Last notes from In Ishmael's House: A History of the Jews in Muslim Lands by Martin Gilbert.
I finished the book! Ah, what an interesting read. Definitely a side of the story I'd never heard especially the part pertaining to how the Jews were treated in Muslim lands leading up to and after Israel was created. What a mess! Several times I got the impression that Arabs were simply frustrated at the British presence (like in Egypt) and angered by the creation of Israel so they took out their hostility on the local Jews. It is no different than Americans' mistreatment of Japanese living in the United States during World War II and blaming American Muslims for the sins of Al Qaeda or a rogue Muslim extremist. Or even our bombing of Iraq for what 19 mostly Saudi nationals did on 9/11. It's sad that the human race is such that we take out our wrath on innocent people when we feel injustice has taken place and we are lusting for revenge or dignity or whatever term we use to justify "making someone pay!"
Yesterday's post left off with Iraq and since then I've read about Egypt and the 1954 Lavon Affair in which the Israeli intelligence agency along with at least one Israeli Government Minister tried to implicate the Muslim Brotherhood in acts of terror! "The plan was to have Israeli agents explode bombs against Egyptian, American and British targets while at the same time making the attacks look like a Muslim Brotherhood operation." (pg. 253) I suppose you can guess that this plan's failure only increased the difficulty for Egyptian Jews.
Oh, and also in my last post I talked about the Arab mistreatment of Jews only bolstered Israel, right? If his stats are correct, the author states around 75% of the immigrants to Israel were from Muslim countries and not Europe where (I am assuming) the root of the problem started! Weird how that works. Interesting tidbit: even though the white, 'westernized' Jews make up only around a quarter of the Jewish population in Israel, most all of the big-time leaders have been from this group. The author said the Ashkenazis often looked at Jews from Arab countries - the Sephardi - as "primitive" and "fit mainly for manual labour and domestic service." (pg. 311) Racism exists from Jews towards Jews. Imagine.
Also I wondered yesterday why Arab countries would allow so many Jews to leave for Israel. Well continuing the book, I found not all of them did. Syria, for example, basically trapped their Jewish population for decades. Finally in the 1990s after much international pressure, President Hafez al-Assad agreed that "all 3,886 Jews in Syria were free to leave -- for anywhere but Israel." (pg. 308) Some Arab countries were similar in not allowing travel to Israel while others like Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco seemed fine with it.
The last chapter discussed the roughly 50,000 Jews still living in Muslim lands today. Many of those are in Iran, by the way. (Jews in Persia predate Christianity and Islam.) The ones that made me smile most were stories of the one Afghan Jew who stays because he wants to represent the Jewish culture that was there for a thousand years and the three Jews, the Pinchas family, in Kamishli, Syria. Also I think it's cute that two Jews are registered to vote in Sidon, Lebanon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are two final stories I wanted to share. One good, one bad. They represent to me much of the last half of the book which dealt with quite a bit more of modern Jewish/Muslim history than I recall from Zachary Karabell's book last year. (Karabell seemed to detail more of the older history while this book dealt more with modern times.)
After some problems in Egypt between the Muslims who took out their anger for the creation of the State of Israel on local Jews ...
"In spite of the return to order, an Egyptian Arab wrote a revealing letter to the Bourse égyptienne newspaper on July 22: 'It would seem that most people in Egypt are unaware of the fact that among Egyptian Moslems there are some who have white skin,' he wrote. 'Every time I board a tram I see people pointing at me and saying "Jew, Jew." I have been beaten more than once because of this. For that reason I humbly beg that my picture (enclosed) be published with an explanation that I am not Jewish and that my name is Adham Mustafa Galeb.'" (pg. 225)
YET ...
"Amidst all the political turmoil, incitement and violence, relations between Muslims and Jew were still possible. In the Aboukir internment camp, Egyptian-born Abraham Matalon met the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Alexandria, who had also been imprisoned. 'At first,' Matalon remembered later, 'I didn't know he was a member. We embraced, and we started meeting every day. He said he wanted to learn Hebrew, and I wanted to learn Koran, so this is how we spent our time. I wanted to have a dialogue with the Muslims, and they loved me for it! I did the call to prayer in the camp and the soldiers admired it, they even answered me. And they knew I was a Zionist, but they did not manifest any attitudes against me. They said we are friends in life. When you come to talk to your enemy, you see that he is a different person, you can see his human side." (pg.221)
Perhaps we can learn lessons from the stories I shared from this book. Thoughts?
Showing posts with label persecution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label persecution. Show all posts
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Jews in Muslim Lands and the Creation of Israel: "They did not wish to be dhimmis any more. Finally they had a choice."
Some more notes from In Ishmael's House: A History of the Jews in Muslim Lands by Martin Gilbert. Now we're getting into the section on World War II, the creation of the State of Israel and the aftermath of that.
So we've seen Muslims and Jews actually got along quite well at times. In those instances as long as the Jews kept their respectful stance as dhimmis, most often problems did not exist. After a time, however, this all changed and problems happened in places where Jews had thrived for years such as Iraq. One former Iraqi administrator, Abraham Elkabir, "later reflected - while living in Israel - on what went wrong" between Muslims and Jews. "He traced Muslim hostility to three factors:
1. "the Palestine issue"
2. "the Mufti of Jerusalem's campaign in Iraq identifying Jews and Zionists"
3. "the 'anti-Semitic tendencies' of the British officials and other Westerners in Iraq" (pg. 193)
Chapters 12 and 13 also mention Nazi Germany influencing Arab hatred towards the Jews. This despite the fact Hitler's social ladder put Arabs only one step above Jews. Wisely Hitler had this illustration deleted from the Arabic printing of his book Mein Kampf since he wanted Arab help.
------------------------------
Observation: Part of the problem with Zionism is that it was in conflict with rising Arabism. So was this all a soured competition between nationalities?
COMPARE this thought ...
"The Muslim world, inspired by Arab nationalism but inflamed by Jewish nationalism, still considered Palestine as an Arab country and part of the Muslim patrimony, in which Jews could live only as a subject people." (pg. 201)
with this one:
"The imminent prospect of a National Home had given the Jews a sense of pride and a hope for a secure future. Jews would no longer have to put up with being second-class citizens, but that was how the Muslims among whom they lived considered them: the eternal, born dhimmis, subject to one form or another of the Covenant of Omar." (pg. 205)
So was the problem that Islamic faith said Jews were God-ordained to a certain role that Jews no longer were willing to play?
------------------------------
I found this fact very interesting and wondered how I should weigh it in considering the whole Palestine/Israel issue.
"Between 1922 and 1939 more Arabs had entered Palestine than Jews. These were Muslim immigrants including many illegals, from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Iran and Syria - as well as from Transjordan, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. These immigrants were drawn to Palestine by its opportunities for work and its growing prosperity - opportunities and prosperity often created by the Jews there. In 1948 many of these Arab immigrants were to be included in the statistics of 'Palestinian' Arab refugees." (pg. 175)
So much for all the Palestinians living on ancestral lands for centuries, huh? I'm sure many had, but not these 20,000+ who came only in the twentieth century from other Arab lands.
------------------------------
The Partition problem also caused conflict in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood "called for the reintroduction of the dhimmi laws, which had been repealed by Egypt's Mohammad Ali dynasty a century earlier, allowing both Egyptian society and Egyptian Jewry to flourish." (pg. 213)
Several times Arab suspicion of the Jewish communities giving money to Zionist organizations was noted. It seemed most Arab countries at this time simply wanted to make sure their Jewish populations didn't support the creation of a Jewish state and they wanted the Jews to renounce Zionism, declare their loyalty to their countries (whether Iraq or Morocco or Libya) and definitely not financially support any Jewish agencies which might work to relocate Jews to Palestine. This reminds me of today in the United States where many Muslim "charities" are under suspicion for supporting what the United States deems as terrorist organizations. If you want to support the Palestinians by giving to any charity with ties to Hamas or Hezbollah, forget it.
And people here often want Muslims to show their loyalty to the United States. It seems some are suspicious of Muslim ties to that mysterious worldwide ummah.
------------------------------
The last chapter I finished was about Iraq from 1948 to1952. One Jewish man put the reason why his family left, "because of 'hostility at a popular level to the new State of Israel' - not due to any official Iraqi discrimination or expulsion.'" (pg. 243) It's as if the Arab people hated Israel so much that they took out their frustrations on the local Jewish populations which caused most of them to flee. The author noted by the end of 1951, over 113,500 Jews had left Iraq legally while 6,000 remained. When Jews left Iraq they had to surrender all but a small amount of money so a few Jews decided to stay.
What I find ironic to consider is that European Jews discriminated against and hurt so much by the Holocaust and preceding years (and years) understandably wanted to flee Europe for the newly created Israel where they felt safe. Most Arabs throughout the region hated this new creation so they took out their wrath on the Jewish people in their countries. Which, in turn, made those Jews want to leave. So many Arab countries let them leave -- for Israel! Which to me makes little sense. If you are wanting to destroy this newly-created entity, why bolster it with more people? Especially Jewish people who seem to have an innate ability to thrive wherever God puts them?
I think I see more clearly why many Palestinians feel abandoned by other Arabs and why they are cynical of Arab nations truly wanting to aid them. If anything, Palestine and Palestinians have been used as a rallying point for some Muslims who are trying to unite a fragmented ummah. But has real effort taken place to do anything? Or is it mostly talk? Arabs have often blamed their dictatorial leaders so we'll have to see if this Arab Spring - and new leaders coming to power - makes any difference for the Palestinian refugees.
All that said, it does not change the fact that I detest how Israel treats the Palestinians. I find it very shameful that people who have suffered so much over the centuries could, in turn, show they can be just as evil now that they are in superior positions. One would hope the human population would learn lessons from history, but that seems too difficult.
Thoughts? Corrections? Please share!
(see the two previous posts for more information on this book)
So we've seen Muslims and Jews actually got along quite well at times. In those instances as long as the Jews kept their respectful stance as dhimmis, most often problems did not exist. After a time, however, this all changed and problems happened in places where Jews had thrived for years such as Iraq. One former Iraqi administrator, Abraham Elkabir, "later reflected - while living in Israel - on what went wrong" between Muslims and Jews. "He traced Muslim hostility to three factors:
1. "the Palestine issue"
2. "the Mufti of Jerusalem's campaign in Iraq identifying Jews and Zionists"
3. "the 'anti-Semitic tendencies' of the British officials and other Westerners in Iraq" (pg. 193)
Chapters 12 and 13 also mention Nazi Germany influencing Arab hatred towards the Jews. This despite the fact Hitler's social ladder put Arabs only one step above Jews. Wisely Hitler had this illustration deleted from the Arabic printing of his book Mein Kampf since he wanted Arab help.
------------------------------
Observation: Part of the problem with Zionism is that it was in conflict with rising Arabism. So was this all a soured competition between nationalities?
COMPARE this thought ...
"The Muslim world, inspired by Arab nationalism but inflamed by Jewish nationalism, still considered Palestine as an Arab country and part of the Muslim patrimony, in which Jews could live only as a subject people." (pg. 201)
with this one:
"The imminent prospect of a National Home had given the Jews a sense of pride and a hope for a secure future. Jews would no longer have to put up with being second-class citizens, but that was how the Muslims among whom they lived considered them: the eternal, born dhimmis, subject to one form or another of the Covenant of Omar." (pg. 205)
So was the problem that Islamic faith said Jews were God-ordained to a certain role that Jews no longer were willing to play?
------------------------------
I found this fact very interesting and wondered how I should weigh it in considering the whole Palestine/Israel issue.
"Between 1922 and 1939 more Arabs had entered Palestine than Jews. These were Muslim immigrants including many illegals, from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Iran and Syria - as well as from Transjordan, Sudan and Saudi Arabia. These immigrants were drawn to Palestine by its opportunities for work and its growing prosperity - opportunities and prosperity often created by the Jews there. In 1948 many of these Arab immigrants were to be included in the statistics of 'Palestinian' Arab refugees." (pg. 175)
So much for all the Palestinians living on ancestral lands for centuries, huh? I'm sure many had, but not these 20,000+ who came only in the twentieth century from other Arab lands.
------------------------------
The Partition problem also caused conflict in Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood "called for the reintroduction of the dhimmi laws, which had been repealed by Egypt's Mohammad Ali dynasty a century earlier, allowing both Egyptian society and Egyptian Jewry to flourish." (pg. 213)
Several times Arab suspicion of the Jewish communities giving money to Zionist organizations was noted. It seemed most Arab countries at this time simply wanted to make sure their Jewish populations didn't support the creation of a Jewish state and they wanted the Jews to renounce Zionism, declare their loyalty to their countries (whether Iraq or Morocco or Libya) and definitely not financially support any Jewish agencies which might work to relocate Jews to Palestine. This reminds me of today in the United States where many Muslim "charities" are under suspicion for supporting what the United States deems as terrorist organizations. If you want to support the Palestinians by giving to any charity with ties to Hamas or Hezbollah, forget it.
And people here often want Muslims to show their loyalty to the United States. It seems some are suspicious of Muslim ties to that mysterious worldwide ummah.
------------------------------
The last chapter I finished was about Iraq from 1948 to1952. One Jewish man put the reason why his family left, "because of 'hostility at a popular level to the new State of Israel' - not due to any official Iraqi discrimination or expulsion.'" (pg. 243) It's as if the Arab people hated Israel so much that they took out their frustrations on the local Jewish populations which caused most of them to flee. The author noted by the end of 1951, over 113,500 Jews had left Iraq legally while 6,000 remained. When Jews left Iraq they had to surrender all but a small amount of money so a few Jews decided to stay.
What I find ironic to consider is that European Jews discriminated against and hurt so much by the Holocaust and preceding years (and years) understandably wanted to flee Europe for the newly created Israel where they felt safe. Most Arabs throughout the region hated this new creation so they took out their wrath on the Jewish people in their countries. Which, in turn, made those Jews want to leave. So many Arab countries let them leave -- for Israel! Which to me makes little sense. If you are wanting to destroy this newly-created entity, why bolster it with more people? Especially Jewish people who seem to have an innate ability to thrive wherever God puts them?
I think I see more clearly why many Palestinians feel abandoned by other Arabs and why they are cynical of Arab nations truly wanting to aid them. If anything, Palestine and Palestinians have been used as a rallying point for some Muslims who are trying to unite a fragmented ummah. But has real effort taken place to do anything? Or is it mostly talk? Arabs have often blamed their dictatorial leaders so we'll have to see if this Arab Spring - and new leaders coming to power - makes any difference for the Palestinian refugees.
All that said, it does not change the fact that I detest how Israel treats the Palestinians. I find it very shameful that people who have suffered so much over the centuries could, in turn, show they can be just as evil now that they are in superior positions. One would hope the human population would learn lessons from history, but that seems too difficult.
Thoughts? Corrections? Please share!
(see the two previous posts for more information on this book)
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Gilbert on Muhammad and the Jews
So the other day I started reading In Ishmael's House: A History of the Jews in Muslim Lands, a gift I received for my birthday. I recall this being one of those recommended by Amazon.com after it saw other books I had viewed. I think at the time I was interested in Jewish life and the treatment of Jews while living among Muslims because Zachary Karabell's book, Peace Be Upon You, (one of my favorites from 2010), made me better understand coexistence is possible...and there was historical proof for it having happened. People who say Muslims and Jews have never gotten along since the days of Isaac and Ishmael and Muslims have always persecuted the Jews and what we see of Muslim Arab hatred for Israel is only proof of that aren't entirely truthful.
So I put this book on my Wishlist thinking perhaps one day I'd order it. At least it was on the list as a reminder. Fast forward to birthday 2011 and I received it from a thoughtful friend! Having just finished a book pretty much detailing why Islam is so awful (a book I'd had for a couple years and decided to finally read in my quest to read books I have here instead of checking out more library books), I was weary of another Muslim-bashing book and when I found out the author, Martin Gilbert, was Jewish, I thought, "Oh no! This isn't like Karabell's book at all!" But then I started reading and overall have found it fair. (I've read about 150 pages with about 200 to go.)
In all honesty, I've heard the Muslim side of some of these stories. I've read enough Muslim-leaning blog posts and snippets from books and articles and talked to Samer enough to have heard the justification given for Muhammad's treatment of Jews. And I'd often thought it seemed fair enough. He was asked to be the leader or mediator guy in Medina and when the Jews broke their commitment, covenant, signed agreement (whatever!), they were punished. Martin Gilbert didn't present those stories in the same manner. In fact it was after reading the short chapter on Muhammad and the Jews that I had my "Oh no!" reaction. He described more of a cleansing of Arabia or a moving out of the Jews for the sake of the Arab Muslims which made me think of modern-day Palestine in reverse. He did say Muhammad initially seemed OK with the Jews, but his later response changed when the Jews refused to accept him as a prophet. *shrug* I don't know the true story of what happened. But at least now I've heard two sides of the story, right?
He didn't totally condemn Muhammad, by the way. In fact he concluded the chapter with "Throughout the centuries to follow, Muslims had to decide in their relations with the Jews whether to see them as cursed people, or as a people protected by Islam. Mohammed's example gave them ample reason to take either view. Although he had protected Jews living under dhimmi status and granted them religious freedom, he had also subjugated them and punished them severely." (pg. 26) Based on what I know of the story from Muslim, Jewish and secular sources that seems pretty accurate. Maybe this author didn't tell the whole story of how bad the Jews were and why they deserved the "severe" punishment and how it was par for the course at that time in history and even seemed OK with other Jewish tribes. I think he didn't represent that point of view quite fairly. Or maybe that is the Muslim side of things coming out from my memory.
I just know it seems whenever I read most any book - aside from the Bible - Jews (pre-Zionism) never do much of anything wrong. It sincerely comes across as if they are mostly innocent victims who were just bullied by many throughout history for often made up reasons. Like they killed a Christian child to use his blood for their Passover. Or made too much money in their businesses and people were jealous of their wealth. Stuff like that. Has that been your reading experience as well?
I may share more notes from this book later, but this post is long enough. Share your thoughts if you'd like.
So I put this book on my Wishlist thinking perhaps one day I'd order it. At least it was on the list as a reminder. Fast forward to birthday 2011 and I received it from a thoughtful friend! Having just finished a book pretty much detailing why Islam is so awful (a book I'd had for a couple years and decided to finally read in my quest to read books I have here instead of checking out more library books), I was weary of another Muslim-bashing book and when I found out the author, Martin Gilbert, was Jewish, I thought, "Oh no! This isn't like Karabell's book at all!" But then I started reading and overall have found it fair. (I've read about 150 pages with about 200 to go.)
In all honesty, I've heard the Muslim side of some of these stories. I've read enough Muslim-leaning blog posts and snippets from books and articles and talked to Samer enough to have heard the justification given for Muhammad's treatment of Jews. And I'd often thought it seemed fair enough. He was asked to be the leader or mediator guy in Medina and when the Jews broke their commitment, covenant, signed agreement (whatever!), they were punished. Martin Gilbert didn't present those stories in the same manner. In fact it was after reading the short chapter on Muhammad and the Jews that I had my "Oh no!" reaction. He described more of a cleansing of Arabia or a moving out of the Jews for the sake of the Arab Muslims which made me think of modern-day Palestine in reverse. He did say Muhammad initially seemed OK with the Jews, but his later response changed when the Jews refused to accept him as a prophet. *shrug* I don't know the true story of what happened. But at least now I've heard two sides of the story, right?
He didn't totally condemn Muhammad, by the way. In fact he concluded the chapter with "Throughout the centuries to follow, Muslims had to decide in their relations with the Jews whether to see them as cursed people, or as a people protected by Islam. Mohammed's example gave them ample reason to take either view. Although he had protected Jews living under dhimmi status and granted them religious freedom, he had also subjugated them and punished them severely." (pg. 26) Based on what I know of the story from Muslim, Jewish and secular sources that seems pretty accurate. Maybe this author didn't tell the whole story of how bad the Jews were and why they deserved the "severe" punishment and how it was par for the course at that time in history and even seemed OK with other Jewish tribes. I think he didn't represent that point of view quite fairly. Or maybe that is the Muslim side of things coming out from my memory.
I just know it seems whenever I read most any book - aside from the Bible - Jews (pre-Zionism) never do much of anything wrong. It sincerely comes across as if they are mostly innocent victims who were just bullied by many throughout history for often made up reasons. Like they killed a Christian child to use his blood for their Passover. Or made too much money in their businesses and people were jealous of their wealth. Stuff like that. Has that been your reading experience as well?
I may share more notes from this book later, but this post is long enough. Share your thoughts if you'd like.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
An American Indian's Thoughts on White People, Tribalism, US Culture, Churches
Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto by Vine Deloria, Jr. -- note: the author uses Indian to refer to himself and his people throughout the book when not speaking of specific tribes (e.g. Cherokee, Sioux, Seminole) so I will use Indian instead of Native American in this post, but do realize we are speaking of the inhabitants of present day United States and not the Asian country! I have questions for you at the bottom. Be thinking how you would reply to the author if you could and what lessons we can learn from his thoughts.
Andrew asked why I got this book and I think it was mentioned in the footnotes of a book I read earlier this year. I decided I wanted to read a book about Indians from an American Indian rather than a white author so I found this one on Amazon and received it for my birthday. I expected this book to be more about the wars between Indians and the white people who came to the United States. I expected Custer to play some role in the book (the title kind of conveys this) yet he only came up a couple of times. This "Custer died for your sins" thing was actually a bumper sticker "originally meant as a dig at the National Council of Churches" and which "referred to the Sioux Treaty of 1868 signed at Fort Laramie in which the United States pledged to give free and undisturbed use of the lands claimed by Red Cloud in return for peace. Under the covenants of the Old Testament, breaking a covenant called for a blood sacrifice for atonement. Custer was the blood sacrifice for the United States breaking the Sioux treaty." (pg. 148)
I knew the title was a rather clever play on words since most Christians say Jesus died for our sins. It's a bit weird and good reading this book just after Carl Medearis' Speaking of Jesus which stressed, well, our speaking more of Jesus and essentially not bringing western cultural baggage into the mix. Jesus wasn't a westerner and although many bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, Jesus never started this religion nor did he ever instruct us to go and make Christians out of people or compel them to join the Christian cause.
As I was reading this book I was heartbroken at times especially when I realized how different things could have been and could be if we acted like Jesus instead of going into situations as Christians bent on solving the Indian problem essentially turning these "savages" into respectable white people. As if that's what Jesus meant when he told us to go and share the good news with every creature! The disciples struggled with this. Do the Gentiles have to become Jews? Must they be circumcised? Essentially, must they be one of us, adopt our customs, follow our law in order to follow Jesus?
NO.
This book gave me a different perspective on tribes. Of course the Bible - the Old Testament - is full of tribe talk. There are the 12 tribes of Israel as main players after all. And, of course, I was familiar with Indian tribes. I've always loved the names and found them fascinating to say. Yet when I hear of tribes today, I think of conflicts in the Arab world and places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think of divisiveness (sectarianism) and narrow mindedness and keeping women down and exalting the almighty man. Saudi Arabia's tribal culture - rather than its religion - is often blamed for the things I don't like about that country. Sure there are a number of good things, but those tend to be overlooked when compared to honor killings and the importance of virginity in women and the control of parents over their daughters. Honestly it makes me feel smothered reading about such things.
Yet, this book helped me see tribes in a better light. How if there is a good hunting season, everyone eats. And if there is a bad hunting season, everyone suffers. There is not this hoarding of wealth and this great divide between the haves and the have nots. The author notes "each man must be judged according to his real self, not according to his wealth or educational prowess. Hence a holder of great wealth is merely selfish unless he has other redeeming qualities besides his material goods. Having a number of degrees and an impressive educational background is prerequisite to prestige in the white world. It is detrimental in the Indian world unless the person has the necessary wisdom to say meaningful things also." (pg. 233)
This book was published in 1969 during the era of hippies and black power movements. Hippies, the author notes, had shrugged off some of the prestige qualifiers of white culture yet he found fault with them for not adopting the things that make for good Indian prestige. Hippies were basically passing fads and out for publicity. The Indians often rejected the black power movements because equality meant the blacks would be equal to the whites. To Indians, equal meant sameness and they did not want to adopt 'white culture.' They were Indian and they had their own customs thus they refused to be 'white' no matter the effort government agencies and churches undertook to make them 'white.'
Speaking of 'white culture', Deloria says it's like a cancer. It destroys other cultures and the whites essentially have no culture except the violent culture they brought from Europe to the New World. He says when we cannot solve problems, we use violence - overkill - to stamp out our enemies. He says this country "has never made a successful peace because peace requires exchanging ideas, concepts, thoughts, and recognizing the fact that two distinct systems of life can exist together without conflict. Consider how quickly America seems to be facing its allies of one war as new enemies." "Violence is America's sweetheart," and America "alienates everyone who does not automatically love it." (pg. 256)
You can imagine how much love I felt reading this book, right? Yes, it's often painful to see ourselves through others' eyes yet we often need attention drawn to our blind spots and things we'd rather not consider. This book has definitely made me reflect on several issues - some serious ones like how Jesus, the wonderful person that he is, got so separated from people who claim to follow him (these "Christians"). Other issues perhaps not so serious, but still thought-provoking: do we 'white' folks really have no culture? Is violence really our "sweetheart" and why do we alienate people who don't love us? Why do we "overkill"?
Has this ever truly been a Christian nation? Or shall we once and for all separate the word "Christian" from "follower of Jesus" since there seems to be a huge divide between most Christian action and the actions of the Christ.
Thoughts? What do you think of tribalism? Do you tend to view it negatively, neutrally or positively? Why? What do you think of the author's view of white culture? Do you think white people have no culture? Do you agree with Deloria's thoughts on black power (equality = sameness)? This actually reminded me of Akbar Ahmed's thoughts that I expressed in this post about Barack Obama acting like the white presidents. Do you agree that we love violence? Why is this? Do you think we should separate Christianity in the US from Jesus? What took your attention from this post? How would you reply to this author if given the chance? Any lessons we can learn from Vine Deloria's thoughts?
I've already alluded to Deloria's disdain for the Christianity as shown by most churches. You should also hear his loathing for anthropologists and his views of Democrats and Republicans. I would share more, but this post is too long already.
Andrew asked why I got this book and I think it was mentioned in the footnotes of a book I read earlier this year. I decided I wanted to read a book about Indians from an American Indian rather than a white author so I found this one on Amazon and received it for my birthday. I expected this book to be more about the wars between Indians and the white people who came to the United States. I expected Custer to play some role in the book (the title kind of conveys this) yet he only came up a couple of times. This "Custer died for your sins" thing was actually a bumper sticker "originally meant as a dig at the National Council of Churches" and which "referred to the Sioux Treaty of 1868 signed at Fort Laramie in which the United States pledged to give free and undisturbed use of the lands claimed by Red Cloud in return for peace. Under the covenants of the Old Testament, breaking a covenant called for a blood sacrifice for atonement. Custer was the blood sacrifice for the United States breaking the Sioux treaty." (pg. 148)
I knew the title was a rather clever play on words since most Christians say Jesus died for our sins. It's a bit weird and good reading this book just after Carl Medearis' Speaking of Jesus which stressed, well, our speaking more of Jesus and essentially not bringing western cultural baggage into the mix. Jesus wasn't a westerner and although many bad things have been done in the name of Christianity, Jesus never started this religion nor did he ever instruct us to go and make Christians out of people or compel them to join the Christian cause.
As I was reading this book I was heartbroken at times especially when I realized how different things could have been and could be if we acted like Jesus instead of going into situations as Christians bent on solving the Indian problem essentially turning these "savages" into respectable white people. As if that's what Jesus meant when he told us to go and share the good news with every creature! The disciples struggled with this. Do the Gentiles have to become Jews? Must they be circumcised? Essentially, must they be one of us, adopt our customs, follow our law in order to follow Jesus?
NO.
This book gave me a different perspective on tribes. Of course the Bible - the Old Testament - is full of tribe talk. There are the 12 tribes of Israel as main players after all. And, of course, I was familiar with Indian tribes. I've always loved the names and found them fascinating to say. Yet when I hear of tribes today, I think of conflicts in the Arab world and places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think of divisiveness (sectarianism) and narrow mindedness and keeping women down and exalting the almighty man. Saudi Arabia's tribal culture - rather than its religion - is often blamed for the things I don't like about that country. Sure there are a number of good things, but those tend to be overlooked when compared to honor killings and the importance of virginity in women and the control of parents over their daughters. Honestly it makes me feel smothered reading about such things.
Yet, this book helped me see tribes in a better light. How if there is a good hunting season, everyone eats. And if there is a bad hunting season, everyone suffers. There is not this hoarding of wealth and this great divide between the haves and the have nots. The author notes "each man must be judged according to his real self, not according to his wealth or educational prowess. Hence a holder of great wealth is merely selfish unless he has other redeeming qualities besides his material goods. Having a number of degrees and an impressive educational background is prerequisite to prestige in the white world. It is detrimental in the Indian world unless the person has the necessary wisdom to say meaningful things also." (pg. 233)
This book was published in 1969 during the era of hippies and black power movements. Hippies, the author notes, had shrugged off some of the prestige qualifiers of white culture yet he found fault with them for not adopting the things that make for good Indian prestige. Hippies were basically passing fads and out for publicity. The Indians often rejected the black power movements because equality meant the blacks would be equal to the whites. To Indians, equal meant sameness and they did not want to adopt 'white culture.' They were Indian and they had their own customs thus they refused to be 'white' no matter the effort government agencies and churches undertook to make them 'white.'
Speaking of 'white culture', Deloria says it's like a cancer. It destroys other cultures and the whites essentially have no culture except the violent culture they brought from Europe to the New World. He says when we cannot solve problems, we use violence - overkill - to stamp out our enemies. He says this country "has never made a successful peace because peace requires exchanging ideas, concepts, thoughts, and recognizing the fact that two distinct systems of life can exist together without conflict. Consider how quickly America seems to be facing its allies of one war as new enemies." "Violence is America's sweetheart," and America "alienates everyone who does not automatically love it." (pg. 256)
You can imagine how much love I felt reading this book, right? Yes, it's often painful to see ourselves through others' eyes yet we often need attention drawn to our blind spots and things we'd rather not consider. This book has definitely made me reflect on several issues - some serious ones like how Jesus, the wonderful person that he is, got so separated from people who claim to follow him (these "Christians"). Other issues perhaps not so serious, but still thought-provoking: do we 'white' folks really have no culture? Is violence really our "sweetheart" and why do we alienate people who don't love us? Why do we "overkill"?
Has this ever truly been a Christian nation? Or shall we once and for all separate the word "Christian" from "follower of Jesus" since there seems to be a huge divide between most Christian action and the actions of the Christ.
Thoughts? What do you think of tribalism? Do you tend to view it negatively, neutrally or positively? Why? What do you think of the author's view of white culture? Do you think white people have no culture? Do you agree with Deloria's thoughts on black power (equality = sameness)? This actually reminded me of Akbar Ahmed's thoughts that I expressed in this post about Barack Obama acting like the white presidents. Do you agree that we love violence? Why is this? Do you think we should separate Christianity in the US from Jesus? What took your attention from this post? How would you reply to this author if given the chance? Any lessons we can learn from Vine Deloria's thoughts?
I've already alluded to Deloria's disdain for the Christianity as shown by most churches. You should also hear his loathing for anthropologists and his views of Democrats and Republicans. I would share more, but this post is too long already.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Suffering for Jesus
I read this excerpt today and it made me think. It was said in the context of Chinese Christians denouncing their faith in Jesus when being persecuted by their government. There were many who did not, of course, but this was just a small part of what was said.
Why do you believe it matters that we endure a trial and resist denouncing our faith even under intense pressure? Is that crazy? Would something like taqiyya be more sensible in getting through this world? I remember in a book I read last year that Maimonides thought it foolish of his people to go through suffering when they could easily "convert" in name only in order to be left alone.
Your not becoming a traitor and your resistance in times of intensive trial depends upon your earlier Christian life.
When, after the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, the Lord appeared to Ananias, He told him how to teach a new convert: "I will show him how many things he must suffer for my Name's sake" (Acts 9:16).
Every Christian church that does not teach its members the main religious science, sufferology, does not fulfill its duties. Impose upon yourself mortification. Learn to suffer and not to yield. The time may come when you will need this knowledge. -- Richard Wurmbrand as quoted in The Voice of the Martyrs, pg. 10 - June 2011
Why do you believe it matters that we endure a trial and resist denouncing our faith even under intense pressure? Is that crazy? Would something like taqiyya be more sensible in getting through this world? I remember in a book I read last year that Maimonides thought it foolish of his people to go through suffering when they could easily "convert" in name only in order to be left alone.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Darwin or Jesus: Who Influences Americans More?
In chapter 1 of Journey Into America, Akbar Ahmed speaks of the way Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" has influenced American life. Recalling to mind that it's not the most intelligent or strongest who survive, but the one who is adaptable to change, he reminds us "those who succeed in the competition to survive are said to be the 'favored races.' ... [and] if the favored races are defined by a certain religion, language, and culture these will be imitated, preserved, and passed on.
Because in America the English - and later by extension the white race - emerged on top in the competition, their characteristics have become the standard. ... In time, all others- African Americans, Mexicans, Native Americans, and Asians - were forced to imitate the dominant ethos if they wished to succeed." He uses President Obama as an example. Despite his "dark skin" and "Muslim father from Africa," he has for the most part sounded and behaved like "other politicians from the dominant white race."
"A DEBILITATING TENSION BETWEEN DARWIN AND JESUS"
Mr. Ahmed says this tension lies at the heart of what defines and motivates American identity. Since Darwinian thought and Jesus' teachings are "diametrically opposed," they "cannot coexist simultaneously in one society without causing severe friction."
Think about it. And think about Native Americans and other groups as you compare the two.
Darwin "represents adaptability and survival" and "acknowledges that those who cannot adapt will not - indeed must not - survive." It's a struggle to survive and "the ruthless will to succeed, strength, speed, stamina, and force determine success. In turn, success generates pride and arrogance, the chauvinism of being on top, and a belief in the superiority of the dominant group."
Jesus' teaching of compassion and love for neighbors and enemies should motivate true followers to reach out to all people especially the "least privileged members in society" who often need the most help. Think of the people Jesus came to serve: basically all types! Tax collectors, women, soldiers, fishermen, prostitutes, religious men like Nicodemus, ordinary people, children! Even nonJewish people were not excluded from his help!
Yet why do we - who sometimes insist we are a "Christian nation" - act more like we follow Darwin with all the pride and hurtfulness that purifying the world of all the "bad races" involves instead of Jesus? I always thought the "Christ" part of "Christian" referred to the Messiah celebrated in the New Testament. So why the Darwinian outlook in keeping the land pure for white people- Christian white people - Protestant white people?
Ahmed observes: "I have always found American fear and anger surprising.Why should the most powerful people on earth be fearful? And why should the richest people be angry? If there was more true Christianity and less Darwinian thinking, I am convinced, there would be far more calmness in American social life."
I read this and noted "pg. 26 AMEN!" on my notepad! Exactly! Why are we going around fearful and angry? Why do we not live as people of faith and actually do what Jesus did and stop being so afraid and suspicious of everyone?
Anger and fear are not good foreign policy motivators!
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." ~ Jesus Christ (John 14:27)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
quotes from pgs. 24-26
Because in America the English - and later by extension the white race - emerged on top in the competition, their characteristics have become the standard. ... In time, all others- African Americans, Mexicans, Native Americans, and Asians - were forced to imitate the dominant ethos if they wished to succeed." He uses President Obama as an example. Despite his "dark skin" and "Muslim father from Africa," he has for the most part sounded and behaved like "other politicians from the dominant white race."
"A DEBILITATING TENSION BETWEEN DARWIN AND JESUS"
Mr. Ahmed says this tension lies at the heart of what defines and motivates American identity. Since Darwinian thought and Jesus' teachings are "diametrically opposed," they "cannot coexist simultaneously in one society without causing severe friction."
Think about it. And think about Native Americans and other groups as you compare the two.
Darwin "represents adaptability and survival" and "acknowledges that those who cannot adapt will not - indeed must not - survive." It's a struggle to survive and "the ruthless will to succeed, strength, speed, stamina, and force determine success. In turn, success generates pride and arrogance, the chauvinism of being on top, and a belief in the superiority of the dominant group."
Jesus' teaching of compassion and love for neighbors and enemies should motivate true followers to reach out to all people especially the "least privileged members in society" who often need the most help. Think of the people Jesus came to serve: basically all types! Tax collectors, women, soldiers, fishermen, prostitutes, religious men like Nicodemus, ordinary people, children! Even nonJewish people were not excluded from his help!
Yet why do we - who sometimes insist we are a "Christian nation" - act more like we follow Darwin with all the pride and hurtfulness that purifying the world of all the "bad races" involves instead of Jesus? I always thought the "Christ" part of "Christian" referred to the Messiah celebrated in the New Testament. So why the Darwinian outlook in keeping the land pure for white people- Christian white people - Protestant white people?
 |
| We purified the land so let's keep it that way, right?! |
Ahmed observes: "I have always found American fear and anger surprising.Why should the most powerful people on earth be fearful? And why should the richest people be angry? If there was more true Christianity and less Darwinian thinking, I am convinced, there would be far more calmness in American social life."
I read this and noted "pg. 26 AMEN!" on my notepad! Exactly! Why are we going around fearful and angry? Why do we not live as people of faith and actually do what Jesus did and stop being so afraid and suspicious of everyone?
Anger and fear are not good foreign policy motivators!
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid." ~ Jesus Christ (John 14:27)
TO BE CONTINUED ...
quotes from pgs. 24-26
Friday, April 22, 2011
Good Friday Sadness
So today was Good Friday, the day many Christians remember Jesus' crucifixion. I found out about an event at a rescue mission located about 45 minutes away and went there to help serve lemonade to the people from the community who came to eat. The day was cool and rainy, but we had a large crowd to feed. I had a wonderful time smiling at others, talking to the adults and making funny faces at the children. I wanted them to see Jesus in me and I hope they did. The mission gave away bags of groceries, nice clothes, Easter baskets and had games and balloons and prizes for the children.
On the way down I was listening to a CD from a message my pastor spoke a few months ago. I remember liking it then so I saved it and today I remembered why. One part he talks about suffering with people. How we enter into their suffering the same way Jesus suffered with us. So this evening I've been suffering for Syria.
They had "Great Friday" there. Each Friday they have had names for their protests -- the day of persistence and .. I'm drawing a blank, but you get the idea. Today being Good Friday for Christians, they decided to show solidarity with the Christians within Syria and gave it the Arabic version which Samer told me translates to Great Friday. So, Great Friday was a horrible day! Almost 90 people killed and I saw some gruesome videos! I "liked" Shaam News Network* on Facebook so my news feed has been full of the reality of the day there! And it's awful!
So I am sharing in their suffering and am heartbroken for the beautiful people throughout that country who are seeing their country fall apart and for those precious souls who lost their lives today. I weep with them.
Edited to add this video. A Syrian friend (not Samer who has been asleep in Germany for hours now) asked me to share it on Facebook just now and I decided to add it here. It will break your heart.
* Click the link, but be prepared for some graphic stuff. Some of my Facebook people seemed to have problems with a couple things I posted from it today. Reality is too difficult for many folks whose vision of reality is Survivor and Hell's Kitchen.
On the way down I was listening to a CD from a message my pastor spoke a few months ago. I remember liking it then so I saved it and today I remembered why. One part he talks about suffering with people. How we enter into their suffering the same way Jesus suffered with us. So this evening I've been suffering for Syria.
They had "Great Friday" there. Each Friday they have had names for their protests -- the day of persistence and .. I'm drawing a blank, but you get the idea. Today being Good Friday for Christians, they decided to show solidarity with the Christians within Syria and gave it the Arabic version which Samer told me translates to Great Friday. So, Great Friday was a horrible day! Almost 90 people killed and I saw some gruesome videos! I "liked" Shaam News Network* on Facebook so my news feed has been full of the reality of the day there! And it's awful!
So I am sharing in their suffering and am heartbroken for the beautiful people throughout that country who are seeing their country fall apart and for those precious souls who lost their lives today. I weep with them.
Edited to add this video. A Syrian friend (not Samer who has been asleep in Germany for hours now) asked me to share it on Facebook just now and I decided to add it here. It will break your heart.
* Click the link, but be prepared for some graphic stuff. Some of my Facebook people seemed to have problems with a couple things I posted from it today. Reality is too difficult for many folks whose vision of reality is Survivor and Hell's Kitchen.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Should I Encourage Revolution?
Ever have a conflict of whether you are right to encourage people to fight for their political freedoms? I'm not speaking of people in America, but in a country where your President (for life) and the military are so entwined and most of the people weaponless so that any conflict will be vastly unfair.
I don't want to say "don't fight...you might be killed!" when they want change yet are frightened of the brutal response of the regime and its supporters. I'm done with fear being the reason for doing or not doing anything. Fear holds me back too often and I want to throw off that chain whenever it reaches out to hold me down.
On the other hand, should I encourage them? I am pretty good at giving pep talks, urging people to remember God, not to fear and all that stuff.
But should I? I realize I am thousands of miles away and don't have to deal with seeing my friends beaten, arrested and shot at. It's easy to be a cheerleader when you don't have to get in the game ... and possibly be hurt or killed.
I wonder what Jesus would tell me to do . . .
He didn't lead any revolutions against the Romans yet he was for righting wrongs. And we Americans surely pride ourselves for rebelling against the British when they were heavy-handed.
Hmm, decisions, decisions.
He didn't lead any revolutions against the Romans yet he was for righting wrongs. And we Americans surely pride ourselves for rebelling against the British when they were heavy-handed.
Hmm, decisions, decisions.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Orthodox Church -- St. Photius, Ignatius, Pope Nicolas I, Bulgaria, Humbert & More
The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware
The next section of chapter three deals with the Eastern and Western Churches' estrangement becoming a full division. It began with a new Patriarch of Constantinople being appointed, St. Photius the Great. A dispute arose quickly between him and Pope Nicolas I. I then read about a former Patriarch, St.Ignatius being exiled and forced to resign. The supporters of Ignatius considered Photius "a usurper" and Nicolas decided he would not recognize Photius as the new Patriarch until he looked into the quarrel for himself. He sent a delegation to Constantinople who came back with the report that Photius was the proper Patriarch, but Nicolas decided to not abide by their decision. He figured he needed to retry the case himself at Rome and "a council held under his presidency in 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity." (pg. 53) The Byzantines never acknowledged this decision by Nicolas and never replied to his letters on this subject.
The author says "this dispute clearly involved the Papal claims." Nicolas had already "done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also."
The East did not agree.
The dispute over the Filioque came to a head in Bulgaria as Greek and German missionaries clashed because of this difference in the Creed. Patriarch Photius wrote a letter "denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy." He called a council to Constantinople which proceeded to excommunicate Nicolas.
Suddenly things changed!
In 867, Photius was out and Ignatius reinstated as the Patriarch of Constantinople. "Communion with Rome was restored."
Even Photius and Ignatius were reconciled and when Ignatius died, Photius once again became the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Pope John VIII was not one for Frankish influence nor did he make the Filioque an issue. Outwardly this was a period of reconciliation between Rome and the East, but no real solution had been made concerning these two divisive issues.
And they cropped up again.
I won't rehash all that happened next, but just note a few things that caught my eye.
Under German influence Rome reformed itself, "and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made." (pg.57)
(It seems Germans are often reformers, huh?)
The "severe quarrel" between Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida, representing Rome and the Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 contributed more to the divide. Among the charges against the Patriarch: "Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed!" (Recall from past lessons that the Filioque was an addition from the Roman Church acting independently of the council of churches.)
Previously the disagreement had been between the church and government leaders, however the Crusades - sadly - "brought the schism down to the local level." In Antioch and Jerusalem you had "two rival bishops claim[ing] the same throne and two hostile congregations exist[ing] in the same city." (pg.60)
"'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom.' The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two." (pg. 60)
I did like how the author summed up what both sides need to do.
"Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level...The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy." (pg.61)
Thoughts? Corrections? Clarifications?
The next section of chapter three deals with the Eastern and Western Churches' estrangement becoming a full division. It began with a new Patriarch of Constantinople being appointed, St. Photius the Great. A dispute arose quickly between him and Pope Nicolas I. I then read about a former Patriarch, St.Ignatius being exiled and forced to resign. The supporters of Ignatius considered Photius "a usurper" and Nicolas decided he would not recognize Photius as the new Patriarch until he looked into the quarrel for himself. He sent a delegation to Constantinople who came back with the report that Photius was the proper Patriarch, but Nicolas decided to not abide by their decision. He figured he needed to retry the case himself at Rome and "a council held under his presidency in 863 recognized Ignatius as Patriarch, and proclaimed Photius to be deposed from all priestly dignity." (pg. 53) The Byzantines never acknowledged this decision by Nicolas and never replied to his letters on this subject.
The author says "this dispute clearly involved the Papal claims." Nicolas had already "done much to establish an absolute power over all bishops in the west. But he believed this absolute power to extend to the east also."
The East did not agree.
The dispute over the Filioque came to a head in Bulgaria as Greek and German missionaries clashed because of this difference in the Creed. Patriarch Photius wrote a letter "denouncing the Filioque at length and charging those who used it with heresy." He called a council to Constantinople which proceeded to excommunicate Nicolas.
Suddenly things changed!
In 867, Photius was out and Ignatius reinstated as the Patriarch of Constantinople. "Communion with Rome was restored."
Even Photius and Ignatius were reconciled and when Ignatius died, Photius once again became the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Pope John VIII was not one for Frankish influence nor did he make the Filioque an issue. Outwardly this was a period of reconciliation between Rome and the East, but no real solution had been made concerning these two divisive issues.
And they cropped up again.
I won't rehash all that happened next, but just note a few things that caught my eye.
Under German influence Rome reformed itself, "and through the rule of men such as Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) it gained a position of power in the west such as it had never before achieved. The reformed Papacy naturally revived the claims to universal jurisdiction which Nicolas had made." (pg.57)
(It seems Germans are often reformers, huh?)
The "severe quarrel" between Humbert, Bishop of Silva Candida, representing Rome and the Patriarch Michael Cerularius in 1054 contributed more to the divide. Among the charges against the Patriarch: "Humbert accused the Greeks of omitting the Filioque from the Creed!" (Recall from past lessons that the Filioque was an addition from the Roman Church acting independently of the council of churches.)
Previously the disagreement had been between the church and government leaders, however the Crusades - sadly - "brought the schism down to the local level." In Antioch and Jerusalem you had "two rival bishops claim[ing] the same throne and two hostile congregations exist[ing] in the same city." (pg.60)
"'The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom.' The long-standing doctrinal disagreements were now reinforced on the Greek side by an intense national hatred, by a feeling of resentment and indignation against western aggression and sacrilege. After 1204 there can be no doubt that Christian east and Christian west were divided into two." (pg. 60)
I did like how the author summed up what both sides need to do.
"Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level...The Greek east and the Latin west needed and still need one another. For both parties the great schism has proved a great tragedy." (pg.61)
Thoughts? Corrections? Clarifications?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Injustice: Women Paying the Price for Men's Honor
Whatever the pretext -- divorce, supposed adultery, or a settling of accounts among men -- women pay the heaviest price. They may be given as compensation for an offense or raped as a form of reprisal by their husbands' enemies. Sometimes, all it takes is for two men to quarrel about something, and one of them will take revenge on the other's wife. The common practice in our villages is for men to take justice into their own hands, invoking the principle of 'an eye for an eye.' It is always a question of honor, and they may do as they please: cut off a woman's nose, burn a sister, rape a neighbor's wife.
And even if the assailants are arrested before they manage to kill their victims, the instinct for vengeance doesn't stop there, because other members of their family are always ready to champion the honor of a brother or cousin. ...
I don't condone 'crimes of honor'; far from it, but when foreigners hound me with questions, I try to explain to them how society works here in the Punjab, a province where such crimes are unfortunately widespread. I was born in this country, subject to its laws, and I know that I am like all other women who belong to the men of their families: we are objects, and they have the right to do whatever they want with us. Submission is compulsory.
Mukhtar Mai, In the Name of Honor
How things might be different if these men followed Jesus' command to not return evil for evil, not to seek vengeance and to be quick to forgive. This thirst for vengeance and upholding a man's honor demands a steep price for the innocent! Why must women hurt for the sake of men's pride?
 |
| Despite her humiliation, Mukhtar decided to fight the injustice instead of killing herself as expected |
From Wikipedia about the author:
Mukhtaran Bibi (Punjabi, Urdu: مختاراں بی بی, born circa 1972,[1] now known as Mukhtār Mā'ī,[2] مختار مائی) is a Pakistani woman from the village of Meerwala, in the rural tehsil (county) of Jatoi of the Muzaffargarh District of Pakistan. Mukhtār Mā'ī was the victim of a gang rape as a form of honour revenge, on the orders of a panchayat (tribal council) of the local Mastoi Baloch clan that was richer and more powerful as opposed to her Gujjar clan.[3] By custom, rural women are expected to commit suicide after such an event.[4][5][6] Instead, she spoke up, and pursued the case, which was picked up by the international media, creating pressure on the Pakistani government and the police to address the rape. The case eventually went to trial, and her rapists were arrested, charged and convicted, until an appeals court overturned the convictions. The case is still pending with the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Mukhtar has been waging a legal battle in Pakistan in the years since, and, as a direct result, her safety has been constantly in jeopardy. Despite this, she started the Mukhtar Mai Women's Welfare Organization to help support and educate Pakistani women and girls, and is an outspoken advocate for women's rights.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Muslim Reformers vs. European Attitudes
Notes and reflections on Peace Be Upon You: The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence by Zachary Karabell
This chapter - The Age of Reform - begins with the expansion of Western influence into Muslim lands where "there were some who enthusiastically embraced the mores and manners of the West, and others who resisted at all costs." Some Muslims traveled abroad to study "the fundamentals of Western science and philosophy, and returned home to lead a new wave of reform" while others "retreated more deeply into the comfortable lassitude of the past, clinging to dreams that the West would retreat as surely as the Crusaders had left Palestine centuries before." (pg. 223)
The author discussed a couple Muslim reformers who thought Islam was compatible with science and reason and, therefore, no need existed to throw out religious beliefs in the name of progress such as was the trend in Europe. Muhammad Abduh and his teacher Jamal al-Din al-Afghani were mentioned as two men who tried to reform Muslim society. Afghani debated Western intellectuals such as Ernest Renan who "believed that all religions were antithetical to innovation, and that religion stood in the way of human progress." (226) A former seminary student, Renan was "fluent in Hebrew, versed in the Quran and had devoted years to the study of the Orient. He admired the Persians, but had little respect for what Arabs had wrought over the centuries." He thought Persians had done better than Arabs "because they were less in thrall to orthodox Islam." Religion "resting on the infinite power of God the creator" did not nurture any scientific spirit which was based on "the limitless capacity of human reason and intellect."
What do you think? Is Renan correct in saying that religion and science were at odds? Can one only have religion or science and not both? Does religion stand in the way of progress by default or perhaps only when it is abused? Do you think religions have purpose in that they give standards of what is right and wrong or does even this naturally evolve from the innate goodness of people?
Afghani countered that Islam was "unique in its embrace of reason and its warmth toward science." He gave examples of the great Islamic philosophers who were often mystics as well. "They used reason, and they were also men of faith, who submitted to the mystery and power of God even as they employed logic to probe the meaning of his creation." (pg. 227)
Muhammad Abduh agreed. He believed the first Muslims - the Salaf - "had prospered because they combined reason with faith." They were "ecumenical and tolerant" just as Abduh sought to make Egyptian society. He saw how Muslims, Jews and Christians all benefited from their history of coexistence and he desired to make Egypt like those glorious days. He would be appalled with how others disagreed and tried to emulate the Salaf as a "tight-knit community of believers whose strength lay in the rejection of the message given to the People of the Book and their willingness to silence any who challenged the word of the Quran and the hadith." Abduh thought the Quran was opened to being interpreted in light of current issues rather than it being stuck with one interpretation good for all times no matter how societies progressed.
Abduh argued that ignorance was a greater threat than the West and he sought to take Egypt out of this "backwardness." "He reserved his most stringent criticisms not for the conquerors but for the failings in his own society that made it unable to resist Western encroachment." (pg. 230)
This chapter - The Age of Reform - begins with the expansion of Western influence into Muslim lands where "there were some who enthusiastically embraced the mores and manners of the West, and others who resisted at all costs." Some Muslims traveled abroad to study "the fundamentals of Western science and philosophy, and returned home to lead a new wave of reform" while others "retreated more deeply into the comfortable lassitude of the past, clinging to dreams that the West would retreat as surely as the Crusaders had left Palestine centuries before." (pg. 223)
The author discussed a couple Muslim reformers who thought Islam was compatible with science and reason and, therefore, no need existed to throw out religious beliefs in the name of progress such as was the trend in Europe. Muhammad Abduh and his teacher Jamal al-Din al-Afghani were mentioned as two men who tried to reform Muslim society. Afghani debated Western intellectuals such as Ernest Renan who "believed that all religions were antithetical to innovation, and that religion stood in the way of human progress." (226) A former seminary student, Renan was "fluent in Hebrew, versed in the Quran and had devoted years to the study of the Orient. He admired the Persians, but had little respect for what Arabs had wrought over the centuries." He thought Persians had done better than Arabs "because they were less in thrall to orthodox Islam." Religion "resting on the infinite power of God the creator" did not nurture any scientific spirit which was based on "the limitless capacity of human reason and intellect."
What do you think? Is Renan correct in saying that religion and science were at odds? Can one only have religion or science and not both? Does religion stand in the way of progress by default or perhaps only when it is abused? Do you think religions have purpose in that they give standards of what is right and wrong or does even this naturally evolve from the innate goodness of people?
Afghani countered that Islam was "unique in its embrace of reason and its warmth toward science." He gave examples of the great Islamic philosophers who were often mystics as well. "They used reason, and they were also men of faith, who submitted to the mystery and power of God even as they employed logic to probe the meaning of his creation." (pg. 227)
Muhammad Abduh agreed. He believed the first Muslims - the Salaf - "had prospered because they combined reason with faith." They were "ecumenical and tolerant" just as Abduh sought to make Egyptian society. He saw how Muslims, Jews and Christians all benefited from their history of coexistence and he desired to make Egypt like those glorious days. He would be appalled with how others disagreed and tried to emulate the Salaf as a "tight-knit community of believers whose strength lay in the rejection of the message given to the People of the Book and their willingness to silence any who challenged the word of the Quran and the hadith." Abduh thought the Quran was opened to being interpreted in light of current issues rather than it being stuck with one interpretation good for all times no matter how societies progressed.
Abduh argued that ignorance was a greater threat than the West and he sought to take Egypt out of this "backwardness." "He reserved his most stringent criticisms not for the conquerors but for the failings in his own society that made it unable to resist Western encroachment." (pg. 230)
Thoughts?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Reason Over Religion; Restructuring Government and Divided Loyalties
Notes and reflections on Peace Be Upon You: The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence by Zachary Karabell
I promise y'all one of these days I *will* be done with this book! It's interesting, but just lots of stuff for me to note. Sorry if it bores you. Not many chapters left! :-)
The French Revolution and its influence on Muslim lands were topics of this chapter. Karabell shared how Napoleon and his army went into Egypt and how disgusted the Egyptians were with their uncouth behavior. The Egyptians thought of these French aggressors as a Christian army although Napoleon, with his love of reason and science and hatred for religion especially the Catholic church, would not have agreed in the slightest. This was a time in history where answering to king and God was cast aside as progress was measured by man's ability to shed primitive forces, purge past impurities (such as organized religion) and obtain the highest levels of civilization based on inquiry, reason and science. Islam wasn't being picked on by Napoleon because it was Islam, but simply because it was religion - another faith to be shed in the eyes of these secularists.
Next the author discussed Muhammad Ali an Albanian guy on a quest to modernize Egypt. He got rid of the Mamelukes who were controlling Egypt by inviting them to a banquet, sealing the doors and ordering his soldiers to kill them while they ate. Karabell says all but one Mameluke was killed and Muhammad Ali emerged as the sole ruler answerable only to the sultan. However he and the sultan had their clashes, which at one point lead to European states having to help the Ottoman sultan send Ali back to Egypt.
Muhammad Ali sent Egyptians to the Western world for education. He wanted them "to take what they could from Europe and apply it to the betterment of Egypt." Instead of separating faith from progress Ali and his followers tried to implement a model where faith was compatible with progress. They took the parts of the European model that they liked and skipped the ones that were not favorable to them.
About European expansion the author says it "combined a passion for progress with pure power politics. The utopian impulse to create a better world, where human reason and ingenuity would invent technologies to make hunger, war, and disease obsolete, walked hand in hand with the ancient human desire to conquer and control." (pg. 216)
Also in this chapter the author tells how the Ottomans tried to restructure their government by copying the Europeans with their strong central governments. The Ottomans saw how this worked favorably in Europe with the Europeans' advances in technology and army power. So they gave all people basically the same rights and privileges which was good, however, these reforms made people start seeing themselves as separate millet community groups instead of a united empire. It's like they saw themselves as Catholics, Arabs, Armenians, Jews and Greek Orthodox instead of Ottomans and they became loyal to their own groups more than they were loyal to the empire.
This section reminded me of the United States in the sense that we have fifty states within the country. In reading about Civil War history, I was always struck with how the Southerners fought for states' rights over the strong central government telling them what to do from hundreds of miles away. In fact when General Robert E. Lee had to choose between staying with the United States army or fighting with the South, he said he could not fight against his state of Virginia and led Confederate troops. I believe for many back then loyalty to and connection with the state rather than the nation was of more importance. Of course we know states' rights suffered a blow when the North defeated the Confederates and the southern states were forced back into the Union. I'm guessing that these Ottomans seeing themselves as "states" first lead to the empire's demise just as southern states seeing themselves as "individuals" led to war.
Any thoughts or comments to share?
I promise y'all one of these days I *will* be done with this book! It's interesting, but just lots of stuff for me to note. Sorry if it bores you. Not many chapters left! :-)
The French Revolution and its influence on Muslim lands were topics of this chapter. Karabell shared how Napoleon and his army went into Egypt and how disgusted the Egyptians were with their uncouth behavior. The Egyptians thought of these French aggressors as a Christian army although Napoleon, with his love of reason and science and hatred for religion especially the Catholic church, would not have agreed in the slightest. This was a time in history where answering to king and God was cast aside as progress was measured by man's ability to shed primitive forces, purge past impurities (such as organized religion) and obtain the highest levels of civilization based on inquiry, reason and science. Islam wasn't being picked on by Napoleon because it was Islam, but simply because it was religion - another faith to be shed in the eyes of these secularists.
Next the author discussed Muhammad Ali an Albanian guy on a quest to modernize Egypt. He got rid of the Mamelukes who were controlling Egypt by inviting them to a banquet, sealing the doors and ordering his soldiers to kill them while they ate. Karabell says all but one Mameluke was killed and Muhammad Ali emerged as the sole ruler answerable only to the sultan. However he and the sultan had their clashes, which at one point lead to European states having to help the Ottoman sultan send Ali back to Egypt.
Muhammad Ali sent Egyptians to the Western world for education. He wanted them "to take what they could from Europe and apply it to the betterment of Egypt." Instead of separating faith from progress Ali and his followers tried to implement a model where faith was compatible with progress. They took the parts of the European model that they liked and skipped the ones that were not favorable to them.
About European expansion the author says it "combined a passion for progress with pure power politics. The utopian impulse to create a better world, where human reason and ingenuity would invent technologies to make hunger, war, and disease obsolete, walked hand in hand with the ancient human desire to conquer and control." (pg. 216)
Also in this chapter the author tells how the Ottomans tried to restructure their government by copying the Europeans with their strong central governments. The Ottomans saw how this worked favorably in Europe with the Europeans' advances in technology and army power. So they gave all people basically the same rights and privileges which was good, however, these reforms made people start seeing themselves as separate millet community groups instead of a united empire. It's like they saw themselves as Catholics, Arabs, Armenians, Jews and Greek Orthodox instead of Ottomans and they became loyal to their own groups more than they were loyal to the empire.
This section reminded me of the United States in the sense that we have fifty states within the country. In reading about Civil War history, I was always struck with how the Southerners fought for states' rights over the strong central government telling them what to do from hundreds of miles away. In fact when General Robert E. Lee had to choose between staying with the United States army or fighting with the South, he said he could not fight against his state of Virginia and led Confederate troops. I believe for many back then loyalty to and connection with the state rather than the nation was of more importance. Of course we know states' rights suffered a blow when the North defeated the Confederates and the southern states were forced back into the Union. I'm guessing that these Ottomans seeing themselves as "states" first lead to the empire's demise just as southern states seeing themselves as "individuals" led to war.
Any thoughts or comments to share?
Monday, November 8, 2010
Ottoman Decline & Rise of the West; A New Messiah for the Jews
Notes and reflections on Peace Be Upon You: The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence by Zachary Karabell
After explaining how Islam spread to vast regions in the first thousand years after Muhammad died, the author says Muslims - like Christians - were not a cohesive group. Muslims in West Africa hardly resembled the Muslim in Mecca or Indonesia. In fact when Sufism came on the scene it "became a grab bag of Islam and pre-Islamic traditions." Despite all the talk of "the Muslim world" or the umma, Islam was - and still is - made up of a variety of cultures.
The author described the Ottoman millet system where, say, a chief rabbi was over his community of Jews and a bishop was over a Christian group for the purpose of self-governing and collecting taxes for the empire. He said Catholics were often rigid about granting divorces so sometimes Christians would convert to Islam "for the sole purpose of ridding themselves of a troublesome spouse." Ha, ha! This millet system seemed to work very well and even garnered praise for keeping rival groups' fighting to a minimum.
The millet system declined later in Ottoman rule as they started copying European models of a centralized government and Turkish nationalism and intolerance for other groups emerged. Nationalism "was hostile to religion [and] rested on a secular view of the world. [It] would prove far more lethal to groups like the Armenians than the Ottoman ruling class ever was." (pg. 184)
Ottomans discouraged conversion to Islam. Conversions brought change and the Ottoman were all about keeping things unchanged and peaceful. Karabell said they even had people in place over each millet community to make sure people did not convert to Islam.
The author discusses a Jewish man who came on the scene. Some thought Sabbati Sevi was a great man and he got many followers throughout the empire and in European countries. Others believed he was a madman. He was a follower of the school of Isaac Luria a mystic rabbi who "developed a secretive reading of the Torah" that explained the creation story as a metaphor for the "fragmentation of the divine." He "suggested that the divine had been splintered and that the point of human life was to help it reassemble. At some point, an intermediary would appear who would enable both God and man to become whole once again***." (pg. 189) Sabbati claimed to be this person, this messiah and he got a number of followers. In fact thousands of them came to Istanbul as Sevi believed he could march "convinced that waters would part, the sultan would bow, and a new age would begin." Instead the sultan offered him a choice: convert to Islam or die. Sevi reportedly converted "willingly, even cheerfully" to the astonishment and horror of his followers. A few believed this was part of Sevi's plan while the majority "drifted away, shocked that their messiah had committed an act of apostasy and embraced Islam rather than dying for his faith." (pg. 190)
Towards the end of this chapter, Karabell shares about the Ottoman empire's decline and how tolerance was the first casualty. For all the good of the Ottomans, their weakness was "lack of curiosity about the wider world" and this eventually led to their decline. While other nations were looking around, fighting each other and thus having to improve their technology, the Ottomans, it seemed, were rather content and this lead to their vulnerability as the Western nations started looking outward.
I thought this part about the rise of the West was interesting. The author says while there are many theories, it "remains one of the great unsolved riddles of the modern world." But he offers this: "The countries of Europe had fought one another to a standstill for so long that they had been forced to innovate, and to find new sources of revenue and better technology. European nations were forged in a cauldron of war and hatred, and emerged on the world stage uniquely capable of fighting. They combined the ruthlessness of all great powers past and present with the means to enforce their will." (pg. 197)
Hmmm, I'm really not getting a great sense of goodness about my Westernness and European roots from this book! Seems we are a bunch of divided fighting machines! :-P
*** While I disagree with the thought of the divine splintering as Luria believed, I do often think of sin as breaking the relationship between God and man and Jesus the Messiah as the one who restores that fellowship.
Any thoughts? Anything catch your attention that you want to expound upon?
After explaining how Islam spread to vast regions in the first thousand years after Muhammad died, the author says Muslims - like Christians - were not a cohesive group. Muslims in West Africa hardly resembled the Muslim in Mecca or Indonesia. In fact when Sufism came on the scene it "became a grab bag of Islam and pre-Islamic traditions." Despite all the talk of "the Muslim world" or the umma, Islam was - and still is - made up of a variety of cultures.
The author described the Ottoman millet system where, say, a chief rabbi was over his community of Jews and a bishop was over a Christian group for the purpose of self-governing and collecting taxes for the empire. He said Catholics were often rigid about granting divorces so sometimes Christians would convert to Islam "for the sole purpose of ridding themselves of a troublesome spouse." Ha, ha! This millet system seemed to work very well and even garnered praise for keeping rival groups' fighting to a minimum.
The millet system declined later in Ottoman rule as they started copying European models of a centralized government and Turkish nationalism and intolerance for other groups emerged. Nationalism "was hostile to religion [and] rested on a secular view of the world. [It] would prove far more lethal to groups like the Armenians than the Ottoman ruling class ever was." (pg. 184)
Ottomans discouraged conversion to Islam. Conversions brought change and the Ottoman were all about keeping things unchanged and peaceful. Karabell said they even had people in place over each millet community to make sure people did not convert to Islam.
The author discusses a Jewish man who came on the scene. Some thought Sabbati Sevi was a great man and he got many followers throughout the empire and in European countries. Others believed he was a madman. He was a follower of the school of Isaac Luria a mystic rabbi who "developed a secretive reading of the Torah" that explained the creation story as a metaphor for the "fragmentation of the divine." He "suggested that the divine had been splintered and that the point of human life was to help it reassemble. At some point, an intermediary would appear who would enable both God and man to become whole once again***." (pg. 189) Sabbati claimed to be this person, this messiah and he got a number of followers. In fact thousands of them came to Istanbul as Sevi believed he could march "convinced that waters would part, the sultan would bow, and a new age would begin." Instead the sultan offered him a choice: convert to Islam or die. Sevi reportedly converted "willingly, even cheerfully" to the astonishment and horror of his followers. A few believed this was part of Sevi's plan while the majority "drifted away, shocked that their messiah had committed an act of apostasy and embraced Islam rather than dying for his faith." (pg. 190)
Towards the end of this chapter, Karabell shares about the Ottoman empire's decline and how tolerance was the first casualty. For all the good of the Ottomans, their weakness was "lack of curiosity about the wider world" and this eventually led to their decline. While other nations were looking around, fighting each other and thus having to improve their technology, the Ottomans, it seemed, were rather content and this lead to their vulnerability as the Western nations started looking outward.
I thought this part about the rise of the West was interesting. The author says while there are many theories, it "remains one of the great unsolved riddles of the modern world." But he offers this: "The countries of Europe had fought one another to a standstill for so long that they had been forced to innovate, and to find new sources of revenue and better technology. European nations were forged in a cauldron of war and hatred, and emerged on the world stage uniquely capable of fighting. They combined the ruthlessness of all great powers past and present with the means to enforce their will." (pg. 197)
Hmmm, I'm really not getting a great sense of goodness about my Westernness and European roots from this book! Seems we are a bunch of divided fighting machines! :-P
*** While I disagree with the thought of the divine splintering as Luria believed, I do often think of sin as breaking the relationship between God and man and Jesus the Messiah as the one who restores that fellowship.
Any thoughts? Anything catch your attention that you want to expound upon?
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Ottomans as an example of religious tolerance and blessing the Jews
Notes and reflections on Peace Be Upon You: The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence by Zachary Karabell
This next chapter dealt with the Ottoman empire in particular Mehmed and Suleyman. While the author admitted they could be brutal - like anyone else - overall I came away with a fairly good impression of them. Granted these chapters are hardly in-depth history since they cover empires and dynasties in a matter of twenty-five or thirty pages. But still, I was pleasantly surprised with most of what I read about the Ottomans. First the author assures us that religion - meaning the spread of Islam - was hardly the motivating factor. Power was and "religion was at best an instrument of control." He explains further, "If the mantle of religion could be used to justify expansion, all the better. If religious toleration helped pacify subject peoples and maintain stability, so be it." (pg. 169) The author noted Protestant Reformer Martin Luther as one who looked to the Ottomans as an example of religious toleration - a way of life he desired in his world of religious wars.
Ottomans didn't care what religion you were. Granted you had to be a Muslim to do certain tasks, but for the most part the Ottomans were perfectly fine with people worshiping however they wished. Jews expelled by Christian Europe - who very much cared about your religious identity - were welcomed by the Ottomans. In fact Jewish artisans and engineers designed weapons for the Ottomans that were sometimes used against the Europeans. Ironic that the ones expelled (the Jews) were able to help the ones who took them in (the Ottomans) against the intolerable ones (Christian Europe) who had told them to leave!
Reading these words made me ponder about a few things. First the fact that the Europeans were more concerned with what religion a person was -- is this true today? I know in America we don't have ID cards stating what religion we practice or were born into. Sure we may take polling data to find out these stats, but it's not official government record. On the other hand, I know in Syria, for instance, they do put such things - whether you are Muslim or Christian - on your registration papers. I think it's a pretty big deal to get it changed if you decided to follow a different religion. So I was thinking to myself I wonder when and why things changed. If we can consider the Ottomans as the Muslim world and Europe as the Christian world at that time, it seems the Christians were more concerned with the religious preferences of its subjects yet today is may be the reverse is true. Now I'm curious if Europeans concern themselves with such things or if most Muslim-majority countries are like Syria in keeping up with religion on national ID cards. Maybe it's totally not a Muslim-majority country thing, but the somewhat dictatorial rulers who may or may not be religious at all who come up with these control mechanisms. Hmmm, now I am curious.
How is it in YOUR country and ones you are familiar with? [Edited to add: I was informed that Germany does take note of such things when you register there.]
While reading about the Jewish contribution benefiting the Ottomans who welcomed them, I remembered people saying that God blesses those who help and are friends with the Jews. This is more from the way I was raised -- very pro-Jewish bunch compared to Europe where Jews were often persecuted and accused of being Christ killers. Of course when I read how the Jews helped the Ottomans I wondered more about this and whether or not it were true historically.
The author stated that "Jews, Greek Orthodox, Armenians, Catholics, Copts, and others [lived] in peace and security and [were able] to practice their beliefs unmolested. There are many reasons why the Ottomans were so successful and so resilient, but perhaps the most important was that they gave people just enough autonomy to keep them content, loyal, and uninterested in change." (pg. 172)
Karabell reminds us that the sultans' actions were not driven by the Quran or hadith. At times it became "a spur and justification for war, but they drew on the legacy of Muhammad and the warrior culture of the early Arab conquests only when it suited them." Many things they did were not condoned in Islam, but few would speak up against the powerful rulers' anti-Islamic actions. "Islam, like any great religion, is an umbrella that encompasses a wide range of virtues and a multitude of sins." (pg. 179)
This next chapter dealt with the Ottoman empire in particular Mehmed and Suleyman. While the author admitted they could be brutal - like anyone else - overall I came away with a fairly good impression of them. Granted these chapters are hardly in-depth history since they cover empires and dynasties in a matter of twenty-five or thirty pages. But still, I was pleasantly surprised with most of what I read about the Ottomans. First the author assures us that religion - meaning the spread of Islam - was hardly the motivating factor. Power was and "religion was at best an instrument of control." He explains further, "If the mantle of religion could be used to justify expansion, all the better. If religious toleration helped pacify subject peoples and maintain stability, so be it." (pg. 169) The author noted Protestant Reformer Martin Luther as one who looked to the Ottomans as an example of religious toleration - a way of life he desired in his world of religious wars.
Ottomans didn't care what religion you were. Granted you had to be a Muslim to do certain tasks, but for the most part the Ottomans were perfectly fine with people worshiping however they wished. Jews expelled by Christian Europe - who very much cared about your religious identity - were welcomed by the Ottomans. In fact Jewish artisans and engineers designed weapons for the Ottomans that were sometimes used against the Europeans. Ironic that the ones expelled (the Jews) were able to help the ones who took them in (the Ottomans) against the intolerable ones (Christian Europe) who had told them to leave!
Reading these words made me ponder about a few things. First the fact that the Europeans were more concerned with what religion a person was -- is this true today? I know in America we don't have ID cards stating what religion we practice or were born into. Sure we may take polling data to find out these stats, but it's not official government record. On the other hand, I know in Syria, for instance, they do put such things - whether you are Muslim or Christian - on your registration papers. I think it's a pretty big deal to get it changed if you decided to follow a different religion. So I was thinking to myself I wonder when and why things changed. If we can consider the Ottomans as the Muslim world and Europe as the Christian world at that time, it seems the Christians were more concerned with the religious preferences of its subjects yet today is may be the reverse is true. Now I'm curious if Europeans concern themselves with such things or if most Muslim-majority countries are like Syria in keeping up with religion on national ID cards. Maybe it's totally not a Muslim-majority country thing, but the somewhat dictatorial rulers who may or may not be religious at all who come up with these control mechanisms. Hmmm, now I am curious.
How is it in YOUR country and ones you are familiar with? [Edited to add: I was informed that Germany does take note of such things when you register there.]
While reading about the Jewish contribution benefiting the Ottomans who welcomed them, I remembered people saying that God blesses those who help and are friends with the Jews. This is more from the way I was raised -- very pro-Jewish bunch compared to Europe where Jews were often persecuted and accused of being Christ killers. Of course when I read how the Jews helped the Ottomans I wondered more about this and whether or not it were true historically.
The author stated that "Jews, Greek Orthodox, Armenians, Catholics, Copts, and others [lived] in peace and security and [were able] to practice their beliefs unmolested. There are many reasons why the Ottomans were so successful and so resilient, but perhaps the most important was that they gave people just enough autonomy to keep them content, loyal, and uninterested in change." (pg. 172)
Karabell reminds us that the sultans' actions were not driven by the Quran or hadith. At times it became "a spur and justification for war, but they drew on the legacy of Muhammad and the warrior culture of the early Arab conquests only when it suited them." Many things they did were not condoned in Islam, but few would speak up against the powerful rulers' anti-Islamic actions. "Islam, like any great religion, is an umbrella that encompasses a wide range of virtues and a multitude of sins." (pg. 179)
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Maimonides, al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Khaldun, Alfonso X
Notes and reflections on Peace Be Upon You: The Story of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Coexistence by Zachary Karabell
This chapter - Philosopher's Dream - introduced me to several noteworthy thinkers and their ideas about God and man and the separation between the two. It started off with Moses Maimonides and how his family left Cordoba when that region fell under the rule of the Almohads who were not as tolerant of nonMuslims as the previous rulers had been. I rather liked that the author said Maimonides "had only scorn for those who preferred to play the victim." He realized the world "was not kind" and it was "foolish...to expect otherwise." He also thought it was foolish "to bow one's head and accept punishment and oppression. God had given man ingenuity and choice, and thus the tools to survive and thrive." (pg. 138)
At this point the author tells us the Maimonides family converted to Islam, but such false conversions in Spain were common depending on who was ruling and persecuting whom. (When the Christians took power, many Muslims "converted" to Christianity. The author refers to an Arabic practice called taqiyya which was a "prudent form of faking it.") Maimonides "had no patience for those who took a purist line and advocated martyrdom and death rather than survival." If survival meant a nominal conversion to Islam, so be it.
The author then shares about Abu Hamid al-Ghazali not because he was in Spain, but of his attempt in Baghdad "to resolve the split between philosophy and theology." He was born before Maimonides, but both men were thinkers and Ghazali "was as essential to the evolution of Muslim theology as Thomas Aquinas was to the development of Catholicism" and "his brilliance was to synthesize science, philosophy, mysticism, and law." He was OK with mysticism as long as it was within the bounds of the Quran and tradition. The same with reason and intellect. The Quran and tradition of Muhammad were the top priority. The sad part is that when Ghazali died, Muslims "sanctified" him to the extent that the door to interpreting the true meaning of the Quran and tradition of Muhammad stopped. The questions al-Ghazali asked ceased to be asked, debate was discouraged and "Islamic law and theology became more rigid." (pg. 141)
Next the author mentioned Ibn Arabi who "attempted to close the gap" between God and man. Why, he wondered, "was there such a distance between God and his creation?" He consulted and "drew on centuries of Jewish, Greek, Christian and Muslim learning to arrive at a unique conclusion: man's separation from God was a product not of God but of man's limited ability to perceive the truth." The fact was.. this gap was all an illusion and we were as close to God as two can be without being one. "Man is God's way of seeing himself and God's way of knowing himself." We were God's mirrors! (pg. 143)
About these men and a few others mentioned the author writes: "they deployed their intellect and channeled their passion not to attack but to illuminate. They walked the path of love and compassion, and served as guides to seekers trying to find their way to God." (pg. 143)
An odd thing though is that Maimonides "was a seeker who rejected the notion that all are created equal." While Islamic and Jewish mystics believed all people could have an intimate relationship with God if they were "willing to walk the long and arduous road," they also had ideas of "elitism, which said that the world is inherently corrupt and that the true path is open only to those pure and wise enough to take it." He believed that there "were truths that the masses could grasp and messages that any common man could hear and that there were truths accessible only to the learned, the wise, and the religious."
As a result of these ideas, for Judaism there was "an increasing disengagement from society." For Islam it was "a growing unwillingness to engage new ideas" which resulted in most turning to orthodoxy, the minority toward mysticism and "Muslim culture in the Arab world slowly began to wither." (pg. 145)
The second topic of this chapter dealt with the gradual decline of Muslim power in Spain. Historian Ibn Khaldun noted a pattern that when the Muslim tribes were cohesive and disciplined in the desert Islam spread as Muslims brought down two "formidable adversaries -- the Byzantines and the Persians." However as the empire grew and piety began to fade, the rulers became "soft and corrupt." This "decay" would be punished by God with the Muslims being defeated. Apparently this is what Ibn Khaldun saw happening in Spain. So as this chapter ends, Christians are now back in control of Spain. Initially they treated the People of the Book (now Muslims and Jews) fairly and "recognized the Muslims of Andalusia as a worthy adversary....Christian writers simultaneously condemned Islam and praised Muslims." (pg. 151)
Alfonso X used a variety of people to help him in his quest "to preserve the heritage of the Iberian Peninsula, ... [yet] establish the superiority of Christianity." Sadly as the Christians became more powerful, they started treating Jews and Muslims with intolerance. It was convert or leave.
"What we are left with, then, is two very different histories. One is of a Muslim Spain that with notable exceptions rested on a foundation of coexistence and cooperation between the three faiths. The other is a Christian Spain that with few exceptions thrived because of a crusading ideology that rejected Muslims and Jews." When the Ottomans took over the last Christian empire in the Near East and the once great city of Constantinople fell, "it reinforced a belief, already prevalent in the Christian West, that Muslims were the enemy." (pg. 157)
This chapter - Philosopher's Dream - introduced me to several noteworthy thinkers and their ideas about God and man and the separation between the two. It started off with Moses Maimonides and how his family left Cordoba when that region fell under the rule of the Almohads who were not as tolerant of nonMuslims as the previous rulers had been. I rather liked that the author said Maimonides "had only scorn for those who preferred to play the victim." He realized the world "was not kind" and it was "foolish...to expect otherwise." He also thought it was foolish "to bow one's head and accept punishment and oppression. God had given man ingenuity and choice, and thus the tools to survive and thrive." (pg. 138)
At this point the author tells us the Maimonides family converted to Islam, but such false conversions in Spain were common depending on who was ruling and persecuting whom. (When the Christians took power, many Muslims "converted" to Christianity. The author refers to an Arabic practice called taqiyya which was a "prudent form of faking it.") Maimonides "had no patience for those who took a purist line and advocated martyrdom and death rather than survival." If survival meant a nominal conversion to Islam, so be it.
The author then shares about Abu Hamid al-Ghazali not because he was in Spain, but of his attempt in Baghdad "to resolve the split between philosophy and theology." He was born before Maimonides, but both men were thinkers and Ghazali "was as essential to the evolution of Muslim theology as Thomas Aquinas was to the development of Catholicism" and "his brilliance was to synthesize science, philosophy, mysticism, and law." He was OK with mysticism as long as it was within the bounds of the Quran and tradition. The same with reason and intellect. The Quran and tradition of Muhammad were the top priority. The sad part is that when Ghazali died, Muslims "sanctified" him to the extent that the door to interpreting the true meaning of the Quran and tradition of Muhammad stopped. The questions al-Ghazali asked ceased to be asked, debate was discouraged and "Islamic law and theology became more rigid." (pg. 141)
Next the author mentioned Ibn Arabi who "attempted to close the gap" between God and man. Why, he wondered, "was there such a distance between God and his creation?" He consulted and "drew on centuries of Jewish, Greek, Christian and Muslim learning to arrive at a unique conclusion: man's separation from God was a product not of God but of man's limited ability to perceive the truth." The fact was.. this gap was all an illusion and we were as close to God as two can be without being one. "Man is God's way of seeing himself and God's way of knowing himself." We were God's mirrors! (pg. 143)
About these men and a few others mentioned the author writes: "they deployed their intellect and channeled their passion not to attack but to illuminate. They walked the path of love and compassion, and served as guides to seekers trying to find their way to God." (pg. 143)
An odd thing though is that Maimonides "was a seeker who rejected the notion that all are created equal." While Islamic and Jewish mystics believed all people could have an intimate relationship with God if they were "willing to walk the long and arduous road," they also had ideas of "elitism, which said that the world is inherently corrupt and that the true path is open only to those pure and wise enough to take it." He believed that there "were truths that the masses could grasp and messages that any common man could hear and that there were truths accessible only to the learned, the wise, and the religious."
As a result of these ideas, for Judaism there was "an increasing disengagement from society." For Islam it was "a growing unwillingness to engage new ideas" which resulted in most turning to orthodoxy, the minority toward mysticism and "Muslim culture in the Arab world slowly began to wither." (pg. 145)
The second topic of this chapter dealt with the gradual decline of Muslim power in Spain. Historian Ibn Khaldun noted a pattern that when the Muslim tribes were cohesive and disciplined in the desert Islam spread as Muslims brought down two "formidable adversaries -- the Byzantines and the Persians." However as the empire grew and piety began to fade, the rulers became "soft and corrupt." This "decay" would be punished by God with the Muslims being defeated. Apparently this is what Ibn Khaldun saw happening in Spain. So as this chapter ends, Christians are now back in control of Spain. Initially they treated the People of the Book (now Muslims and Jews) fairly and "recognized the Muslims of Andalusia as a worthy adversary....Christian writers simultaneously condemned Islam and praised Muslims." (pg. 151)
Alfonso X used a variety of people to help him in his quest "to preserve the heritage of the Iberian Peninsula, ... [yet] establish the superiority of Christianity." Sadly as the Christians became more powerful, they started treating Jews and Muslims with intolerance. It was convert or leave.
"What we are left with, then, is two very different histories. One is of a Muslim Spain that with notable exceptions rested on a foundation of coexistence and cooperation between the three faiths. The other is a Christian Spain that with few exceptions thrived because of a crusading ideology that rejected Muslims and Jews." When the Ottomans took over the last Christian empire in the Near East and the once great city of Constantinople fell, "it reinforced a belief, already prevalent in the Christian West, that Muslims were the enemy." (pg. 157)
Friday, June 25, 2010
Esther & Vashti -- Two Queens Who Rocked Their World
"The Jews believe [Esther] was not created to embody the fashion of her times, but to reflect the majesty and providence of a God moving unseen through the world, even the forgotten world of women." (pg. 274)
While growing up and attending Sunday school, the story of the Jewish-orphan-girl-turned-Persian- queen-and-Jewish-savior (so to speak) Esther was a favorite Old Testament tale! It demonstrated how God worked behind the scenes to bring people to certain places in their lives so He could accomplish a greater purpose. Indeed cousin Mordecai's words --
"And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14)
are so, so something. I just like 'em.
Maybe he sensed that God gave Esther this favor before the Persian king in order to accomplish more than being a mere beauty queen/trophy wife. Perhaps Mordecai sensed a higher purpose for her being favored in the eyes of this Gentile ruler. Or maybe he was just desperate enough to play the "God card" (even though God wasn't mentioned in the whole book!) since the Jews were facing extinction in the land.
Evil Haman wanted to rid the land of the Jewish people, yet in a dramatic twist he ended up ...well, you really need to read the story for yourself. Let's just say: genocide didn't happen! Any wonder why Hitler hated the Jewish festival of Purim since it celebrates the Jewish people's deliverance from someone who wanted to exterminate them?
So, I was recently reading the Quran as you all know and for "light reading" I picked up Chosen: The Lost Diaries of Queen Esther by Ginger Garrett at the library. It was based on the biblical story only "fleshed out" a bit more by making it seem as if Esther journaled about her life as a Jewish orphan growing up in Persia and later being chosen as part of a harem of women prepared for the king's pleasure. And possible queenship if the king were really really pleased!
There were a few quotes about women in that society that took my attention. Nothing life-altering or new, but they did pique my interest enough that I went back and reread the first chapter of Esther which I'll share below as well. I want you to take particular note of Queen Vashti's scandalous behavior! And how it made the men fear. :)
First from the book...
Esther speaking of the world in which she was born -- "Passion and pleasure, like freedom, were the domain of men, and even young girls knew the wishes of their hearts would always be subject to a man's desire for wealth. ... Our role was clear: We were to be objects of passion, to receive a man's attention mutely, and to respond only with children for the estate." (pg. 21)
*fuming*
After Queen Vashti defied her husband: "By proclamation of the king, let it be known that Queen Vashti has been banished from her throne, and from the King's presence, for her rebellion. A new queen will be found, one who knows her place and gives honor to the King. Let it also be known that in every house, every man is to be the master, and his word shall be law for those living under his roof." (pg. 37)
This really made me roll my eyes, yet it's what prompted me to reread Esther 1 (below). The audacity of men. *shaking my head*
"'The only God in Persia is pleasure, pleasure that is often at the expense of women.'" (pg. 39) -- Mordecai's words to Esther re: Vashti's banishment
True even now perhaps?
On friends in the market who would carry their gods in their pockets, Esther admitted, "It would make G-d seem nearer if I could but touch and feel Him. Mordecai says this is the meaning of faith: to see without sight, to believe against reason that G-d is near, and that He rules in the affairs of men.And orphans." (pg. 39)
I just liked this. I guess this is why people often had carvings of gods? It's easier to live by what we can see than what we must trust without clearly seeing.
The lesson of Esther's imperfections: "When we risk letting down our guard and taking off our masks, when we let others see our weaknesses and faults, we draw them to us. We send out a quiet signal that it's safe to be real with us. Her power, and ours, does not grow by comparing our beauty to another's, or by insisting our strength is superior, but by setting all claims aside." (pg. 278)
Just liked this one,too, because it reminded me it's OK to be less than perfect. God uses imperfect people. What else is out there?
If you don't know the story of Vashti's rebellion and how it made the men angry (she might start a trend!), read it here. If you want to cut to the chase, start reading around verse 10 until the end. I'll even highlight a few things for those who merely want to skim.
While growing up and attending Sunday school, the story of the Jewish-orphan-girl-turned-
"And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14)
are so, so something. I just like 'em.
Maybe he sensed that God gave Esther this favor before the Persian king in order to accomplish more than being a mere beauty queen/trophy wife. Perhaps Mordecai sensed a higher purpose for her being favored in the eyes of this Gentile ruler. Or maybe he was just desperate enough to play the "God card" (even though God wasn't mentioned in the whole book!) since the Jews were facing extinction in the land.
Evil Haman wanted to rid the land of the Jewish people, yet in a dramatic twist he ended up ...well, you really need to read the story for yourself. Let's just say: genocide didn't happen! Any wonder why Hitler hated the Jewish festival of Purim since it celebrates the Jewish people's deliverance from someone who wanted to exterminate them?
So, I was recently reading the Quran as you all know and for "light reading" I picked up Chosen: The Lost Diaries of Queen Esther by Ginger Garrett at the library. It was based on the biblical story only "fleshed out" a bit more by making it seem as if Esther journaled about her life as a Jewish orphan growing up in Persia and later being chosen as part of a harem of women prepared for the king's pleasure. And possible queenship if the king were really really pleased!
There were a few quotes about women in that society that took my attention. Nothing life-altering or new, but they did pique my interest enough that I went back and reread the first chapter of Esther which I'll share below as well. I want you to take particular note of Queen Vashti's scandalous behavior! And how it made the men fear. :)
First from the book...
Esther speaking of the world in which she was born -- "Passion and pleasure, like freedom, were the domain of men, and even young girls knew the wishes of their hearts would always be subject to a man's desire for wealth. ... Our role was clear: We were to be objects of passion, to receive a man's attention mutely, and to respond only with children for the estate." (pg. 21)
*fuming*
After Queen Vashti defied her husband: "By proclamation of the king, let it be known that Queen Vashti has been banished from her throne, and from the King's presence, for her rebellion. A new queen will be found, one who knows her place and gives honor to the King. Let it also be known that in every house, every man is to be the master, and his word shall be law for those living under his roof." (pg. 37)
This really made me roll my eyes, yet it's what prompted me to reread Esther 1 (below). The audacity of men. *shaking my head*
"'The only God in Persia is pleasure, pleasure that is often at the expense of women.'" (pg. 39) -- Mordecai's words to Esther re: Vashti's banishment
True even now perhaps?
On friends in the market who would carry their gods in their pockets, Esther admitted, "It would make G-d seem nearer if I could but touch and feel Him. Mordecai says this is the meaning of faith: to see without sight, to believe against reason that G-d is near, and that He rules in the affairs of men.And orphans." (pg. 39)
I just liked this. I guess this is why people often had carvings of gods? It's easier to live by what we can see than what we must trust without clearly seeing.
The lesson of Esther's imperfections: "When we risk letting down our guard and taking off our masks, when we let others see our weaknesses and faults, we draw them to us. We send out a quiet signal that it's safe to be real with us. Her power, and ours, does not grow by comparing our beauty to another's, or by insisting our strength is superior, but by setting all claims aside." (pg. 278)
Just liked this one,too, because it reminded me it's OK to be less than perfect. God uses imperfect people. What else is out there?
If you don't know the story of Vashti's rebellion and how it made the men angry (she might start a trend!), read it here. If you want to cut to the chase, start reading around verse 10 until the end. I'll even highlight a few things for those who merely want to skim.
Esther 1
Queen Vashti Deposed
1 This is what happened during the time of Xerxes, the Xerxes who ruled over 127 provinces stretching from India to Cush : 2 At that time King Xerxes reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of Susa, 3 and in the third year of his reign he gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the provinces were present.4 For a full 180 days he displayed the vast wealth of his kingdom and the splendor and glory of his majesty. 5 When these days were over, the king gave a banquet, lasting seven days, in the enclosed garden of the king's palace, for all the people from the least to the greatest, who were in the citadel of Susa. 6 The garden had hangings of white and blue linen, fastened with cords of white linen and purple material to silver rings on marble pillars. There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl and other costly stones. 7 Wine was served in goblets of gold, each one different from the other, and the royal wine was abundant, in keeping with the king's liberality. 8 By the king's command each guest was allowed to drink in his own way, for the king instructed all the wine stewards to serve each man what he wished.
9 Queen Vashti also gave a banquet for the women in the royal palace of King Xerxes.
10 On the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in high spirits from wine, he commanded the seven eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Carcas- 11 to bring before him Queen Vashti, wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at. 12 But when the attendants delivered the king's command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then the king became furious and burned with anger.
13 Since it was customary for the king to consult experts in matters of law and justice, he spoke with the wise men who understood the times 14 and were closest to the king—Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and Memucan, the seven nobles of Persia and Media who had special access to the king and were highest in the kingdom.
15 "According to law, what must be done to Queen Vashti?" he asked. "She has not obeyed the command of King Xerxes that the eunuchs have taken to her."
16 Then Memucan replied in the presence of the king and the nobles, "Queen Vashti has done wrong, not only against the king but also against all the nobles and the peoples of all the provinces of King Xerxes. 17 For the queen's conduct will become known to all the women, and so they will despise their husbands and say, 'King Xerxes commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she would not come.' 18 This very day the Persian and Median women of the nobility who have heard about the queen's conduct will respond to all the king's nobles in the same way. There will be no end of disrespect and discord.
19 "Therefore, if it pleases the king, let him issue a royal decree and let it be written in the laws of Persia and Media, which cannot be repealed, that Vashti is never again to enter the presence of King Xerxes. Also let the king give her royal position to someone else who is better than she. 20 Then when the king's edict is proclaimed throughout all his vast realm, all the women will respect their husbands, from the least to the greatest."
21 The king and his nobles were pleased with this advice, so the king did as Memucan proposed. 22 He sent dispatches to all parts of the kingdom, to each province in its own script and to each people in its own language, proclaiming in each people's tongue that every man should be ruler over his own household.
Now I want to hear YOUR thoughts! Notice how Vashti refused to show off her beauty to the drunk king and his friends? Maybe women respect themselves by not parading around in attire seeking to please men. What did you take from this passage and/or this post and quotes from the book? Anything?
Note: I read this post to my husband last night and in mock horror he exclaimed, "Oh no, another man-hater book...and this one is from the Bible!" Hehehehe. :-D Really, I don't hate men. I happen to love them very much. I just don't care for men who mistreat women. Or women who mistreat men. Let's just all love and respect each other. Do that whole "in honor prefer one another" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself" and "do unto others as you would have them to do unto you [or your mom or sister]." You get the idea! :)
Sunday, June 6, 2010
"A Christian answer to the unchristian deed..."
Over a year ago I read a book about faith by Charles Colson that I found at my local library. I found it highly interesting and thought I'd enjoy reading another book by him. Years ago I was involved in politics and have kept a bit of an interest in it though I've mostly become jaded by both political parties. However, this book God & Government seemed a good source for getting one man's thoughts on the roles of both church and state. So when I placed an Amazon.com order, I bought it. And it sat on my bookshelf ever since. I had many other books to read and seeing that 400+ page book just made me procrastinate for a while. Recently I decided I'd like to finish all the books I'd bought and never read. So I picked it up and started reading. The past two or three weeks I've been reading three texts and that is one of them. I've been posting a few thoughts to a Gmail draft of phrases and statements that I like, but when I read about the Communist regime's oppression of the Poles and one man's stance against it...well, this story just took my attention in such a huge way that I had to share it. Father Jerzy Popieluszko was only 37 when he died, but his life can still be an inspiration to those who are living oppressed and he remains a wonderful example of how we must overcome evil with good and act like Jesus. I hope you enjoy this part of his story. The first two paragraphs are some of his teachings included in the book.
Oddly enough, when I read the Wikipedia article, it stated he was being beatified by the Roman Catholic Church on June 6, 2010 which is...today.
pg. 216-217 of God & Government by Charles Colson
For more on loving your enemy, please read Achelois' wonderful post "On Hating."
"'A man who bears witness to the truth can be free even though he might be in prison ... The essential thing in the process of liberating man and the nation is to overcome fear... We fear suffering, we fear losing material good, we fear losing freedom or our work. And then we act contrary to our consciences, thus muzzling the truth. We can overcome fear only if we accept suffering in the name of a greater value. If the truth becomes for us a value worthy of suffering and risk, then we shall overcome fear -- the direct reason for our enslavement.
"'A Christian must be a sign of contradiction in the world...A Christian is one who all his life chooses between good and evil, lies and truth, love and hatred, God and Satan ... Today more than ever there is a need for our light to shine, so that through us, through our deeds, through our choices, people can see the Father who is in Heaven.'
Father Jerzy's influence did not escape the notice of the authorities. The secret police followed him everywhere. On the first anniversary of martial law, a pipe bomb sailed through the front window of his small flat, exploding in his sitting room.
Then, on October 19, 1984, while driving back to Warsaw from Bydgoszcz where he had celebrated a special mass and delivered a homily called "Overcome Evil with Good," Father Jerzy disappeared.
Thousands prayed for him in churches all over Poland. The steelworkers stopped their work in order to pray and threatened a national strike if their priest was not returned to them. The universities smoldered with unrest.
On the last Sunday of October, as fifty thousand people filled St. Stanislaw Kostka in an emotional Mass for the Homeland and listened in tears to a tape of Father Jerzy's final Sermon, Father Antoni Lewek, one of the thirty priests at the altar, received word: 'Just a moment ago it was announced on television that Father Jerzy's body has been found in the Vistula River.'
'I shall never forget what happened,' Father Lewek said later. 'In a second people went down on their knees, crying and shouting; what we had feared most, the worst, had happened . . .
'And then something very moving happened. This crying crowd managed to show that they could forgive. Three times they repeated after the priest: "And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us." It was a Christian answer to the unchristian deed of the murderers.'
On November 2, the day of Father Jerzy's funeral, people marched the streets past the secret-police headquarters bearing banners reading, 'We forgive.'
Regardless of their expertise in murdering the body, the executioners could not kill the soul. Father Jerzy had taught his people well."
Oddly enough, when I read the Wikipedia article, it stated he was being beatified by the Roman Catholic Church on June 6, 2010 which is...today.
pg. 216-217 of God & Government by Charles Colson
For more on loving your enemy, please read Achelois' wonderful post "On Hating."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)