[annatar1914]

Abu_Rashid wrote;

I'd see the great schism as more of a final last ditch effort of Eastern Christianity to hold onto their faith in the face of encroaching idolatry of the Roman Church, but not the turning point. IMHO the turning point was the council of Nicea and the subsequent persecution of Arianism that was the turning point. From this time onwards the staunchly monotheistic vein of Christianity was suppressed, and the doctrine of the Trinity rose to supremacy.

Actually I'd say that Arianism is not Monotheism but a complete concession to certain notions lifted wholesale from pagan Greek philosophy.

Yes in all of our texts when it refers to Rome, it means the Byzantine Greeks, and the Faranji (Franks) were what we used to refer to all other Christians (mostly Latin Christians), especially the Crusaders, who even sacked Constantinople itself.

And from time to time, the Roman Orthodox had to ally with Moslems, as during the Third Crusade with Salah-eh-Din.

Spot on!

Cartesianism was the coup-de-grace against any further sensible western thought for the most part, and led directly to the atheism of the modern age.

I agree we should not take it off on that tangent.

Here on this thread, agreed.

Since you know the word shirk, I'll take that as a sign you're indeed well versed on this topic, and therefore it's probably not much point in us discussing that topic. I'm sure we'll find many other issues to discuss though.

Again, agreed, although i'd like to point out here that i'm ok with that as long as it's understood that for any serious Orthodox Trinitarian Christian, you must know that we are happy to let God be Three in Persons and One in Being, not in spite of but because of the very reasons we share with Islam; the fact that there is no analogy between God in His Being and Man in his at all... At present.

I appreciate your measured and intelligent responses regarding our differences, certainly an inspiration.

Thank you, and I appreciate your measured and intelligent responses as well.

[Political Interest]

It appears that the Islamic revival was a response to Western ideas and was part of a desire to preserve the authentic character of Islamic civilisation. Part of this entailed a rejection of secular Western politics and ideology. We often think that 1979 saw the first example of an Islamic state established, however we can see examples prior to this in the earlier part of the 20th century. In the Middle East Islamic movements were largely unsuccessful until the 1970s. Can we think of any real achievement any of them made prior to the 1970s? In many respects the 1970s was the decade of Islamic politics as it saw Zia Ul Haqq's coup in Pakistan (1977) and then the Iranian revolution (1979). The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would serve as a major event for Islamic movements. It looks as though Islamic politics in the 20th century took a gradual ascent from the 1950s onwards, starting at first as only a minor trend but escalating into something mainstream.

[annatar1914]

It appears that the Islamic revival was a response to Western ideas and was part of a desire to preserve the authentic character of Islamic civilisation. Part of this entailed a rejection of secular Western politics and ideology. We often think that 1979 saw the first example of an Islamic state established, however we can see examples prior to this in the earlier part of the 20th century. In the Middle East Islamic movements were largely unsuccessful until the 1970s. Can we think of any real achievement any of them made prior to the 1970s? In many respects the 1970s was the decade of Islamic politics as it saw Zia Ul Haqq's coup in Pakistan (1977) and then the Iranian revolution (1979). The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would serve as a major event for Islamic movements. It looks as though Islamic politics in the 20th century took a gradual ascent from the 1950s onwards, starting at first as only a minor trend but escalating into something mainstream.

It looks more explosive in our modern secular age, this trend of what we call; "Islamic Ideology", because at heart man in the modern age is alienated from himself and what he is. Man is not by nature a materialist or atheist/agnostic in any meaningful sense of that term, and few see today how ominous it seemed back then, when the United States Constitution was adopted, the first secularly Atheist political document in human history with no reference of any kind of Supreme Being.

It used to be a universal truism that-of course!-man's relation to the Absolute means a total ordering of his life and society's life in terms of that relation to the Absolute, that there is no 'neutral zone' where one may be morally or spiritually indifferent, that demonic and foul beliefs have no place in any society's pale.

That being said, man, and not just Islamic mankind, is reverting to more traditional ideas and spiritualities, as the modern world implodes. It should also be mentioned that this is by no means an endorsement of Islam at all, but rather a statement to the degree of displacement of the modern mind that can be traced back to events occuring in Western Europe circa 8th to 11th century Anno Domini.

[Political Interest]

It looks more explosive in our modern secular age, this trend of what we call; "Islamic Ideology", because at heart man in the modern age is alienated from himself and what he is. Man is not by nature a materialist or atheist/agnostic in any meaningful sense of that term, and few see today how ominous it seemed back then, when the United States Constitution was adopted, the first secularly Atheist political document in human history with no reference of any kind of Supreme Being.

You are right. We find the Islamic revival so different and radical because it is fundamentally alien to our modern mindset.

That being said, man, and not just Islamic mankind, is reverting to more traditional ideas and spiritualities, as the modern world implodes.

Our salvation will not be found in secularism, atheism and materialism. To reject belief in God results in a relativistic approach to moral questions which eventually leads to a departure from solid traditional morality. It is no wonder that everything is becoming increasingly morally depraved and the world seems to be getting more insane with each passing year.

It should also be mentioned that this is by no means an endorsement of Islam at all, but rather a statement to the degree of displacement of the modern mind that can be traced back to events occuring in Western Europe circa 8th to 11th century Anno Domini.

There can be no doubt that this did emerge from Western Europe. We cannot blame Europeans for it, it is simply something which happened. There need to be limits to the extent to which tradition is collapsing. To quote Aleksandr Dugin, liberalism sought to liberate man from everything other than himself. Soon man will not exist because he will have abandoned all that makes him human.

[annatar1914]

Great reply, PI.

But recall one of my implied follow-ups, that Islam to western men looking for that natural traditional and absolutist society in Islam are falling for the 'easy sell', too easy, as I look at the battle between Islam and modernism and it's reaction to modernism in general.

However, Islam should serve to spur and shame true Christians to make a better and more determined and intelligent response to Modernism than Islamists are doing.... Because at least Moslems are trying to resist the global Leviathan.

[Political Interest]

Great reply, PI.

Thanks.

But recall one of my implied follow-ups, that Islam to western men looking for that natural traditional and absolutist society in Islam are falling for the 'easy sell', too easy, as I look at the battle between Islam and modernism and it's reaction to modernism in general.

I would agree with you that it is not wise to choose a religion simply as a way of escaping modernism. One must make their religious choice based on conviction that it is the truth. There is no other criteria for religious belief because either one religion is true or the other is true, but not both.

However, Islam should serve to spur and shame true Christians to make a better and more determined and intelligent response to Modernism than Islamists are doing.... Because at least Moslems are trying to resist the global Leviathan.

We can all appreciate it when people are pious and follow their faith properly. I do not say this in a spirit of ecumenism but am simply stating that I respect faithful people even if their religion is different to mine. Of course I do not have any positive feelings for those lunatics in IS though. To me their actions are the opposite of piety. It looks to me like they have taken an excuse to behave in an insane and sadistic manner in the name of religion.

[Stavrogin]

The Islamic ideology is based on the principle that as the Creator has created mankind, therefore it is the Creator alone that can define the parameters within which man should live.

How is it that mankind is unqualified to determine the parameters within which man should live, and yet you are prepared to accept the word of men as the word of God? If you are not prepared to accept the word of men as the word of God, how is it that words spoken by men, written by men, of origins so inextricably bound to the mouths of men, are accepted by you as the words of the Creator? Can you point me to a thought of yours that inspires you to belief in your version of the Creator, that did not originate as a thought in your mind or the mind of another man who spoke it? Which men are worthy of speaking God's words while the rest of us are incapable of deciding whether it is morally acceptable to murder and rape without the help of an exterior force?

How is it that certain members of mankind, i.e. those conspicuously male and authoritarian-patriarchal, happen to be the Creator's chosen medium? Does the Creator deem women to be less worthy? Has the Creator created special men among us? If so, what of monotheism, and if not, why do you listen to the words of men that say things appealing to your mind and accept those words as somehow directly transported from God? Is there not a hideous ego at work, deifying itself, and yet simultaneously accusing those, who dare not make such grandiose claims, of arrogance?

Do you ever reflect on your natural human trait of forming ideas that lead to a certain path, and then forming more ideas in the same vein, so as to speed up along the path, and eventually be travelling at such a speed as to be too far down the path to turn back, or even consider the option of alternative paths? Because, once one has committed oneself to such a degree, well, not many human minds would be capable of such agility.

This means that sovereignty and the right to legislate belongs to the Creator alone.

You mean that sovereignty is the right of people who agree with you and nobody else. It is highly ironic that depictions of Allah are haraam and yet it is normal practice to consider oneself worthy of being Allah's representative on earth. What mighty shoes yours are to fill! After all, when you tell a secularist that the Creator has determined their home is to be brought under His sphere of worship, you are bringing His word to them, because you know best after all. Can you understand the contempt your attitude excites in those who hear your views?

The foreign policy of the Khilafah state is based around the concept of daw'ah (Lit. invitation) and involves carrying the message of Islam to mankind, using the state as a means to protect and promote the Islamic way of life. The state does not recognise any kind of borders and considers the entire earth the domain of the Creator, with no people or nation holding exclusive rights over any piece of it.

In other words, anyone who dares not believe in the same things you believe in, will find life very difficult if you are in power, because you will attack and subordinate them, and you will be right to do so, because you said so. The words in your mind and coming out of your mouth are the words of God.

What a foul bigotry that possesses your mind. The saddest thing of all is that you will never, not even in your dying moments, see how poisonous and violent you are.

I do not say this in a spirit of ecumenism but am simply stating that I respect faithful people even if their religion is different to mine.

So you respect people based on their capacity for believing without evidence? Why do you automatically respect "faithful" people? People could have faith in a Satanic religion, the eventual success of their football team's coach, or Oscar Pistorious' innocence. What is it about the faithfulness of a person that means you respect that person, and should this statement not be tempered by considerably more stringent criteria?