[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 943: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 943: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead
Spengler Forum at First Things • View topic - Azure on "Coming To Terms With Christianity"

For discussion of David P. Goldman's writings

Azure on "Coming To Terms With Christianity"

Discussion on Spengler's blog postings and essays.

Re: Azure on

Postby Spengler » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:30 pm

Ibrahim,

You have put the finger on a key distinction: in Islam there is no such thing as vicarious or expiatory sacrifice. From the Jewish and Christian standpoint, God in his love allows us to die vicariously in the form of a sacrificial animal (the ram that replaced Isaac on the altar), or in the Christian case, Jesus himself. I wrote about this some years ago:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI19Aa02.html

Before the Bible was written, the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh learned that his quest for immortality was futile. The demigods of Greece, mortals favored by Olympians, suffered a tedious sort of immortal life as stars, trees or rivers. The gods of the heathens are not in any case eternal, only immortal. They were born and they will die, like the Norse gods at the Ragnorak, and their vulnerability projects the people's presentiment of its own death. To whom, precisely, have the gods offered eternal life prior to the appearance of revealed religion? Eternal life and a deathless mortality are quite different things.

But what is it that God demands of us in response to our demand for eternal life? We know the answer ourselves. To partake of life in another world we first must detach ourselves from this world in order to desire the next. In plain language, we must sacrifice ourselves. There is no concept of immortality without some concept of sacrifice, not in any culture or in any religion. That is a demand shared by the Catholic bishops and the Kalahari Bushmen.

God's covenant with Abraham is unique and singular in world history. A single universal and eternal god makes an eternal pact with a mortal that can be fulfilled only if Abraham's tribe becomes an eternal people. But the price of this pact is self-sacrifice. That is an existential mortal act beyond all ethics, as Soren Kierkegaard tells us in Fear and Trembling. The sacraments of revealed religion are sublimated human sacrifice, for the revealed god in his love for humankind spares the victim, just as God provided a ram in place of the bound Isaac on Mount Moriah. Among Jews the covenant must be renewed in each male child through a substitute form of human sacrifice, namely circumcision. [4] Christians believe that a single human sacrifice spared the rest of humankind.

Jihad also is a form of human sacrifice. He who serves Allah so faithfully as to die in the violent propagation of Islam goes straight to paradise, there to enjoy virgins or raisins, depending on the translation. But Allah is not the revealed god of loving kindness, or agape, but - pace Benedict - a god of reason, that is, of cold calculation. Islam admits no expiatory sacrifice. Everyone must carry his own spear.

We are too comfortable, too clean, too squeamish, too modern to descend into the terrible space where birth, death and immortality are decided. We forget that we cannot have eternal life unless we are ready to give up this one - and this the Muslim knows only through what we should call the sacrament of jihad. Through jihad, the Muslim does almost precisely what the Christian does at the Lord's Supper. It is the sacrifice of Jesus that grants immortal life to all Christians, that is, those who become one with Jesus by eating his flesh and drinking his blood so that the sacrifice also is theirs, at least in Catholic terms. Protestants substitute empathy identification with the crucified Christ for the trans-substantiated blood and flesh of Jesus.

Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to give all men eternal life, on condition that they take part in his sacrifice, either through the physical communion of the Catholic Church or the empathetic Communion of Protestantism. From a Muslim vantage point, the extreme of divine humility embodied in Jesus' sacrifice is beyond reason. Allah, by contrast, deals with those who submit to him after the calculation of an earthly despot. He demands that all Muslims sacrifice themselves by becoming warriors and, if necessary, laying their lives down in the perpetual war against the enemies of Islam.

These are parallel acts, in which different peoples do different things, in the service of different deities, but for the same reason: for eternal life.

Why is self-sacrifice always and everywhere the cost of eternal life? It is not because a vengeful and sanguineous God demands his due before issuing us a visa to heaven. Quite the contrary: we must sacrifice our earthly self, our attachment to the pleasures and petty victories of our short mortal life if we really are to gain the eternal life that we desire. The animal led to the altar, indeed Jesus on the cross, is ourselves: we die along with the sacrifice and yet live, by the grace of God. YHWH did not want Isaac to die, but without taking Abraham to Mount Moriah, Abraham himself could not have been transformed into the man desirous and deserving of immortal life. Jesus died and took upon him the sins of the world, in Christian terms, precisely so that a vicarious sacrifice would redeem those who come to him.

What distinguishes Allah from YHWH and (in Christian belief) his son Jesus is love. God gives Jews and Christians a path that their foot can tread, one that is not too hard for mortals, to secure the unobtainable, namely immortal life, as if by miracle. Out of love God gives the Torah to the Jews, not because God is a stickler for the execution of 613 commandments, but because it is a path upon which the Jew may sacrifice and yet live, and receive his portion of the World to Come. The most important sacrifice in Judaism is the Sabbath - "our offering of rest", says the congregation in the Sabbath prayers - a day of inactivity that acknowledges that the Earth is the Lord's. It is a sacrifice, as it were, of ego. In this framework, incidentally, it is pointless to distinguish Judaism as a "religion of works" as opposed to Christianity as a "religion of faith".

To Christians, God offers the vicarious participation in his sacrifice of himself through his only son.

That is Grace: a free gift by God to men such that they may obtain eternal life. By a miracle, the human soul responds to the offer of Grace with a leap, a leap away from the attachments that hold us to this world, and a foretaste of the World to Come.

There is no Grace in Islam, no miracle, no expiatory sacrifice, no expression of love for mankind such that each Muslim need not be a sacrifice. On the contrary, the concept of jihad, in which the congregation of Islam is also the army, states that every single Muslim must sacrifice himself personally. Jihad is the precise equivalent of the Lord's Supper in Christianity and the Jewish Sabbath, the defining expression of sacrifice that opens the prospect of eternity to the mortal believer. To ask Islam to become moderate, to reform, to become a peaceful religion of personal conscience is the precise equivalent of asking Catholics to abolish Mass.
User avatar
Spengler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 am

Re: Azure on

Postby CognitiveDistoibance » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:02 pm

CognitiveDistoibance wrote:...
The Jewish God also established an elaborate system of ritual sacrifice, which the Christian views as pre-figuring that of Jesus. Further, Christianity derives it's core of righteousnes based on faith from:
Gen 15:5 And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”
6 Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

which couldn't be more Jewish in origin.
...


CognitiveDistoibance wrote:...I think it could be better said that in Christianity, all salvation is based on imputed righteousness, with Abraham's belief/faith being the exemplar. Importantly, this concept predates the incarnation. (In fact, it predates the entire Bible.)
...

Not to stay on subject or anything, but it seemed to me to be profitable to separately highlight the statements above with respect to what I would consider the natural/obvious state of Christian philosemitism. A "Christian" antisemite (by Ibrahim's broadest "definition" of the first term "Christian," these have been legion), is a walking oxymoron, if not merely just (as I would argue most often) the latter of the two terms.

Spengler, I think it important to note, that the imputation of Gen 15:6 is prior to the narrative regarding Mt. Moriah. Christians would ascribe a prefiguring of Christ's sacrifice there, but Paul does not give that as the exemplar of Christian imputation of righteousness. There is an interesting juxtaposition there, it seems to me, between Judaism and Christianity on these two events.
User avatar
CognitiveDistoibance
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: Azure

Postby Collingwood » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:10 pm

Azure is superb. Regrettably, it's only quarterly, and out of sight becomes out of mind after a month or two ... Bookmarking the website helps.

Azure's editor is right: Judaism, i.e., the Rabbis, have not in general seized opportunities for Jewish-Christian reconciliation so well as have the leaders and theologians of the Church. However, given that Judaism is still reeling from the Holocaust and the success of Zionism (pleasant surprises too can shock, disorient and confound), that may be understandable. Reversing historical antagonisms is not easy, but patience in Christian love extended toward Jews and Judaism will, surely, bear fruit in time.
If you, like me, prefer not to see signatures, go to:
User control panel / Board preferences / Edit display options.
User avatar
Collingwood
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:15 am

Re: Azure on

Postby ethan_jin » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:13 pm

What I find impressive (and somewhat forbiding), in all of this, is the Jewish insistence on loving a stranger as thyself, which is completely without precedent in other ethical codes. You are not only required to treat a stranger fairly (which is actually not a problem for most people), but heck, you have to like or maybe even love him, as you either like or love yourself. It is the only ethical code that posits so difficult and stringent an expectation on the part of God, and this is something that quite clearly cuts against the grain of our natural inclination.

Spengler wrote:Richard Greene,

The "golden rule" is found in one form or another in many cultures, as you may read in the Wikipedia entry on the term. It is not unique to Judaism and Christianity, nor is it quite absent from Islam. There are rabbinic sources (and some haredi authorities today) who insist that it applies only to Jews--although the Torah explicit forbids vexing the stranger, "for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt."
Lev 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.


The application of the same law to the homeborn and the stranger is indeed unique to ancient Israel; Joseph Hertz makes this point in his Pentateuch commentary, and I never have seen it refuted. That universalist feature of Judaism is a far better hook on which to hang your hat (black fedora or round felt, as the case may be).
ethan_jin
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:21 pm

Re: Azure on

Postby Spengler » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:22 pm

Ethan_jin,

After "honor thy father and mother" it's probably the hardest commandment to carry out -- but there it is in black and white.
User avatar
Spengler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 am

Re: Azure on

Postby AzariLoveIran » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:30 pm

ethan_jin wrote:What I find impressive (and somewhat forbiding), in all of this, is the Jewish insistence on loving a stranger as thyself, which is completely without precedent in other ethical codes.


I don't know anything about "Jewish insistence on loving a stranger as thyself" to comment.

But .. I know a lot about "which is completely without precedent in other ethical codes" . .

Obama reading Persian Saa'di :

http://orientelux.com/?p=11

Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.

بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند
که در آفرينش ز یک گوهرند
چو عضوى به درد آورد روزگار
دگر عضوها را نماند قرار
تو کز محنت دیگران بی غمی
نشاید که نامت نهند آدمی

ethan_jin wrote:You are not only required to treat a stranger fairly (which is actually not a problem for most people), but heck, you have to like or maybe even love him, as you either like or love yourself. It is the only ethical code that posits so difficult and stringent an expectation on the part of God, and this is something that quite clearly cuts against the grain of our natural inclination.


Spengler wrote:Ethan_jin,

After "honor thy father and mother" it's probably the hardest commandment to carry out -- but there it is in black and white.


Without hurting feelings, true, must be hard to carry out, because, for sure, it doesn't feel like it.

.
AzariLoveIran
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:45 am

Re: Azure on

Postby Spengler » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:30 pm

Ibrahim wrote:
Spengler wrote: The application of the same law to the homeborn and the stranger is indeed unique to ancient Israel; Joseph Hertz makes this point in his Pentateuch commentary, and I never have seen it refuted. That universalist feature of Judaism is a far better hook on which to hang your hat (black fedora or round felt, as the case may be).


I wonder how much of this is truly religious and how much of it is traditional Middle Eastern hospitality that dates back to the beginning of recorded history. Tribes or ancient states may have killed each other all of the time, but in times of peace I can't imagine a traveler being denied hospitality from ancient Jews, Arabs, Egyptians or Babylonians.


Surely there is a difference between traditional Middle Eastern hospitality and a divine commandment to love the stranger as one's self. Not everyone in the Middle East was so hospitable. It's not a matter of a meal for a passing traveller, but of treating aliens in one's midst the same way one treats the homeborn, not only in applying the same laws, but the spirit of the same laws. I know of no record in the extensive legal literature of the ancient Middle East comparable to this.
User avatar
Spengler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 am

Re: Azure on

Postby Ibrahim » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:27 pm

Spengler wrote:Ibrahim,

You have put the finger on a key distinction: in Islam there is no such thing as vicarious or expiatory sacrifice. From the Jewish and Christian standpoint, God in his love allows us to die vicariously in the form of a sacrificial animal (the ram that replaced Isaac on the altar), or in the Christian case, Jesus himself.


There is no sacrifice in Islam because there is no need for sacrifice at all. Why should one be necessary? You claim that "jihad" replaces this sacrifice, but this is contrary to Islamic theology, as I will address. Why does the need for sacrifice indicate love to you? It suggests the opposite to me.




Jihad also is a form of human sacrifice. He who serves Allah so faithfully as to die in the violent propagation of Islam goes straight to paradise, there to enjoy virgins or raisins, depending on the translation. But Allah is not the revealed god of loving kindness, or agape, but - pace Benedict - a god of reason, that is, of cold calculation. Islam admits no expiatory sacrifice. Everyone must carry his own spear.


Individuals are entirely responsible for their own souls in Islam, but it is completely incorrect to claim that jihad is a replacement for sacrifice. Nor is it defined as narrowly as you do here, nor is it even recognized as a central part of Islamic practice. All that is strictly necessary is the recognition of no god but God, and Muhammad as his final prophet. That is the only requirement for "salvation" (to borrow the Christian term) in Islam.

What gains additional merit, which is described metaphorically as greater degrees of luxury in paradise, is living a righteous life. The Five Pillars are the core of this, and the mention of rewards for those who die in the course of warfare is included since Islam sensibly recognized warfare as a part of human activity. To refer vaguely to "jihad" as a form of human sacrifice would been seen by many Muslims as blasphemous.







There is no Grace in Islam, no miracle, no expiatory sacrifice, no expression of love for mankind such that each Muslim need not be a sacrifice. On the contrary, the concept of jihad, in which the congregation of Islam is also the army, states that every single Muslim must sacrifice himself personally. Jihad is the precise equivalent of the Lord's Supper in Christianity and the Jewish Sabbath, the defining expression of sacrifice that opens the prospect of eternity to the mortal believer. To ask Islam to become moderate, to reform, to become a peaceful religion of personal conscience is the precise equivalent of asking Catholics to abolish Mass.


I'm afraid I have no polite way of saying this: this entire paragraph is wrong. Every point you make in this paragraph is incorrect, and based on nothing but invention supplemented perhaps by a layman's interpretation of the theology espoused by extremists and terrorists.
Ibrahim
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Azure on

Postby Ibrahim » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:30 pm

Spengler wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Spengler wrote: The application of the same law to the homeborn and the stranger is indeed unique to ancient Israel; Joseph Hertz makes this point in his Pentateuch commentary, and I never have seen it refuted. That universalist feature of Judaism is a far better hook on which to hang your hat (black fedora or round felt, as the case may be).


I wonder how much of this is truly religious and how much of it is traditional Middle Eastern hospitality that dates back to the beginning of recorded history. Tribes or ancient states may have killed each other all of the time, but in times of peace I can't imagine a traveler being denied hospitality from ancient Jews, Arabs, Egyptians or Babylonians.


Surely there is a difference between traditional Middle Eastern hospitality and a divine commandment to love the stranger as one's self. Not everyone in the Middle East was so hospitable. It's not a matter of a meal for a passing traveller, but of treating aliens in one's midst the same way one treats the homeborn, not only in applying the same laws, but the spirit of the same laws. I know of no record in the extensive legal literature of the ancient Middle East comparable to this.


I'm not referring to legal literature, but to customs that were naturally assumed in the region, but which the Jews formalized in their legal literature.
Ibrahim
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Azure on

Postby charleston » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:36 pm

Ibrahim does not see the forrest for the trees

Spenglers' insights were amazing-

what is a muslim if not a slave to allah=sacrificing everything

and how can you say jihad/struggle/fighting is not an essential part of islam

02.216
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
charleston
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Azure on

Postby Ibrahim » Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:44 pm

charleston wrote:Ibrahim does not see the forrest for the trees

Spenglers' insights were amazing-

what is a muslim is not a slave=sacrificing everything

and how can you say jihad/struggle/fighting is not an essential part of islam


I can say that because it is true. Unless you accept certain examples of extremist "theology" as representative of Islam as a whole these "insights" have no basis or meaning.

The entire concept of human sacrifice of any form is not only foreign but repulsive to the vast majority of Muslims.
Ibrahim
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Azure on

Postby charleston » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:33 pm

and what do you think of Tariq Ramadan?

/as an aside, you have no idea how silly and pointless it is for you to keep referring to 'the vast majority of muslims' who neither read or write, nor read the ONLY authentic version of the koran in arabic, and have NO IDEA what islam really is

why don;t you cite some islamic scholars, from AUTHENTIC islamic religious traditions
charleston
 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:36 am

Re: Azure on

Postby Ibrahim » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:54 pm

charleston wrote:and what do you think of Tariq Ramadan?


I'm not familiar with all of his work, as I don't speak fluent French. From what I know he seems very moderate. Aside from being a Muslim, and therefore an animal, what do you have against him?



/as an aside, you have no idea how silly and pointless it is for you to keep referring to 'the vast majority of muslims' who neither read or write, nor read the ONLY authentic version of the koran in arabic, and have NO IDEA what islam really is


Aside from the fact that every Muslim I know can read and write, both in Canada and Turkey, your own statistics stated that even in the Arab world the majority of Muslims were literate.

Moreover, the idea that the majority of Muslims don't know what Islam is, but David Goldman does, is laughable.




why don;t you cite some islamic scholars, from AUTHENTIC islamic religious traditions


I did, you ignored it, and are now lying by claiming that I did not. Do you normally behave this way? Or do you think it's alright because you are only behaving this way when addressing an "animal" and a "savage?"

There was a decent theological discussion going on, but you've soiled it with your usual act.
Ibrahim
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: Azure on

Postby Pastaneta » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:59 pm

From what I know he seems very moderate.


LOL... He is a fanatic!

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2795

For all his interfaith zeal, an examination of Ramadan's work fails to turn up any positive discussion of Christianity or Judaism. He calls Arabs "my brothers and sisters" while addressing all others as "madam," "sir," or without any honorific. When Ramadan faced off with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister and presidential hopeful, in 2004 on French TV, he repeatedly called the minister "Sarkozy" instead of the usual "Mr. Sarkozy" or, as the French say, monsieur le ministre. During this debate, Sarkozy pressed Ramadan to condemn the stoning of adulterers, a form of capital punishment endorsed by his brother, Hani Ramadan, head of the Islamic Center in Geneva. Tariq declined to go beyond his previous call for a moratorium on corporal punishment and the death penalty while Islamic scholars study the matter.

More to the point, Ramadan has multiple links to terrorism. In 1995, in the midst of terrorist attacks in Paris orchestrated by the Algerian Islamist group GIA, Jean-Louis Debré, French interior minister, denied Ramadan entry to France because of his links to the group. According to Roland Jacquard, who runs a terrorism watchdog website, Ramadan is not directly involved in terrorist activities, but many of his supporters are. For example, Ramadan greatly influenced Djamel Beghal, a French citizen arrested for plotting to bomb the U.S. embassy in Paris and sentenced to 10 years in jail in March 2005. Sylvain Besson of the Swiss daily Le Temps quotes court papers showing that Beghal "was a speechwriter for Tariq Ramadan." Ramadan denies ever meeting Beghal, although Beghal was living in Leicester in 1998 while Ramadan was studying there.

And Ramadan often speaks equivocally. Commenting on the September 11 attacks ten days after they occurred, he explained that one couldn't say for sure that bin Laden was behind them. He then asked, "Who profits from the crime?" noting that no Arab or Muslim cause was the better for it. This is an argument used by Islamist conspiratorialists who accuse Israel of perpetrating 9/11. In an interview with the French newsmagazine Le Point, Ramadan used the neutral term "interventions" when speaking of the major terrorist attacks in New York, Bali, and Madrid. And when asked recently by an Italian magazine whether car bombings against U.S. forces in Iraq were justified, he was quoted as saying: "Iraq was colonized by the Americans. Resistance against the army is just."

Ramadan's views about Israel are unsurprising: He strongly favors the elimination of the Jewish state. As one French DST (equivalent to the FBI) agent told the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, Ramadan's long-term goal is to bring about the legal extinction of the state of Israel through a major Muslim lobbying campaign, first in Europe, then in the United States.

For her 2004 book Brother Tariq, Caroline Fourest, a French expert on Islamic fundamentalism, studied Ramadan's 15 books, 1,500 pages of interviews, and--most important--his 100 or so tapes, which sell tens of thousands of copies each year. Her conclusion: "Ramadan is a war leader." When an interviewer from the weekly L'Express asked Fourest how she could be so sure that Ramadan was indeed the "political heir of his grandfather," Hassan al-Banna, here's how she replied:

Because I've studied his statements and his writing. I was struck by the extent to which the discourse of Tariq Ramadan is often just a repetition of the discourse that Banna had at the beginning of the 20th century in Egypt. He never criticizes his grandfather. On the contrary, he presents him as a model to be followed, a person beyond reproach, nonviolent and unjustly criticized because of the "Zionist lobby"! This sends chills down one's spine when one knows the extent to which Banna was a fanatic, that he gave birth to a movement out of which the worst Jihadis (like Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number 2 man of al Qaeda) have emerged, and that he wanted to establish a theocracy in every country having a single Muslim. Tariq Ramadan claims that he is not a Muslim Brother. Like all the Muslim Brothers . . . since it's a fraternity which is three-quarters secret. . . . A Muslim Brother is above all someone who adopts the methods and the thought of Banna. Ramadan is the man who has done the most to disseminate this method and this thought.

In response to her book, Ramadan calls Fourest an agent of Israel but doesn't refute her findings. Predictably, as soon as her book was published, an Islamist website threatened Fourest and posted her address and the pass code to get into her building.

Fourest is not the only one who has seen through Ramadan's game. Prominent moderate Muslims also accuse Ramadan of double talk. For instance, the head of the largest French antiracism association, SOS Racisme, Malek Boutih (an Arab Muslim), told Ramadan after talking with him at length: "Mr. Ramadan, you are a fascist."
User avatar
Pastaneta
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:05 am

Re: Azure on

Postby Pastaneta » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:02 pm

http://uniset.ca/terr/news/wsj_voltaire_mohammed.html

A municipal cultural center here on France's border with Switzerland organized a reading of a 265-year-old play by Voltaire, whose writings helped lay the foundations of modern Europe's commitment to secularism. The play, "Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet," uses the founder of Islam to lampoon all forms of religious frenzy and intolerance.

The production quickly stirred up passions that echoed the cartoon uproar. "This play...constitutes an insult to the entire Muslim community," said a letter to the mayor of Saint-Genis-Pouilly, signed by Said Akhrouf, a French-born café owner of Moroccan descent and three other Islamic activists representing Muslim associations. They demanded the performance be cancelled.

Instead, Mayor Hubert Bertrand called in police reinforcements to protect the theater. On the night of the December reading, a small riot broke out involving several dozen people and youths who set fire to a car and garbage cans. It was "the most excitement we've ever had down here," says the socialist mayor.

The dispute rumbles on, playing into a wider debate over faith and free-speech. Supporters of Europe's secular values have rushed to embrace Voltaire as their standard-bearer. France's national library last week opened an exhibition dedicated to the writer and other Enlightenment thinkers. It features a police file started in 1748 on Voltaire, highlighting efforts by authorities to muzzle him. "Spirit of the Enlightenment, are you there?" asked a headline Saturday in Le Figaro, a French daily newspaper.

A debate on Swiss television last month degenerated into a shouting match when the director of the Saint-Genis-Pouilly performance accused a prominent Muslim of campaigning to censor Voltaire in the past. The two men also have traded insults in the French media...

In the early 1990s, Mr. Loichemol had proposed staging the play to mark the 300th anniversary of Voltaire's birth in 1694. Islamic activists objected, among them Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss Muslim whose grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist movement in Egypt. Mr. Ramadan wrote an open letter in October 1993 warning that performing Voltaire's play would "be another brick in an edifice of hatred and rejection in which Muslims feel they are being enclosed."
User avatar
Pastaneta
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to Spengler's Writings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron