Robert J. Chassell wrote: > Perhaps people on the list can help: is the following a fair > description of the nature of the Jewish/Christian God, and how it is > different from the nature of the Moslem God? > > And if so, are the fundamental political implications as described? > Are more Moslems likely to believe in false conspiracies because of > these beliefs than US Christians or Jews?
I don't know enough about Judaism, Christianity or Islam to offer answers to most of these questions but there is one thing which bothered me about this article: Spengler used the words 'Arabs', 'muslims' and 'the Islamic world' interchangeably. The last two don't cause a problem but most of his negative assessments are based on the Arab world and he then slowly extends the assessment to the rest of the Islamic world in the next few sentences. Fr'ex, look at this: "There does not exist to my knowledge a self-governing school board, hospital committee or fire brigade anywhere in Arab countries. But the meanest peasant may approach the loftiest ruler for the privilege of a few moments' worth of whispered pleading. Beneficent and merciful rulers will take pity on their subjects. If one wishes to influence the ruler, numerous of his subjects must agree in advance what they shall whisper in his ear, that is, literally, to conspire. That helps explain why Mahathir can account for the facts as he observes them by no means other than conspiracy." Perhaps there is truth to what he says about the Arab countries [though I think Morocco might have self-governing hospital committees etc.] but since when is Malaysia an Arab country? And since when are the imaginary procedural processes of a generic Arab theocracy/monarchy the relevant referal points for understanding the pronouncements of an autocratic, out-going Prime Minister of a South East Asian country? <snip> > Here comes the political implications: > > _Imitatio dei_ may explain why Americans and Muslims seek quite > different attributes in their political leaders. More important > than strength and intelligence in the character of an American > presidential candidate is humility. Whatever one thinks of > President George W Bush, he cultivates the same sort of folksy > image that served former president Jimmy Carter so well. In this > regard one thinks of Bill Clinton, who hid his intellectual > arrogance so effectively, or Ronald Reagan, who cloaked his > ideological fervor in self-deprecating humor. > > More than anything else, Americans want their leaders to listen to > them. A president had better be a better listener than a > talker. That > is what Americans expect from their God, after all, and > all the more > so from a president who is a mere human. > > The sort of leader who evoked adulation in the Arab world, > eg, a Gamal > Abdel Nasser, produces only revulsion among Americans. .... > > Is the theological-political connection right? Is it fair to say that > many people do wish to behave with the same qualities as their God? > If so, and if the qualities are as stated, does this predefine the > attributes that Americans seek in their presidents, on the one hand, > and that Eqyptians and others seek in their leaders, on the other? I don't know what to think of this theory - although he has stated that the Americans look for humility [do Americans really look for humility before they look for intelligence?...if there were a homogemous group of Americans], he has very carefully refrained from mentioning what the muslims look for in their leaders - the only thing he says is that the kind of leaders muslims like evoke only revulsion among Americans...but what kind of leaders are they? And what is so very different between the Americans and the Arabs/Muslims/Islamic world that no muslim leader could ever hope to win the adulation of both his people and the west? And where do the 5 million American muslims fit in Spengler's analysis? I know Spengler at least believes in an unbridgeable gap between the American and the Islamic world view - what I don't know is why. How does he define the American world view, what does he consider to be the Islamic world view and why does his entire article seem to hinge on the premise that the Islamic world view is bad, repulsive and nasty? Apparently, the latter is supposedly so bad and nasty that there is no point even examining it: the entire article contains just one sentence, by a jewish theologian, on the nature of Allah. The rest are blanket assertions to the effect that more details wouldn't help, familiarity would only breed further contempt and that there are so many fundamental differences between the two faiths/cultures that most Americans understand why Boykin has cast the war on terror in religious terms. There might be something to his theory of religion-based values influencing some of the characteristics a polity considers desirable in its leaders but I doubt it is so simple and so clearly demarcable a difference. In short, I think he either needs to refine the theory and make a better case for it, or he can just drop it altogether. > To what extent are the divisions among Jews, Christians, and Moslems > important; or is this something that conjoins Protestants of all types > with Catholics, so long as they are American, and separates them from > their co-religionists in France and Germany, and separates them from > Moslems who are as far apart themselves as Protestants and Catholics > were during the European religious wars? I can attempt a partial answer based on my knowledge of subcontinental politics: By and large, the magic formula for political allegiance seems to be: country > locality > socio-economic status > religion [and if you're a hindu, then..]> caste. The religious differences [inter-group or intra-group] matter as much as the people let them matter. The 'Two Nation Theory' was floated in the subcontinent in the 1930s and, by 1947, it resulted in the partition of India. But there were many muslims who didn't buy the theory and who stayed back in India. [ Unfortunately, many Hindus bought into the theory and they also stayed back. The latter group formed the basis for the ghastly, despicable and definitely criminal Hindutva movement we have seen in the Indian politics in the last decade or so.] Personally, I don't think that religion does [or must] make much of a difference in the political decisions,[ unless religion itself is made the issue]. But then I'm definitely biased here. This question lies at the heart of the difference between the founding principles of India and Pakistan and, so far, there has never been any reason to think that the Muslim League was right when it said that Hindus and Muslims can't co-exist and that religion matters more than anything else. Ritu PS - Are you done reading 'The Shield of Achilles' and what did you think of it? It's on mu unread-books pile. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
