Monday, February 06, 2006

Chesterton on Islam

As our less cloistered readers are aware, there is currently something of a tumult in the works regarding a certain lampooning of a certain desert religion's founder. One would have hoped perhaps that they would take in stride, drawing - again perhaps - upon the example set by Christendom, the founder of which was lampooned quite manfully even at the moment of his death.

However, we can not expect too much of people. The first time is always a sting.

Chesterton had some things to say about Islam, as he had things to say about everything, and much of it is both profound and prescient.

First, with regard to the situation at hand:
"...a man preaching what he thinks is a platitude is far more intolerant than a man preaching what he admits is a paradox. It was exactly because it seemed self-evident, to Moslems as to Bolshevists, that their simple creed was suited to everybody, that they wished in that particular sweeping fashion to impose it on everybody. It was because Islam was broad that Moslems were narrow. And because it was not a hard religion it was a heavy rule. Because it was without a self-correcting complexity, it allowed of those simple and masculine but mostly rather dangerous appetites that show themselves in a chieftain or a lord. As it had the simplest sort of religion, monotheism, so it had the simplest sort of government, monarchy. There was exactly the same direct spirit in its despotism as in its deism. The Code, the Common Law, the give and take of charters and chivalric vows, did not grow in that golden desert. The great sun was in the sky and the great Saladin was in his tent, and he must be obeyed unless he were assassinated. Those who complain of our creeds as elaborate often forget that the elaborate Western creeds have produced the elaborate Western constitutions; and that they are elaborate because they are emancipated." ("The Fall of Chivalry," The New Jerusalem)
Next, we have some fairly hard words on Islam's peaceful tendencies (or remarkable lack thereof):
"There is in Islam a paradox which is perhaps a permanent menace. The great creed born in the desert creates a kind of ecstasy out of the very emptiness of its own land, and even, one may say, out of the emptiness of its own theology. It affirms, with no little sublimity, something that is not merely the singleness but rather the solitude of God. There is the same extreme simplification in the solitary figure of the Prophet; and yet this isolation perpetually reacts into its own opposite. A void is made in the heart of Islam which has to be filled up again and again by a mere repetition of the revolution that founded it. There are no sacraments; the only thing that can happen is a sort of apocalypse, as unique as the end of the world; so the apocalypse can only be repeated and the world end again and again. There are no priests; and yet this equality can only breed a multitude of lawless prophets almost as numerous as priests. The very dogma that there is only one Mahomet produces an endless procession of Mahomets. Of these the mightiest in modern times were the man whose name was Ahmed, and whose more famous title was the Mahdi; and his more ferocious successor Abdullahi, who was generally known as the Khalifa. These great fanatics, or great creators of fanaticism, succeeded in making a militarism almost as famous and formidable as that of the Turkish Empire on whose frontiers it hovered, and in spreading a reign of terror such as can seldom be organised except by civilisation…" (Lord Kitchener)
Next, we have a discussion of the positive qualities of the Koran, and why, even after all of the turmoil it has fomented, it deserves a measure of respect:
"I do not know much about Mohammed or Mohammedanism. I do not take the Koran to bed with me every night. But, if I did on some one particular night, there is one sense at least in which I know what I should not find there. I apprehend that I should not find the work abounding in strong encouragements to the worship of idols; that the praises of polytheism would not be loudly sung; that the character of Mohammed would not be subjected to anything resembling hatred and derision; and that the great modern doctrine of the unimportance of religion would not be needlessly emphasised." (ILN Nov. 15, 1913)
Finally (and most intriguingly), we have a sort of prediction of dynamic Islam's chief means of making change in the world:
"A good Moslem king was one who was strict in religion, valiant in battle, just in giving judgment among his people, but not one who had the slightest objection in international matters to removing his neighbour's landmark." (ILN Nov. 4, 1911)

The analysis of For Four Guilds approaches; I've been caught up in other things, however, and it has been tragically delayed. This, however, should suffice for now.

1 comment:

Richard Quenneville said...

A good Muslim would be Saladin; but the West has become so morally bankrupt that he is actually held up as a praiseworthy example in his conduct. It is certainly true that he often surprised the Crusaders from the West with his apparent clemency, but not always! Every Templar or Hospitaller prisoner was beheaded, and we are told by the Islamic chroniclers how much he enjoyed it! Excuses have been offered for such conduct, but it should be admitted that the culture of the West, based on Roman-Greek and Catholic ideas, and the Muslim culture, based on their religion, are, and always will be, opposed! The movie by Ridley Scott, THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, seems to value peace, but in reality, there is only deferred warfare! Certainly both cultures have natural virtues, which we see in SOLE SURVIVOR, but the religions are either TRUE orFALSE!