Posted on 08/16/2004 12:19:32 AM PDT by Murtyo
Back in the 1930s, when white men were preparing for another round of mutual slaughter, few of them paid any attention to the Muslim world. They assumed it to be a backward region that history had long since passed by.
One man saw it differently. The great Catholic polemicist Hilaire Belloc, an Englishman of French ancestry, remembered Islam's past and predicted, in his book THE GREAT HERESIES, that it would one day challenge the West again. As late as 1683 its armies had threatened to conquer Europe, penetrating all the way to Vienna; Belloc believed that a great Islamic revival, even in the twentieth century, was altogether possible.
Belloc saw Islam not as an alien religion, but in its origins as a Christian heresy, adopting and adapting certain Christian doctrines (monotheism, the immortality of the soul, final judgment) and rejecting others (original sin, the Incarnation and divinity of Christ, the sacraments). Its simple, rational creed had a powerful appeal to Arabs who had known only the arbitrary gods of grim pagan religions. It swept the Arab world, then made converts -- and conquests -- far beyond Arabia.
Islam was a militant religion from the start. Mohammed himself conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula in just a few years. The new faith was torn by violent internal divisions even as it continued to spread. But spread it did, with incredible rapidity.
Christians had good reason to fear Islam, which soon conquered Spain and held it for centuries. But because Islam has little attraction for Christians, the West has generally failed to grasp its appeal for others, its profound and permanent hold on the minds of believers. Unlike the Christian West, the Muslim world has never had crises of faith like the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
Islam is a simple religion, easily understood by ordinary people. Its commandments are rigorous but few. When it conquered, its subjugated people often felt more liberated than enslaved, because it often replaced burdensome old bureaucratic governments with relatively undemanding regimes -- and low taxes. As long as its authority was respected, Islamic rule was comparatively libertarian. It offered millions relief from their traditional oppression; for example, no Muslim could be a slave.
Belloc distinguishes sharply between Islam and such barbarous conquerors as the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan. The Mongols were purely destructive; they were known for slaughtering whole cities and making huge pyramids of severed heads.
Such savagery was alien to the Muslims. Where they conquered, daily life usually went on much as before and culture thrived. In many respects the Muslim world was far more civilized than Christian Europe for centuries. The West hated and dreaded Islam, but nobody would have thought of calling it backward.
That contemptuous image came much later, when modern Europe's science, technology, and -- above all -- weaponry had eclipsed those of the Arabs. We are apt to forget how recently this development occurred; and, as Belloc warned, it is not irreversible.
Man, especially irreligious man, is apt to equate power and progress. Many of those who say America is "the greatest country on earth" really mean only that America has fantastic military might, capable of annihilating any other country -- and some of them, at the moment, are in the mood to do some annihilating. To the pious Muslim this attitude seems crass and barbaric. He may conclude from it that the decadent West understands only one thing: force.
And would he be far wrong? Belloc admitted that the idea of a new Muslim challenge to the West seemed "fantastic," but only because the West was "blinded" by "the immediate past." Taking a longer view, he saw Islam, though inferior in material power, as having a great advantage: its religious faith was still strong, while the West was losing its religion and consequently its morale. He thought it entirely possible that Islam would catch up technologically, while he doubted that the West would undergo a spiritual revival.
Are we seeing the beginning of the fulfillment of Belloc's prophecy? If so, the current uproar over Islamic terrorism may turn out to be a mere superficial symptom of a much larger historical drama. The West is still strong, but it is dying. Islam is still weak, but it is growing. Never mind the terrorists; check the birthrates.
Copyright (c) 2001 by the Griffin Internet Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. All rights reserved.
You've got to be joking. Belloc was considered to be perhaps the greatest historian of the 20th century. He was a very devout Catholic who wrote much about Islam in his book "The Crusades", and his writings were anything but defenses of Islam. In fact, in a century that began to see relentless attacks on the Christian faith through revised history, (such as casting the Crusaders as 'evil invaders'), Belloc heroicly defended the Crusades and the Christian Faith, and accurately cast Islam, ('the Turk', as he called them), as ferocious, often merciless conquerors and warriors. The fact that he assigned intelligence to them shows how wise Belloc was; he was trying to tell his readers not to underestimate them.
His alleged "defense" of Islam was actually his brilliant insight into their core beliefs and his VAST knowledge of history. Belloc knew very well that no Medieval Christian took Islam lightly, and he knew that because of Islamic fanaticism they would one day rise again. He was right. Belloc was also correct in his observation that Islam was actually a bastardization of Christianity and Judaism. (The early Christians called the Mohmamedans 'heretics', because they adopted many Christian beliefs but rejected many others.) Belloc also correctly observed that the Christian faith was on the decline in the West. Just look to our own government today, which has made all public places off-limits to Christ the King. And look at Western society in general, which has morally deteriorated at a mind boggling rate over the last 100 years.
After a few hours of sleep and more than a few cups of coffe, I sit here corrected. You are of course correct, Tamerlane claimed to be a descendent of Ghengis Khan and was not the son or grandson. And their are sources that argue this claim was manufactured.
I will try not to post at 3 a.m. in the future when the brain translates descendent poorly while ignoring centures of separation ...
Tamerlane never maintained an empire as he ruled by sheer terror often building pyramids of skulls from citys/areas he conquered. He died in poor health at the age of 69 as he was attempting to lead an invasion of China with the goal of conquering.
RileyD, nwJ
"written by a catholic scholar? what a moron."
Actually Belloc was a genius, and considered the world over as the greatest historian of his times. The fact is that today very few people understand history beyond what they see at the movies or watch on the boob tube.
What Belloc knew that you obviously do not know, is that Western Europe suffered from a massive loss of arts and sciences during the middle ages due to the Barbarians' conquering of the Western Roman Empire. They burned the books, destroyed the arts and ignored the sciences which once thrived in Western Europe. But the EAST, (Chrisitan Byzantium and Islam), continued to thrive as before. THIS is why Belloc wrote "In many respects the Muslim world was far more civilized than Christian Europe for centuries."
We don't need people attacking the intelligence, knowledge and faith of Hillaire Belloc, we need many more like him today.
"Where they conquered, daily life usually went on much as before and culture thrived. In many respects the Muslim world was far more civilized than Christian Europe for centuries."
The first muslim leader of the Mongols was Baraka Khan of the Golden Horde in 1256. Eventually all of the western Mongols would become Muslims.
3 degrees.
however even an uneducated slob should be able to understand that anybody who asserts that islam was more civilized than christendom...
is an idiot.
The Ottoman Empire did not really exist in the 13th century. The Mongols did destroy the Seljuk Empire, which allowed the Uthman/Osmani clan to later dominate the Oghur Turks of Anatolia and then form the Ottomans.
That's Sobran writing; he's not quoting Belloc, or even summarizing him. Blame the right guy, please.
This is an interesting claim because the Mongols and the Huns were both a Turkic people. For example, the Indian Moghal Empire was established by Turks. But many scholars still hold that the Moghals were of Mongol origin. The truth is that the language of the Moghals was Turkic, and that the founders of this empire were proud of being Turk.
Also, the official language of the Mongol Empire was Uigrian, which is a Turkic language. Eighteen Turkish tribes played an important role in the founding of the Mongol Empire. So how you can categorically state that the Huns were not Mongols, based on the Huns being a Turcik people, is puzzling to me.
The Huns existed 1000 years before Temujin united the Mongols. The Chinese, who lived with both played the Juan-Juan (Mongols) against the Huing-nu(Huns).
btttttttt
If they win, it will be because we've become too soft.
I just found a tagline-again!:
Disagree with Belloc if you like. But he most certainly is not an idiot.
First, read Belloc, then comment. The Muslim world of the early middle ages was more civilized than Christendom, as they had overtakend Persian culture, but maintained much of its trappings. V's wife.
screw belloc.
you belloc worshippers need to buy a clue.
the barbarian hordes were NEVER more civilized than Christianity in general.
take that balarkey to some other beeber and stune them with baalocs beeber baloney.
I don't need to read after a dead beeber religionist who thinks islam is in any way or any time superior to Christ, the Church or the free nations that have sprung forth from that root of God's truth.
stuff bellock.
fry the slammies and get it over with.
we don't need a history lesson.
I saw the slaughtered kids and talked to my orthodox christian russian friends from that region.
bellock is an IDIOT compared to them.
So you can take that smugly belloc "muzzies WERE better" carp to some other dumbarsed beeber... not me. Russia won't buy it either.
Remarkable statement from Belloc in 1936-
"There lay upon the freemen, already tortured with debt, a heavy burden of imperial taxation; and there was the irritant of existing central government interfering with men's lives; there was the tyranny of the lawyers and their charges."
bttt
You were quoting someone who said:
"Finally, Belloc sounds a bit like an apologist for ISLAM and not an accurate historian."
[Sarcasm torpedo ARMED. FIRE!]
Gore Vidal and Kerry biographer Brinkley are
self-evidently better </g>
Try actually reading Belloc's writings if you can find
them. In addition to 'Heresies', Freeper / Libertarian types ought to have org*sms over his book 'The Servile State' which was written *before* the Bolshevik revolution.
And he was an *incredible* essayist.
Finally, don't forget G.K. Chesterton (the other half of
the 'Chesterbelloc'): his novel 'The Flying Inn' was
based on the premise of a resurgent Islam and a skulking,
accomodative (and secretly traitorous) government.
I quoted Belloc in my preface to my doctoral thesis--
half Monte Carlo, half quantum mechanics.
Thanks for this information, I'm going to read it. ~ Jim
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.