that power was flowing from the bottom rather than the top doesn't mean that the institution's behavior couldn't inspire popular angst.
And of course, it's not hard to see how this shift in influence within the German church added to the aforementioned sense of ideological alienation.
"Fast forward through the reformation and counter reformation. At the end of all this, the notion that the sanction of the Church on even matters of explicit Christianity was in shambles. The era of knowledge passed through an authority as pervasive as the Church was gone necessarily when the Church was successfully challenged and public defectors were everywhere."
Jason, on that note, the Protestant doctrines that:
a) Each man was free to interpret the Bible on his own, without any outside guidance.
b) Only faith in Jesus was needed for salvation, not allegiance to a church.
...had to have played important roles over the long run. Though I would add that in some areas - particularly Italy - the Church's grip on European intellectual life was already being weakened by the Renaissance, as demonstrated by the way in which even a merciless satirist like Erasmus could gain a readership among the Church's hierarchy. And in the aftermath of the Reformation, the Church's intellectual climate began to degenerate once more towards its medieval state.
Jason Bourne | September 30, 2004, 5:20am | #
Jason Ligon,
The Enlightenment contained a paradigm shift.
I would say that the Enlightenment contained a paradigm shift that started in the 12th century, and that the real impetus for change was the defeat of Western Christendom by the Muslims in the Levant, as well as contact with that "alien" culture itself.
You couldn't really ask nature for truth until after the enlightenment.
That's not really true though; individuals like Roger Bacon, Occam and a whole range of individuals being produced by the universities (created in the 12th century) were thinking along these lines well before the Reformation or the Enlightenment.
My question is around the extent to which before the reformation, truth had to smell of incence and be doused in holy water before it could be accepted.
Oddly enough, you'll find that in the fight over the Thomistic doctrine (especially lively in the two centuries before the Reformation) concerning the eucharist being the true blood and body of Christ that indeed the rejection of Church tradition was common, and this doctrine was ridiculed.
...the delivery of any message was dependent on the appearance of Church sanction.
That's not even really true; indeed, we can look at the example of the eucharist. Though a number of Popes officially blessed the doctrine, it was derided throughout European university system (the backbone education for the Friars and eventually priests that Luther would come to win to his side). You really overstate the ideological power of the church. Indeed, the Hussite success at rebelling against church doctrine is even more evidence contrary to your claim.
I would really appreciate it if you took some time to understand the historical record.
At the end of all this, the notion that the sanction of the Church on even matters of explicit Christianity was in shambles.
It was never as strong as you characterize it, and even on the most important of issues, such as transubstantiation, was hotly contested long before the Reformation came about. Indeed, it can be successfully argued that what Luther was doing was parroting the criticisms of the Church itself about itself; certainly this is true of John Colet, dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in London. The Church was constantly under criticism by its own members, and your attempt characterize Rome as an entity which could stamp its opinion on everything without dissent is silly. I'm sorry, it simply did not work that way.
Eric II,
We live in a democracy, and there are still plenty of people who are fed up with what they see as the wealth, power, and corruption of our government institutions.
The point is, and you continually fail to notice it, that if there was tyranny in the northern churches, it didn't come from Rome (as Protestants have oft argued), it came from the parishes and bishoprics. I've repeated this ad nauseum so many times that my head is starting to spin. You know, if you took the time to read my statements, it might help the discussion flow a bit better.
So the fact that power was flowing from the bottom rather than the top doesn't mean that the institution's behavior couldn't inspire popular angst.
And I never argued otherwise. Your point being? Oh wait, you don't have a point, except to bring up non-sequitors! Really, in the future, just try arguing against something I've actually claimed.
Eric II | September 30, 2004, 10:30am | #
"The point is, and you continually fail to notice it, that if there was tyranny in the northern churches, it didn't come from Rome (as Protestants have oft argued)"
I don't see where I argued against this notion in my last post - I think that argument mostly holds. In fact, my only major qualifier to it would be that though the grievences of the Protestants regarding the Church's abuses of power may have been mostly directed towards local authorities, the Church's affiliation with Rome played a role in fueling popular anger, given the long-standing animosity held by Germans towards Roman authority.
To get back somewhat to the original topic, this situation probably has something in common with the Iranian Revolution, where the focal point of popular anger was the abuses of the local monarch, but in which the anger was stoked by the monarch's ties with foreign powers long seen as colonialist entities - and needless to say, a backlash to the humanist/modernist values that both the monarch and the foreign powers were seen as pushing upon the local populace. Perhaps you could even draw an analogy between the 1953 coup and Henry IV's conflict with Pope Gregory VII.
"Oh wait, you don't have a point, except to bring up non-sequitors! Really, in the future, just try arguing against something I've actually claimed."
The feeling's quite mutual.
"Also, I would appreciate it if you would use my nickname."
If I posted under three different nicknames, and refused to own up to the affiliation of any one of them with the others, I think I'd deserve to be laughed at for it. I haven't exactly chosen to harp on the matter, but the absurdity of the situation calls for some occassional mockery.
