Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< January 8 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 10 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


January 9[edit]

1901 regular session journal for Hawaii Senate[edit]

I am trying to find the journal for the 1901 regular session. Here below is the 1901 extra session. Please help find the journal for the regular session..

  • Hawaii. Legislature. Senate (1901). First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Hawaii, 1901 – In Extra Session. Honolulu: The Grieve Publishing Company, Ltd. OCLC 12791672.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here may be what you're looking for: journal-of-the-house-of-representatives-regular-and-extra-sessions-of-1901-first-legislature-of-the-territory-of-hawaii, hawaii-house-journal-reformatted-from-the-original-and-including-journal-of-proceedings-of-the-house-of-representatives-of-the-legislature-of-the-territory-of-hawaii less probably. It may exist also in Journal of Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the First Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii in Regular Session. A lot of library work. --Askedonty (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is the House of Representatives, each legislative body kept their own records. I have access to the regular and extra sessions for the House of Representatives, what I need access to is the journal regular session for the Senate.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In "Prestatehood Legal Materials" (above, review) there is mention of a First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Hawaii, Journal of the Senate, 1901. There is not mention of a publishing company unfortunately. I do not think there has been one. --Askedonty (talk) 08:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for an online digitized version. I presume that since the three out of four volumes from 1901 session are available online that the missing Senate regular session should be online somewhere and that some extra pairs eyes could help me scope it out:--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religious question[edit]

Since people are mammals that neither chew their cud nor nor have hooves, would properly slaughtered human flesh be kosher? Reventtalk 03:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would violate The Ten Commandments. You may find this of interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball Bugs: Nice answer, though I'm unsure if the person doing the 'slaughter' breaking the commandment would render the meat itself unclean. I know that 'products' of the human body (think milk, or biting your own tongue) are considered to be okay. Reventtalk 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may find this interesting. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from both articles that cannibalism is forbidden, hence human flesh can't possibly be considered "kosher". One difference in those articles is that the yours says no, not ever; while mine says only if you would die otherwise. That takes the path of the "greater sin" concept - that while eating human flesh is a sin, allowing yourself to die is a greater sin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From an English law perspective, which I know is not your question, R v Dudley and Stephens may be of interest, about murder in order to survive. I don't think Jewish law would allow such conduct, even if the victim volunteered to be killed so that the others might live (otherwise they would all likely die). One must die rather than commit murder. Classic case is, if a person is dying, but, in the eyes of Jewish law, not in fact "dead", one may not take his or her organs for transplant, if doing so will in fact cause them to "die" - and even though the would-be recipient will die without the organ, and the donor will almost certainly sooner or later thoroughly "die" in any case. (I won't go into the Jewish definition of death here, just say it does not always coincide with the medical definition). However, one need not die to avoid eating human flesh from someone already dead - or, for that matter, taking an organ from someone already dead (according to the Jewish definition of death). According to the article quoted by BB, human flesh does not fall under the category of "meat" in terms of consuming it with dairy (one MAY consume the two together), which would be prohibited with meat of a kosher animal. Eliyohub (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bugs. One article/rabbi (the one you yourself found) says it's not only okay in the case of something like Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, but actually required to save one's life. The other one states the Bible doesn't specifically ban it, but infers that it's unacceptable under any circumstances. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's "required" because to let oneself die would be a greater sin than to consume human flesh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We all understand the reasoning, but it's not clear that this is the general consensus of Jewish religious authorities, rather than just the opinion of one individual Rabbi (Zvi Solomons of Reading, Berks, UK, who was seriously at odds with his congregation last year – they fired him to cut costs and he sued them back for a large sum: "Oy, have we got a Rabbi!" – but I digress). In relation to the Uraguayan case, A Roman Catholic Bishop specifically affirmed this argument, and as far as I can discover was not contradicted by higher authorities (e.g. the Pope, not the Man Upstairs!), but Judaism is not heirarchically organised in quite the same way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's either totally forbidden or mostly forbidden. But either way, it's a sin. So it can't possibly be kosher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's not kosher, but it's arguable whether committing a lesser sin as the only way of avoiding a greater sin is, in itself, a sin. Rabbi Solomons' article, which you yourself linked, asserts that in a case like the Uraguayan crash cannibalism would be a religious obligation, which surely cannot simultaneously be a sin in Jewish doctrine? (I'm flying on sheer logic here, as my own religion doesn't have a concept equivalent to 'sin'.) From the RC perspective, Bishop Andrés Rubio stated and Archbishop Carlos Partelli confirmed that in the crash case, no sin had been committed. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can all agree that making Solyent Green is forbidden for reasons unrelated to dietary law (such as, specifically, that it is forbidden to derive benefit from a human corpse), but if 'dietary law' prohibits actually eating it is rather separate.... you can easily create some scenario where the person having Bob for dinner didn't actually commit murder. It's rather interesting, on a different note, that this subject actually seems to have an extensive history. Reventtalk 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cannibalism is generally forbidden in Judaism, so by definition it's not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The animal must be of a permitted species. For mammals, this is restricted to ruminants which have split hooves." (Shechita#Species) Humans are not ruminants with split hooves. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think humans are considered animals at all in the Bible. Anyway, my vague recollection was that (at least conservative) rabbis taught essentially the "weighting of sins" thing mentioned above, that it is permissible to do something that is generally considered bad in order to save innocent human life, just as it is OK to break with dietary laws and fasts for the sake of tending to an illness or a pregnancy. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question is predicated on a misunderstanding. The commonly cited requirements of a mammal appropriate for kosher consumption are missing in the human animal, namely that humans do not have split hooves and humans are not ruminants. Bus stop (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: If it was that simple, this would not be something that Jewish scholars debate. Leviticus says animals that meet both standards, cloven-footed ruminants, 'shall be eaten', and then explains that animals that meet 'one or the other', but not both, are unclean. According to http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/is-a-human-kosher/2013/04/04/ humans are actually kosher, but cannot be eaten for other reasons. Reventtalk 14:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<-Revent, Bus stop It's not that simple. Halachically-speaking, human beings are not animals. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, it seems that the OP has it backwards. According to Kosher foods, the only mammals that can be consumed have to chew the cud and have cloven hooves. (That's in addition to the required ritual slaughter being murder.) So humans are right out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the response I made right above yours. And fyi "mammals" is a total irrelevance, halachically. Bats are mammals but are treated as birds in Lev 11:19 (and again in Deut). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can see here [1] for more sources. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, at this point, that this question was a bit of a troll, in that I have no real need for an answer to this question (obviously) and that it's something based on religious arguments that are basically 'unanswerable' in any definitive sense. What I find interesting here is the tendency to refer to Wikipedia articles themselves as 'reliable sources' to answer the question.... there seem to be misunderstandings about what 'kosher' actually means. Under Jewish law, humans are not animals, and so would be a 'permitted food' under dietary law (the prohibitions against consuming certain types of animals simply do not apply). At the same time, the consumption of human flesh is prohibited for other reasons unrelated to it's 'kosher' status. Reventtalk 00:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this explicitly clear, if humans were not 'kosher' then the consumption of products derived from them (mother's milk) would be a sin. It is not. The prohibition of cannibalism is not based on dietary law. Reventtalk 00:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Union garrisons stationed in the cotton states at the outbreak of the US Civil War?[edit]

According to our article, "Lincoln required Maj. Anderson [of Fort Sumter fame] to hold on until fired upon." We know how that turned out... However, there must have been many Union garrisons stationed throughout the South at the outset of the Civil War. Was there an orderly withdrawn of loyal forces to the North (by water I would assume)? Or were other Union garrisons captured and soldiers taken prisoner? Thanks for helping clarify that blind spot in my historical knowledge. --76.119.230.118 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the civil war, Sumter was one of only five forts still occupied by Union soldiers at the outbreak of war. The others were Fort Monroe, Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson and Fort Zachary Taylor. Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Virginia was occupied by the Union Navy at the time as well. These articles detail what happens at these facilities during the war. Many other military outposts in the South were abandoned and sometimes sabotaged by retreating Union forces before the war formally began - some incidents like this are mentioned in the other articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razing Fort McHenry in the Battle of Baltimore - what did it hope to achieve?[edit]

If the Royal Navy had somehow managed to raze Fort McHenry in the Battle of Baltimore (and they came awfully close, when that bomb hit the powder keg), what in heaven's name would it actually have achieved for the British war aims? The British could not go up-river anyways - the river had been clogged by sunken ships. So even if Fort McHenry had been somehow successfully razed, what would the British have been hoping to achieve by this? My instinctive reaction is "What a waste of precious ammunition! And so few accurate hits, shoot straight!". What am I missing? Would razing the Fort have allowed a land attack on Baltimore itself? Eliyohub (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, or it could have been further revenge, like the burning of DC was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was common military strategy to destroy an enemy position you had captured if you subsequently had to withdraw from that position. While it might seem an immediate waste of resources, you could never tell if you might be back that way in a few months or years, so it could be to your long term advantage if you didn't have to capture the place for a second time. Wymspen (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, it stops it from becoming an enemy resource. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wymspen, they never captured the Fort - they simply attempted to raze it whilst it was still held by the enemy. So what I'm getting from you two is that a successful razing of Fort McHenry would not have achieved much immediate benefit to the British war effort - simply in case they one day returned? The British navy ran out of ammunition doing this, did they have any way whatsoever of re-supplying it? There was New Orleans to attack, what would the Royal Navy commander have been thinking? "Let's assault the American-held Fort just in case we manage to someday get back here" - at the cost of precious ammunition which would have been (as I see it) much more usefully saved for the Battle of New Orleans? Do military historians see the assault on the Fort as a smart move, tactically, even if it had "succeeded" in demolishing it?
Also, why such a bad aim on the part of the Royal Navy? So many shots, so few hits! Eliyohub (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why such bad aim? Because they (we, if you like) were unable to get close due to the harbour defenses (a chain of 22 sunken ships) and the fort's return fire (probably from heavier guns with more range), and so were firing from maximum range (while under return fire). Also, the effect of the hits was mitigated by the fort's recent strengthening, which the British may have been unaware of and who may therefore have equipped the bombarding vessels with over-light mortars and cannonballs. Finally, Congreve rockets were inherently inaccurate and were not really suitable for attacking fortifications in the first place – they were more effective against troops in the open (because of their psychological effect) and unfortified inflammable buildings. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That answers my second question about lack of accuracy - much appreciated. Though I gather that the Fort's guns were not longer range. The Royal Navy could, from the edge of their range, fire with impunity, though with extremely limited accuracy. When they tried approaching closer, they got hit, and retreated. (Perhaps the tactics used to assault a similar fort during the Battle of the Beaufort (1982) might have been more effective. Maybe).
But it only makes my first question more intriguing. The British may not have known of the fort's strengthening - and had they known, may have used heavier mortars and cannon balls - may have made a difference. But given how far away they were, and how few direct hits they scored, a Navy commander would not be very optimistic. (The "lucky shot" that hit the Fort's powder keg was the only chance whatsoever of success, wasn't it?)
But all the more, why waste precious Congreve rockets, shooting an inaccurate weapon from LONG range (they couldn't get closer, I know, but still, save your ammo), where precious few would score a hit, at a target they were not suitable for use against? My "waste of precious ammunition" question stands - would those rockets not have made a more critical difference if saved for the Battle of New Orleans, where they could have been used against troops in the open, from the Navy sailing up the Mississippi (which the Americans could scarcely afford to clog, as it would economically cripple them)? From what I gather, there was no way of replenishing the depleted rocket supply, when it ran out. Fort still stood, but Navy out of ammo. Even if Fort had been razed, would it have been a valuable use of the limited ammo? (And even better if someone can track down anything written by an American historian examining the wisdom of the Naval assault on the fort). Eliyohub (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the first part of your initial question "what would it actually have achieved", the answer is in our Battle of Baltimore article that you linked.
The reasoning for the British operation was 'a retaliation in response to the "wanton destruction of private property along the north shores of Lake Erie" by American forces under Colonel John Campbell in May 1814, the most notable being the Raid on Port Dover'. Then as now, degrading your enemy's commercial infrastructure was a valid strategy. Destruction of (or at least silencing the guns of) Fort McHenry would have opened the seaway to the town of Baltimore, from where it could be taken by amphibious assault or just bombarded from the warships. A much later and similarly unsuccessful British effort was the 1915 Dardanelles Campaign, the aim of which was to silence the Turkish forts, sail through the narrows and bombard Constantinople, hopefully causing the Ottomans to sue for peace. Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "retaliation" reasoning may hold some water. But note that a successful silencing of the Fort would not have opened the seaway. The Americans had sunk ships to clog up the river head, and the Royal Navy commander well knew this. He stated that besides attacking and silencing the Fort, the Navy could do little to help the British. The ships could go no further, even if the Fort was silenced or razed. And besides, pointless waste of Congreve rockets, a totally inappropriate weapon for attacking a fort from long range? Both inaccurate, and pretty useless against a structure of this sort. Why didn't they spare the rockets for New Orleans, where they could have made a real difference? Eliyohub (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit more digging; "The British had planned to knock out Fort McHenry and then use its naval guns to attack Hampstead Hill". [2] Also consider that wrecks can be moved (they must have been removed at the end of the siege so that Baltimore could carry on its trade), but not under the guns of a fort. And sometimes commanders have to press on with a plan even though they know it's going wrong, especially when communications weren't that easy. Perhaps they hoped the fort would give up. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radio[edit]

I'm looking for sources analyzing Norway's switch to digital radio, or similar movements, from various ideological perspectives, particularly cyber libertarian or similar. Benjamin (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a scholarly article that discusses the transition to digital audio broadcasting in four countries, including Norway [3]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question was duplicated on the Computing Desk. I'm moving the two answers from there to here. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Radio in Norway leads to [4] and then hops to [5] - from the names of that article, it seems a few Norwegian-speaking sources can be found. However, if I understand it correctly, "switching to digital radio" only refers to the form of the broadcasted data; emission frequencies will still be subject to state regulation. So I am not sure that is a particularly libertarian move. On a side note, maybe you should move the Humanities desk? TigraanClick here to contact me 15:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Centre Party proposed that switch-off of FM broadcasts due to begin in Northern Norway on January 16 2017 should be delayed but were out voted in the Norwegian parliament on December 7 2016. Party leader Trygve Slagsvold Vedum claimed the DAB coverage is not yet good enough and blames the Progress Party (part of the governing coalition) for misrepresentation. This is the Centre Party (Senterpartiet) web page. Their concerns are for the importance of radio coverage for culture and social preparedness. They can be contacted in English by e-mail at [redacted]. Blooteuth (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(End of content moved from Computing Desk.) --69.159.60.210 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also edited the above content to remove an email address, as we don't normally post them here. If you follow the link to the party's web page you'll find it at the bottom of the page. --69.159.60.210 (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outsiders looking at medieval and early modern Europe[edit]

When Europe began to tear itself apart over religion (Reformation and Counter-reformation) and to martyr religious leaders (even in jolly tolerant England), what did non-Christians and non-Europeans make of it? I'm particularly wondering about Arab scholars, or perhaps I should say scholars of the Muslim world. But also Jews, when they weren't being persecuted, and others. Have any Chinese merchants or diplomats left observations on these matters? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sectarian violence is common to all religions. For example, Muslims have the Sunni/Shiite split. So, it would seem quite familiar to them. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting by banned user removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to have a look at our article Buddhism and violence, particularly the section relating to Japan. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.62.241 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming "****" was Jews, they sure do fight among themselves, as in the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. StuRat (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident you can find examples of violence in every group of humans larger than Dunbar's number, as well as in a fraction of those smaller than it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
StuRat, there are plenty of "religious" schisms in Judaism ("two Jews equals three opinions"), but they seldom turn violent. Rabin's assassination was as much political as religious, even if the supposed assassin did claim some sort of religious justification. The last time there was mass political violence between Jews was during the time of the Second Temple (around the time of the emergence of Christianity). Gruesome infighting between rival Jewish militias of that era was a large part contributor to the Roman victory at the Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70), with devastating consequences for the Jewish people which last until today. There was pretty much not a single case of politically-motivated murder between Jews from that era onwards, until the Murder of Jacob Israël de Haan some 2,000 or so years later - and that murder raised a massive outcry, for precisely this very reason. It was something practically unknown for millennia. And note that practically every such case (there were several that followed, until the assassination of Rabin) was more about politics than disputes over religious doctrine (if not totally political). Eliyohub (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A good place to look might be observers from the Ottoman Empire. As the leading Muslim power in direct contact with Europe at the time, they were certainly acutely aware of the political and ideological divisions within Christian Europe – if not out of actual religious or philosophical interest, then at least out of a sense of realpolitik, since it was evidently important to them which European powers could be played out against which others (we seem to have some coverage of Anglo-Ottoman diplomatic contacts during the reign of Elizabeth I, and of a Franco-Turkish alliance in the 1530s). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jews were commonly persecuted, to a greater or lesser extent, by both types of Christians in Europe at this time. See Christianity and antisemitism. The main reaction to this, and (earlier) to the rise of Islam in Iberia and in the east, was more in the field of philosophy, with much work done by Maimonides and those who followed him helping his co-religionists understand their own doctrines, to ward off the appeal of conversion, with its attractive promise of an end to persecution.

I'd also add that there was initial enthusiasm for Martin Luther from the small minority of Jews who were aware of him early in his career, but, as our article Martin Luther and antisemitism explains, those hopes were dashed, as he swiftly became more virulently anti-Jewish than the typical traditional Catholic preachers of the day, when those obstinate Jews refused to convert. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OP here. Realpolitik hits the nail on the head; thank you, Fut.Perf. There's a lot of discursive discussion above: I'm aware of theological divisions within other religions, not all of which turn violent, but I was asking specifically about outsiders' views of the Catholic and Protestant struggles. Yes, I was including the Ottoman Empire in my sweep. Can anyone suggest a resource (essay or book or website) that draws together some of the observers (diplomats or traders) from there? Ideally, translations of extracts from their "letters home" or memoirs, and a modern interpretation to put the old writings in context. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My first thoughts went towards Evliya Çelebi, who claimed to have travelled widely through Christian Europe, but a quick glance came up with nothing specifically about the political/ideological divisions there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ibn Battuta made it to Constantinople in his travels, but his remarks about the Byzantine Empire are rather sparse. --Xuxl (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly this:

"As you, for your part, do not worship idols, you have banished the idols and portraits and "bells" from churches, and declared your faith by stating that God Almighty is one and Holy Jesus is His Prophet and Servant, and now, with heart and soul, are seeking and desirous of the true faith; but the faithless one they call Papa does not recognize his Creator as One, ascribing divinity to Holy Jesus (upon him be peace!), and worshiping idols and pictures which he has made with his own hands, thus casting doubt upon the oneness of God and instigating how many servants to that path of error" — 1574 letter of Murad III to the "Members of the Lutheran sect in Flanders and Spain".

Hundreds of Muslims visited England during the period (most of them unwillingly), but unfortunately none left memoirs. One named Chinano converted to Protestantism in 1586, saying at his baptism "if there were not a God in England, there was none nowhere".[1] --Hillbillyholiday talk 15:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is one tiny indicator of what I was looking for. Fascinating! Thank you. (More examples welcome.) Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History Volume 8. Northern and Eastern Europe (1600-1700)
  • Since Al Ghazali the Arabic/Muslim world (I know that's a conflation) has been particularly inward looking. The meme may not be true that more books are translated yearly into Spanish than have been written in Arabic over the last millennium, but this study by an Arabic scholar is particularly illustrative. Basically, the main Muslim world-view is that the words of the Prophet are the final revelation, the rest is mere commentary, and the infidel's evils are ones of degree. (that is, "pagans" are subject to death per se, while Jews and Christians can be tolerated if they submit to the jizya and keep their practices hidden.
As for Murad's letter, it is clearly political motivated, and factually false. Lutherans believe in the Trinity no less than Catholics or the Orthodox, and Iconoclasm (Byzantine) long predates the whitewashing of Catholic churches seized by certain Protestant sects. Murad simply found he was bordered by Papal and Orthodox churches, and flattering the (distant Protestant) enemies of your own immediate enemies is effective Realpolitik. The real question here is, is there any notable scholarly Muslim commentary anyone can name?
μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_January_9&oldid=1044667200"