The European Union has offered to host the next meeting of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The announcement comes less than one month after the United States hosted its own Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC.

The Istanbul Process – its explicit aim is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and/or Islamic Sharia law – is being spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a bloc of 57 Muslim countries.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

However, the HRC resolution – as well as the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011 – remains ineffectual as long as it lacks strong support in the West.

The OIC therefore scored a diplomatic coup when the Obama Administration agreed to host a three-day Istanbul Process conference in Washington, DC on December 12-14, 2011. In doing so, the United States gave the OIC the political legitimacy it has been seeking to globalize its initiative to ban criticism of Islam.

Following the Obama Administration’s lead, the European Union now wants to get in on the action by hosting the next Istanbul Process summit, tentatively scheduled for July 2012.

Up until now, the European Union has kept the OIC initiative at arms-length. But Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary-General of the OIC, says the EU’s offer to host the meeting represents a “qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia,” according to the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), the OIC’s official news/propaganda organ.

According to the IINA, “The phenomenon of Islamophobia is found in the West in general, but is growing in European countries in particular and in a manner different than that in the US, which had contributed to drafting Resolution 16/18. The new European position represents the beginning of the shift from their previous reserve over the years over the attempts by the OIC to counter ‘defamation of religions’ in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The IINA report continues: “Officials in the Cultural Affairs Department of the OIC said that the European Union’s offer to host the third meeting (the first was in Istanbul in July and the second in Washington, DC in December) is considered a promising new possibility of solving this problem. The ‘Istanbul Process’ will have an added momentum by holding the meeting in Europe, which is more affected by the phenomenon of Islamophobia and hostility towards Islam.”

The OIC is especially angry over its inability to silence a growing number of democratically elected politicians in Europe who have voiced concerns over the refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into their host countries and the consequent establishment of parallel Islamic societies in many parts of Europe.

According to the IINA, “Ihsanoglu said that the growing role of the
extreme right in politics in several European countries has become stronger than the capacity of the Organization [OIC], explaining that the extreme right, who [sic] hates Muslims, became leverage in the hands of politicians. He added that the rise of the extreme right through elections has become an issue that cannot be countered, considering the democratic way in which these extremists reach their positions. He pointed out to the referendum held in Switzerland, as an example, which resulted in suspending the construction of minarets there following a vote by the Swiss people.”

In other words, the OIC is now seeking the support of non-elected bureaucrats at the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels to enact pan-European hate speech legislation to limit by fiat what 500 million European citizens – including democratically elected politicians – can and cannot say about Islam.

To be sure, many individual European countries that lack First Amendment protections like those in the United States have already enacted hate speech laws that effectively serve as proxies for the all-encompassing blasphemy legislation the OIC is seeking to impose on the European Union as a whole.

In Austria, for example, an appellate court in December 2011 upheld the politically correct conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, for “denigrating religious beliefs” after she gave a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam. The ruling showed that while Judaism and Christianity can be disparaged with impunity in postmodern multicultural Austria, speaking the truth about Islam is subject to swift and hefty legal penalties.

Also in Austria, Susanne Winter, an Austrian politician and Member of Parliament, was convicted in January 2009 for the “crime” of saying that “in today’s system” the Islamic prophet Mohammed would be considered a “child molester,” referring to his marriage to Aisha. Winter was also convicted of “incitement” for saying that Austria faces an “Islamic immigration tsunami.” Winters was ordered to pay a fine of €24,000 ($31,000), and received a suspended three-month prison sentence.

In Denmark, Lars Hedegaard, the president of the International Free Press Society, was found guilty by a Danish court in May 2011 of “hate speech” for saying in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Hedegaard’s comments, which called attention to the horrific living conditions of millions of Muslim women, violated Denmark’s infamous Article 266b of the penal code, a catch-all provision that Danish elites use to enforce politically correct speech codes. Hedegaard has appealed his conviction to the Danish Supreme Court, where the case is now pending.

Also in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a Danish politician and Member of Parliament, was found guilty of hate speech in December 2010 for saying that honor killings and sexual abuse take place in Muslim families.

Langballe was denied the opportunity to prove his assertions because under Danish law it is immaterial whether a statement is true or false. All that is needed for a conviction is for someone to feel offended. Langballe was summarily sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner ($850) or spend ten days in jail.

In Finland, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician and well-known political commentator, was taken to court in March 2009 on charges of “incitement against an ethnic group” and “breach of the sanctity of religion” for saying that Islam is a religion of pedophilia. A Helsinki court later dropped the charges of blasphemy but ordered Halla-aho to pay a fine of €330 ($450) for disturbing religious worship. The Finnish public prosecutor, incensed at the court’s dismissal of the blasphemy charges, appealed the case to the Finnish Supreme Court, where it is now being reviewed.

In France, novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Islamic authorities in the French cities of Paris and Lyon for calling Islam “the stupidest religion” and for saying the Koran is “badly written.” In court, Houellebecq (pronounced Wellbeck) told the judges that although he had never despised Muslims, he did feel contempt for Islam. He was acquitted in October 2002.

Also in France, Brigitte Bardot, the legendary actress turned animal rights crusader, was convicted in June 2008 for “inciting ra
cial hatred” after demanding that Muslims anaesthetize animals before slaughtering them.

In The Netherlands, Geert Wilders – the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party who had denounced the threat to Western values posed by unassimilated Muslim immigrants – was recently acquitted of five charges of inciting religious hatred against Muslims for comments he made that were critical of Islam. The landmark verdict brought to a close a highly-public, two-year legal odyssey.

Also in The Netherlands, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a Dutch cartoonist who is a vocal critic of Islamic female circumcision and often mocks Dutch multiculturalism, was arrested at his home in Amsterdam in May 2008 for drawing cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. Nekschot (which literally means “shot in the neck,” a method used, according to the cartoonist, by “fascists and communists to get rid of their opponents”) was released after 30 hours of interrogation by Dutch law enforcement officials.

Nekschot was charged for eight cartoons that “attribute negative qualities to certain groups of people,” and, as such, are insulting and constitute the crimes of discrimination and hate according to articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code.

In an interview with the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant, Nekschot said it was the first time in 800 years in the history of satire in the Netherlands that an artist was put in jail. (That interview has since been removed from the newspaper’s website.) Although the case against Nekschot was dismissed in September 2010, he ended his career as a cartoonist on December 31, 2011.

In Italy, the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author, was taken to court for writing that Islam “brings hate instead of love and slavery instead of freedom.” In November 2002, a judge in Switzerland, acting on a lawsuit brought by Islamic Center of Geneva, issued an arrest warrant for Fallaci for violations of Article 261 of the Swiss criminal code; the judge asked the Italian government either to prosecute or extradite her. The Italian Justice Ministry rejected this request on the grounds that the Italian Constitution protects freedom of speech.

But in May 2005, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, filed a lawsuit against Fallaci, charging that “some of the things she said in her book ‘The Force of Reason‘ are offensive to Islam.” An Italian judge ordered Fallaci to stand trial in Bergamo on charges of “defaming Islam.” Fallaci died of cancer in September 2006, just months after the start of her trial.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

The period from the death of Muhammad through the 13^th Century marks the glory days of the Islamic empire. It was a period of commerce, industry and intra-cultural synergies and a flourishing of the sciences, art, medicine and architecture. It was the epitome of what civilization should be. Just ask Obama. In his 2009 Cairo speech the president said that Islam “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment,” and praised the “innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed.”

While Central Europe languished in the Dark Ages of ignorance, fear and superstition following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5^th century (so the story goes), it was the Islamic world that carried the torch of Classical civilization to a Europe finally stumbling out of the Dark Ages in the 15^th century.

By contrast the Islamic world flourished during the Dark Ages: by the 13th century, both Africa and India had become great centers of Islamic civilization, and soon after, Muslim kingdoms were established in the Malay-Indonesian world while Chinese Muslims flourished throughout China.

Islam therefore is a religion for all people from whatever race or background they might be: Islamic civilization is based on a unity which stands completely against any racial or ethnic discrimination. Such major racial and ethnic groups as the Arabs, Persians, Turks, Africans, Indians, Chinese and Malays in addition to countless smaller units embraced Islam and contributed to the building of Islamic civilization.

Moreover, so the story goes, Islam was not opposed to learning from the earlier civilizations and incorporating their science, learning, and culture into its own world view. Each ethnic and racial group that embraced Islam made its contribution to the one Islamic civilization to which everyone belonged.

The global civilization created by Islam also succeeded in activating the minds and thoughts of the people who entered its fold. As a result of Islam, the nomadic Arabs became torch-bearers of science and learning. The Persians, who had created a great civilization before the rise of Islam, nevertheless produced even more science and learning in the Islamic period than before. The same can be said of the Turks and other peoples who embraced Islam. The religion of Islam was itself responsible not only for the creation of a world civilization in which people of many different ethnic backgrounds participated, but it also played a central role in developing intellectual and cultural life on a scale not seen before.

Quite a story. And it is a story being fed to US students from k-12 on through graduate schools. Quite a story? More like a fairy tale.

Victor Davis Hanson has taken down Obama’s version of the Golden age of Islam:

In his speech last week in Cairo, President Obama proclaimed he was a “student of history.” But despite Mr. Obama’s image as an Ivy League-educated intellectual, he lacks historical competency in both facts and interpretation. … Obama … claimed that “Islam . . . carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” [In fact] medieval Islamic culture … had little to do with the European rediscovery of classical Greek and Latin values. Europeans, Chinese, and Hindus, not Muslims, invented most of the breakthroughs Obama credited to Islamic innovation. … Much of the Renaissance, in fact, was more predicated on the centuries-long flight of Greek-speaking Byzantine scholars from Constantinople to Western Europe to escape the aggression of Islamic Turks. Many romantic thinkers of the Enlightenment sought to extend freedom to oppressed subjects of Muslim fundamentalist rule in eastern and southern Europe.

Andrew Bostom has skewered the myth that Cordoba was a model of ecumenism:

Expanding upon Jane Gerber’s thesis about the “garish” myth of a “Golden Age,” the late Richard Fletcher (in hisMoorish Spain) offered a fair assessment of interfaith relationships in Muslim Spain and his view of additional contemporary currents responsible for obfuscating that history:

The witness of those who lived through the horrors of the Berber conquest, of the Andalusian fitnah[ordeal] in the early eleventh century, of the Almoravid invasion — to mention only a few disruptive episodes — must give it [i.e.: the roseate view of Muslim Spa
in] the lie.

The simple and verifiable historical truth is that Moorish Spain was more often a land of turmoil than it was of tranquility. … Tolerance? Ask the Jews of Granada who were massacred in 1066, or the Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126 (like the Moriscos five centuries later). … In the second half of the twentieth century a new agent of obfuscation makes its appearance: the guilt of the liberal conscience, which sees the evils of colonialism — assumed rather than demonstrated — foreshadowed in the Christian conquest of al-Andalus and the persecution of the Moriscos (but not, oddly, in the Moorish conquest and colonization). Stir the mix well and issue it free to credulous academics and media persons throughout the Western world. Then pour it generously over the truth … in the cultural conditions that prevail in the West today, the past has to be marketed, and to be successfully marketed, it has to be attractively packaged. Medieval Spain in a state of nature lacks wide appeal. Self-indulgent fantasies of glamour … do wonders for sharpening its image. But Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in its most cultivated epoch.

Serge Trifkovic also has a general take-down of the overblown account of the accomplishments and comity of the Islamic Golden Age in his FrontPage article, The Golden Age of Islam is a Myth.

And now we have Emmet Scott, in a soon to be released study, Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisited: An Introduction to the History of a Controversy, advancing the thesis that Rather than preserving the Classical heritage, the expanding Islamic empire destroyed it and brought about the Dark Ages.

Armed with new archaeological evidence, Scott makes the compelling case, originally put forward in 1920 by Henri Pirenne, a Belgian historian, that Classical civilization did not collapse after the fall of the Roman empire but was gradually attrited by the onslaught of Arab armies and raiders. The Islamic Golden Age came close to permanently destroying the classical humanistic culture of the West.

Hanson has pointed out the factual errors in Obama’s paean to Islam’s Golden Age. Andrew Bostom has skewered the myth that Cordoba was a model of ecumenism Trikovic has shown that the continuation of learning, science, technology of the “Golden age of Islam” prospered in spite of Islam and not because of Islam and now we have Emmet Scott skewering the myth that the Golden Age of Islam saved Classical humanistic Western culture. What is next? The glory of Sharia?

Five years ago I read Henri Pirenne’s earlier book MEDIEVAL CITIES and found it just fascinating. There his fundamental thesis concerned the Medieval world and centered around his contention that the control of water ways, the rivers and the Mediterranean Sea, shaped the nature of the cities.

In this more mature work Pirenne takes a broader historical claim, arguing that, as the editor claims:

“This last work of the great Belgian scholar Henri Pirenne offered a new and revolutionary interpretation of the evolution of Europe from the time of Constantine to that of Charlemagne. Pirenne’s major thesis is that it was the advance of Islam rather than the Germanic invasions that caused the break with antiquity and the consequent decline of Western civilization in the Middle Ages.”

The first section investigates the question of western civilization after the Germanic invasions. Pirenne is at pains to show that while there were important military victories scored by the Germanic tribes, there was little lasting shift in the fundamental culture of Rome. He shows how within a relatively short period of time Germanic peoples were co-opted into Roman culture, intermarried and that the Latin language(s) remained dominant. He argues that fundamentally the Germanic peoples had little desire to destroy the empire, but much preferred to just have a share of the benefits.

He next details several features of life in the European sector of the empire after the invasions to further support the general thesis. The key to the thesis is not that the Germanic tribes were fully absorbed, but that there was no essential change in the structure and culture of the empire, nor any significant decline of economy. He certainly allows some changes including a degree of self-governance and economic independence. He argues that in the Merovingian period (500-751) and the years from the success of the Germanic invasion until Charlemagne that the empire survived in an uneasy union of the original peoples and the invaders and that only very gradually was there any noticeable decline in economy.

To bolster this thesis Pirenne investigates land ownership and administration systems. He contends that while the Roman owners were often replaced by German owners the system of agriculture and land management remained unchanged. More importantly production continued at virtually the same rates not appreciably lessening the wealth of the empire.

The eastern potion of the empire continued to dominate trade via shipping, mainly in the Mediterranean, but even inland served by the rivers. It is important to note the desperate need for imports to the west. Wines, food stuffs, spices and olive oil (for both cooking and lighting) were in desperate need. These things came from Asia and Africa. In exchange the Europeans traded slaves, primarily barbarians from north of the Rhine and textiles and wood for building. Syrians and Jews were the key to this marine tine trade. Trade was centered in the towns, but not in markets, just in the ports.

Critical to this trade was gold since the dominant nature of trade continued to be with money, not barter. Pirenne claims that gold must also have been an important import since there just wasn’t enough gold in circulation to support the trade, and there were no gold mines in the West.

The essential point for him is that life went on much the same as it had before the Germanic invasions, just a change in some of the key players.

To bolster his thesis he turns our attention to intellectual life in the west. Pirenne uses several arguments in this section to conclude his argument that there was relatively little long-term CAUSAL impact on the fall of the empire from the Germanic invasions. The first sentence of this section did cause me a great sense of hilarity. He says:

“It is needless to insist upon the increasing decadence of intellectual life and of the ancient culture after the 3rd century.”

That cracked me up: as though this information is on the tip of the tongue of most of us so much so that it is “needless to insist…” He goes on to make the case intellectual life was in sort of a middle ground between a debt to classical antiquity and a new and somewhat emerging Christian consciousness. His concern is that:

“The Germanic invasions in the West could not and did not in any way alter this state of affairs.”

Though he allows the decadence continued at a somewhat accelerated pace. Nonetheless he cites the significant achievement of Boetius in both his translations of Aristotle and his major work, Consolations of Philosophy which had an impact well into the Middle Ages.

Cassiodorus was another important figure who seems to have first conceived the idea of having the monasteries being centers which would collect and preserve literary works of classical antiquity.

The church also continued a process of change by using Latin more and more in a colloquial manner (as opposed to classical Latin) which allowed the people to better understand Christianity. And art was dominated by a trend toward orientalization rooted in the commercial contacts with Persia, Syria and Egypt. Even the Germanic tribes contributed to this trend with art that they had long had contact with in Russia before the invasions of the south. Another intellectual force that contributed to the maintenance of Roman culture was the legal, governmental and commercial system which required a significant number of people capable of writing in the cursive informal Latin style to manage and maintain those institutions.

In this first half of defense of his thesis Pirenne concludes:

“What the Germans destroyed was not the Empire, but the imperial government in partibus occidentis.”

Britain was a key expectation to this claim, There, Pirenne argues, the changes were much more dramatic and it was Anglo-Saxon culture and life forms that were followed, not Roman ones.

As a parting shot to the more classical view of the role of the Germanic invasions as being the dominant cause of the collapse of the Empire is his view that such historical theses have confused the Merovingian with the later Carolingian period to which he now turns his attention. His has argued in this early part of the book that up to the 7th century there was nothing to really announce the collapse of the culture and significance of the Roman Empire.

Finally Pirenne gets to the pivotal point of his argument with the meteoric rise of Islam and how this changes everything for Europe. He points out that the Byzantine empire and Rome had no fears of an attack from the south. There were no signs. There was nothing in Africa or the Middle East
(as we call it today) that would suggest an attack. There was no Hadrian’s wall. If anything it was Byzantine’s important fleet and control of the Mediterranean which assured unfettered trade and transportation.

However, by 634 the Empire was in a depleted situation. It had just concluded a war with Persia and was neither expecting nor prepared for an Islamic attack. The onslaught was fast and massive in territory and power relations quickly changed hands.

Pirenne raises the question: why weren’t the Arabs co-opted and assimilated like the Germans? His reply is that Islam was faith and one that spread with great rapidity. The Muslims didn’t convert. They didn’t even try. Rather, they conquered and imposed their own systems of administration and justice and with them their own language. They did incorporate into their world the science, learning and art of Byzantine, but on their own terms.

Within a short period the Mediterranean became the frontier of Christianity, not the middle of it. Africa was lost and so were Syria and Egypt and all the trade which that represented. In less than 200 years the Mediterranean was completely in the hands of Islam and its northern coast was what was left of the Roman Empire, but in the western Mediterranean not even the coast was in Christian hands.

Constantinople continued to have a great fleet and controlled the Adriatic, and was able to hold Sicily, but the rest was in Muslim hands. As long as the Mediterranean had been open there was a great flow of trade and all the wealth and comfort that went with it. By 700 virtually the entire western Mediterranean and Aegean Sea were closed to the Christian world and Arabian/Syrian/Egyptian and African trade ceased.

“As Ibn-Khaldoun says (with the necessary reservation as regards Byzantium: ‘The Christian could no longer float a plank upon the sea.’”

Papyrus was one of the first things to disappear, only slowly to be replaced by parchment. Spices quickly followed and they, along with perfume, became very dear commodities. African wines and African olive oil ceased to be available and silk was a rarity. In Gaul coins were first adulterated with silver because of the lack of gold, and soon became 100% silver. What was perhaps even more important for economic development was the decline of a professional merchant class with loans at interest which drove economic advancement. Only Jewish merchants, whom the Muslims didn’t bother, were any link to trade. The Byzantine position, while greatly reduced did not suffer the full collapse that Europe did. It still had its fleet and Asian trade.

Extremely important to Byzantium was Venice. It carried on trade with Islam, especially trading Slav slaves and later even Christian slaves for African and Middle Eastern goods. Both Venice and Sicily were allied with Byzantium and traded with Muslims as well as with the Balkans, yet they were bitter enemies of each other.

At the end of this section Pirenne sums up the situation after the rise of Islam:

“The Christian Mediterranean was divided into two basins, the East and the West, surrounded by Islamic countries. These latter, the war of conquest having come to an end by the close of the 9th century, constituted a world apart, self-sufficing, and gravitating toward Baghdad. It was toward this central point that the caravans of Asia made their way, and here ended the great trade route which led to the Baltic, by way of the Volga. It was from Baghdad that produce was exported to Africa and Spain. The Musulmans themselves did not trade with the Christians, but they did not close their ports to the latter. They allowed them to frequent their harbors, to bring them slaves and timber, and to carry away whatever they chose to buy. 

“Christian navigation, however, continued active only in the Orient, and the furthermost point of Southern Italy remained in communication with the Orient. Byzantium succeeded in preventing Islam from obtaining the mastery of the sea. Ships continued to sail from Venice along the Adriatic coast and the coast of Greece to the great city on the Bosporus. And further, they did not cease to frequent the Musulman ports of Asia Minor, Egypt, Africa, Sicily and Spain. The ever-increasing prosperity o£ the Musulman countries, once the period of expansion was over, benefited the maritime cities of Italy. Thanks to this prosperity, in Southern Italy and in the Byzantine Empire an advanced civilization survived, with cities, a gold currency, and professional merchants: in short, a civilization which had retained its ancient foundations. 

“In the Occident, on the contrary, the coast from the Gulf of Lyons and the Riviera to the mouth of the Tiber, ravaged by war and the pirates, whom the Christians, having no fleet, were powerless to resist, was now merely a solitude and a prey to piracy. The ports and the cities were deserted. The link with the Orient was severed, and there was no communication with the Saracen coasts. There was nothing but death. The Carolingian Empire presented the most striking contrast with the Byzantine. It was purely an inland power, for it had no outlets. The Mediterranean territories, formerly the most active portions of the Empire, which supported the life of the whole, were now the poorest, the most desolate, the most constantly menaced. For the first time in history the axis of Occidental civilization was displaced towards the North, and for many centuries it remained between the Seine and the Rhine. And the Germanic peoples, which had hitherto played only the negative part of destroyers, were now called upon to play a positive part in the reconstruction of European civilization.”

The classic tradition was shattered, because Islam had destroyed the ancient unity of the Mediterranean. With the eruption of the Islamic invasions power relations were dramatically changed. Gaul was cut off from the sea and weakened. In Italy the Lombards had more space since Byzantium was concerned with its eastern and southern fronts. Thus the Lombards could withdrawn more and more from Rome. Yet, at the same time life in the heavily Germanic north and west life was basically a life of antiquity in Europe, albeit in a declining fashion. The Merovingian order was collapsing. With the significant trade and wealth which the Mediterranean trade had allowed, the Merovingian kings had dominated. But with the loss of Spain and the Mediterranean trade was cut and wealth lost. More of the economy rested in the land and the landed aristocracy had more power than the kings. The Merovingian kings tried to form an alliance with the church, but the church itself was in disorganization and was of little help. After the decline of Rome in the West the papacy gave allegiance to the emperor in Constantinople. The papacy in Rome recognized the emperor and in exchange the pope was regarded as the highest level of religious authority in the Empire, superior to any of the eastern religious leaders of Christianity. From 725-726 on a theological/political struggle profoundly weakened the papacy in the Empire. Emperor Leo in Constantinople proclaimed the doctrine of Iconclasty, a doctrine forbidding images. Pope Gregory II rebelled and denounced Iconoclasty as heresy and Byzantine Italy revolted. However, Gregory pulled back from a complete break with Byzantium. In 731 Gregory III excommunicated the image destroyers and the Emperor took away all non-Italian jurisdiction from the papacy reducing it to the status of the bishop of Rome. Still Gregory III did not break with Constantinople.

741 marked a major shift as three key leaders died:

• Pope Gregory III died and was replaced by Pope Zaccharis.
• Charles Martel, effective leader in the west, died and was replace by Pippin.
• Emperor Leo III, Byzantium’s emperor died and was replaced by Constantine V.

In the meantime St. Boniface had been having huge success in converting large numbers of people to Christianity in the west and north of Europe. Pippin made appeal to the pope to recognize him as the ruler in the west and Pope Zaccharies did, instigating a fuller break with Constantinople and bringing about a final break between Byzantine Christianity and Roman Christianity.

The ascendancy of Pippin marked the end of the Merovingian ear and the rise of the Carolingian period. It involved the alliance of Rome and the Germanic de facto power. In 754 Pippin agreed to protect Rome from the Lombards and the pope issued a decree that all Carolingian kings must descend from Pippin. Pippin then moved on the Lombards, defeated them and became the protector of Rome.

Charlemagne, son of Pippin, became king in 768 upon the death of his father and inherited his father’s Roman policy. In 774 he not only again defeated a rising Lombard threat but declared himself their king. Charlemagne remained in northern Europe and gave the Lombards a significant degree of home rule. The Carolingian world gravitated toward the north and west, though it included Italy, and away from the (lost) Mediterranean.

On Dec. 25, 800 Charlemagne was crowned emperor of Christianity. This crowning was not quite on the Byzantine model. There the emperor was acclaimed by the people. Charlemagne was acclaimed by Rome. It was in the church’s acclamation, not the people of Europe in which his power rested.

By 812 Charlemagne concluded peace with Byzantium and he ceded Venice and Sicily, thus effectively creating an empire with no access to the Mediterranean.

“The Empire of Charlemagne was the critical point of the rupture by Islam, of the European equilibrium.”

This was all made possible by three key factors:

1. The rupture of east and west.
2. The pope becoming strictly the Christian leader in the west.
3. The loss of Africa and Spain to Islam.

“It is therefore strictly correct to say that without Mohammed Charlemagne would have been inconceivable.” 

“Germanism began to play its part in history. Hitherto the Roman tradition had been uninterrupted. Now and original Romano-Germanic civilization was about to develop. 

“The Carolingian Empire, or rather, the Empire of Charlemagne, was the scaffolding of the Middle Ages. The State upon which it was founded was extremely weak and would presently crumble. But the Empire would survive as the higher unity of Western Christendom.”

Having taken the argument all the way to the reign of Charlemagne, Pirenne now turns the last chapter toward the transition to the Middle Ages. His thesis has always centered in the economic relations and again he begins there. In the entire book he is on the offensive, attacking what are at his time the received views of this transition. He points out that it is often held that there was an economic revival in the early days of the Carolingian era. He denies this and claims such views are based on a misunderstand or misanalysis.

He argues that the typical situation was such that there was the loss of Mediterranean trade and virtually all marinetine trade. Life became much more local and centered on land and local trade. However, he allows there were two areas which were slight exceptions and that too much attention to these areas could lead scholars to misrepresent the entire period. These exceptions were:

1. Northern Italy, especially around Venice which benefited from the trade in the Byzantine world which extended to Venice. However, this was soon hampered by Arabs and turmoil in Italy and the results were not contrary to his larger thesis.
2. The second area concerns the northern sea routes which put traders in touch with Islam via Russia and more importantly with Great Britain. This short-lived exception came to an end with the Normal invasions.

The factors Pirenne thinks were decisive were:

1. The minting of gold has ceased.
2. Lending money at interest was prohibited.
3. There was no longer a class of professional merchants.
4. Oriental products (papyrus, spices, silk, African olive oil) were no longer imported.
5. Circulation of money was reduced to the minimum
6. Laymen could no longer read or write.
7. Taxes were no longer organized.
8. Towns were merely fortresses.
9. The existence of only local markets with local goods and crafts is a sign of a deteriorating culture.

Thus we have the background for understanding the serious economic changes that made the conditions ripe for the emergence of a totally new age. Even when the Carolingians got a foothold in the Gaulic Mediterranean they couldn’t really exploit this as an economic advantage. They didn’t have a fleet and couldn’t deal with pirates.

Pirenne is also dissatisfied with the common view among scholars that the Carolingian era was merely a continuation of the Frankish epoch. He gives five main reasons why this is not so.

1. The Merovingian period belongs to a milieu entirely different from that of the Carolingian period. In the 6th and 7th centuries there was still a Mediterranean with which the Merovingians were constantly in touch, and the Imperial tradition still survived in many domains of life.
2. The Germanic influence, confined to the vicinity of the Northern frontier, was very feeble, and made itself felt only in certain branches of the law and of procedure.
3. Between the more glorious Merovingian period, which lasted until nearly the middle of the 7th century, and the Carolingian period, there was a full century of turbid decadence, in the course of which many of the features of the ancient civilizations disappeared, while others were further elaborated; and it was in this decadence that the Carolingian period had its origin. The ancestors of the Carolingians were not Merovingian kings, but the mayors of the palace. Charlemagne was not in any sense the successor of Dagobert, but of Charles Martel and Pippin.
4. We must not be confused by the identity of the name regnum Francorum. The new kingdom stretched as far as the Elbe and included part of Italy. It contained almost as many Germanic as Romanic populations.
5. Lastly, its relations with the Church were completely modified. The Merovingian State, like the Roman Empire, was secular. The Merovingian king was rex Francorum. The Carolingian king was Dei gratia rex Francorum! and this little addition indicates a profound transformation.

   Thus, the two monarchies — the second of which, as I have endeavored to show in these pages, was due in some sort to the submersion of the European world by Islam — were far from being continuous, but were mutually opposed.

In the intellectual life there are important innovations. Latin died as a living language. In Africa it was replaced with Arabic. In Spain it was not taught in the schools and people imitated an Italian patois which developed into Spanish. Similarly in Gaul only the clergy continued to speak it. It was not taught in scho
ols and ceased to exist as a living language. What replaced it were local dialects which later gave rise to the various national languages.

The north replaced the south of Europe as an intellectual and literary center. In Great Britain the Anglo-Saxon language dominated, but so did Roman Christianity. Latin was introduced as a sacred and learned language and was taught and learning shifting the intellectual center from the south to the north.

There was in fact a significant intellectual Renaissance in Carolingian times, but it was strictly for the clergy and in great contrast with Merovingian times, was accompanied by illiteracy among the masses of laity.

Zurzeit wird viel darüber räsoniert und spekuliert, was (und wer) Anders Breivik dazu getrieben haben könnte, erst eine Bombe zu zünden und dann mit stoischer Ruhe einen Massenmord an Minderjährigen zu verüben. Ist er ein isolierter Psychopath mit Allmachtsfantasien? Oder muss man ihn vielmehr als terroristische Speerspitze einer größeren, bedrohlichen Bewegung wider den Islam und den „Multikulturalismus“ betrachten? Vor allem der letztgenannte Erklärungsansatz hat in den vergangenen Tagen – genauer gesagt: seit dem Beginn der Verbreitung von Breiviks über 1.500 Seiten umfassender, als „Manifest“ deklarierter Kampfschrift – rasant an Popularität gewonnen. Denn in diesem wirren und irren Pamphlet nimmt der Mörder Bezug auf allerlei Denker, Ideen und Ideologien – und weil Immanuel Kant, George Orwell, Winston Churchill und John Stuart Mill es dummerweise versäumt haben, ihre Texte ins Internet zu stellen, stürzen sich zahlreiche Medien hierzulande auf von Breivik zitierte lebende Personen, allen voran auf Henryk M. Broder, und verkünden sogleich ihre Urteile, die von „Stichwortgeber“ bis zu „geistiger Brandstifter“ reichen (und eine Flut von widerwärtigen Droh- und Hassmails an Broder ausgelöst haben). Dieselben Leute, die noch bei jedem Anschlag oder Attentat einer islamistischen Terrororganisation zur Zurückhaltung mahnen, vor einem „Generalverdacht“ warnen oder gar ein gewisses Verständnis für die jeweilige Tat nicht verhehlen, können jetzt gar nicht schnell genug die vermeintlichen ideologischen Hintermänner (sowie gegebenenfalls deren Vereinigungen) eines wahnsinnig gewordenen, mörderischen, vom Herrenmenschentum besessenenEinzeltäters – und ein solcher ist Anders Breivik nach Stand der Dinge zunächst einmal – an den Pranger stellen.

Das Entsetzen über das Massaker wich in Deutschland bemerkenswert schnell einer (Mit-)Schuldzuweisung an so ziemlich alle, die sich jemals in irgendeiner Form kritisch oder ablehnend gegenüber dem Islam geäußert haben. Und da die vielen politischen Strömungen, die in dieser reichlich diffusen Menge vertreten sein sollen, dann doch erkennbar mehr trennt als eint, muss sich eine Klammer finden lassen, die sie dennoch unwiderruflich zusammenhält, etwas also, das über allem steht und den vermeintlich gemeinsamen Kampf gegen den Islam dominiert. Es war nur eine Frage der Zeit, wann jemand ausspricht, wer oder was denn diese Klammer sein soll, und so preschte die öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunkjournalistin Bettina Marx vor: Die „Begeisterung für Israel“ eine „die linken und rechten Islamfeinde“, denn „in dem Land zwischen Mittelmeer und Jordan sehen sie den Brückenkopf des Westens im Nahen Osten und das Bollwerk gegen den Islamismus“. Ja, mehr noch: „Kritik an der Politik Jerusalems weisen sie als Antisemitismus zurück, die legitimen Ansprüche der Palästinenser gelten für sie nicht. Die Palästinenser werden pauschal als Terroristen verunglimpft.“ Und so lässt sich schließlich der ganz große Bogen spannen: „Von den christlichen Fundamentalisten in den USA und ihrer politischen Vertretung in der Tea Party über linke Antideutsche bis hin zu den neofaschistischen Parteien in Italien und Osteuropa reicht die Achse der islamophoben Israelfreunde.“ Fehlt noch jemand? Genau, das Objekt der Begeisterung höchstselbst: „Die Regierung in Jerusalem heißt all diese Unterstützer willkommen.“

Und gehört nicht auch Anders Breivik zu diesen Unterstützern? Man munkelt ja, er sei ausweislich seines „Manifestes“ ein Freund des jüdischen Staates und überhaupt der Juden. Dass Breivik die hellsichtigen Kritiken der Frankfurter Schule als das Werk destruktiver, linker, „kulturmarxistischer“ Juden betrachtet, die Europa eine „Political Correctness“ aufgezwungen und es in den „Multikulturalismus“ (also in den Untergang) getrieben hätten, dass er glaubt, die USA hätten ein „Judenproblem“, dass er von einer „Holocaust-Religion“ fabuliert, die der Erkenntnis
im Wege stehe, dass der Islam weitaus gefährlicher sei als der Judenhass und erheblich mehr Menschenleben gefordert habe als die Shoah – all dies und noch viel mehr wird schlichtweg ignoriert. Die Stellen im „Manifest“, wo Breivik sich auf bekannte Islamkritiker wie Henryk M. Broder bezieht, werden medial begierig aufgegriffen, um den Bezugsgrößen und ihrem Umfeld anschließend eine Komplizenschaft zu unterstellen und eine Mitschuld am Massenmord zu geben; die Passagen jedoch, in denen er sich antisemitisch äußert, unterschlägt man. Andernfalls würde ja auch die gar nicht einmal sonderlich subtil vermittelte Botschaft gefährdet, dass es mal wieder die Juden waren, die der Welt – in Person eines norwegischen Verbündeten und mit der Rückendeckung durch dessen Umfeld – ein mörderisches Unglück beschert haben.

In einer derart aufgeheizten Stimmung haben es besonnene und differenzierende Stimmen schwer. Eine davon gehört Richard Herzinger, der zu Recht feststellte: „Es wäre unsinnig, aus islamfeindlichen Einträgen des Massenmörders von Oslo in Internetforen zu folgern, es führe eine direkte Linie von auch hierzulande verbreiteten obsessiv muslimfeindlichen – oft zugleich auch antisemitischen – Affekten zu terroristischer Aktivität. Die Gefahr aber, dass sich fanatische Randgruppen unter dem Vorwand der Angst vor der (Selbst-)Auslöschung des ‚christlichen Abendlandes’ ihren islamistischen Antipoden – deren paranoiden Wahn sie in Wahrheit teilen – angleichen und ihre Methoden übernehmen könnten, ist nach dem Horror von Oslo nicht mehr von der Hand zu weisen.“ Gleichwohl gelte es, genau zu trennen, wie Herzinger in einem weiteren Beitrag ausführte: „Zunächst wäre zu fragen, was die Ankläger mit dem Begriff ‚Islamkritik’ eigentlich meinen. Diese Kampfvokabel schüttet den diametralen Gegensatz zwischen neonazistischen und rechtsnationalistischen Islamfeinden einerseits und andererseits aufklärerischen Säkularisten zu, die in den totalitären Zügen des politischen Islam eine akute Gefahr für die freiheitlichen Errungenschaften der offenen, pluralistischen Gesellschaft sehen. Während erstere Muslime als solche hassen, weil sie einem ‚fremden’ Glauben angehören beziehungsweise einem ‚fremden Kulturkreis’ entstammen, und von ihrer Deportation aus einem nunmehr wieder ‚artreinen’ Vaterland träumen, verteidigt die zweite Gruppe nicht zuletzt die Muslime selbst gegen autoritäre Strukturen in den islamischen Gemeinden, die den muslimischen Bürgern ihre Chancen auf Teilhabe an den Möglichkeiten der freien Gesellschaft beschneiden.“

Dieser Unterschied ist elementar, doch er wird nur von wenigen nachvollzogen. Nicht von den Rechtsnationalisten, die zwar erschrocken über die Terrortaten von Oslo und Utøya sein mögen, sich von ihnen distanzieren und sie verurteilen, aber an ihren xenophoben Phantasmagorien einer „Überfremdung“ Europas, die von linken „Multikulti“-Ideologen (wozu sie grundsätzlich alle zählen, die nicht dem rechtsnationalistischen Lager angehören) tatkräftig befördert werde, unverrückbar festhalten und sich bisweilen sogar in abstrusen Verschwörungstheorien ergehen – wie etwa jener, nach der es sich bei Breiviks Tat um eine „False Flag“-Operation mit dem Ziel, die Gegner des Islam zu diskreditieren, gehandelt habe. Und auch nicht von zahlreichen Medien und anderen Bescheidwissern, die auf ein Verbrechen wie jenes in Norwegen geradezu gewartet zu haben scheinen, um endlich die gesamte Islamkritik als ideologisches Rüstzeug des Teufels verdammen zu können. Dementsprechend lässt man nun bevorzugt „Experten“ wie Sabine Schiffer zu Wort kommen, eine „Medienpädagogin“, die nicht nur über gute Beziehungen zum deutschsprachigen Programm des staatlichen iranischen Rundfunks verfügt, sondern auch Sympathien für Verschwörungstheorien zu den Terroranschlägen des 11. September 2001 hegt und nicht zuletzt „jüdische Organisationen“ der „Verbreitung des antiislamischen Rassismus“ bezichtigt. Der Deutschlandfunkbat sie gestern zum Interview, und auch wenn es ausgesprochen mühsam ist, Schiffers Gestammel so etwas wie eine These zu entnehmen, lässt sich doch festhalten, dass sie nicht nur verschiedene Blogs, sondern allen Ernstes nahezu die gesamte Medienlandschaft der „Islamophobie“ zeiht und ihr somit eine Mitschuld an Breiviks Mordtaten zuweist.

Kaum jemandem fällt auf, dass es zwischen Anders Breivik und den Islamisten essenzielle Gemeinsamkeiten gibt (die Breivik sogar selbst benennt), ja, dass beide sozusagen Brothers in Crime sind. Als einer der wenigen neben Richard Herzinger hat das Bremer Aktionsbündnis gegen Wutbürger diese Parallelen erkannt und benannt: „In Wirklichkeit verhält es sich so, dass der Adorno wegen seiner ‚Studien zum autoritären Charakter’ hassende Breivik als Prototyp eines solchen den Islam zutiefst beneidet, weil der Islam eine gesellschaftliche Hierarchie, strenge Regeln und religiöse Werte im Einklang mit seinem kulturellen Erbe bietet, also all das, was Breivik in der europäischen Gesellschaft so schmerzlich vermisst. Breiviks Islamhass und sein wahnhafter Kampf gegen ihm übermächtig scheinende Gegner, gegen die nur ein Wunder helfe, erscheint als Ausdruck eines Gefühls der eigenen Ziel- und Wertlosigkeit. Letztendlich will er im Kampf gegen den Islam selbst in einer Gemeinschaft aufgehen, die der der Djihadisten ähnelt: zum Letzten entschlossen, skrupellos, gewalttätig und im festen Glauben an die Überlegenheit der eigenen Überzeugungen.“ Im Grunde genommen gleicht Breivik vor allem den Salafisten: Auch diese haben es zuvorderst auf „Abtrünnige“ in den eigenen Reihen, also auf „Feinde“ im Inneren abgesehen. Und so, wie die Salafisten weltlich orientierte Muslime (oder wen sie dafür halten) bedrohen, verfolgen und töten, zündete der norwegische Massenmörder erst im Regierungsviertel eine gewaltige Bombe, bevor er ein Feriencamp sozialdemokratischer norwegischer Jugendlicher heimsuchte, um dort eigenhändig und kaltblütig ein Massaker unter jenen anzurichten, die er in seinem irrationalen und fanatischen Weltbild für den „kulturmarxistischen“ und „multikulturellen“ Nachwuchs hält.

Diese frappierenden Parallelen bemerkte übrigens auch der norwegische Botschafter in Israel, Svein Sevje, nicht; im Gegenteil hielt er es für nötig und richtig, gegenüber einer israelischen Tageszeitung die Ansicht zu äußern, der (islamistisch geprägte) palästinensische Terror sei zwar ebenfalls „moralisch inakzeptabel“, verfolge aber immerhin „ein definiertes Ziel“, das „im Zusammenhang mit der israelischen Besatzung“ zu sehen sei – womit er ihn sowohl rationalisierte als auch faktisch entschuldigte. Dass Sevje zudem die Einbeziehung der Terrortruppe Hamas in Friedensverhandlungen für unverzichtbar hält, ist da nur folgerichtig. Echauffiert hat sich nicht nur hierzulande kaum jemand über diese unsägliche Trennung in einen schlechten und einen irgendwie nachvollziehbaren Terror. Man stelle sich dagegen vor, wie wohl die Reaktionen ausfielen, wenn der israelische Botschafter in Norwegen einer norwegischen Zeitung sagen würde, er verurteile Breiviks Terror zwar, doch habe dieser immerhin ein definiertes Ziel verfolgt, das im Zusammenhang etwa mit der norwegischen Einwanderungspolitik zu sehen sei. Das hat der israelische Botschafter selbstverständlich (!) nicht geäußert; im Gegenteil hat das offizielle Israel die Morde scharf verurteilt und den Opfern große Empathie entgegengebracht. „Wir in Israel können uns voll und ganz in diese Katastrophe hineinversetzen und sind zutiefst schockiert von diesem Verbrechen“, sagte beispielsweise Premierminister Benjamin Netanyahu. „Wir kennen den unerträglichen Schmerz der Familien und der Nation. Deshalb möchte ich den Menschen, der Regierung und dem Staat das aufrichtige Beileid der Menschen, der Regierung und des Staates Israel aussprechen.“ Man darf gespannt sein, wie die Reaktionen aus norwegischen Regierungskreisen ausfallen werden, wenn es im jüdischen Staat mal wieder zu einem Angriff von Terroristen kommt.

Source: Lizaswelt