[Potemkin]

What's amazing about Rei is that all that sophisticated rhetoric and between-the-lines humor... is wasted on promoting wars for cheap gas.

It's like having a great mind at the service of an undeveloped emotional self that falls for just about any trend.

For once, I find myself agreeing with you, Qatz. Rei is a rather tragic example of a potentially able and creative mind being wasted on juvenile posturing, due to her personal hangups. So much intellect and so little insight....

[QatzelOk]

I rather enjoy Rei's posting style and the content of much of what she writes.

So it pains me to always have to read her "ironically" so I don't have to stomach her same-old, reactionary, feel-good opinions.

[Brian57]

The idea of Ecumenic empire exists in both religions, which was not only a part of the religion, but also partly a legacy of Roman imperial ambitions. .

No such idea exists in Biblical doctrine. It was an invention of the Catholic church. In contrast to Islamic doctrine that dictates such an empire. Speaking on the authority of the Islamic Calip

Ibn Khaldoon defined it as: A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.

Al-Mawardi defined it as: Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).

In Christian doctrine it is "my kingdom is not of this world" and "obey all authorities instituted among men"

[Doomhammer]

It was an invention of the Catholic church.

Alright. I'll concede that point because I won't deign to read any more about religion, but in practice this does not change the historical record. Christian polities were/are imperialistic too. Shocking.

[Potemkin]

The idea of Ecumenic empire exists in both religions, which was not only a part of the religion, but also partly a legacy of Roman imperial ambitions. .

In fact, the Catholic Church only became a temporal power with the Donation of Pepin in 756 AD, which granted the 'Papal States' (basically, a large swathe of central Italy) to the Pope. However, the Church had no direct control over the territory of most of Catholic Europe, and nor did it seriously seek it. Nor was the Church's temporal power a direct legacy of Imperial Rome. The Church never extended its territories much farther than the Papal States, and it eventually lost even those in the late 19th century, during the unification of the Italian nation-state. So, no.

[Doomhammer]

^
I am well aware of the nature of the relationship between Frankish warlords and the Papacy, so I am making the case that the ideational power of the Church helped shape the temporal play of politics in the Res Publica Christiania. Was this only possible because there was an overlap in the interests of temporal rulers with territorial ambitions? Absolutely. But the Church framed the imaginations of temporal rulers. Besides, there was no need for the Vatican to "claim and administer territory" because secular rulers were technically intermediaries between the Pope and their feudal subjects.

As for the legacy of Rome and the Church/Christianity not having imperial ambitions; I grant you I am not an expert on medieval Europe, but would you kindly explain these objects to me including their genealogy and what they represent?

Globus cruciger


Papal Tiara

[Potemkin]

I am well aware of the nature of the relationship between Frankish warlords and the Papacy, so I am making the case that the ideational power of the Church helped shape the temporal play of politics in the Res Publica Christiania.

I don't dispute this.

Was this only possible because there was an overlap in the interests of temporal rulers with territorial ambitions? Absolutely. But the Church framed the imaginations of temporal rulers.

Again, I don't dispute this. But it's a huge leap from asserting that the Papacy exerted spiritual and religious influence (or, if you like, ideological influence) over the warlords and (later) the feudal monarchs of medieval Europe to asserting that the Papacy was anything like the Islamic Caliphate. It wasn't, and the rather fraught relationship between the various Popes and the various Holy Roman Emperors demonstrates this.

Besides, there was no need for the Vatican to "claim and administer territory" because secular rulers were technically intermediaries between the Pope and their feudal subjects.

The population of medieval Europe were the feudal subjects of their various monarchs, dukes, barons and knights, not feudal subjects of the Pope. Only the inhabitants of the Papal States were the direct feudal subjects of the Pope. As I said, the only territory in Europe which the Catholic Church directly controlled were the Papal States.

As for the legacy of Rome and the Church/Christianity not having imperial ambitions; I grant you I am not an expert on medieval Europe, but would you kindly explain these objects to me including their genealogy and what they represent?

You shouldn't make the mistake of taking the Catholic Church's grandiose propaganda at face value, Doomie. The Church has claimed lots of things about itself over the centuries, but it couldn't always get people to pay attention to what it was claiming.

[Dagoth Ur]

So have the various caliphates though pote. Saladin was far more important than any Fatimid.

[Potemkin]

So have the various caliphates though pote. Saladin was far more important than any Fatimid.

True, but that's because a unitary Caliphate had long ago collapsed. For centuries before the Caliphate was finally abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924, it had been a fiction, an empty word. That's not how it started out.

[Dagoth Ur]

Well really only that applies to the Rashidun. So four leaders outside Muhammad and then back to various Arab leaders.

[Potemkin]

Yep, pretty much.

[Doomhammer]

But it's a huge leap from asserting that the Papacy exerted spiritual and religious influence (or, if you like, ideological influence) over the warlords and (later) the feudal monarchs of medieval Europe to asserting that the Papacy was anything like the Islamic Caliphate.

I should use more precise words then. The Church shaped the moral universe of temporal leaders.

And yes, as you DU point out, the power of the Caliphate should not be overstated either.

The population of medieval Europe were the feudal subjects of their various monarchs, dukes, barons and knights, not feudal subjects of the Pope. Only the inhabitants of the Papal States were the direct feudal subjects of the Pope. As I said, the only territory in Europe which the Catholic Church directly controlled were the Papal States.

Apart from the eventual conflict between Emperors and Popes, I think the Pope would qualify as a force above feudal polities. Apart from claiming taxes and certain privileges within feudal realms (because of fragmented sovereignty), Popes also had investiture privileges and so on.

[Mujahid_X]

Well really only that applies to the Rashidun. So four leaders outside Muhammad and then back to various Arab leaders.

Rashidun wasn't even unitair. Ridda wars. Ali, Ummayads and Khawarij were allready fighting for control after 30 years after M. death.

What's your opinion about Aisha, who started an insurgency against a rightly guided caliph?

[Dagoth Ur]

I am not a fan of Ali, his constant attempts to seize power based on family, or how he encouraged his followers to start worshipping the family line of Muhammad. Women like Aisha and Khadija were expressions of Early Islam's attempts at elevation of women to a status of equality. The Shia have retained a lot of negative aspects of pre-islamic culture (Sunnis too) including the view that women must be silent and stay out of "Men's matters".

If there had been some way to make her caliph she would have been the best for the job.

[Potemkin]

I should use more precise words then. The Church shaped the moral universe of temporal leaders.

Absolutely. But there were limits even to that moral influence. The French, for example, had a rather disconcerting habit of kidnapping and imprisoning Popes, even before their Revolution.

And yes, as you DU point out, the power of the Caliphate should not be overstated either.

Indeed. Moral authority tends to have a habit of proving rather evanescent in the real world of power politics....

Apart from the eventual conflict between Emperors and Popes, I think the Pope would qualify as a force above feudal polities. Apart from claiming taxes and certain privileges within feudal realms (because of fragmented sovereignty), Popes also had investiture privileges and so on.

Considering the Pope's status as God's primary representative on Earth, he was by definition a force above feudal politics. However, for that to mean much more than just being the equivalent of an 'honorary president', the Popes had to find some way of converting that moral authority into something a little more tangible. Ultimately, of course, they failed. The Papal States were taken from the Vatican at gunpoint, and the Popes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries became "prisoners of the Vatican".

[Mujahid_X]

I am not a fan of Ali, his constant attempts to seize power based on family, or how he encouraged his followers to start worshipping the family line of Muhammad. Women like Aisha and Khadija were expressions of Early Islam's attempts at elevation of women to a status of equality. The Shia have retained a lot of negative aspects of pre-islamic culture (Sunnis too) including the view that women must be silent and stay out of "Men's matters".

If there had been some way to make her caliph she would have been the best for the job.

M. elevated his own family. He left the world with the quran and Ahlul Bayt for guidance. Quite a statement. He also convienently elevated his own tribre, but not to that level.

“Whoever wants to degrade Quraish will be degraded by Allah”

So Ali, being the first man who believed M. was just being a good muslim following orders. M. appointed him as his heir as well.

That others defied the teachings of M. to grab power, saddened him, but he never started a rebellion, he pledged allegiance instead.

[mikema63]

The world would be a simpler place if nobody believed in this magic bullshit.

Mohammed may have been good for the 7th century, but he's not a great 21st century role model. It's great if you can contextualize him to the time, but make him magic with an even more magic boss and suddenly we lose all perspective.

[Mujahid_X]

women must be silent and stay out of "Men's matters".

The prophet agrees.

The Prophet Muhammad said about women: "I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you.

[Dagoth Ur]

Yet Aisha on more than one occasion castigated Muhammad. "it seems your lord aims to sate your desires" Aisha to Muhammad when he claimed to be authorized to enter into normally unacceptable marriages.

Also I do not care for Ali's political distortion of Muhammad's wishes. His petty jealously of Abu Bakr was shameful.

[Mujahid_X]

Yet Aisha on more than one occasion castigated Muhammad. "it seems your lord aims to sate your desires" Aisha to Muhammad when he claimed to be authorized to enter into normally unacceptable marriages.

Also I do not care for Ali's political distortion of Muhammad's wishes. His petty jealously of Abu Bakr was shameful.

Ali just followed the quran. Did Abu Bakr convienently forget this verse when he seized power, while Ali arranged M's death?

Surah Al-Anfaal, Ayah 75:
"And those who believed afterwards and migrated, and waged jihad along with you, they belong to you; but the blood relatives are more entitled to inherit from one another in the Book of Allah. Indeed Allah has knowledge of all things.

How can a perfect sanctified person posess jealousy?

The Quran says in Surah Al-Ahzaab, Ayah 33:
"...Verily, Allah has decreed to purify you, O' Ahlul Bayt, and sanctify you in a perfect way"

Ali is clearly part of the sanctified Ahlul Bayt.

Hussain Ibn Sabrah asked Zaid Ibn Arqam, "Who are the members of His household? Aren't His wives part of the members of his family?" Thereupon Zaid said, "His wives are members of his family [in a general sense], but (Islamically), the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of zakat is forbidden." Hussain asked, "Who are they?". Upon which Zaid said, "Ali and the offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil, the offspring of Jaffer, and the offspring of Abbas." Hussain said "These are those for whom the acceptance of zakat is forbidden?" Zaid replied, "Yes."

Sahih Muslim #31.5920-2.

Weird then that you glorify jelaous rebellious Aishia who is not sanctified offcourse, for her treason.

Wives of the prophet need to stay home and that's it says Allah.

O wives of the Prophet! you are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in (your) speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger.
(Surah al-Ahzab, Ayat 32-33)