Hilaire Belloc: The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed [Chilling Clairvoyance]

It might have appeared to any man watching affairs in the earlier years of the seventh century_say from 600 to 630_that only one great main assault having been made against the Church, Arianism and its derivatives, that assault having been repelled and the Faith having won its victory, it was now secure for an indefinite time.

Christendom would have to fight for its life, of course, against outward unchristian things, that is, against Paganism. The nature worshippers of the high Persian civilization to the east would attack us in arms and try to overwhelm us. The savage paganism of barbaric tribes, Scandinavian, German, Slav and Mongol, in the north and centre of Europe would also attack Christendom and try to destroy it. The populations subject to Byzantium would continue to parade heretical views as a label for their grievances. But the main effort of heresy, at least, had failed_so it seemed. Its object, the undoing of a united Catholic civilization, had been missed. The rise of no major heresy need henceforth be feared, still less the consequent disruption of Christendom.

By A.D. 630 all Gaul had long been Catholic. The last of the Arian generals and their garrisons in Italy and Spain had become orthodox. The Arian generals and garrisons of Northern Africa had been conquered by the orthodox armies of the Emperor.

It was just at this moment, a moment of apparently universal and permanent Catholicism, that there fell an unexpected blow of overwhelming magnitude and force. Islam arose_quite suddenly. It came out of the desert and overwhelmed half our civilization.

Islam_the teaching of Mohammed_conquered immediately in arms. Mohammed's Arabian converts charged into Syria and won there two great battles, the first upon the Yarmuk to the east of Palestine in the highlands above the Jordan, the second in Mesopotamia. They went on to overrun Egypt; they pushed further and further into the heart of our Christian civilization with all its grandeur of Rome. They established themselves all over Northern Africa; they raided into Asia Minor, though they did not establish themselves there as yet. They could even occasionally threaten Constantinople itself. At last, a long lifetime after their first victories in Syria, they crossed the Straits of Gibraltar into Western Europe and began to flood Spain. They even got as far as the very heart of Northern France, between Poitiers and Tours, less than a hundred years after their first victories in Syria_in A.D. 732.

They were ultimately thrust back to the Pyrenees, but they continued to hold all Spain except the mountainous north-western corner. They held all Roman Africa, including Egypt, and all Syria. They dominated the whole Mediterranean west and east: held its islands, raided and left armed settlements even on the shores of Gaul and Italy. They spread mightily throughout Hither Asia, overwhelming the Persian realm. They were an increasing menace to Constantinople. Within a hundred years, a main part of the Roman world had fallen under the power of this new and strange force from the Desert.

Such a revolution had never been. No earlier attack had been so sudden, so violent or so permanently successful. Within a score of years from the first assault in 634 the Christian Levant had gone: Syria, the cradle of the Faith, and Egypt with Alexandria, the mighty Christian See. Within a lifetime half the wealth and nearly half the territory of the Christian Roman Empire was in the hands of Mohammedan masters and officials, and the mass of the population was becoming affected more and more by this new thing.

Mohammedan government and influence had taken the place of Christian government and influence, and were on the way to making the bulk of the Mediterranean on the east and the south Mohammedan.

We are about to follow the fortunes of this extraordinary thing which still calls itself Islam, that is, "The Acceptation" of the morals and simple doctrines which Mohammed had preached.

I shall later describe the historical origin of the thing, giving the dates of its progress and the stages of its original success. I shall describe the consolidation of it, its increasing power and the threat which it remained to our civilization. It very nearly destroyed us. It kept up the battle against Christendom actively for a thousand years, and the story is by no means over; the power of Islam may at any moment re-arise.

With all respect to M. Belloc, Islam was hardly a "Christian" heresy. Mohammed, I read somewhere, was originally a Jew-though he and his tribe might have been long separated from anything resembling orthodox Judaism.

No he wasn't. he was Arab, of an Arabic tribe. There were Jewish clans in Mecca too and he did associate with them initially to conquere Meccaa and Medinah, but then when he had finished with them he slaughtered them.

Although the Copts now say they never waged war,they did in fact mount a punitive expedition against one of their neighbors - who happened to hold Mecca - using Assyrian mercenaries.

err... Assyria was destroyed by the Persians in 500 BC, Nineveh was sacked and ruined not to found until the 19th century.

Although the Copts now say they never waged war,they did in fact mount a punitive expedition against one of their neighbors - who happened to hold Mecca - using Assyrian mercenaries. During the seige of Mecca, the Coptic forces were infected with smallpox ( early germ warfare? ) which killed them in such numbers they fled the battlefield: bringing the deadly plague home with them.( Source: PLAGUE WARS )

The ETHIOPIANS tried to conquer Mecca, or to be more precise, the Ethiopian Kingdom in Yemen (which was Christian) tried to do so.

Nobody knows for sure, but the usual opinion is that Muhammed was a pagan Arab who had spoken with Jews and Christians and was familiar with the Bible at second hand. Islam is partly based on the Bible, but gets a lot of the facts, as well as the theology, wrong.

Quite correct. It's also aimed squarely at the Arabs -- telling them they are grand folks. It was an Arab nationalist movement. Even now, Arabs are considered to be better Muslims than other Muslims and the Koran can only be read in Arabic. The Koran contains such inaccuracies as stating that Abraham was to sacrifice ishmael not Isaac and that Christ was born under a tree in the desert (obviously Mo heard about Reveleations but didn't hear about the Gospels). It's mostly contradictory too. But it contains one command -- anyone who doubts this book is to be killed. Pretty good way of preventing criticism.

TODAY NO CHUCH THAT IS AN EXACT COPY OF THE CHURCH IN ACTS!

err... small community described in Acts, large community presently. Do you seriously think that if the Church hadn't had it's formidable organisation by the 5th century that The Germanics would have been converted? That the Slavs and hte Nordics would have been converted? That Christianity wouldn't have been destroyed under hte onslaught of organised outsiders? Many English kings became Christian to ensure that they had trade links to the civilised world and the civilised world was Christian.

Actually, both the Baptists and the Mennonites have a BETTER claim to being first than do the Orthodox or Coptics or the church in Rome.

The first church was the Orthodox-Catholic church the predecessor to the churches of Rome, Byzantium, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch etc. This continues in a direct line to the Roman Catholic church, to the Orthodox churches in Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Among the other Ancient churches are the Armenian Church, the Chaldean church, the Marthomite church, the Ethiopian church, the Coptic church and the Nestorian church in Persia. These can be dated to the first or second century after Christ.

From what little I've read about Islam ( as written by Islamic people )they weren't into moon gods.
Middle Eastern religions had quite a bit of moon worshipping -- for example Abraham's family were worshippers of the moon god Sin when they moved from Ur. Islam is based on the lunar cycle and it's symbol is the crescent moon -- that's why you don't have the Red Cross in those countries -- you have hte red Crescent.

If I may jump in: OF COURSE a Christian community, whether Mennonite or Baptist or Presbyterian, will claim a lineage to the theological tradition of the beginnings of the Christian community in 30 A.D. No Christian community, not even one tied firmly to a great hero like Martin Luther, would be so foolish as to state that their movement BEGAN in 1517! In fact, in my readings in current books in Theology and Biblical Study, I am struck by the number of books dealing with the theological-social-economic-political conditions of the first few generations of Christians; and these books are written not by Catholics but by people opposed to the the Roman traditions, namely, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. To them I echo what someone on this forum said: there is no way to go back there, to 30 AD. Even what we read in Gospels and Acts is shot through with theological convictions. The real question is: what community has--and has demonstrated--the authority to provide the genuine interpretation of the Christian Tradition in keeping with God's will?

Of existant churches none has a better claim to this authority than the one Centered in Rome.

You mean all the idol and sainthood and papal worship was what Jesus was really speaking about? The worship of Mary when Jesus clearly said he is the way, truth and life( Jn 14:6)? I respect so many Catholics but for me to disbelieve the Eucharist doesn't miraculously transform into the body and blood of Jesus and for me to refuse to call a priest,"father" nor confess my sins to anyone but Jesus as there is no other mediator except Him to God creates many questions in my heart/ mind that the catholic church is the authority..but you're free to believe what you wish until those that take away our freedom to choose become all powerful( see Defamation of Religion, UN 57 islamic nations want to prescribe for so many). Of course the pope seems to think islam and Christianity worship the same God? or am I wrong on that?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.