The Hesperado Book Club

In my continuing, albeit fledgling, series on the books that have influenced my education, I note today Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, by Catholic theologian Hugo Rahner (brother of the more famous Catholic theologian Karl Rahner), written in German in 1957 and translated into English in 1963.

By the time I found this book (just stumbled upon it while strolling among stacks and stacks of books at the college library where I was an undergrad), I had already received a B.A. in history (concentrating on Western history, and leaning back to the Middle Ages) and was in between degrees, soon to embark upon a second B.A., this time in comparative religions.  I was already in my mind making the transition from historiography to the deeper wellsprings of history in philosophy and theology.

It was not entirely an accident, then, that I chanced upon Rahner's title, as the stacks I tended to rove amongst were in the sections of the library where history merged into philosophy and religious studies.  The title caught my eye -- particularly the "Mystery" part, as I had begun in my intellectual odyssey to note and appreciate the role of mysticism in the Western philosophoumena and theologoumena.  And my year or two reading Eric Voegelin had by that time disabused me of one of the misconceptions of post-modern thought: namely, that mythology must be automatically untrue.

Greek Myths and Christian Mystery turned out to be no mere historical account.  It is a profoundly moving, strangely intricate survey and illumination of the deeper consanguinity between Graeco-Roman thought (most of which -- including the Philosophers -- was, indeed, mythopoetic) and Christian theology in its first great era of the first few centuries A.D.  This book without any hesitation I would say counts among the top ten books that have opened not only my mind, but also my heart, to the wonder of the West's spiritual odyssey.

And my choice of the word odyssey is no mere window-dressing to my brief review here: for, in his meditation, Hugo Rahner unfolds and unravels his theme of Homer as the classical centerpiece between the Graeco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian nexus, bearing the transition of the former to the latter not by denigration and denunciation -- as Muslims or Puritans or Evangelicals would have it -- but by sublimation and apotheosis.  At one point (perhaps at the climax of his thesis), Rahner adverts to Homer yoked with outstretched arms to the mast of his ship in The Odyssey as a prefiguration not only of Christ's crucifixion but of his Passion undergoing humanity.  This idea is not Rahner's: He was simply unearthing what Christian philosophers and theologians themselves wrote.

A nice little connect-the-dots game

As Hugh Fitzgerald once said, few in our time have the mental pencil to connect the dots on the most important (because deadliest) problem of this new century and millennium.

Let's make it easy:

Obama: Israelis have true peace partner in Abbas. 

Abbas: We have the same policies as Hamas. 

Hamas: Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.

And, for the dot-connection-challenged, a little more detail:

"Of course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. But while I know you have had differences with the Palestinian Authority, I believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas..." -- Barack Obama, March 21, 2013

"As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas." -- Mahmoud Abbas, March 15, 2013

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" -- Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, as quoted in the Hamas Charter

"Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah" -- Hamas's Al Aqsa TV

(All the links you need in the Jihad Watch article.)

Imagine There's No Islam

 
 And a spring without an Arab.

Books that have informed my education over the years

I'll take these one at a time, and try to post at least one per week.  Not sure how many total I will include.  

I will try to find the online free version for a link, but may not always be able to.

The first is Greek Philosophical Terms: A Historical Lexicon (editor: Francis E. Peters, 1987).

It's better than a mere dictionary listing terms in that most of the definitions provide literary context in classical sources, from the pre-Socratics through Plato up to Aristotle and a little later (but all pre-Christian).

And, in a way, it's better than a book that expands at length about classical philosophy, because it provides focused, bite-sized chunks of useful information which, as an ancillary, can either illuminate some philosophy text you're reading, or can be experienced as a beginning of your own search, arousing a curiosity that might lead you to pick up Plato or Aristotle for a fuller appreciation.

The first time I saw it, I was impressed that it listed such a recondite term as parenklisis.

Islamic conferences

— members of a Methodist conference, posing for a photo

What goes on at various Islamic conferences around the world?

Not, apparently, what one would expect at, say, a conference of Methodist ministers and laity (e.g., take a look at this document of the proceedings a 2011 Methodist conference in Louisiana: mostly, the activities detailed in unremarkably thorough fashion are mind-numbingly banal and boring minutiae of procedural bureaucracy; and otherwise involve efforts to help the poor through charity and outreach). 

At Islamic conferences, on the other hand, there are apparently more important things to discuss -- such as the fine points of who is the Enemy and in what contexts and under what textual pretexts is it licit to fight and kill the Enemy.

As documented at Memri.org, (which regularly translates from Arabic into English key documents out of the Muslim world), the popular and mainstream Islamic cleric Shaikh Qaradawi presided over a discussion at a major conference among Islamic clerics (held in 2003 in Stockholm, Sweden, of all places -- Allah help us) in which he supported the following statement articulating the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in the context of the justification for terror attacks: 

It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of [their] blood and [their] property...

As we know (or should know by now), "Dar Al-Harb" is the entire non-Muslim world; and "the people of Dar Al-Harb" are all non-Muslims of the world.

I.e., the lives and property of all non-Muslims are licit for Muslims to take -- on the vague pretext that we "fight against" and/or "are hostile towards" them.

Notice too that Qaradawi doesn't say "If they fight against Muslims..." but rather he says "Because they fight against Muslims...". I.e., it's already assumed that the natural state of non-Muslims is to be fighting against Muslims and/or to be hostile towards them. 

This is a clear legitimization of terrorism by Muslims against any Unbelievers anywhere in the world where it is perceived by Muslims that those Unbelievers are "fighting against" and/or "are hostile towards" Muslims -- couched of course by Qaradawi in phraseology providing sophistical wiggle room for loopholes by which he could try to argue that he does not support terrorism against "innocent" people; etc.

Conclusion:

Take a look at the tafsir (= exegesis) of Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected and authoritative and mainstream of all Koran commentators, and read what he has to say about Koran verses 5:32-33, where he argues that the unbelief of Unbelievers is tantamount, if not equivalent, to "waging war" against Muslims.

I.e., according to this Islamic conference at which Qaradawi presided, following the mainstream logic of Islamic tradition as represented, for example, by Ibn Kathir, our very existence as Unbelievers -- as people who do not submit to Islam -- is itself, ipso facto a casus belli for Muslims to wage "defensive" war against our offensive nature as non-Muslims. For, as non-Muslims, we dare to continue to live our lives without Allah's guidance, and to organize our societies by setting up polities and laws that ignore the laws as set out by Allah in the Koran and by His Last Prophet, Mohammed, as documented in the Sunna -- and as clarified by Islamic scholars throughout the ages, from Ibn Kathir in the 14th century, to Shaikh Qaradawi in the 21st century.

Further Reading:

Mark Durie's important essay on Qaradawi

Limbo

About a dime-a-dozen Muslim apologist named Mubin Shaikh, a Jihad Watch regular who should know better commented, after watching his performance in a debate with Robert Spencer:

“Mubin seemed like a genuinely nice guy, if not entirely forthcoming all the time…”

Yes, and that Nazi officer in Spielberg's film Schindler's List, taking five from rounding up Jews during Kristallnacht, playing Mozart on a piano he found in one of the apartment rooms vacated by his men, seemed to have such a sensitive soul capable of appreciating the poetry and beauty of great music!

I.e., I would have hoped that in 2013 we would have moved beyond giving any Muslim the benefit of the doubt -- particularly when that benefit is based on outward mannerisms and personality, however "genuine" they may seem.  The bar for Muslims should be set so low, even an eel (or should I say, a snake) could not do the Limbo dance under it.  Haven't we experienced the straw that broke the camel's back from Muslims enough times over the years -- whether through their atrocities or through their chicanery -- to warrant our demand that they pass through a veritable needle's eye before meriting our trust?

Apparently, even this late in the game, most of us are still in the limbo of wishing desperately that Muslims be not as horrific as deep down we know they are.  And there's a thin line separating our muddle-headed limbo in this regard from the hell-on-earth Muslims intend for us.  An asymptotic line, in fact.

Diagramming the pretzel

The other day, I found a crusty, gnarly old pretzel as I was cleaning out one of my Hesperado cabinets in the back room (so old, it harks back to the days when Spencer still liked Diana West):

1. Heinz-Christian Strache of the Austrian political party, the FPÖ -- demonized by Melanie Phillips as "racist" and "neo-Nazi"

2. Robert Spencer lauds Melanie Phillips

3. Diana West supports Heinz-Christian Strache

4. Robert Spencer lauds Diana West

5. Charles Johnson demonizes Heinz-Christian Strache

6. Charles Johnson demonizes Robert Spencer

7. Robert Spencer condemns Charles Johnson for demonizing Spencer, Diana West and Gates of Vienna

8. Gates of Vienna supports Spencer against Charles Johnson

9. Gates of Vienna supports Heinz-Christian Strache

10. Robert Spencer condemns Heinz-Christian Strache

11. Gates of Vienna keeps silent about Spencer's condemnation of Heinz-Christian Strache

Cry For Me, Argentina

Debbie Schlussel (alone, it seems, among bloggers in the Counter-Jihad) links to a story in the Buenos Aires Herald that informs the reader that Pope Francis is a "friend of the Islamic community" and then explains:

Argentine Muslims have welcomed the election of Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the head of the Roman Cathoilic Churhc. In an interview with Buenosairesherald.com, Sheij Mohsen Ali and CIRA Secretary General Dr.Sumer Noufouri praised Pope Francis’s “pro-dialogue” nature.

“He always showed himself as a friend of the Islamic community. He visited the At-Tauhid Mosque (located) in the neighborhood of Floresta and the Arab-Argentine Ali Ibn Abi Talib School strengthening our relations”, the Director of the House for the Diffusion of Islam Sheik Mohsen Ali said...

Also, if that weren't enough to move the reader to reach for a bucket for his waves of nausea and gag reflex dry heaves:

Considering ties between the CIRA and now Pope Francis “excellent”, Dr. Noufouri [that's Secretary General of the Islamic Center of the Republic of Argentina (CIRA) Dr. Sumer Noufouri to you and me] explained that the one-decade relation has helped to build Christian-Muslim dialogue, something “really significant in the history of monotheistic relations in Argentina”. A “joint work”, CIRA head added, “that we have never given up on”.

Over at the Gates of Vienna blog, co-owner and writer Dymphna lauds the new Pope for his ostensibly traditionalist and conservative bonafides, also adding that he has combined that with a penchant for personal humility (e.g., eschewing his assigned limousine and opting to take the bus to work -- how Jimmy-Carteresque with the suit jacket casually slung over the shoulder walking, not being driven, after Inauguration to his White House!).

Then we have this report from The Telegraph (hat tip to an anonymous commenter) of Cardinal Bergoglio having taken precisely the wrong stand with regard to Pope Benedict's 2005 lecture at Regensburg that caused worlwide Islamic rage:

Reacting within days to [Pope Benedict's lecture], speaking through a spokesman to Newsweek Argentina, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio declared his "unhappiness" with the statements, made at the University of Regensburg in Germany, and encouraged many of his subordinates with the Church to do the same.

"Pope Benedict's statement don't reflect my own opinions", the then Archbishop of Buenos Aires declared. "These statements will serve to destroy in 20 seconds the careful construction of a relationship with Islam that Pope John Paul II built over the last twenty years". 

The Vatican reacted quickly, removing one subordinate, Joaquín Piña the Archbishop of Puerto Iguazú from his post within four days of his making similar statements to the Argentine national media, sending a clear statement to Cardinal Bergoglio that he would be next should he choose to persist.

Reacting to the threats from Rome, Cardinal Bergoglio cancelled his plans to fly to Rome, choosing to boycott the second synod that Pope Benedict had called during his tenure as pontiff. 

The Pope's policy of eggshell-walking respect for Muslims and his unacceptably courteous "dialogue" with the Muslims of Argentina (would he have extended the same courtesy to the Marxist guerillas or unrepentant ex-Nazis of Argentina?) just goes to show that traditionalist and conservative bonafides, and all the lack of corruption in the world, add up to a hill of frijoles if they aren't backed up by a luminously grim realism about our Mohammedan enemies -- however much their sheep's clothing moves a tender-hearted Christian pastor to lower his guard in the foolish belief that he can shepherd with love those wolves who, by hook or by shepherd's crook, ever look out for the moment they can slit his (and our) throat.

Not quite a Beatles reunion, but cool nonetheless

Instead of John and Paul, we'll have to make do with Bob and Andy -- Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom, that is.  

Without any ado, after years of a rift whose cause no one really knows (only because the principals have never come clean about it and nobody seems to have cared to ask them), Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom have apparently buried the hatchet.  For readers who wish to read my thoughts on the matter of the longstanding rift, see this page of links.  

The first sign of this sudden and welcome rapprochement was approximately a couple of weeks ago, when out of the blue, Spencer featured a Bostom article on Jihad Watch.  After an achingly long winter of silence between them, punctuated only by oblique jabs of acrimony, Jihad Watch readers were greeted with an unforeseen thaw, with its attendant melting and sprinkling rivulets of cordiality in full bloom now this week, as Spencer treated his readers to an in-depth videotaped interview and discussion with his old friend and colleague.

During the hour they converse, Spencer frequently encourages Bostom to expound at length and in fascinating detail about the lionized scholar of Islamic history, Bernard Lewis, and by extension, the sorry state of Academe with regard to that subject.

And Andrew Bostom has a lot to say on the subject.  Indeed, he has so many thousands of relevant facts jockeying for place in the space between his nimble brain and his tongue, one almost senses he can barely get them out in orderly fashion; almost as though he knows he doesn't have the time, even in the span of an hour, to explicate and do justice to the full complications of the horror of Islam and the nightmare of our Western myopia of that horror -- all the more grotesque when that myopia exudes from a remarkably erudite scholar, the focus of the discussion, Bernard Lewis (age 96 and still going strong), who is steeped in knowledge about that horror and thus has had no coherent excuse for his tendencies toward apologeticism.

Bostom's recurring theme, of the intellectual/psychological schizophrenia of Lewis, epitomizes in a searingly acute nutshell the Stockholm Syndrome schizophrenia of the whole West with regard to its most familiar perennial Bully and Enemy who has traumatized her for 1,300 years -- but about whom, like the battered wife with two black eyes, two broken ribs, and bruises and cuts up and down her back who continues to defend and make excuses for her abusive husband, she remains hip-deep in that River of Egypt.

§ § §

Whether it was a matter of money, lawyers or Yoko, nobody knows.  I'm just glad they're back together again.  The danger of Islam is too important for two talents like Bob and Andy to indulge the mysterious grudge they had against each other for so long.