Replies

Islamic revival can best be understood by comparing it to medieval “Christian revival.” The 17th-century wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants threatened to destroy Christian society. Christianity saved itself with the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which separated Church and State and introduced the concept of “nationalism,” with nation-states based on geographic boundaries, ethnicity, and language to determine personal identity and political loyalty.

For Christianity, nationalism and the separation of church from government in Europe was a success, resurrecting Christian Europe from decline. Three hundred years of world domination followed, marked by the Enlightenment, European colonization of the Americas, and the industrial revolution, as Europe led the world into the era of Modernity. Europe also exported its Western culture and concept of “nationalism” to the entire world. However, nationalism, which evolved from Christianity’s historic trials, would never integrate successfully into the world of Islam where loyalty could only be to God, the sovereign of the world and all mankind.

The above doesn't seem to be correct at all. What the Wars of Reformation and the Thirty Years War did was replace the primacy of the Church with the primacy of the Prince. The Treaty of Westphalia established the principle that the reigning monarch determines the religion of his subjects.

It did not separate church and state. It reversed the relationship. For example, the Anglican church was still the established church in England, just as before the Reformation, but the Bishop of Canterbury reported to the King and not to the Pope.

Concepts of separation of church and state along with religious freedom came later.

The above doesn't seem to be correct at all. What the Wars of Reformation and the Thirty Years War did was replace the primacy of the Church with the primacy of the Prince...For example, the Anglican church was still the established church in England, just as before the Reformation, but the Bishop of Canterbury reported to the King and not to the Pope.

I agree somewhat with you and somewhat with the author. IMHO, the control of church over state was more intense before and during the Thirty Years War, particularly in light of the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II's edict in 1619 to force citizens of all states in the empire to adhere to the RCC. While Emperor Ferdinand wasn't the pope (Paul V was pope in 1619), he made sure everybody knew he was Jesuit and believed wholeheartedly in papal supremacy -- to the point of trying to force the Protestant states of the Empire to becoming Catholic. In light of that, the Treaty in 1648 is a step toward separation of church and state (author was right). However, you're right in that more separation was needed after the treaty.