An Inconsistency

[poliphilo]

The puritans who rule Saudi Arabia are busy destroying anything that could invite idolatry. Vast tracts of old Mecca and Medina have been flattened- to the despair of archaeologists and historians of Islam- and Mohammed's birthplace and the cave in which he composed the earlier parts of the Koran are under threat.

I respect the puritan mindset, but what I don't understand is why, if shrines must go, the Kaaba is spared? How is it OK to prostrate yourself before a big black rock but not to visit the house where the prophet was born? There's a lack of follow-through here.

Comments

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

I found an insider's view of Saudi society most illuminating and from what you're proposing imagine you might as well.

I don't see Saudi clerics as necessarily more religiously intolerant than the Bishop of Rome and probably a plurality of the Holy See. They could not possibly be more misogynist, or more textually fundamentalist, and if the heirs of St Peter enjoyed the sort of unchecked temporal power exercised by the house of Saud, I doubt that they would be much different than their Arabian counterparts. The plain facts of European history suggests that I'm right.

The Saudis may have a puritanical obsession with right conduct, but they lack a suspicion of sensuality in general, one of the more salient traits of Homo puritanicus.

[michaleen.livejournal.com]

Y'know? especially after you mentioned that puritanical Calvinist, I think another way of stating my objection is that I can't imagine puritanism outside the context of English culture.