Churchill opines on the prophet...

[steradent]

Winston Spencer Churchill:


"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

As fine a piece of Churchillian prose as you wil find anywhere. And very prescient - considering what is now happening in Darfur.

I remember reading this quote some time ago, and I had assumed it was written in about 1950 or so - and mentioning "science" in this context would have been a reference to the atomic bomb. But no, it turns out it was written in 1889 - 105 years ago! What exactly was he referring to?

 

[Nikk]

Winston Spencer Churchill:


"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

/snip/
I remember reading this quote some time ago, and I had assumed it was written in about 1950 or so - and mentioning "science" in this context would have been a reference to the atomic bomb. But no, it turns out it was written in 1889 - 105 years ago! What exactly was he referring to?

Hmmm, have you got the date right? Churchill fought at the battle of Omduran in 1898 when a 60,000 strong army of muslim fundamentalists was destroyed by a much smaller anglo-egyptian force with minimal allied casualties. Maybe he was thinking about that.

The outcome was......... "On January 19, 1899 Britain and Egypt signed a condominium agreement under which the Sudan was to be administered jointly. In the twelve ensuing years, the Sudan's revenue had increased seventeen fold, its expenditure tripled, and its budget reached a balanced state which was to be maintained until 1960"............

Welcome to the Forum by the way.

 

[The Don]

How astonishing that a Victorian gentlemen should consider a system different from his own to be inferior. Churchill has not infallible, but his position with respect to Hitler and re-arming appears to have been correct. This of course does not make him an authority on all things.

 

[Ed]

Perhaps this gentleman is simply looking at the reality of his time without the blinkers of political correctness.

 

[demon]

Churchill managed successfully to conflate patriotism, monarchism, obeisance to authority, insularity and fighting the Nazi menace in one campaign. But remember he was democratically voted out after the war, which can be conveniently forgotten especially on the History (aka Hitler) Channel on freeview.
Churchill's accomplishments and propaganda skills continue to be puffed up via those ever-useful magnifying lenses, war and threat. These still permit commentators like the English journalists Cohen and Aaronovitch to glorify unconscionable horrors, as long as it might be for the best...and the rest of us to leave our brains at the reception desk, in the interest of "the greater good".

Another excuse to post the Orwell article, "Who Are The War Criminals?", from 1943, again:
Here is Winston Churchill in 1927:

"If I had been an Italian I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism... (Italy) has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."

Article here:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/criminals/e/e_crime.htm

 

[Tony]

Churchill managed successfully to conflate patriotism, monarchism, obeisance to authority, insularity and fighting the Nazi menace in one campaign. But remember he was democratically voted out after the war, which can be conveniently forgotten especially on the History (aka Hitler) Channel on freeview.
Churchill's accomplishments and propaganda skills continue to be puffed up via those ever-useful magnifying lenses, war and threat. These still permit commentators like the English journalists Cohen and Aaronovitch to glorify unconscionable horrors, as long as it might be for the best...and the rest of us to leave our brains at the reception desk, in the interest of "the greater good".

Another excuse to post the Orwell article, "Who Are The War Criminals?", from 1943, again:
Here is Winston Churchill in 1927:

"If I had been an Italian I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism... (Italy) has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."

Article here:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/criminals/e/e_crime.htm

LOL God you are so predictable.

Every time someone criticizes your religion you start with either the character assassinations (like this case), and/or pointing out the past barbarism of other religions.

 

[demon]

Tony:
"LOL God you are so predictable.

Every time someone criticizes your religion..."

I don`t have a "religion". You are the one invoking God here...guess that explains why you are such a nasty little stool and tool.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I hereby order a Fatwa to all true believers.....Chirchill must be brought to justice by the faithful and be dispensed with to face Allah's final justice. O ya and Chaney too!

 

[Jim Bowen]

One thing that Churchill never really liked to talk about was a series of cabinet meetings in the Summer of 1940 that discussed the possibility of making peace with Hitler through Mussolini's mediation (Musso was to be offered large parts of Africa for his trouble). It has been argued that the rationale behind these cabinet meetings was that Churchill needed to conciliate Halifax, which may have a grain of truth, but it is certainly a bit different to what was said about beaches and landing fields for public consumption.

Not that this is strictly relevent to the original post, , but it definitely came as a bit of a surprise when we covered the home front at uni last year

Jim Bowen

 

[steradent]

Re: Re: Churchill opines on the prophet...

Hmmm, have you got the date right? Churchill fought at the battle of Omduran in 1898 when a 60,000 strong army of muslim fundamentalists was destroyed by a much smaller anglo-egyptian force with minimal allied casualties. Maybe he was thinking about that.

The outcome was......... "On January 19, 1899 Britain and Egypt signed a condominium agreement under which the Sudan was to be administered jointly. In the twelve ensuing years, the Sudan's revenue had increased seventeen fold, its expenditure tripled, and its budget reached a balanced state which was to be maintained until 1960"............

Welcome to the Forum by the way.

The date is right - 1899. It is a passage from his book "The River War". Over the last few months, the passage has properly done the rounds in the blogosphere.

I still don't understand the reference to "science".

 

[Nikk]

Re: Re: Re: Churchill opines on the prophet...

The date is right - 1899. It is a passage from his book "The River War". Over the last few months, the passage has properly done the rounds in the blogosphere.

I still don't understand the reference to "science".

Ahem. The date you quoted in your original post was 1889 hence my puzzlement.

It's curiously middle aged prose for a young bloke. I know the Victorians could be heavy going but I wonder if he copied it from somewhere else.

As regards the science reference .... - the telegraph, steam ships and engines, vaccinations, all the benefits of large scale industrialisation and above all automatic weapons.

At Omduran the annihalation of the Dervish forces was largely due to the use of machine guns.

Hilaire Belloc was prompted to write.....

Remember whatever happens we have got
The maxim gun and they have not.

So.....by the arms of science Churchill meant weapons of mass destruction!

edited to add.....subsequently in the 1920's poison gas bombs dropped from aircraft were used to quell rebellious Iraqi settlements. I think Chuchill was chancellor of the exchequer at the time. No doubt he found the arms of science ( double entendre intended ) most cost effective.

 

[Giz]

OK, famous person notes that a repressive belief system impedes progress. Notes in passing that his own belief system hadn't been as effective at withstanding progress (but forgets to say "thank goodness for that!").

Nothing new here people... move along...



(What's an "Improvident habit"? Attacking Brits with Maxim guns?)

 

[Lucky]

From Demon:

Another excuse to post the Orwell article, "Who Are The War Criminals?", from 1943, again:
Here is Winston Churchill in 1927:

"If I had been an Italian I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism... (Italy) has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."

Article here:

http://orwell.ru/library/articles/c...s/e/e_crime.htm

As it happens, I read this article a few weeks ago. I think there’s a serious problem with his conclusion (though I wholeheartedly agree with the main point of the article), and I did think of starting a thread on it.

Well, if it were left to me, my verdict on both Hitler and Mussolini would be: not death, unless in is inflicted in some hurried unspectacular way. If the Germans and Italians feel like giving them a summary court-martial and then a firing-squad, let them do it. Or better still, let the pair of them escape with a suitcaseful of bearer securities and settle down as the accredited bores of some Swiss pension.

Whilst I share Orwell’s revulsion for the disgusting hypocrisy of so-called ‘war crimes’ trials staged by the winning side (and, indeed, show trials in general), I still think that absolutely anything would be better than to have allowed Hitler to escape. He simply could not be allowed to live. I think Orwell should have said: If the Germans and Italians feel like giving them a summary court-martial and then a firing-squad, let them do it and let’s make sure this happens. Perhaps he would have said that in 1945. I would say this only in the most extreme cases, and for the instigators only. Let the underlings go as soon as it’s reasonably safe to do so.

As for the Churchill quote, I don’t think it’s necessary to accuse him of anything more than fanatical pro-capitalism combined with serious lack of judgment about the nature of capitalist totalitarianism – and he certainly wasn’t alone there. Also, you have to admit that he somewhat made amends for it later – the judgment part, anyway.

 

[Beerina]

LOL God you are so predictable.

Every time someone criticizes your religion you start with either the character assassinations (like this case), and/or pointing out the past barbarism of other religions.

Note Churchill does reference science in "Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled".

Here he acknowledges the past religious passions of Christianity and how it, when empowered, delayed societal development and progress century after century.

Even to a modern, politically correct viewing, his passages could have been improved if he had suggested such was an ultimate destination for Islam, much like it was for Christianity.

Not too palatable to hear, but as I've said, Western philosophy has spent the past few hundred years turning Christianity into just another harmless lifestyle choice. The same needs to occur for other religions of note, but I doubt anybody alive will see it. Only middle class-style progress ameliorates the futile sense of hoplessness preyed on and needed by religious fundamentalism.