Contra Voegelin: Getting Islam Straight - Charles E. Butterworth
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
samir-al-hamed -
Category
Documents
-
view
82 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Contra Voegelin: Getting Islam Straight - Charles E. Butterworth
GETTING ISLAM STRAIGHT
Charles E. ButterworthUniversity of Maryland
Prepared for delivery at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
August 28 - August 31, 2003
INTRODUCTION
About half a century ago, two relatively unknown scholars
delivered a series of lectures under the auspices of the Charles
R. Walgreen Foundation at the University of Chicago, one within
two years of the other. They had much in common: country of
birth, ethnicity, educational formation, flight from persecution
by tyrannic forces that brought them to asylum of sorts in the
US, and a desire to explain contemporary politics as well as
political thought by seeking its antecedents in the history of
political philosophy. The books resulting from the lectures and
appearing in inverse order one and three years after their
delivery are so well-known that the mention of their titles
immediately suffices to identify their authors and the multiple
controversies associated with their approaches: The New Science
of Politics and Natural Right and History.
Both Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin voice dismay over the way
positivism has affected clear thinking about politics as well as
about the moral and rational qualities needed for political life
to flourish. Strauss goes further and castigates historicism,
especially radical historicism, for the impetus it gives to moral
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight2
myopia and relativism. He then turns to a careful examination of
classical and early modern political philosophy in order to show
that while ancient rationalism was decisively rejected at the
onset of the modern age, it was never adequately refuted. After
a thorough-going critique of historicism as presented in the
work of Martin Heidegger and a detailed refutation of the social
science positivism that can be traced to the influence of Max
Weber, he turns to a new account of ancient political philosophy
and of early modern political philosophy. Natural Right and
History stands on its own, to be sure, but it also serves as the
grounding for Strauss’s subsequent interpretations of political
philosophy within the Western tradition.
Voegelin, persuaded that “the existence of man in political
society is historical existence,” strives for “a theory of
politics” that “penetrates to principles” and is, consequently,
“a theory of history” (Voegelin, 1952; 1). He therefore views
the task of the political scientist to be that of building a new
political theory, perhaps even a new science of politics:
Much can be learned, to be sure, from the earlierphilosophers concerning the range of problems, as well asconcerning their theoretical treatment; but the veryhistoricity of human existence, that is, the unfolding ofthe typical in meaningful concreteness, precludes a validreformulation of principles through return to a formerconcreteness. Hence, political science cannot be restoredto the dignity of a theoretical science in the strict senseby means of a literary renaissance of philosophicalachievements of the past; the principles must be regained bya work of theoretization which starts from the concrete,historical situation of the age, taking into account the
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight3
full amplitude of our empirical knowledge. (Voegelin, 1952;2-3.)
This line of reasoning does not bring Voegelin to embrace Weber’s
“value-free” science. To the contrary, he adamantly rejects that
attempt to move “religion and metaphysics into the realm of the
‘irrational’” (Voegelin, 1952; 22). For him, the restoration of
first philosophy – metaphysics – is of utmost importance, and he
strives to accomplish that goal through a reinterpretation of
rationalism. That reinterpretation is driven by the assumption
that one must link metaphysics, beginning with Greek metaphysics,
to “the religious experiences of the philosophers who developed
it” and then continue with medieval metaphysics and the
corresponding dominant religion, Christianity (Voegelin, 1952;
24-26).
For Voegelin, such a line of inquiry leads to the discovery
of Gnosticism and its growth as well as to recognizing that the
break between ancient and modern thought needs to be moved back
from the sixteenth to somewhere near the ninth century, that is,
from the renaissance and reformation to the middle ages. He
views Gnosticism as the attempt to found a society that will last
forever and to replace the mysteriousness of human existence by
knowledge – the “immanentization of the eschaton” in his
formulation. There is, of course, nothing surprising about that.
It is a tendency common to human beings, especially to the
culture that grows up within human social and political
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight4
associations. Elements of Gnostic thought from medieval to
modern times are ready to hand, according to Voegelin. They
originate with Joachim of Flora, pass through Thomas Hobbes to
Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach and Karl Marx, to culminate with Georg
Wilhelm Hegel.
Yet, at least in this book, Voegelin has no solution to this
crisis in modern thought. He is content to have identified it
and to have shown how it is inextricably tied to human history.
In the end, he can only hope that civilizing elements will allow
mankind to resist its appeal (Voegelin, 1952; 133, 166, and 187-
189).
Leo Strauss focuses on ideas and on the arguments set forth
by those who expound the ideas, not on the historical events that
surround them or to which they give rise. Nor does Strauss think
there is any meaning in history per se, no more at least than the
consequences of ideas that capture the popular will from time to
time. Thus it is by examining the reasons for historicism put
forth by its proponents that he discovers it to be untenable on
logical and practical grounds (Strauss, 1953; 19-20, 20-21, 23-
24, and 24-25). For him, the goal is to achieve clarity about
the dominant opinions of the day and their shortcomings. His
success in that endeavor owes much to what he learned about
revelation and philosophy from two great medieval philosophers,
Alfarabi and Maimonides. Even so, he attributes no special power
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight5
to religion. It remains for him an alternative, albeit a
powerful and frequently hostile alternative, to the rationalism
pursued by philosophers.
With one exception, no attention is paid to Islam or to
thinkers within the Islamic tradition by either Voegelin or
Strauss in these lectures. The exception is Averroes, a pseudo-
Averroes for Voegelin and an Averroes filtered through Christian
and Jewish Aristotelians for Strauss (Voegelin, 1952; 142-143 and
Strauss, 1953; 158-159). Voegelin’s account of Averroes and
Islam is as erroneous and limited as the source from which he
draws. Though Strauss is correct in what he says about Averroes,
it tells the reader nothing about Islam. Indeed, Strauss never
does speak about Islam in any of his writings. It is a topic of
discussion for him only insofar as it sheds light on the question
of divine law and the way philosophers within the tradition of
Islam explain that law and the prophetic mission. Voegelin,
however, returns to Islam in the work whose title gives the theme
to this panel, The Ecumenic Age.
THE ECUMENIC AGE, AN OVERVIEW
The Ecumenic Age, volume four of the series entitled Order
and History, fits into a larger program or project. It was meant
to illustrate the principle that “the order of history emerges
from the history of order.” Accordingly, “history was conceived
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight6
as a process of increasingly differentiated insight into the
order of being in which man participates by his existence.”
Moreover, “such order as can be discerned in the process,
including digressions and regressions from the increasing
differentiation, would emerge, if the principal types of man’s
existence in society, as well as the corresponding symbolisms of
order, were presented in their historical succession.”
Voegelin was of the opinion that the types of order were
five: “the imperial organizations of the Ancient Near East,”
“the revelatory form of existence in history,” “the polis,” “the
multi-civilizational empires since Alexander,” and “the modern
national state.” To each of these corresponds a particular kind
of thought that shapes the way it comes into being and functions,
namely, “the cosmological myth,” revelation as “developed by
Moses and the prophets of the Chosen People,” “the Hellenic myth,
and the development of philosophy as the symbolism of order,”
Christianity, and, finally, “modern Gnosticism.” As is generally
known, the first three types along with their corresponding myths
or founding representations were discussed in the first three
volumes of Order and History, namely, Israel and Revelation, The
World of the Polis, and Plato and Aristotle.
Originally, Voegelin had planned to discuss the other two
types – multi-civilizational empires and the modern nation state
in three subsequent volumes that would have carried the titles
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight7
Empire and Christianity, The Protestant Centuries, and The Crisis
of Western Civilization. Now, however, Voegelin confesses to
having discerned that the “structures that emerged from the
historical orders and their symbolization” were “more
complicated” than he supposed (Voegelin, 1974; 1-2). So we have
this volume. It is followed by In Search of Order, the work that
puts a seal upon his attempts to elucidate how transcendental
experiences enter and influence human history.
In The Ecumenic Age, Voegelin sets out to write a history of
history while avoiding the errors of Jaspers and Toynbee, neither
of whom pays sufficient attention to the sacred and the influence
it has upon human awareness through time. Central for Voegelin
is the assumption that the influence of the sacred lets “man
become conscious of his humanity as existence in tension toward
divine reality” or differently stated, that there is a kind of
religious progress with Christianity marking the highest point.
In this sense, “history is not a stream of human beings and their
actions in time, but the process of man’s participation in a flux
of divine presence that has eschatological direction” (Voegelin,
1974; 5-6). Somehow, it now appears that even this assumption
has been called into question:
If the puzzle of the symbolism is solved, however, themystery of the process itself becomes even more awesome. For the spiritual outbursts are widely scattered in time andspace over concrete human beings in concrete societies. Theevents, though they constitute structures of meaning inhistory, do not themselves fall readily into a pattern that
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight8
could be understood as meaningful. Some of the structuresconstituted, such as the advances from compact todifferentiated consciousness, bring the time-dimension inthe flux of divine presence to attention; others, such asthe cluster of events in the crosscut under discussion,appear to accentuate the process in its broadness, as itaffects mankind in the spatial-dimension of existence. Butin either case, the emergent meanings remain open toward thefuture of the process in time, as well as toward itseschatological fulfillment. I had to conclude: The processof history, and such order as can be discerned in it, is nota story to be told from the beginning to its happy, orunhappy, end; it is a mystery in process of revelation. (Voegelin, 1974; 6.)
Differently stated, history has no over-arching meaning as such
or at least none that has yet been perceived. To be sure, human
beings strive to make sense of events as members of a particular
political group and culture. The endeavor is manifested in the
various interpretations of existence put forth by these groups.
Voegelin’s effort to survey such interpretations broadly and
deeply alerts him to common features that point to a kind of
unity without, however, culminating in a final, clear vision of
order and meaning in time. For him to obtain such a vision seems
to be as impossible as it was for Moses to see God face to face.
Notwithstanding, Voegelin perseveres and tries here to apply
his new understanding of historical analysis to what he terms the
"ecumenic age," namely, the period reaching from the rise of the
Persian empire to the fall of the Roman. He assigns no precise
dates to these events, but casual remarks suggest that he puts
the beginning point at about 550 B.C.E. and the end at about 650
C.E. (Voegelin, 1974; 118 and 142). He perceives the age as
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight9
marked by a new political unit, the ecumenic empire. This empire
comes about by a totally new means of destruction plus a novel
kind of spiritual creativity. The latter gives rise to great
ecumenic religions. Christianity is one, and Voegelin dwells at
length on its ecumenic manifestations. Islam is another, but it
receives scant attention in this work.
Now Islam is nothing if it is not ecumenic. A saying that
is widespread within the Islamic tradition identifies the Prophet
Muhammad as having been sent to the “red and the black,” that is,
to all people. The history of the early years of Islam, as the
faithful burst out of Arabia and carried their message as well as
their dominion across the countries of the Middle East to the
borders of China in one direction and across North Africa up
through Spain to the gates of Poitiers in another, demonstrates
how ecumenic an entity it was in the common sense understanding
of the term. Still, Voegelin views Islam quite differently and
thus denies that it is truly ecumenic.
Three considerations prompt that denial. Though distinct,
all three have in common Voegelin’s sense that Islam is flawed as
a religion.
First, his reading of the history of thought and action is
that it points to a true perception of God: “The ecumenic was
the age in which the great religions had their origin, and above
all Christianity” (Voegelin, 1974; 134). That “above all” means,
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight10
1 See also, ibid., pp. 178, 209-210, 251-254, and 331.
inter alia, and not Islam (Voegelin, 1974; 12-13). Judaism leads
to Christianity which, as religion and as political movement,
represents the fullest expression of the divine:
A critical episode in the struggle for finding the balanceof consciousness in the ecumenic society was the encounterof Judaism with philosophy in Alexandria, culminating in thework of Philo, the older contemporary of Christ. (Voegelin,1974; 29.)1
Voegelin’s focus on Philo is so exclusive that he cites none of
the philosophers within the Islamic tradition who also turned to
the Alexandrian school and its offshoots – Alkindi, Alrazi,
Alfarabi, Avicenna, Ibn B~jjah, Ibn T.ufayl, Averroes, and Ibn
Khaldãn. Yet any single one of these thinkers must be deemed as
important a thinker and exegete of Greek philosophy, not to speak
of the relationship between revelation and human wisdom, as
Philo. Nor does Voegelin mention any of the Muslim theologians
and jurists who, having taken due note of Greek philosophy and
the influence it seemed to have among learned Muslims, spoke for
the faith and against such foreign influences. Even more
surprising, he says nothing at all of the Jewish thinker who most
clearly pointed to the benefits faithful Jews could gain from the
study of Greek philosophy and Judaism: Maimonides.
Second, Voegelin ascribes to the Prophet Muhammad imperial
ambitions, then faults him for failing to bring a viable empire
into being:
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight11
2 See also the George F. Nafziger and Mark W. Waltonexchange with Antony T. Sullivan (Nafziger, 2003 and Sullivan,2003) as well as Antony Black, The History of Islamic PoliticalThought: From the Prophet to the Present (Black, 2001) and myreview of it (Butterworth, 2002).
The Byzantine and Sassanian models of an ecumenism whichcombined empire and church formed the horizon in whichMohammed conceived the new religion that would support itsecumenic ambition with the simultaneous development ofimperial power. The case is of special interest as therecan be no doubt that Islam was primarily an ecumenicreligion and only secondarily an empire. Hence it revealsin its extreme form the danger which beset all of thereligions of the Ecumenic Age, the danger of impairing theiruniversality by letting their ecumenic mission slide overinto the acquisition of world-immanent, pragmatic power overa multitude of men which, however numerous, could never bemankind past, present, and future. (Voegelin, 1974; 142-143.)
This criticism, all too indirect and brief, assumes that Islam
gave rise to the dynastic form of rule that arose some three
decades after the death of Muhammad. At the same time, it views
Muhammad’s revelation as different in kind and aspiration from
that of Moses. It implies, in addition, that Muhammad is the one
who formed the new religion, not the one who was called by the
divinity to do so. A fuller account of the caliphate – such as
that carried out by Ibn Khaldãn (1858), Marshall Hodgson (1974),
or Albert Hourani (1991) – reveals the shortcoming of the
assumption.2 The other two inferences forsake the realm of
scholarship for that of theological dogmatics.
Voegelin’s third criticism of Islam has to do with its
scriptures. His survey of the Quran leads him to the conclusion
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight12
3 See Quran 3.78 and 2, 10.38, 33.40, and 7.157-158.
that it is as flawed in its approach to the world as were those
of the Manicheans:
A selection of pertinent passages from the Koran will bestelucidate the problem of ecumenism as it appeared toMohammed. His conception of spiritual history and itsfinality was on the whole the same as Mani’s. (Voegelin,1974; 143; see also 143-145 and 138-142.)
To illustrate this point, Voegelin quotes about seventeen verses
from seven different Suras: Sura 3, }l �Imr~n (The Family of
�Imr~n); Sura 7, al-A�r~f (The Heights); Sura 8, al-Anf~l (The
Spoils); Sura 10, Yãnus (Jonah); Sura 21, al-Anbiy~� (The
Prophets); Sura 33, al-Sajda (Adoration); and Sura 48, al-
J~thiyya (Bending the Knee). Six verses from Suras 3, 10, 33,
and 7 (in that order) are cited to show how Muhammad viewed
himself and his message in relation to other prophets and other
books of revelation. Indeed, these verses are often cited in
order to indicate that Muhammad was not merely one among other
messengers or prophets, but the last in a series of messengers
and prophets, and that his message or book is superior to all
others.3 As evidence that Muhammad views the world as locked in
mortal combat between the forces of good and evil as well as that
Islam merely appeals to human desire for gain, Voegelin cites
eleven verses from Suras 10, 21, 48, and 8 (again, in that
order). One might also say, however, that these verses explain
why it is the prophet’s duty to help truth prevail and, if
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight13
4 Ibid., 10.4; 21.16-18; 48.29; 8.40-41, 57, 59, 62, and78.
5 Here and in what follows, translations from the Quran aremy own.
necessary, to resort to force in pursuit of that goal.4
As must be evident from these explanations, Voegelin reads
the Quran selectively and interprets it in an unsympathetic,
almost contemptuous, manner. He makes no attempt to read the
Quran as a book and discern its parts or to ask about how Suras
as a whole present particular issues. He does not, in other
words, interpret it from the perspective of an intelligent,
believing member of the faith – from a perspective similar to the
one he adopts when reading and interpreting the Hebrew scriptures
and the New Testament. His dismissive account of Sura 8, verse
42 stands out most egregiously. The whole Sura, which serves as
a critique of the way Muslims conducted themselves during and
after the Battle of Badr, sets forth principles for equity and
valor in warfare and in the subsequent division of war booty. In
its entirety, the verse reads:
Know that of what comes to you, one-fifth is for God and theMessenger, for close relatives, orphans, the needy, and thewayfarer. [This,] if you believe in Allah and what we havesent down to Our Servant about the Criterion Day and the Dayof Assembly. Now Allah is capable of all things.5
To dismiss it with the following comment clearly does no justice
to the text, much less the context:
That rule, however, was probably seen by the faithful in the
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight14
light of a welcome tax reduction, since under the pre-Islamic custom the chieftain was entitled to one-fourth ofthe loot. (Voegelin, 1974; 145.)
GETTING ISLAM STRAIGHT
Today, more than ever before, it is necessary to have an
accurate perspective about Islam, the religion and the culture
arising from it. But is it possible to speak about Islam in such
a sweeping manner? Is there some entity that can be denoted as
Islam, or are there merely multiple manifestations of Islam such
that one risks falling into an essentialist fallacy by speaking
so broadly of Islam? Perhaps. Yet it cannot be denied that
Muslims the world over agree with fellow Muslims about opinions
they hold and actions they perform that identify them as Muslims
and set them apart from those who are not Muslims. It is that
common core to which appeal must be made when speaking about
Islam, above all when speaking about it as distinct from Judaism
and Christianity.
It is necessary to begin where Voegelin began, with the
revelation of Muhammad as it has been passed down in the Quran.
Rather than selecting verses here and there to show how they
point to some preconceived notions of Muhammad’s mission and the
appeal he made to his contemporaries, pagans as they were, a
better task would be to search for the plan of this highly
revered book. Whatever claims Muhammad might make about his own
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight15
person and goal, speaking for himself or giving voice to divine
directives, one must not fail to notice the very simple depiction
of the world – or, more accurately, of the world’s dual nature,
one before our eyes and the one awaiting us after death – made in
the very first Sura of the Quran. This Sura that is so direct,
so full of promise, and so pregnant with demands upon the
faithful is the one Muslims recite to one another in any number
of circumstance – happy and sad – to give common voice to the
beliefs they share. It, along with the ubiquitous description of
God as merciful and compassionate, must be the beginning point
for any account of Islam:
In the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate.Praise be to Allah, Lord of the two worlds.The merciful, the compassionate.King of the day of judgment.You we worship and You we call upon.Guide us along the straight path.The path of those to whom You have given grace,Not those deserving anger nor those who have gone
astray.
Subsequently, it is necessary to ask about the different Suras
and their relationship to one another. What might those who
assembled this work, whoever they were, have intended by this
mingling of chapters about rules of conduct with others about
past battles, trails and tribulations of the early Muslims, and
even betrayals? Simply put, the Quran deserves as careful and
unbiased a reading as any other set of scripture.
Here, to digress for a moment and return to the parallel
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight16
evoked in the introduction, is another way in which Leo Strauss
and Eric Voegelin differ. Strauss reads texts – all texts,
revealed or not – with painstaking care and strives to ferret out
the author’s intention, then presents the fruits of that reading
along with the detailed steps he took to reach them. Voegelin
reads just as widely and probably with as much care, but utilizes
only snippets of any text or author to illustrate his point. He
is less concerned with how the author arrives at and defends an
argument than with how that argument fits into a broader
historical pattern, one the author does not necessarily serve in
a conscious manner. Voegelin, persuaded that there is an order
in history, strives to see how it comes to light through the
study of large bodies of discrete phenomena. Despite his claim
to the contrary, it is difficult to escape the impression that
for him this order indicates progress. Strauss, focused above
all on the perennial tension existing between religion and reason
or between the conflicting claims of the two to discern the truth
of things, sees neither order nor progress in history beyond the
obvious technological advances.
But to return to the main argument, in order to get Islam
straight, more attention must be paid to those who have sought to
explain the religion, the culture, and the history of Muslims.
The writings of key historians, jurists, and theologians are only
now being discovered in the West, even though they have long been
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight17
very well known in the Arab Middle East. Ibn Khaldãn, for
example, sought to distinguish between Islamic civilization along
with its political manifestations and the Islamic religion. He
contended that forces other than religion – whatever the status
of a particular religion – accounted for the way a given
civilization or human social association developed politically,
for the way it came into being, developed, and eventually
disintegrated. Ibn Khaldãn, in other words, has a perception of
civilization quite opposed to that set forth in The Ecumenic Age.
As noted, some contemporary scholars – those with the deepest
grasp of Islamic culture in all of its linguistic manifestations
– have followed Ibn Khaldãn’s lead and are to be emulated
precisely because they eschew facile generalizations. Finally,
due attention must be paid to those who toiled to show that human
beings are similar in spite of their particular opinions and
actions – the philosophers who carefully explored the features
common to law-giving and law-givers, ancient and medieval, while
beholden to reason alone and laying claim to no sort of
superhuman insight.
Were such a course to be pursued, it is more than likely
that Islam in all of its manifestations would come to light as an
equal partner with Christianity and Judaism in the ecumenic age.
It is possible after all that the features held in common by
Judaism and Islam have been unduly neglected more because the
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight18
6 In his Treatise on the Art of Logic, Maimonides notedplaintively how religious law tends to affect reflection onpolitical matters: “In these times all that – I mean, theregimes and the nomoi – has been dispensed with, and people aregoverned by divine commands” (Maimonides,1983; 161).
children of Israel were deprived of political rule until quite
recently than because there is any major difference between the
two revelations.6 Followers of both revelations are equally
strong proponents of the contemporary password: rule of law. By
“law,” however, both groups understand the same thing – divine or
revealed law.
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Black, Antony. 2001. The History of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet to the Present. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.
Butterworth, Charles E. 2002. “Review of Antony Black, TheHistory of Islamic Political Thought: From the Prophet tothe Present.” In Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations. Volume 13, Number 4. Pp. 492-493.
Hodgson, Marshall G.S. 1974. The Venture of Islam: Conscienceand History in a World Civilization. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. 3 volumes.
Hourani, Albert. 1991. A History of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard UniversityPress.
Khaldãn, �Abd al-Rah.m~n Ibn. 1858. Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldãn,Prolégomènes d’Ebn-Khaldoun, Texte Arabe, Publié, D’Aprèsles Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale. Edited by M.Quatremère. Paris: Benjamin Duprat. Reprint; Beirut: Maktaba Lubn~n, 1970. 3 volumes.
_____. 1958. The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History. Translated, Franz Rosenthal. Bollingen Series XLIII; NewYork: Pantheon Books. 3 volumes.
Maimonides, Moses. 1983. Treatise on the Art of Logic. InEthical Writings of Maimonides. Trans. and ed. withintroduction, Raymond L. Weiss with Charles E. Butterworth. New York: Dover Publications (paperback edition);originally published, New York: NYU Press, l975.
Nafziger, George F. and Walton, Mark W. 2003. “The MilitaryRoots of Islam.” In Historically Speaking: The Bulletin ofthe Historical Society. Volume IV, Number 5. Pp. 31-32.
Strauss, Leo. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The Charles R. WalgreenFoundation Lectures, 1949.
Sullivan, Antony T. 2003. “Understanding Jihad and Terrorism.” In Historically Speaking: The Bulletin of the HistoricalSociety. Volume IV, Number 5. Pp. 33-35.
Charles E. Butterworth Getting Islam Straight20
Voegelin, Eric. 1952. The New Science of Politics: AnIntroduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. TheCharles R. Walgreen Foundation Lectures, 1951.
_____. 1974. Order and History, Volume Four: The Ecumenic Age. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
_____. 2000a. Order and History, Volume Two: The World of thePolis. Edited with an Introduction by Athanasios Moulakis.Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
_____. 2000b. Order and History, Volume Three: Plato andAristotle. Edited with an Introduction by Dante Germino. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
_____. 2000c. Order and History, Volume Five: In Search ofOrder. Edited with an Introduction by Ellis Sandoz. Columbia,MO: University of Missouri Press.
_____. 2001. Order and History, Volume One: Israel andRevelation. Edited with an Introduction by Maurice P. Hogan. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.