On Islam [Hilaire Belloc]

There remains, apart from the old Paganism of Asia and Africa, another indirect supporter of Neo-Paganism: a supporter which indeed hates all Paganism but hates the Catholic Church much more: a factor of whose now increasing importance the masses of Europe are not yet aware: I mean Islam. Islam presents a totally different problem from that attached to `ny other religious body opposed to Catholicism. To understand it we must appreciate its origin, character and recent fate. Only then can we further appreciate its possible or probable future relations with enemies of the Catholic effort throughout the world.

How did Islam arise? It was not, as our popular historical textbooks would have it, a "new religion". It was a direct derivative from the Catholic Church. It was essentially, in its origin, a heresy: like Arianism or Albigensianism.

When the man who produced it - and it is more the creation of one man than any other false religion we know- was young, the whole of the world which he knew, the world speaking Greek in the eastern half and Latin in the Western- the only civilised world with which he and his people had come in contact - was Catholic. It was still, though in process of transformation, the Christian Roman Empire, stretching from the English Channel to the borders of his own desert.

The Arabs of whom he came and among whom he lived were Pagan; but such higher religious influence as could touch them, and as they came in contact with through commerce and raiding, was Catholic - with a certain admixture of Jewish communities. Catholicism had thus distinctly affected these few pagans living upon the fringes of the Empire.

Now what Mahomet did was this. He took over the principal doctrines of the Catholic Church - one personal God, Creator of all things; the immortality of the soul; an eternity of misery or blessedness - and no small part of Christian morals as well. All that was the atmosphere of the only civilisation which had influence upon him or his followers. But at the same time he attempted an extreme simplification.

Many another heresiarch has done this, throwing overboard such and such too profound doctrines, and appealing to the less intelligent by getting rid of mysteries through a crude denial of them. But Mahomet simplified much more than did, say, Pelagius or even Arius. He turned Our Lord into a mere prophet, though the greatest of the prophets; Our Lady - whom he greatly revered, and whom his followers still revere - he turned into no more than the mother of so great a prophet; he cut out the Eucharist altogether, and what was most difficult to follow in the matter of the Resurrection. He abolished all idea of priesthood: most important of all, he declared for social equality among all those who should be 'true believers' after his fashion.

With the energy of his personality behind that highly simplified, burning enthusiasm he first inflamed his own few desert folk, and they in turn proceeded to impose their new enthusiasm very rapidly over vast areas of what had been until then a Catholic civilisation; and their chief allies in this sweeping revolution were politically the doctrine of equality, and spiritually the doctrine of simplicity. Everybody troubled by the mysteries of Catholicism tended to join them; so did every slave or debtor who was oppressed by the complexity of a higher civilisaton.

The new enthusiasm charged under arms over about half of the Catholic world. There was a moment after it had started out on its conquest when it looked as though it was going to transform and degrade all our Christian culture. But our civilisation was saved at last, though half the Mediterranean was lost.

For centuries the struggle between Islam and the Catholic Church continued. It had varying fortunes, but for something like a thousand years the issue still remained doubtful. It was not till nearly the year 1700 that Christian culture seemed - for a time - to be definitely the master.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Mahommedam world fell under a kind of palsy. It could not catch up with our rapidly advancing physical science. Its shipping and armament and all means of communication and administration went backwards while ours advanced.

At last, by the end of the nineteenth century, more than nine-tenths of the Mahommedan population of the world, from India and the Pacific to the Atlantic, had fallen under the government of nominally Christian nations, especially England and France.

We no longer regarded Islam as a rival to our own culture. We thought of its religion as a sort of fossilised thing about which we need not trouble. That was almost certainly a mistake. We shall almost certainly have to reckon with Islam in the near future. Perhaps if we lose our Faith it will rise.

For after this subjugation of the Islamic culture by the nominally Christian had already been achieved, the political conquerors of that culture began to notice two disquieting features about it. The first was that its spiritual foundation proved immovable; the second that its area of occupation did not recede, but on the contrary slowly expanded.

Islam would not look at any Christian missionary effort. The so-called Christian governments, in contact with it, it spiritually despised. The ardent and sincere Christian missionaries were received usually with courtesy, sometimes with fierce attack, but were never allowed to affect Islam. I think it true to say that Islam is the only spiritual force on earth which Catholicism has found an impregnable fortress. Its votaries are the one religious body conversions from which are insignificant.

This granite permanence is a most striking thing, and worthy of serious consideration by all those who meditate on the spiritual, and, consequently, the social, future of the world.

And what is true of the spiritual side of Islam is true of the geographical. Mahommedan rulers have had to give up Christian provinces formerly under their control: especially in the Balkans. But the area of Mahommedan practice has not shrunk.

All that wide belt from the islands of the Pacific to Morocco, and from Central Asia to the Sahara desert and south of it - not only remains intact but slightly expands. Islam is appreciably spreading its influence further and further into tropical Africa.

Now that state of affairs creates a very important subject of study for those who interest themselves in the future of religious influence upon mankind. The political control of Islam by Europe cannot continue indefinitely: it is already shaken. Meanwhile the spiritual independence of Islam - upon which everything depends - is as strong as, or stronger than ever.

What affinities or support does this threat of Islam promise to the new enemies of Catholic tradition? It will sound even more fantastic to suggest that Islam should have effect here than to suggest that Asiatic paganism should. Even those who are directly in contact with the great Mahommedan civilisation and who are impressed, as all such must be, by its strength and apparently invincible resistance to conversion, do not yet conceive of its having any direct effect upon Christendom. There are a few indeed who have envisaged something of the kind. . .

I will maintain that this very powerful, distorted simplification of Catholic doctrine- for that is what Mahommedanism is - may be of high effect in the near future upon Christendom; and that, acting as a competitive religion, it is not to be despised.

No considerable number of conversions to Islam from Christianity is probable. I do not say that such a movement would not be possible, for anything is possible in the near future, seeing the welter into which Christian civilisation has fallen. But I think it improbable, and even highly improbable, because Islam advances in herd or mob fashion. It does not proceed, as the Catholic religion does, by individual conversions, but by colonisation and group movement. But there are other effects which a great anti- Catholic force and the culture based upon it can have upon anti-Catholic forces within our own boundaries.

In the first place it can act by example. To every man attempting to defend the old Christian culture by prophesying disaster if its main tenets be abandoned, Islam can be presented as a practical answer.

"You say that monogamy is necessary to happy human life, and that the practice of polygamy, or of divorce - which is but a modified form of polygamy - is fatal to the state? You are proved wrong by the example of Islam."

Or again "You say that without priests and without sacraments and without all the apparatus of your religion, down to the use of visible images, religion may not survive? Islam is there to give you the lie. Its religion is intense, its spiritual life permanent. Yet it has constantly repudiated all these things. It is violently antisacramental; it has no priesthood; it wages fierce war on all symbols in the use of worship."

This example may, in the near future, be of great effect. Remember that our Christian civilisation is in peril of complete breakdown. An enemy would say that it was living upon its past; and certainly those who steadfastly hold its ancient Catholic doctrines stand today on guard as it were, in a state of siege. They are a minority both in power and in numbers. Upon such a state of affairs a steadfast, permanent, convinced simple philosophy and rule of life, intensely adhered to, and close at hand, may, now that the various sections of the world are so much interpenetrating one and the other, be of effect...

There is no reason why its recent inferiority in mechanical construction, whether military or civilian, should continue indefinitely. Even a slight accession of material power would make the further control of Islam by an alien culture difficult. A little more and there will cease that which our time has taken for granted, the physical domination of Islam by the disintegrated Christendom we know.

Very good post. Belloc was certainly right on this one, in many ways. The only aspect he passed over was the fact that Islam, because it does not separate religious law and secular law, has a much more iron grip on its adherents than Christianity (which does separate God and Caesar) could ever have. That is, it controls every aspect of their lives, with the threat of external force.

That's appealing to people with an authoritarian bent, or people who simply don't want to be bothered thinking things out. I read recently that many Mexican Indians in Chiapas, who had converted to evangelical or Pentecostal sects (which are usually quite authoritarian), are now converting to Islam. The odd thing is that Islam is being spread by the radical left - the head of ETA (Basque terrorist org, active in Europe and LatAm) in Latin America has converted to Islam, and the Islamic "missionaries" in Mexico spread a strange blend of religion and Marxist economic/social thought. Mexico even expelled a few of them recently, because they were a little too obviously tied in with terrorists.

But Belloc is very right on the fact that Christianity is being seriously undermined by heresy, which certainly makes it much more vulnerable to the Islamic threat. And the Islamic threat is a very, very real one.

Frighteningly prophetic.

I think it true to say that Islam is the only spiritual force on earth which Catholicism has found an impregnable fortress.

The liberals still think we can play footsie with these guys. Nuh-uh.

______________________________________________________

It is very difficult in our relativistic society to criticize another religion, even one as beligerent as Islam. But the virus in the computer is this simple fact: "Mohammed married a six year old and consummated the marriage when she was nine."

I've left plenty of people dumbfounded. "What? Is that true?" "Yup. Just look it up on the web." End of discussion. Virus entered into system. Reboot.

Belloc had many insights, and this is remarkable for that era. During most of the 20th century, Islam appeared to be a ossified religion definitely on its way out. For instance, during the 1960s when there was a great revival of Eastern religions among Western followers, Islam (then) attracted almost no one. It was bypassed by people on their way to Tibet, India etc. Not until the 1970s did it begin to exert any real influence. No one, except Belloc, was prescient enough to predict this.

Belloc is a bit soft on the Christians of Mohammed's time, as one of the reasons for the rise of Islam was the intractable theological divisions within Christianity. They were much worse than he writes of. Issues such as "monophysite controversy" - about the single and dual nature of Christ, had caused endless divisions and polemics in Christian communities across the Middle East. In order to be admitted to Communion, Christians had to explain where they stood in relation to Platonic and Aristolelean notions of substance and nature. Failure to give the right answers saw you excomminicated. Then a new Bishop would arrive, with a different take on the dual nature of Christ, and the whole thing started again. Christians in the Middle East argue about these issues to THIS DAY. It is quite common to see open antagonism between Copts, Orthodox, and Syrian orthodox, over very obscure theological issues. It starts as soon as they meet. "Oh a Copt - you should ask where he stands on the matter of the divine presence prior to the resurrection and subsequent to the incarnation and..." One does not have to be an anti-intellectual to just give up on it. Thousands did, as soon as new prophet came out of Arabia.

"I read recently that many Mexican Indians in Chiapas, who had converted to evangelical or Pentecostal sects (which are usually quite authoritarian), are now converting to Islam. The odd thing is that Islam is being spread by the radical left - the head of ETA (Basque terrorist org, active in Europe and LatAm) in Latin America has converted to Islam, and the Islamic "missionaries" in Mexico spread a strange blend of religion and Marxist economic/social thought."

Wow! This kind of confirms my worst fears...that the left has decided to use Islam as one of their modus operandi to undermind and destabilize Capitolist societies. This also fits with the influx of Islam in the US during the Clinton years. You'd think they would recognize that the USSR never was able to grapple with Islam within its borders.

I am of the opinion that Islam is predominantly more pagan than anything. il-Ilahi [or Allah] is the greatest of the 365 gods of Arabian mythology--the god of war, spear, and bow. Still is.

Interesting, never heard that before. Could have implications for the identity of the anti-christ who worships the god of forces [il-Ilahi??] but would also probably be a convert not worshiping as his fathers.

Remember when alot of blacks were wearing the "X" hats, for Malcolm X? We did see alot of "jailhouse Muslims" then, especially when they had a special diet: no pork. I used to love it when we'd ask their name and they'd give a new Muslim name, instead of their old, what they called "slave name."

Most of the jailhouse muslims just went back to paganism after they got out of the joint, at least around here, but they are usually very sympathetic to the muslim movement.

From my experience anyway.

The origins of Islam stem from Judeo-Christianity but the Koran and Allah have little to do with the bible or the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

The Christians and Jews, who he tried to convert, rejected his teachings and he turned to the pagans of Mecca and Medina, as well as the whole arabian peninsula. The Judeo-Christian origins of Mohammed's beliefs were tossed aside and the arabian pagan origins of Islam were emphasized.

According to arabian paganism, there were 365 pagan gods, one for each day of the lunar year. The greatest of these gods was al-Ilahi, the war god. In order to build his new religion, Islam, on a montheistic basis, mohammed abolished the other 364 lesser gods leaving only Allah [pagan name for a monotheistic god].

il-Ilahi [moon crescent] is a war god. Islam is a war religion, a warrior religion and was merciless from the very beginning, with beheading, crucifixtion, and severing arms and limbs as common practice--and is still practiced in some more remote places.

From the beginning there has always been an eternal war between the house of peace of Islam and the house of war of the infidel non-moslem. Mohammed taught a strident ideology of war between "good and evil" i.e. Islam against the infidels. All who embraced Islam were of the house of peace, or in Arabic "Dar es Salaam" while all the infidels were grouped together in the "Dar el-Harb" or house of war which, according to mohammed, will not end until the entire world becomes moslem.

Within a hundred years after the death of Mohammed in 732, the Arab Moslems had succeeded in brutally conquering North Africa and Spain, the entire arabian peninsula and most of the middle east--Islam didn't start to fall until the middle ages with the emergence of the renaissance. Islam basically fell into backwardness.

History lesson of the day. ;)

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.