I was surprised with the number and quality of the comments on my recent post. I had meant only to serve as a sounding board on Emmet Scott, an interesting if not somewhat Islamophobic reactionary writer out of Britain. Scott’s book Mohammed and Charlemagne, Revisited is a fascinating examination of the cause of the Western Empire’s collapse, and MUST reading for anyone who has to hear how wonderful Al Andalus was as a society, when the rest of Europe was burning witches/whatever the slur of the day is. In fact, the whole praise of Islamic Spain is nothing more than a continuation of pro-Elizabethan-England propaganda of the “black Spaniard,” designed (possibly as projection) to prevent a return of England to the Catholic Church (and a divestment from robber barons of their stolen Church lands); England was the only Roman province to go Protestant, and it did not happen willingly, unlike much of the Calvinist Netherlands and the Lutheran Teutonic lands.
Some points raised, that I missed a chance to answer. Will S notes the following, with my internal commentary added:
Is Islam merely a Christian heresy?
No. But it started as one. Nice try on adding a “merely.”
As I understand it, ‘heresy’ denotes a religion that claims to be the same one as those followed by those who define themselves as ‘orthodox’, but simply doctrinally different on key points.
Heresy derives from the Greek word meaning ‘to take away.’ So, if you start with Christianity and take away the divinity of Christ, you have a heresy. If the dogma is whole cloth that cannot have one part removed without unraveling, then the heresy necessarily cannot survive with the Orthodox.
I submit that Muslims, not considering themselves to be Christians but instead followers of the religion of submission to Allah (not considering Christ divine, but merely an exemplary human who was close to God), must be considered indeed as followers of a separate religion, apostates rather than merely heretics.
I think Islam in the 7th century would be much more recognizably Christian than today. But that judgment is based on the views of people at the time.
Now, note one purpose overlooked by Will in my argument. If Islam DID begin as a Christian heresy, and the scholarship is there to prove it, then Islamic fundamentalism must necessarily make Islam MORE Christian. It certainly, if it WAS a Christian heresy, drifted much further afield over time. As I wrote:
Clearly, they should be made to know the Good News. Part of getting the record straight is using tools WITHIN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM to bring them to this point. I would not argue that Islam now is close (80% aligned) with Christianity. I think it probably once was, and if I want to save those souls, then I need to find a way to move it closer to its roots.
Lastly, this comment and response by Will I thought worthy of, pardon the term, resurrection:
And furthermore, as much as I’d love to think they could be fellow patriactionaries, I’m of the opinion that instead, they remain our age-old civilizational enemies, as they always have been, since I see little attempt on their part to embrace us trad Christians as culture war allies.
The Muslims don’t take 40-50% of my family’s income to support the culture of death, Will. In any fair accounting of the last, say, 100 years, we’ve killed a lot more of them than they have of us. Of course, they don’t HAVE to kill us: our culture of death is doing that already. If they actively bomb us, we can fight them. But if they simply adhere to their faith and keep average birthrate at 2.8 to 3 per woman, they will bury us. They seem to know this, while the Progressives who rule the West do not, or do not care. So long as they do NOT embrace the Progressive faith, God will continue to bless them. Should they join the Progressives in a culture war against us, they will suffer the barren-womb end curse of all Progressive societies, an empty cradle with no hope in the future, no reason to “feel” Christmas.
Agapoula (belated welcome to Patriactionary!) writes:
Before reading it all, I will say that I find it difficult to believe Mohammed did not exist. There is record and account of this, and I was just recently reading what Aisha his 9 year old wife said, which I am not sure, but I THINK it is in the hadiths.
Well, compare the Quran and life of Mohammed to the Gospels. We’re pretty certain that most of the Gospels were written within 70 years of Christ’s death. As the linked articles note, the things about Mohammed are hundreds of years later. That’s MUCH harder to cite as authoritative.
If they do not believe Christ is savior, they can not be Christians in any form. Even Christians who are heretic acknowledge our Savior died on cross, yes?
An interesting question. Arians believed Christ was not God, but human. Now, how could a human be the Savior? I think the Unitarians think along the same lines. They might object to not being called Christians, but I largely agree with you.
It was an interesting and well written post but I do think it is a poor representation of what real Sharia Law entails. For example, the wife was requesting a divorce, and the person who I am assuming was a Mullah or a Judge was willing to grant that if abuse, or addiction was present.
Which I do not agree with. If my husband become alcoholic, I am still not justified to divorce him in my opinion. Divorce is a very very last resort. Even in cases of abuse it is better to leave from the husband for some time so he can get help. Not divorce. Divorce is terrible. And I believe it tells us much about Islam that they even have “Nikah mut‘ah”. (In Shiah Law, not Sunni.) Which is temporary marriage. It is insane!
First, how do we clone you, Agapoula? If every woman had the same attitude towards divorce, we would be in very good shape. Note that as the token Papist around here, I also view divorce as a bad thing. The point of the post was that the “backward” Persian society and justice system had not gone anywhere near as far as the “enlightened” West in stripping men of the rights to their marriages and their children. I do not know if Cyprus has no-fault divorce, but we do. We are NOT a nation of Agapoulas, but one where the weaker sex is encouraged to blow up their childrens lives for less than 30 pieces of silver. (Really, read the link, and you’ll understand American context on divorce.)
As to the temporary marriage, it makes a lot of sense. Unlike the utterly debauched West, the Persians refuse to allow for sex outside of wedlock, even if they have the ridiculous 1-hour marriage to allow for prostitution (sorry, sex work.)
What is frightening about president of USA hosting Iftar dinner is that the man is supposed to be a Christian, leading a Christian nation.
We are most definitely NOT a Christian government. I refer you to Matt Forney, no Trad Catholic he, and his article America’s Four Hundred Year War Against the Catholic Church. I could point out any number of other denominations that also face oppression by the US government, elected by that same “Christian” nation.
Thanks to Jonathan W for more links on the original idea. Nice to know that the Reformed are also looking at it.
Infowarrior raises some interesting points about Mary. I refer him to this comment, one of the most insightful about feminism I have read: “The mixture of feminism and pedestalization … has produced the mess in America.… It may be the rejection of Mary in the American Christianity (so the eternal feminine is embodied in actual women instead of a religious figure). But the reverence that American men put on American women is the (reason) feminism has been so harmful.”
Lastly, Will notes: “Now, if only we could crush that wrong belief, too…”
I used to be of similar mindset. But crushing beliefs was abjured by the Church in Vatican II, and I cannot disagree with it. Live by the sword, die by it: ally with the state that will do violence on your behalf, and it will someday turn that violence against you. As Lincoln once said to a man who criticized him for befriending his enemies instead of destroying them: “But do I not destroy an enemy when I make him into a friend?” We have Reason, Faith, Music, and Art, all sacred (well, not you Reform: bunch of iconoclasts there), and they have… what, exactly, to compete with that? It is a MUCH more difficult struggle, I will grant that, but a victory over Islam, especially one that leads it back to its closely Christian roots by gently using its texts to show it its internal truth (derived from Christianity), is more likely when done with love and charity. I should say we ought to smother that wrong belief.