Connect with us

Religion

How Muslim Propagators Swindle the Western Civilization: Islam and Science Expropriation (A)

Published

on

A well-known phrase of Adolf Hitler says: “By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people to believe the heaven is hell and hell is heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.” Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda added to this: “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth… If you tell the same lie enough times, people will believe it; and the bigger the lie, the better.” But it was Winston Churchill to declare: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

Islamic propaganda, past and present prove these crystal clear. The Arab-Islamic propagation is absolutely shameless and impudent in expropriating other’s values, achievements and even history from them. This ‘totalism’ means that everything existed, developed, organized, and shaped on the universe,according to the Islamic propagation, was originated, created and invented by Islam. Muslims were/are the most technological and the most sophisticated in the universe on the one hand, and the most compassionate, democratic, peace-loving religion, with utmost human morals’ ideals, on the other. Indeed, Karl Marx declared: “The first battlefield is the re-writing of history.” The Muslims have proven to be the uppermost students of Marx’s proverb.

In his Cairo speech on June 7, 2009, President Mubarak Hussein Obama made assertions that at best showed ignorance concerning Islam’s contribution to history and science. These were words of flattering and ignorance, perhaps out of submission and cowardice, without any corroborating facts. He claimed: “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like al-Azhar University that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; mastery of pens and printing.”

To this ignorant faked words, Frank Tipler, a world-class mathematician, physicist, and cosmologist, reacted: Obama is not much of a “student of history” if he believes these. Almost every advance he attributes to the Muslims was due to someone else. The non-Muslim Chinese invented the magnetic compass and printing. The non-Muslim Hindu Indians invented algebra and the decimal numbering system, the zero. The non-Muslim European Christians invented the university.

The history of astronomy and physics shows clearly: the Muslims contributed nothing. All modern physics descends from Galileo (1564-1642); all modern astronomy from Copernicus (1473-1543). Any study of Galileo’s works carefully reveals that he started with achievements of the Greek mathematical physicist Archimedes of Syracuse (287 BC-212 BC). Any careful study of Copernicus’ works reveals that Copernicus’ Great Book on Revolutions is essentially a heliocentric re-working of the geocentric astronomy textbook by the Greek Ptolemy (168 AD). Copernicus mostly used even Ptolemy’s data for the positions of the planets. Note the dates for Archimedes-Galileo and Ptolemy- Copernicus. It is as if the Muslim world never existed.

Certainly, the Muslims were a conduit for the discoveries of others. The word “algebra” is indeed derived from an Arabic word. But what was the Islamic contribution to that field? The books of Archimedes and Ptolemy used by Galileo and Copernicus were indeed translations into Latin from the Arabic. But let us never forget that those who translated them were not Arabs but local Christians, Jews, Persians and Assyrians; and let us not forget that Archimedes and Ptolemy wrote their books in Greek, not Arabic. They were Greeks, not Muslims.

Though most of the names for the brightest stars are of Arabic origin, because the names of these stars given in Ptolemy’s textbook were never translated from the Arabic. But do you think that the Arabs were the first humans to observe the first and second brightest stars in Orion? The reason Muslims never developed fundamental physics is because the leading Muslim theologians declared the idea of fixed physical laws to be heretical. There cannot be unchanging physical laws because Allah may change the laws at will (Sûrat al-An’ām, 6:64). Everything in universe works only according to the will of Allah, who controls the skies and everything beneath them. Science cannot start from this viewpoint, let alone flourish. It is totally a blasphemy.The fact is that the only one ‘Muslim’ truly physicist, is the Pakistani Nobel Prize Laurite, Mohammed Abdus Salam. However, “Muslim” should be put in quotes, as he belonged to the Ahmadi sect of Islam, a sect that is heretical according to Islam, as it accepts the modern science. Had he remained in Pakistan, quite possibly would have been executed as being heretical.

William J. Federer has also related to Obama’s ignorance: Indeed, Islamic invasion of the Byzantine Empire was the main cause of the Renaissance revival, but on the reverse way. To escape the Islamic barbaric invasion, Byzantine Greek scholars fled west to Italy, bringing with them their architecture, art, sculpture and philosophy, fueling Europe’s fascination with Greek culture. Why? Muslim Seljuk Turks turned Byzantine Churches into mosques, melted church bells into cannons, leveled cities, dug up remains of Christian Saints and gave them to dogs. Civilization is indebted Islam for Santa Claus, for in 1087, to prevent desecration, Christians moved the bones of Saint Nicholas, the generous 4th century Bishop of Myra, to Bari, Italy.

In Asia, Tamerlane (1336-1405) killed an estimated 17 million, conquering from the Black Sea to India. He captured Moscow and the destroyed many Afghan cities on its inhabitants; massacred 70,000 in Ishfahan and destroyed Sarai Berke, one of Eastern Europe’s largest cities with a population of 600,000. Most important he destroyed all the cultural and scientific sites of India and Afghanistan.

In his memoir “Malfuzat-i-Timuri,” Tamerlane wrote: “There arose in my heart the desire to lead an expedition against the infidels and to become a ghazi… whether I should direct my expedition against the infidels of China or against the polytheists of India. I sought an omen from the Qur’an, and the verse I opened upon was: ‘O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and treat them with severity.’ (Qur’an, 66:9)…  My great officers told me that the inhabitants of Hindustan were infidels. In obedience to Allah I ordered an expedition against them… slaughtered 100,000 in Delhi, leaving pyramids of skulls.” Tamarlane bombarded the Christian city of Smyrna with decapitated heads of its defending knights, and buried alive 4,000 Georgian. Indeed, Tamarlanekilled from Qur’anic piety. He represents a synthesis, probably unprecedented in history, of Mongol barbarity and Muslim fanaticism.

The Scandinavian researcher, Fjordman, also reacts to Obama’s uttering regarding Islam and science: Is there even a single truthful word in his statement? Perhaps Muslims had some decent calligraphy, and a few of their scholars made very small contributions with few sciences, but apart from that everything is total nonsense. The fact is that Arabs and Muslims had the greatest opportunity and huge advantage to be in a favorable geographical position, since the Middle East was the seat of oldest known civilizations on the planet and the source of the most important inventions in human history. The challenge is not to explain why there was a brief burst of creativity in the earliest centuries of Islamic rule; the challenge is to explain why this didn’t last. Islam’s “Golden Age” was in reality the twilight of the conquered pre-Islamic cultures.

It is surely no coincidence that the first civilization in the Indian subcontinent arose in the Indus Valley in northwest, close to Sumerian Mesopotamia, just as it is no coincidence that European civilizations took root in lands that were geographically close to Egypt and Greece. Under Islamic rule the opposite has happened: the Middle East went from being a global center of civilization to being the global center of anti-civilization, of wretchedness and misery of life. This was caused by Islam, which remains the main source of the backwardness and primitivism of this region. Fjordman has another reaction to Obama despised Cairo speech: Is there even a single truthful statement in this entire paragraph? It’s almost total nonsense. The magnetic compass was invented by the Chinese, and possibly by Europeans independently. Printing of books, too, was invented by Chinese, and had been imported to Europe from China. It was stubbornly and persistently rejected by Muslims for a thousand years or more due to Islamic religious edicts. It was well-known that Muslims were familiar with East Asian printing but aggressively rejected it.

The scholar Thomas Allsen has described how the authorities in Iran under Mongolian rule in 1294 attempted to introduce Chinese-style printed banknotes but failed due to popular resistance: “Certainly the Muslim world exhibited an active and sustained opposition to movable type technologies emanating from Europe in the fifteenth century and later. This opposition, based on social, religious and political considerations, lasted well into the eighteenth century. Only then were presses of European origin introduced into the Ottoman Empire and only in the next century did printing become widespread in the Arab world and Iran.”

It is likely that due to trade, Middle Easterners were familiar with printing centuries before this incident, yet because of Islamic religious resistance they did not adopt this great invention until a thousand years or more after it had been invented. Minorities such as Jews or Greek and Armenian Christians were the first to use printing presses in the Ottoman realms. The first book printed in the Persian language was probably a Judaeo-Persian Pentateuch.

As for music, Greek theory on the subject evolved from Pythagoras before 500 BC. The Church was the dominant institution in post-Roman Europe to draw on Greek philosophy and musical theory. Some elements of Christian observances may derive from Jewish tradition, chiefly the chanting of Scripture and the signing of psalms, poems of praise from the Book of Psalms. Christians integrated music into their liturgy. This gave rise to a musical tradition which led to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Nothing similar happened in the Islamic world, despite the fact that Muslims had access to much of the same material.

Commenting on Obama’s claim that “throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality,” the reaction must be clear-cut: every word here should be put on the opposite side. It is totally reversal, and reversals again the cunning ignorant lying personality of Obama. In reality, it is rather difficult to find such examples from any region in the world where Islam occupied. Islamic doctrines specifically state that Muslims are not supposed to consider infidels to be their equals or to be tolerated. They are supposed to wage war against them until they convert or submit. The Ignorance of Obama status of Dhimmitude, the humiliating apartheid system imposed upon non-Muslims under Islamic rule; huge slavery and ethnic cleansing are really being absurd. The conversion of the entire population to Islam and the extinction of every form of dissent is the ideal of the Muslim State. Infidels cannot be citizens but members of a depressed class, living under a contract of security (Dhimma) with the Islamic State, while their continued existence is conditional and depends upon the good will of the Muslim rulers.

Another link on the internet site, directly refers to “Obama’s numerous lies regarding supposed Islamic inventions/contributions.”The claim: “It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra.” No, it wasn’t. The origins of algebra trace back to the ancient Babylonians. Algebra was temporarily developed by the ancient Greeks and later the English. The claim: Muslims invented “Our magnetic compass, tools of navigation,” No. Research suggests it was discovered in China centuries before the advent of Islam.The claim: Islam gave us “Our mastery of pens and printing…” No. Gutenberg did.The claim: “Islamic has given us some majestic arches and soaring spires…” Now it just getting absurd. Arches were developed in Rome and invented in Mesopotamia.

The claim: Muslims gave us “Our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed…”? Rubbish! The Dutchman, Leeuwenhoek, and the Englishman, Lister, developed the microscope, which permitted men like Cohn (a German) and Redi (an Italian) to study bacteria and other microorganisms. Needham, Spallanzani and Pasteur discovered the “Pasteurization” process for killing bacteria and ensuring sterility. In the 1770’s, the English doctor Edward Jenner discovered the process of vaccination. His cowpox vaccine has since eliminated smallpox from the world, although is still exist in some Muslim countries. Pasteur continued his work, developing a vaccine for anthrax, and Koch, a German, found the bacteriums that cause “black death”, TB and cholera. Indeed, Muslim contribution to medicine is essentially nothing, unless, you consider beheading human beings while yelling “Allahu Akbar” a medical procedure.

Still, the apologists in West continue their idiocy and/or ignorance. Two weeks after September 11, Carly Fiorina, the Hewlett Packard president, presented in her speech in Minneapolis, the following: “Under Islamic military protection there was a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. This civilization was driven more than anything by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration. When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization kept them alive, and passed them to others. The technology industry would not exist without contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers challenged our notions of self and truth. Leaders like Suleiman the Magnificent contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership. It was an enlightened leadership that led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.”

This ridiculous piece is annoying, irritating and upsetting. The idea that Islamic culture was a beacon of learning and enlightenment is a big lie, a total myth without any substantiation and corroboration from Islamic history and contemporary, let alone its Scriptures. How can we understand these? Is it ignorance or stupidity? Or is it intimidation or running away from the Islamic fanatic madness? Or is it petro-dollar money? The answer comes from Peter Bet Basoo, the co-founder and director of the Assyrian International News Agency, who responded to Fiorina claims:

As an Assyrian, a non-Arab, Christian native of Iraq, whose ancestors reach back to 5000 years, I wish to alert to the dangers of unwittingly being drawn into Arab/Islamist ideology, which seeks to assimilate and submit all other cultures and religions. Arabs and Muslims appeared on the world scene only after year 630. When the armies of Muhammad began their conquest of the Middle East, they encountered 600 years of Assyrian Christian civilization, with a rich heritage and a highly developed culture, and exactly this civilization became the foundation of the Arab civilization.

As for architecture, if one refers to domes and arches, the fundamental architectural breakthrough of using a parabolic shape for structures was made by Assyrians more than 1300 years earlier, as evidenced by their archaeological record. As for mathematics, the fundamental basis of modern mathematics had been laid down thousands of years before by Assyrians and Babylonians, who already knew of the concept of zero, of the Pythagorean Theorem, and many other developments expropriated by Arabs. Another approach states that the zero and what we know as “Arabic numerals” originated in pre-Islamic India (Otto Neugebauer, History of Babylonian Mathematics).

As for medicine, the overwhelming majority of the doctors (99%) were Assyrians and later Jews. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries Assyrians began a systematic translation of the Greek body of knowledge. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and many others were translated into Assyrian, and from Assyrian into Arabic. It is these translations which the Moors brought with them into Spain, and which the Spaniards translated into Latin and spread throughout Europe. In the field of medicine, the Bakhteesho Assyrian family produced nine generations of physicians, and founded the great medical school at Gundeshapur (Iran). Also in the area of medicine, the Assyrian, Hunayn ibn-Ishaq(809-873) textbook on ophthalmology, written in 950, remained the authoritative source on the subject. The first Arabic-language medical treatise was written by a Christian priest and translated into Arabic by a Jewish doctor in 683. The first hospital was founded in Baghdad, not by a Muslims, but a Nestorian Christian.

As for philosophy, the Assyrian philosopher Job of Edessa developed a physical theory of the universe, in the Assyrian language, that rivaled Aristotle’s theory, and that sought to replace matter with forces (a theory of quantum mechanics and vacuum). Aristotle’s work was preserved in Arabic not by Muslims at all, but by Christians such as the fifth century priest Probus of Antioch, who introduced Aristotle to the Arabic-speaking world. Huneyn ibn-Ishaq also translated many works by Aristotle, Plato and Hippocrates into Syriac. His son translated them into Arabic. The Syrian Christian Yahya Ibn ‘Adi (893-974) also translated works of philosophy into Arabic. His student, another Christian, Abu ‘Ali ‘Isa Ibn Zur’a (943-1008), translated Aristotle and other Greek philosophers from Syriac into Arabic.

One of the greatest Assyrian achievements of the fourth century was the founding of the first university in the world, the School of Nisibis, with three departments: theology, philosophy and medicine, which became the center of intellectual development in the Middle East, and the model upon which the first Italian university was based (Arthur Voobus, the Statutes of the School of Nisibis.

As for astronomy, the astronomers and astrologers were all Chaldeans, Babylonians, not Muslims who were forcibly Arabized and Islamized, and by year 750 they had disappeared completely. The astrolabe was developed long before the rise of Islam.As for literature, Arab-Islamic writing and literature was and still is very little in quantity and very poor in quality. The Qur’an is the only significant piece of literature, whereas the literary output of the Assyrians and Jews was vast, and comprised the most. The third largest corpus of Christian writing, after Latin and Greek, is by the Assyrian language (also known as Syriac). As for the press, it was introduced in the Ottoman Empire only in the 18th century, 300 hundred years after it appeared in Europe.

As for civilizational achievements, the book How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, by De Lacy O’Leary, lists the significant translators and interpreters of Greek science. Of the 22 scholars listed, 20 were Assyrians, one was Persian and only one an Arab. Assyrians played a significant role in the shaping of the Islamic world via Greek corpus of knowledge. Moreover, Islam itself was significantly molded by Assyrians and Jews.

Another pattern of propagations claim that Islam fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, paving the way for modern advances in technology, medicine and all other natural sciences. The truth is totally the opposite. Apart from violence and bloodshed, Islamic contribution to the history of the world is negligent at best. The great achievements that are said to have come out of the Islamic world were made by non-Muslims mostly before but also during the Islamic occupation. The Arab excelled in raids, plundering, butchering and slaughtering, slave-trade, ethnic cleansing, and imperialism and colonialism that culminated in Arabization and Islamization of the occupied lands. In these realms their “inventions” were great and conspicuous.

A Muslim propagator in the West, Mohamad Abdalla, has written a long article, in which he laments that “Muslim contributions to science were deliberately ignored or suppressed, and the view that Muslim scientists produced nothing original remained the orthodox belief.” He begins his article “Modern Science’s Debt to Islamic Civilization,” by declaring that the claim as if “The Arabs only transmitted Greek science and made no contribution to overall history of Western science. Fortunately, many historians of science no longer hold this view. The Arabs acquired the scientific heritage of earlier civilizations, including classical Greece and Rome, and translated, preserved, and transformed much of it. Their scientific experience profoundly impacted the late medieval world of Western Europe, where Muslim scientific achievements were important to the evolving Renaissance and the grand narrative of the history of science…” No less.

Abdalla claims that Westerners know that the Muslims invented algebra, Arabic numerals, and possibly the zero, but show no interest in Islamic science and ignores most of the research conducted during the past 50 years. Europe has no such textbook at all, and the less said about modern Arabic books on Islamic science. The contributions of Muslim scientists are even less well understood in the Islamic world itself, and nothing on Islamic science is available in Arabic. “Today there is sufficient information about the quality and staggering quantity of Islamic science. Muslim scientists were active in many fields, from astronomy to zoology, and made original contributions… These results resulted in a massive scientific movement and the creation of a library on the scale of the world of its time. For the first time scientific traditions from different backgrounds and languages became elements of one science, with new methods and even new disciplines, such as trigonometry, algorithms, and algebra.”

The answer to these highly pretentious but clearly uncorroborated claims is one big “no.” and more of that: those who translated and preserved Greek and Persian and Indian sciences were not Arabs, but indigenous natives of the occupied lands. The Arab tribes, coming from Arabian Peninsula, did not know the Middle Eastern languages, no Persian, no Sankrist, no Greek, and no Latin. They were busy with occupying lands and plundering them. Yet Abdalla continues the fabrication route: “more evidence showing the magnificent work in Islamic science has come to light. Modern history of science studies show that the productive, original scientific research of Muslim scientists persisted into sixteenth century.” However, when defining what does it means “Islamic science,” Abdala reveals his strategy: now it is no longer Arab Science and contributions. He says: “Islamic science perhaps should mean science conducted mainly in Arabic and within the context of Islamic civilization…” This is true. No Arabs, but “many individuals from different ethnic and religious backgrounds Christians, Persians, Sabians, and Jews.”

Indeed, this is true and expresses the entire subject matter of Islam and sciences. However, Abdalla continues to twist and distort by declaring: “Arabic was the main scientific, but not necessarily the native, language of these scientists. While the terms Islamic science and Arabic science are modern historical terms for the science conducted within the context of Islamic civilization, this science is Islamic in the sense that it suited the new and growing needs of Islamic civilization; was available entirely in Arabic, which had replaced Syriac…” indeed, this is exactly the opposite: ancient sciences were translated into Arabic, by non-Arabs, and Islamic science and Arabic science were not conducted within the context of Islamic civilization, but continued by the indigenous scientists who were forced to write in Arabic.

The distortion continues. Abdalla declares that “Islamic science, in this context, does not imply religious sciences (e.g., jurisprudence) but rather the natural sciences (e.g., mathematics, astronomy, and physics).” However “Islamic Science” is indeed exactly only religious science. All along Islamic history including contemporary, 90 percent of all Islamic publications in all Arab-Islamic countries together is religious. Curiosity has not and still does not exist in Islam due to the Qur’anic teachings, and translations from foreign languages is negligent. Publications on Islamic religions is huge, and the sales of other publications is highly poor.

There is a direct link between the contemporary wretchedness and misery of the Islamic world, and its total shameless impudence to exhibit its faked invented greatness and contributions to world civilization. Contemporary reality is clear: the spirit of science in the Arab-Muslim world is as dry as the desert. Muslim states have nine scientists, engineers, and technicians per thousand people, compared with a world average of forty-one. There are approximately 1,800 universities, but in only 312 of those scholars have published journal articles. There are roughly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, but only two scientists have won Nobel Prize. Spain alone, hardly an intellectual superpower, contributes more of world’s scientific literature than all Muslim countries together. Spain translates more foreign books in a single year than the entire Arab world has in the past thousand years. In one year, the United States published almost 11 thousand scientific papers that were frequently cited, while the entire Arab world published only four. Between 1980 and 2000, Korea granted 16,328 patents, while all Arab countries granted a combined total of only 370, many of them registered by foreigners.

Abdalla arrogantly and impudently continues by claiming that the originality of Islamic science and its significant innovation is clear in several fields, including mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Originality in mathematics. Recent research proves that many of the ideas that once were thought to belong to European mathematicians of the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries were in fact originated by Islamic mathematicians. They have made original contributions that directly influenced arithmetic, geometry, algebra, algorithms and other fields. By the time of Khawarizmi, many other important works in Arabic were well ahead of the West. In many respects, the mathematics studied today is far closer in style to that of the Muslims than of the Greeks. No less. That is why he claims in Arab-Islamic countries the study of mathematics is so advanced and Muslim scientist are in the forefront of scientific research.

Abdalla and his fellows, like George Saliba and Ziauddin Sardar, admits: “scientific experiments have been devised to discover what is mentioned in the Qur’an but not known to science… this view is now the most popular version of Islamic science… not all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, can be found in the Qur’an.” This is exactly the problem, as this claim makes Abdalla and his fellow apostates according to Islam, and apostasy was exactly the cause why Islamic science flourished in only a short period of time, and perished forever. As long as Islam exist, rational sciences based on critical thinking, skepticism and question-asking are denied.

Another propagator Hamza Dhib Mustafa, member of the Supreme Fatwa Council, has declared: “Europe and the West in general, would never have reached these principles had they not been influenced by the advanced Islamic culture and had they not borrowed much from it… Islamic societies are cultured, humane and righteous societies, since oppression had not found its way to them and the killing did not spread nor extend among them. Human beings are equal from the point of view of Islam… Everyone is equal under the law in terms of their rights and obligations…This and more, Islam promises various rights to the human. It promises him freedom of religion and citizenship, freedom of thought, the right to property, political freedom and his right to employment. The thing that has no doubt… is that Islam preceded Europe and the West, in general, with all that pertains to matters of human rights by no less than 13 centuries…The Muslims and their societies are more advanced and more sublime than the West and its societies. They are earlier in human civilization, and are more perfect in value system and humanity. The fact that there are those who believe that these are Western values – it is a delusion and false, since the Muslims are masters, leaders and teachers of the world, even if the West rejects this. It is no wonder that this is rejected by the West, the most eager rival of Islam, its followers and its culture.”

There is more. Muslim propagators launched a block-buster exhibition at the world famous London Science Museum, January 2010, entitled: “1001 Inventions: Discover the Muslim Heritage in Our World.” Accordingly, the shameless propagation continues: “it traces the forgotten story of a thousand years of science from the Muslim world, from the 7th century onwards that still shape everyday life. This free entry exhibition looks at the social, scientific and technical achievements that are credited to the Muslim world… Featuring a diverse range of over 60 interactive, sensory and static exhibits, the exhibition demonstrates how many modern inventions can trace their roots back to Muslim civilization.” The interactive show covers many aspects of human life.

Such claims have even been forced upon the general public in a nationwide tour which opened with an exhibition at the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester and the University of Manchester. Moreover, this exhibit, “1001 Inventions: Discover the Golden Age of Muslim Civilization” was also displayed at the Washington, D.C. museum from August 2012 till February 2013, featuring a video starring by actor Ben Kingsley, as well as various interactive displays. To add to this calamity, one can also find a short film entitled “1001 Inventions and the Library of Secrets” which claims that much of the science we take for granted was drawn from Islamic discoveries.

To this huge pile of lies, Alan Robertson has reacted: the only Islamic inventions are the lies and the preposterous claims from Muslims. The exhibition of “Muslim inventions” is an absurd example of deception, misrepresentation and falsification of history in order to appease the ever growing Third World colonization of our country. The exhibition claims to reveal all the contributions which Islam has made to civilization.

Central to the exhibition is a model of a wooden water wheel. There is also a picture of a stone arch originating some 2000 years BC. Sources show that the earliest known arches did originate in Mesopotamia. On the interactive display one can see that coffee was apparently ‘invented’ by an Arab in the ninth century. Invented? Are they serious? Carpets first appeared in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Middle East about 2000 BC. How can carpets or coffee be an invention?

Another exhibit is entitled “naming the stars,” as if the Arabs translated the original names for the stars from a well-known book by the Greek astrologer Ptolemy. While the West has sent probes into deep space, are we supposed to marvel at the fact that Muslims merely renamed the stars? In 852 AD, a Muslim holy man jumped from a tower wearing a billowy, large cloak and lived to tell the tale. Also, in the ninth century, Abbas Ibn Firnas attempted to fly using a wing frame attached to his arms, whereupon his back was seriously injured. Muslims apparently invented the concept of the spherical earth in the ninth century. However, the earliest known records of the concept of a spherical Earth came from Pythagoras, Aristotle, and Eratosthenes made an estimate for the circumference of the Earth.

Indeed, contemporary public opinion is bombed with publications concerning many inventions claimed and attributed to Islamic creation, which in fact either existed in pre-Islamic eras, or were invented by other cultures, or both of these.

*part of a larger book titled, Why Islam is a Danger to the World: A Scholarly Rebuttal of Muslim Propaganda, be published by Mellen Press.

Continue Reading
Comments

Religion

The Evolving Orthodox Triangle Constantinople – Kiev – Moscow

Published

on

Churches think in centuries and are not bound to short-term political mandates. On January 5, 2018 the Patriarch of Constantinople implemented his decision to grant independence to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a move that upset Moscow. To understand the current developments, it is worth looking back at this centuries-long history of fluid relationship between Constantinople, Kiev and Moscow.

Constantinople-Kiev: Christianization

In 882, Oleg of Novgorod moved his capital to Kiev and continued the work of Rurik to unite Slavic tribes, setting the stage for the history of Kievan Rus. The prediction of Saint Andrew was unfolding. It is said that during the first century, when Andrew the Apostle traveled to what is now Kyiv, he climbed onto a hilltop overseeing the Dnepr River. There he planted a cross, prophesizing the future of the great Christian city and the role it would play.

The Slavs were a loose union of tribes, whilst Constantinople was flourishing. In 980, Vladimir the Great ruled in Kiev and endeavored to consolidate and expand further his territories. In 988, he conquered the city of Kherson, in Crimea, where a bishop see had been established since the fourth century. Although accounts vary on the conversion of Vladimir, what is clear is that the Byzantine emperor sent his sister Anna to marry Vladimir, uniting Kiev and Constantinople. When Anna arrived, Vladimir converted to Christianity, restored Kherson to Constantinople, and returned to Kiev with Crimean ecclesiastics. It is undeniable that economic and political reasons influenced his choice to convert as his agenda leaned toward the Christian world.

Although the Byzantine emperor appointed the head of the clergy in Kiev, he faced opposition from the Kievan princes who did not endorse a filiation of churches from Constantinople, nor did they submit to the emperor’s authority to make Kievan Rus a colony of the Byzantine Empire. Relations with the empire were complicated: Constantinople did not mingle directly in Kiev’s internal affairs but would not let the princes interfere in religious matters. In other words, the authority of Constantinople over Kiev was exerted through the clergy, who enjoyed considerable powers in Kievan Rus. As a consequence, the first inclination toward creating an independent church appeared. Yaroslav the Wise proclaimed Hilarion of Kiev the first non-Greek metropolitan in 1049. Nonetheless, Constantinople regained control over the appointment of the head of the church in Kiev. Constantinople never bestowed upon Kiev the right to appoint its own Slavic metropolitan, establishing a red line that would trigger immediate action from Constantinople. For centuries to come, the position would mostly be held by Greeks, who remained outside of internal Kievan politics. As Kiev had grown to be a major economic center, it was in Constantinople’s interest to stay on good terms with its Slavic neighbor, gaining importance on the international scene.

Yaroslav the Wise passed away in 1054, a key date as it is the year of the schism between Rome and Constantinople.

Kiev choses Constantinople over Rome

Opinions on rites and theological elements diverged over time between Rome and Constantinople, in part because of linguistic differences. Latin became dominant in the West while Greek was the language of choice in the East. Because of the status of language as a major cultural vehicle, the use of different languages impacted religious rites. Gradually, Rome imposed the closure of churches following the rites as practiced in Constantinople and Constantinople did the same to churches following the practices of the Western Church. Eventually, the Roman pope Leo IX and Michael Cerularius of Constantinople excommunicated each other in 1054.

Humbert of Silva Candida, the papal legate who delivered the excommunication to Patriarch Michael Cerularius, decided to stop by in Kiev on his way back to Rome from Constantinople. The newly converted Kievan Rus represented an attractive potential ally for Rome, especially given that the young federation of Slavs was expanding in size and importance on the international scene. Since integrating with this new community of Christians would strengthen their hand against Byzantium, Rome’s envoy visited the Grand Prince of Kiev with the aim of convincing him to join Rome. Yet Yazislav, the new Grand Prince of Kiev, refused any allegiance to Rome. The clergy in Kiev would remain on the Orthodox side with Constantinople in the great East-West schism.

But rivalries amongst Slavs were fierce. In 1169, the pious Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal Andrey Bogolyubsky sacked Kiev and took many religious pieces, including a highly revered Byzantine icon of the Mother of God of Odigitriya, one of the holiest in Russian Orthodoxy. He initiated the construction of many churches in Vladimir-Suzdal, near today’s Moscow and converted more Slavic tribes. He is also renowned for having made the first attempt to set up a new eparchy to compete with Kiev. Around the year 1170, he bypassed the Kiev Patriarchate and directly requested of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Luka Khrizovergus, that he established an eparchy in Vladimir. He also asked for the new metropolitan to have the same rank as the one in Kiev. The patriarch declined his request, but the competition with Kiev had begun.

Moscow enters the scene

The Mongol invasion spread quickly from east to west and reached Kiev in 1240. The city was destroyed and almost its entire population was dispersed. Kiev, the beautiful jewel of a city was shattered. Some sixty years after the destruction of Kiev, the city was still not recovering. So, the metropolitan Maksim moved his residence from Kiev further east to Vladimirin 1299. Nonetheless, he kept his title of Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus. The transfer of the religious center from Kiev was a major move, the consequences of which greatly affected the future of Orthodoxy and lay power as well. At that time, the Mongol dominated the region. The first union of Slavs, the Kievan Rus had disappeared and new states had not formed yet.

In a short span of three decades, major events shaped the face of the new power that emerged in Moscow, the capital of the Grand Duchy of Moscovy.

Under the relative religious tolerance of the Mongols, the church consolidated its power and the metropolitan Piotr moved to Moscow in 1325, giving the sign that the city was one of the leading politico-religious centers.

In the meantime, Constantinople was mired in its own problems and the Eastern Roman Empire was suffering through its last days. As the Vatican was entering the Renaissance era, it was eager to end the 1054 schism, especially to its own advantage. Thus the Catholic pope was well inclined to help Constantinople, which had asked for help and unity in resisting the Ottoman threat. At the Council of Florence in 1439, the Catholic Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople signed an agreement that should have put an end to the schism. At that time, Constantinople was still appointing the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus, and it counted on the support of Moscow to endorse the agreement. But reality dictated otherwise as Russia had gained much distance from Constantinople and its issues. The Patriarch of Constantinople died soon afterward, and it was decided that his signature was nonbinding for the Orthodox churches. Only Constantinople still hoped that the union with Rome would save them from the Ottomans. But a decade later, in 1453, Constantinople fell under the control of the Ottomans.

Moscow-based bishops decided to emancipate themselves from Constantinople, which had compromised with the Catholics to save itself, yet was now under Muslim rule. For the first time, Moscow elected its own head of the church, independently from Constantinople. Although the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church was recognized only in 1589, the church became de facto independent in 1448, with Jonah as its first metropolitan. One of his first objectives was to maintain religious unity in territories over which his predecessors had authority. Eventually, in 1458, the canonical territories over which the metropolitan professed corresponded to those over which the Grand Prince of Moscow ruled. This transition was reflected in his title, which changed in 1461 to Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus. The Russian Church was now an actor of importance that saw itself as the guardian of Orthodoxy, the Third Rome.

The new Autocephalous Church asserts itself

The remaining element was the recognition of autocephaly by Constantinople. Without the approval of its peers, the self-proclaimed autocephaly has no validity in the Orthodox world.

The Ottomans imposed heavy tributes on patriarchates that fell under their territorial control. Economically weakened, the patriarchates lost considerable weight, especially Antioch, which had been weakened and forced into exile several times due to centuries under the dominion of Arabs and crusaders. In 1586–1587, the patriarch of Antioch, Joachim V, engaged in a journey to collect donations from other Orthodox churches. In Moscow, the future tsar Boris Godunov offered his support and seized this political moment to stir ambitions of an official autocephaly. Two years later, the patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II, traveled to Moscow with the same objective of collecting money. During his stay, he would have discussed with Boris Godunov the possibility of remaining the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch but being based in Russia. Finally, after lengthy negotiations, Jeremias II decided to give autocephaly to the Russian Orthodox Church and returned home. The recognition was made official in 1589 with the concurrence of the other three original patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

In 1589, the Russian Orthodox Church for the first time had a patriarch at its head, Job of Moscow. There were now five patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Moscow. And the tsar was the guardian of Orthodoxy.

Kiev, the Tsarist Empire and the church

Peter the Great launched many reforms to modernize Russia, following European model. He replaced the patriarchate with a committee termed the Holy Synod, placing a bureaucrat, the Chief Procurator, as its de facto head and the tsar’s eyes and ears in the church. With authority over religious matters and control over the appointment of bishops, Peter succeeded in relegating the church to the status of a ministry or state department, with clerics placed in charge of spiritual matters.

Catherine the Great continued the policies of Peter the Great. She entertained the Austro-Russian idea of dissolving the Ottoman Empire. As part of this scheme, she nurtured plans to embark on a “Greek Project”: re-establishing a Greek Byzantine empire to replace the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which had gained ground in continental Europe. For instance, she supported the Daskalogiannis Rebellion in Crete in 1770, in which Cretans rose up against the Turks. In reality, she was rather indifferent to religion: she embraced the project, promoted by Prince Potemkin, for geopolitical rather than religious reasons. Yet it did not materialize, and no alliance with Austria came into being. In 1783, Catherine decided to annex Crimea, putting an end to the revolts occurring there and, most importantly, pushing the Ottoman Empire back across the Black Sea. Crimea became a Russian province and part of Novorossiya or “New Russia” in 1784.

Religion politics in Russo-Turkish Wars

Eventually, tensions between the Russian and Ottoman empires had reached a climax, and war broke out in 1787. The conflict lasted for five years but was decided to Russia’s advantage. Russia was therefore able to consolidate its positions around the Black Sea but never captured Constantinople, the gateway to the Mediterranean’s warm waters and an Achilles heel for Moscow to this day. Even though the Treaty of Jassy, signed at the end of the war on January 9, 1792, recognized the Russian territorial gains, relations with the Ottoman Empire remained tense. Russian expansion benefited from momentum on the world scene shaken by the French and American revolutions. Consequently, nobody really reacted to Russian expansion until the situation in France had stabilized. But Napoleon reaction was short-lived.

Alexander’s victory over Napoleon gave him a new sense of divine mission, and by 1814, the tsar had grown more religious and prone to messianism. His religious awakening triggered his initiation of the Holy Alliance between Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Signed in Paris in 1815, this alliance aimed to promote Christianity but was also a reaction to the Napoleonic Wars. The Great Powers wanted to ensure a balance of power in Europe and avoid revolutions. During the two hectic decades that followed, the Catholic Church remained strong and Napoleon III pursued a pro-Catholic agenda, as proven by his 1849 expedition to restore the pope. He posed as the champion of Catholicism in Europe, which in part explained his decision to engage in the Crimean War against Russia.

With its territorial gains and advances well into the Black Sea region, Russia represented a growing threat for the Ottoman Empire and its French and British allies. Paris, together with London, backed the Ottoman Empire, whose western territories in the Balkans saw many uprisings, such as those of the Orthodox Serbs and Orthodox Greeks.

The trigger of the Crimean War of 1853–1856 was religious, but the roots were indisputably linked to the fear of Russia’s growing influence in the weakened Ottoman Empire. At the beginning, quarrels between Catholic and Orthodox monks arose in Palestine about their prerogatives. As the matter had reached serious levels, Tsar Nicholas I intervened and asked the Sultan to recognize the right of Russia to protect the Christians of the Ottoman Empire according to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, signed after the war of 1774. This right gave the Russian Orthodox Church further predominance over the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The document also gave Russia access through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. This privilege was certainly not pleasing to France or England.

Catholic France declared that it wanted to have authority over the Eastern Christians, a decision contradicting a previous agreement that gave Russia the right to protect Christians. The French Catholic Emperor Napoleon III promised support to the Sultan if he were to resist this Russian “aggression.” Stung by the humiliating conditions of the treaty following the Ottoman defeat, the Sultan agreed. Consequently, a new war erupted between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. As promised, France, joined by England, intervened in support of the Sultan to preserve the territorial integrity of his empire.

The protection of holy places and Christians became the source of an international war with several fronts around the Black Sea, including in the Caucasus. The war was eventually lost by Russia, which was then forced to hand over several territories around the Black Sea. As a result, France gained influence in the Holy Lands.

Moscow – Constantinople Competition

World War 1 put an end to both Russian and Ottoman empires. Under the Soviet, religion was undermined, priests were killed and churches destroyed. So, the Russian church found itself in a state of confusion when the Soviet government collapsed. The church was divided and weak. During the final years of the twentieth century, the ROC stabilized and consolidated its power over its canonical territory thanks to the support of the Russian authorities. It also reasserted its stance within the Orthodox Church worldwide. By far the largest in terms of parishioners and with growing wealth, the Russian Orthodox Church overshadowed the patriarch of Constantinople.

The later did not enjoy much freedom under the new Turkish rule. In addition, it had lost jurisdiction in the Balkans in the nineteenth century. Turkish authorities imposed that the Patriarch should be a Turkish citizen, usually of Greek origin, and such candidates are rare. All in all, the Patriarch of Constantinople has been in an increasing difficult position for centuries, and Moscow has proved to be a strong challenger. In 2016, the ROC asked to convene the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete and not in Istanbul as Turkish authorities had downed a Russian jetfighter deployed for operations in Syria. Based on this security argument, the Council agreed to change location. Nonetheless, local Orthodox churches, namely the Bulgarian Church, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Serbian and Georgian Orthodox churches refused to participate because of disagreements over the agenda. The ROC suggested solving those issues to guarantee full attendance, even if it meant postponing the Council. Eventually, the disputes were not resolved and the ROC decided to cancel its participation. By so doing, the ROC expressed a defiant message about the role and authority of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Tensions never resolved and the situation in Ukraine added insult to injury in the relation between Constantinople and Moscow.

Moscow – Kiev: rivals once more

Since the mid seventeenth century, Kiev remained largely under the rule of the Tsar and then Soviet Moscow. Ties binding Ukraine and Russia were strong especially in the field of alimentation, industry and energy.

After the end of the Soviet Union, the Western European World and Russia have tried to attract Kyiv into their respective spheres of influence, a game from which Kiyv benefitted. In 2014, the tables turned drastically with the Euromaidan revolution that toppled President Yanukovych.  Incapable of averting Ukraine’s choice of the EU, Moscow was concerned that Ukraine might ally with NATO. Russian authorities treated the situation as a security matter and actively supported the separation of the autonomous region of Crimea and its attachment/annexation to Russia. The situation spiraled out of control and a kinetic conflict erupted in the Donbas, leading to serious readjustments in international affairs.

Against the backdrop of the complex international relations prevailing in the early twenty-first century, interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state have overlapped in Ukraine. The question of religion and allegiance to the Kyiv or Moscow patriarchate has become a matter of identity and call for resistance among some Ukrainians against Russia in 2014. This unfortunate confusion resulted in intra-Orthodox confrontation with the killing of orthodox priests and the destruction of orthodox churches. In a vicious circle, religious and political differences fueled each other.

Many critics have interpreted the positions of the Russian church and the Russian authorities as two sides of the same coin. Consequently, the Russian church became synonymous with Russian interference in Ukraine, and as such the separation as we see it unfolding was almost a fait accompli.

The creation of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church is another turn in this fluid relationship between the three historic cities of Constantinople, Kyiv and Moscow. And it is hardly to be the last move…

Continue Reading

Religion

Rabbi Arthur Schneier and anti-Semitism

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

Prof. Giancarlo Elia Valori and Rabbi Arthur Schneier

A few days ago, Rabbi Arthur Schneier -the Vienna-born Holocaust survivor, who has been leaving and operating for many years in New York -gave the keynote address to the Austrian Parliament on the 80th Anniversary of Kristallnacht, the terrible “Night of Broken Glass” when the shards of broken glass littered the streets after the windows of Jewish-owned stores, buildings and synagogues were smashed.

It is also referred to as Reichs pogrom and November pogrome, two terms that always use the word “pogrom” (meaning “devastation” or “riot” in Russian) to indicate the attack of small well-manipulated groups against Jews and their property.

Many pogroms were carried out in Russia, a country of ancient and profound anti-Semitism.

What are its roots? The traditional anti-Semitism of the Orthodox Church, as well as the easy manipulation of the apparata, and the obsession with identity, spurred on by the Tsarist regime.

The Nazis, in particular, imitated this terrible political practice, as early as the Kristallnacht of November 1938, to actually start the Jews’ physical elimination until the “Final Solution”, which began in 1940-1941.

During that night over 1,400 synagogues were destroyed and 1,500 people were killed in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.

At that time, as many as 30,000 Jews were deported to the concentration camps of Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen.

Before the Kristallnacht, in 1933 there had been a call – or, indeed, an obligation -for a boycott of Jewish shops, businesses and professionals and later, in 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated.

Rabbi Schneier thought that, after the Holocaust, there would be no resurgence of anti-Semitism – a virus that has characterized modern history from late antiquity until today.

As a Kantian rationalist, Rabbi Schneier thought that – after the evidence of facts – there would be no persecution against Jews in the bright enlightened future of the twentieth century.

Instead monsters remain alive, after visible history putting them temporarily to rest.

But, as Rabbi Schneier said, now – in 2018 – the cancer of anti-Semitism is back and has metastasized in Europe and in the United States.

Ii should be recalled that anti-Semitism has always been present in North America.

Suffice it to recall Leo Frank’s affair of 1915. That American Jewish citizen was at first sentenced to death, but later his sentence was commuted from capital punishment to life imprisonment. Two years later, in response to the commutation of his sentence, he was taken from prison by a band of vigilantes, lynched by an angry mob and hanged from a tree. Today the consensus of researchers on the subject holds that Frank was wrongly convicted.

In 1958, even after the Shoah and the Nazi atrocities against the Jews becoming publicly known, the oldest synagogue in Atlanta was blown up and damaged extensively by a dynamite-fuelled explosion.

Myths and preconceived ideas, especially those based on hatred, do not need confirmation or denial. They exist and that is just the way it is.

Two years later, there was also the shooting attack by a “white supremacist” against a synagogue in St. Louis, with the killing of some Jews leaving that place of worship.

Alan Berg, an anti-racist intellectual, was killed in 1984, because in some of his radio talk shows he had defended black people and Jews.

There is no rational argument that can defeat anti-Semitism, racism, ethnic or even personal hatred.

Over seven major cases of violent anti-Semitism were reported in in the USA between 1990 and 2010, but there were countless actions on a smaller scale.

Anti-Semitism is still alive and is even increasing in terms of quantity and virulence. Just think of the attack against the Pittsburgh synagogue last October.

As Rabbi Schneier maintains, certainly the periods of social, cultural and economic turbulence are always fatal for the Jews – as the whole Western history demonstrates. Hence, unfortunately, with the crisis of Europe and the different, but concurrent crisis of the USA, the increase in anti-Semitism is predictable.

Shortly after the end of the Holocaust, Hanna Arendt rejected the theory of anti-Semitism as the development of the Jewish “scapegoat” theory and she often elaborated on the Rathenau case. Rathenau was the great Jewish industrialist and diplomat, who was Foreign Minister in Germany’s Weimar Republic and was murdered by right-wing extremists.

Elias Canetti reminded us that the idea for his extraordinary “Crowds and Power” sprang to his mind while seeing the many Social-Democratic workers following Rathenau’s coffin during the mourning service.

What is the essence of Arendt’s thesis on the Foreign Minister of Germany’s Weimar Republic?

The essence is that – by traditional position and role – the Jews were the “avant-garde of modernity” – hence all those who hate the values of Modernity are, ipso facto, anti-Semitic.

It is partly true, but Arendt forgets to say that anti-Semitism is widespread even in ancient societies (or in archaic societies, such as the Tsarist Russia of pogroms) and that many critics of the eighteenth-century revolutions are far from being anti-Semitic.

As noted by both Leo Strauss and the Marxist philosopher Lukacs, the modern world is also the symbolic and social organization that has been most opposed during its development, which has probably not ended yet.

The West of technology and of the calculating mind is not yet over, but its death depends on its excess of current and probably future anti-Semitism, which is incredible after the Shoah.

That is an excess of memory of its archaic and anti-modern past, even though modernity itself was somehow anti-Semitic.

Here Rabbi Schneieris very clear: the future of Europe is directly linked to the end of anti-Semitism and of today’s particular hatred against the Jews, i.e. that of anti-Zionism.

The future of Europe, but not only of the European Jews or of the complex world of North American Judaism.

We can certainly criticize Israel and its government – as we can   disagree with the government of Turkey or Finland – but it is certainly nothing new that the polemic against the Jewish State is linked more to the adjective “Jewish” than to the noun “State”.

In the crowds’ minds, the history of Israel is now linked to the assumption – completely ungrounded – that it took away from the Palestinians the lands that originally belonged to them.

Zionism was linked – quite rationally – to the reaction of the French people to the Dreyfus trial that divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus, the so-called “Dreyfusards”, and those who condemned him, namely the “anti-Dreyfusards”. That year also marked the beginning of the unfortunate caste of intellectuals, that is fortunately irrelevant today.

In Theodor Herzl’s mind, the end of the rational and civil relationship between Europe and the Jewish world was evident.

Everything could collapse in an instant for European Judaism. The combined forces of the reaction to 1789 and of the worst 1789 had come together.

Living without history and in the here and now – like the animals described by Nietzsche in his second essay of the Untimely Meditations- is currently the form and the way in which the West thinks of itself. The history of our civilization seems to have finished and, hence, it is no longer necessary to know history, which is the basis of endless manipulations that today still float in the crowds’ minds. This is the worst forgetfulness and neglect of ourselves.

Furthermore, Rabbi Schneier focuses his attention on a fact that few people – who are not tunnel-visioned and narrow-minded as a result of apolitically correct approach or mere interest in the number of votes gained in elections – currently consider: immigration, especially from the Middle East or Africa, where there is a strong presence of Islam, will certainly increase the insecurity of European Jews and, in many respects, of all EU citizens.

In the European and American liberal culture, integration implies acceptance of the other and the kind request that the other adapts to our laws, regulations, customs, habits and practices.

However, there are not only explicit and written rules, at least for us who are the heirs of Roman law.

Hence the other needs to accept the substratum of our civilization, which is not only the trite, idle, frivolous and enlightened “tolerance” – the mechanism in which, as Adorno and Horkheimer maintained, everything is false.

Something more profound is here needed, which can never be written and regulated.

Politics is a metaphysics where the unspeakable is what matters and shapes all the rest.

Obviously this also applies to the citizens of the host countries, who must understand the alterity of the other, in the profound meaning of this concept, and hence respect him / her in his / her becoming other – just to use philosophical jargon.

Hence, although a share of immigrants is – to some extents – inevitable and, however, this has already materialized, we should recall that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not the enemies of Jews alone, but of our civilization as a whole.

This held true also for Nazism: it was in fact a political theory – but we should rather say a mere practice – linked to caste ideas typical of Asia where, indeed, the Third Reich also found military, economic and ideological support.

From Tibet to Indian Hinduism, from the Islamic sects of Central Asia to the peripheral Russian cultures of anti-Semitism, such as the Cossacks, while developing the aforementioned myths, Nazism aimed at the annihilation of Europe and hence at its “Asianization”.

Hence Nazi anti-Semitism as a struggle against Europe and its millennia-old civilizations, not less ancient than Asia’s.

Also the economy should be considered: as demonstrated by the most recent historians studying the Third Reich, the Nazi leaders thought to solve their economic and financial crisis with the “Jewish gold”.

Still today, whoever fights against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is like one of the 300 Spartans holding the line in Thermopylae, who rescued the unique Greek knowledge and wisdom from a great Asian Empire that would have equated the maritime civilization of the Mediterranean to the steppes of the Persian Empire, without any culture other than the exaltation of the God-Emperor – or the sad repetition of the “ancients”.

An imperial wisdom that was also typical of the Roman Empire, but with the plurality of gods that already foreshadowed the Weberian “polytheism of values”.

Certainly, as Rabbi Schneier maintained, European leaders are very careful about the resurgence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, but the issue does not lie in leaders, but rather in crowds, who seem to be ever more seduced by hatred, which is more complex than love but – like the devil -is a very powerful seducer.

But what is really anti-Semitism today?

A mass phenomenon, of course. And this is worrying because preconceived ideas are harder to eradicate than rational beliefs.

In the United States currently the Jews account for 5.5%.

Needless to say, it is not a race, but a set of different ethnic groups, united by the same creed.

Furthermore, between 11% and 20% of North American Jews are “coloured people” – hence not only blacks.

The Jews, however, live in 70% of current nations, ranging from the Jewish communities of Kaifeng in China to the Indian Jews of various Middle East origins, up to the Jewish majority areas in various parts of Latin America.

Nor should we accept the anti-Semitic myth whereby Jews are the “rich” who dominate the world.

According to the most reliable statistics, currently over 50% of the richest people in the world are of Christian faith, while there is a higher number of rich Hindus and Muslims than Jews.

The 2015 data shows that out of the 13.1 million people defined as “rich” globally, 56.2% are Christians, 6.5% Muslims, 3.9% Hindus and 1.7% Jews.

Certainly pathological thinking – a real mental illness, which currently defines anti-Semitism as a “conspiracy theory” – could maintain that this data is “rigged”.

This is not true. Indeed, it is real data taken from the tax returns of the countries recording significant GDP rates in the world.

In the United States, however, Jews are the ethnic-religious group that earns higher wages than any other similar group.

And there are still many poor people – poor like the Jews who arrived in New York two or three generations ago.

Currently 45% of New York’s Jewish children live just below the poverty line, while in the United States the poor Jews account for 26.4% as against an absolute average of 30.8%.

Between 1991 and 2011 the number of poor Jews in the United States increased by 22%.

Hence, as we already knew, the myth of the rich Jews who secretly organize economic crises or the spoliation and dispossession of the goyim peoples is completely unfounded.

But where did anti-Semitism historically originate? Probably in Europe and, above all, in the area of popular Christianity.

There is no difference here between Protestant and Catholic anti-Jewish hatred.

In his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies Luther used terminology and arguments that seemed to be copied from one of Goebbels’ leaflets.

Probably everything began formally with the Spanish laws on limpieza de sangre(blood purity) in the seventieth century and beyond, also after the great pogrom of the Reconquista, which occurred at the same time as the discovery of America.

At that time the Jews escaped –  along with the Muslims – from the “purified” Spain of Isabella of Castile heading to the East, especially to the Ottoman Empire.

The sultan of the time wrote an ironic letter to the Spanish Catholic Kings: “I thank you for bringing me here all these doctors, merchants, scholars and mathematicians, whom I needed”.

Furthermore, in addition to the specific Catholic anti-Semitism –  from which the Pope, St. Paul VI, but above all another Pope, St. John Paul II, definitively freed us – there was a secularist anti-Semitism linked to the scientist, positivist and rationalist ideologies developed as from the French Revolution of 1789.

A revolution which soon led to a resurgence of irrationalist and antiscientific attitudes: just think of Gracchus Babeuf’s Arcadian refusal of technology and factory work and his “Conspiracy of the Equals” or o fRobespierrism, when Lavoisier, the founder of modern chemistry, was guillotined by the revolutionaries under the slogan: “The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed!”

Here other myths – apparently more “rational” – are already at work.

Darwinian racism, eugenics, the American anti-Communism – where Communism is basically the practice of fraternal help – as well as phrenology or physical anthropology.

This was the “scientific” basis of Hitler’s anti-Semitism and, from the beginning, the “Führer” was a loyal subscriber to the publications of New York’s “Observatory on Race and Eugenics”, which also set the yearly quotas of immigrants accepted by the US government.

Certainly confining the Jews to ghettos is also an excellent practice to eliminate dangerous competitors in trade, business or professions.

This is just what happened in Italy after the racial laws of 1938.

When the West thrived, Jews’ freedom was revived. Just think of the Florentine Republic of the Medici, as well as the Renaissance, the Italian Risorgimento, in which many Jews participated, and finally the German unification.

It should also be noted that, before the Western colonization, the Jews of the Middle East lived without particular restrictions or threats.

However, the number of the sporadic anti-Jewish actions were more or less the same as in Europe.

It is therefore appropriate to say that it was precisely the European anti-Semitism, imported into the French or British colonies, to stimulate the latent and silent anti-Semitism of the local population.

Currently, throughout the Middle East, the avowed anti-Semitism account for 98% on average.

A major cultural and political problem.

In fact, if a powerful Islamic militant group like Hamas, that is currently considered “terrorist” by both the EU and the USA – a group which is also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood -states in its founding Charter it believes in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this means that there is a problem of communication between the worst Europe and the most fanatical Middle East, which concerns both us and the Islamists of the Gaza Strip.

The “Protocols” are, in fact, a key example of the new and old anti-Semitism.

From 1880 to 1921, the anti-Semitic pressure in Russia was one of the major mechanisms that favoured the Jewish migration to the United States.

Moreover, the early twentieth century was a phase of extreme weakness for the Russian tsarist system, that the anti-Semitic myth greatly contributed to blocking and stabilizing, until the German operation that favoured the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk and hence Germany’s initial support for Bolshevik Russia.

On the one hand, the tsarist regime accused the Jews of plotting against the Russian Empire, on the other, the Jews were accused not only of the severe economic crisis, but also of the anti-tsarist propaganda, both the revolutionary and the bourgeois and pro-Western one.

Hence the anti-Semitic and the anti-Zionist propaganda are closely interwoven. They develop the same traditional style features and turn them into new slogans. They create the same mechanism of fallacious identity inside and of exclusion outside for Jews and Zionists, but today they are targeted above all against the policies of the State of Israel that we must defend.

Continue Reading

Religion

Ecumenical Patriarchate will face difficulties in the implementation of the Tomos of autocephaly for Ukrainian church

Published

on

Ecumenical Patriarchate, Australia, Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Christiainity, Metropolitan Epifany, Fr. Savvas Pizanias, Patriarch Filaret Denisenko photo: kogarahgreekorthodox.org.au

Having financial interest in rich foreign parishes of the former Kyivan Patriarchate, leadership of the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine will hardly agree to sign them over to the Constantinople.

Although all the necessary provisions were prudently included both in the Tomos and the Charter of the new church, it will not be easy to protect the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to shepherd the diaspora.

On October 11, 2018, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepted two largest previously unrecognized Orthodox Christian denominations of Ukraine (the UOC-KP and the UAOC) into its jurisdiction.

At the end of November, the final decision was made to grant autocephaly to the new Ukrainian church, and the text of the corresponding Synodal and Patriarchal Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was approved.

At the unifying council on December 15, in Kyiv, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), headed by the Metropolitan Epiphany of Kyiv and All Ukraine, was created within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The head of the former UOC-KP Filaret Denisenko remained in the OCU as a honorary patriarch, and will lead the independent church together with Epiphany, who used to be his patriarchal vicar before. Same day, a Charter of the newly-emerged church was adopted.

On January 6, after a joint liturgy in the Phanar, Patriarch Bartholomew will grant Metropolitan Epiphany the Tomos of autocephaly.

This decision not only put an end to the Ukrainian schism, but also put Patriarch Bartholomew in front of new challenges, in particular, concerning the Orthodox diaspora around the world.

According to the official position of Constantinople, expressed in the Charter and in the Tomos, the former UOC-KP parishes outside Ukraine with their hierarchs and clerics should become directly responsible to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

However, dozens of foreign Ukrainian parishes in Europe, the USA, Canada, Latin America, Australia, including two exarchates, generated a substantial income (millions of dollars). The diaspora contribute a lot to the personal budget of the former UOC-KP head Filaret Denisenko (ten years ago his wealth was estimated at 300 million dollars.

With this in mind, will the leadership of the OCU be ready to part with such rich communities? Most likely, it will not be easy to enforce the historic right of the Constantinople to govern Orthodox diaspora.

It is said that during one of his visits to Australia in 2017, the current Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Epiphany received only from Fr. Savvas Pizanias a bribe of 300 thousand Australian dollars.

The scandalous deacon and adventurer Savvas Pizanias, expelled from the dignity of the Constantinople Patriarchate for immoral life and evasion into schism in 2001, was re-ordained by the Exarch of the UOC-KP in Greece Chrysostomos Bakomitros in 2015. In the same year, he was expelled by Filaret and transferred under the head of the non-canonical Russian True Orthodox Church Tikhon Pasechnik. However, he stayed there for a short time. Then he paid a large sum of money (AU$ 300,000) to Metropolitan Epiphany, donated a newly built St. Savva of Kalymnos temple ( Ιερός Ναός του Οσίου Σάββα ἐν Καλύμνω), worth $ 1 million, to the UOC KP, and thus was received back in the Kyivan Patriarchate.

Previously, the very existence of the “Greek Exarchate” of the UOC-KP and activities of Fr. Savvas in particular caused strong protest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In order to clear his way to canonical recognition and autocephaly, patriarch Filaret waved the right on some of the parishes in the diaspora and, at the insistence of the Phanar, even abolished his exarchate in Greece.

However, the presence of the UOC-KP in the Pacific region continued. Moreover, in 2017, Savvas Pizanias was appointed a representative of the UOC-KP in Australia.

What will Filaret Denisenko do now, having received everything he wanted from Constantinople? He needed recognition of his canonicity, didn’t he? According to Archbishop Clement of the Crimea (OCU), President Poroshenko ordered not to let the Exarchs of Constantinople leave the country on December 15, until the Unification Council was completed. It clearly shows the determination of the Ukrainian government to achieve autocephaly for national church. And that is exactly why it would be very difficult to force the leadership of the OCU to agree with the historic right of the Ecumenical Throne clergy to minister the diaspora.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy