Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.
I had an suggestion for future post. What do you say about a review of the compability of monarchy with non christian religions (like islam, hinduism, chinese folk religion, buddhism, etc). I think that it would be an interesting topic.
It would and I may attempt it one day but right now the problem is that I doubt my knowledge to do it effectively. When I was a university student (many moons ago) I did study the history of Islam but that is not the same as studying Islam itself. Hinduism I know as near to nothing about as one can get (I don't think I've ever even met a Hindu) and while I've never studied Buddhism in depth, I've been around it enough to have some familiarity with it but the connections with monarchy in Buddhist countries tends to pre-date the introduction of Buddhism itself. What I assume you mean by "chinese folk religion" is an example of that, which was certainly monarchist in nature. I may do that, or touch on some of them at least, but I feel like I should do some more studying on these religions first.
I had been looking around on the Islam and it seems that the only legitimate ruler, of the world, for the hard-liners in the Islam is the Caliphate (elective by a group of longbearded and grumpy seniors in the Sunni islam, and in the Shiite Islam the next Caliph is elected by the Caliph), yes there had been hereditary Caliphs but they are regarded as a corrupt version of the "true" Caliphate and all the kings are the ilegitimate because they are usurpers of the power and authority of the Caliph. I wonder how the muslim royals would counter that...
Anyway it seems that the pure Islamism is anti-monarchist.
Well, the modern, largely post-18th century islamism tends to be. But that in itself was a rebellion against the traditional authority of the Caliph and was more of a power grab than anything.
As far as I know, from a legitimist point of view, the Caliphate has traditionally and under most circumstances been hereditary, and had guaranteed relative stability throughout the Muslim world until its overthrowal in the 1920s.
Hi MM:
ReplyDeleteI had an suggestion for future post. What do you say about a review of the compability of monarchy with non christian religions (like islam, hinduism, chinese folk religion, buddhism, etc). I think that it would be an interesting topic.
Hi from Argentina
It would and I may attempt it one day but right now the problem is that I doubt my knowledge to do it effectively. When I was a university student (many moons ago) I did study the history of Islam but that is not the same as studying Islam itself. Hinduism I know as near to nothing about as one can get (I don't think I've ever even met a Hindu) and while I've never studied Buddhism in depth, I've been around it enough to have some familiarity with it but the connections with monarchy in Buddhist countries tends to pre-date the introduction of Buddhism itself. What I assume you mean by "chinese folk religion" is an example of that, which was certainly monarchist in nature. I may do that, or touch on some of them at least, but I feel like I should do some more studying on these religions first.
DeleteI had been looking around on the Islam and it seems that the only legitimate ruler, of the world, for the hard-liners in the Islam is the Caliphate (elective by a group of longbearded and grumpy seniors in the Sunni islam, and in the Shiite Islam the next Caliph is elected by the Caliph), yes there had been hereditary Caliphs but they are regarded as a corrupt version of the "true" Caliphate and all the kings are the ilegitimate because they are usurpers of the power and authority of the Caliph. I wonder how the muslim royals would counter that...
DeleteAnyway it seems that the pure Islamism is anti-monarchist.
Well, the modern, largely post-18th century islamism tends to be. But that in itself was a rebellion against the traditional authority of the Caliph and was more of a power grab than anything.
DeleteAs far as I know, from a legitimist point of view, the Caliphate has traditionally and under most circumstances been hereditary, and had guaranteed relative stability throughout the Muslim world until its overthrowal in the 1920s.