Leave a comment below!
Some word meaning "follower of Mohammed" or "believer in the Quran" would be a better term. I'm not sure "Mohammedan" is it but it might be. The problem I have with "muslim" is that it is too skewed. Muslim means "one who submits", as in to the will of God (though in practice it's often one who submits to other Muslims). This assumes that their religion is not only the only true one, but that resisting it is principally because of insubordination. That is a more dangerous paradigm than the Chritian view of non believers as "lost." Unfortunately Christians have used violence and the threat thereof to advance their proclaimed doctrine as well, so maybe it's semantics (but if you accuse me of dwelling on semantics you'd be right.)
Christian = follower of Christ; Mohammedan = follower of Mohammed. I know it's not exact, but seems okay to me.
Enjoyed your post. What amazes me about Chesterton and Belloc is their insight into the modern mind. Both men are as fresh today as they were in 1910. While many are familiar with Chesterton, Belloc has been a lost jewel. Why these men are so neglected is a mystery and a shame.
Violence? A more accurate description would be that Christians have submitted themselves to violence to spread the faith. The first 400 years of Christianity featured most of its prominent leaders being killed. Sure Christians have believed that some things in life are worth killing for but Christianity persisted because many believed that some things are worth dieing for. Islam began with the jihad. Christianity began with the martyr. Yet, neither religion can match the lust blood by the 20th century secular religion of Marxism
But remember TCB, all those Marxists were just misguided idealists; and their hearts were in the right places.
Using the word Mohammedan is really quite incorrect. One of the principle tenets of Islam is that a religions followers end up worshipping God's messengers (prophets) rather than God himself. Islam is largely about avoiding this. Calling Muslims Mohammedans is extremely counter to this principle.
More good writing on your part. I wrote Neuhaus a few years ago that I hoped his First Things would do for America what Belloc had wished for England, namely a good Catholic perspective/viewpoint in a periodical. He thought(Neuhaus) that it were high praise to have his magazine attain any part of that stature-and it has. But, there seem to have been a number of these sorts of journals created.
I liked your comments on David B. Hart and would be pleased if you could, at some point, give us a listing of any other writers with that sort of talent-along with an idea where we might find their works.
Commenting by HaloScan
