Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
Churchill’s nuanced views
A student asked us for some leads in researching Churchill’s views on Islam. We referred him to Churchill’s first two books (1898, 1899). These are often regurgitated today because some of them, when carefully culled, touch on aspects that are still current. But we need to read Churchill “in the round,” because his views were very different from ordinary Victorians.
Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness. In a moment the fruits of patient toil, the prospects of material prosperity, the fear of death itself, are flung aside.
The more emotional Pathans are powerless to resist. All rational considerations are forgotten. Seizing their weapons, they become Ghazis—as dangerous and as sensible as mad dogs: fit only to be treated as such. While the more generous spirits among the tribesmen become convulsed in an ecstasy of religious bloodthirstiness, poorer and more material souls derive additional impulses from the influence of others, the hopes of plunder and the joy of fighting.
Thus whole nations are roused to arms. Thus the Turks repel their enemies, the Arabs of the Soudan break the British squares, and the rising on the Indian frontier spreads far and wide. In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed. —The Story of the Malakand Field Force (1898), 26-27
Remember the context
A year later Churchill reflected: “What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith was to the Arabs of the Soudan—a faculty of offence or defence. It was all this and no more.not the reason of the revolt. It strengthened, it characterised, but it did not cause.” —The River War (1899), I: 33-34
If some of these lines seem relevant twelve decades later, it is important to remember that Churchill’s views were quite different from run-of-the-mill Englishmen. Indeed, they caused many of his contemporaries, imbued as they were with Victorian Britain’s sense of Manifest Destiny, to regard him as a dangerous radical. Compare two passages from The River War, the first wholly critical.
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. (The River War I: 248-49)
“As brave men who ever walked the earth”
Those are rough words. But then he adds: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die….” (249-50) And here is his account of what he found on the field of Omdurman, riding out after the battle and the triumph of British arms. Did he denounce all Muslims? Not quite:
Once I saw them lying three deep. In a space not exceeding a hundred yards square more than four hundred corpses lay festering. Can you imagine the postures in which man, once created in the image of his Maker, had been twisted? Do not try, for were you to succeed you would ask yourself, with me: “Can I ever forget.”
I have tried to gild war, and to solace myself for the loss of dear and gallant friends, with the thought that a soldier’s death for a cause that he believes in will count for much, whatever may be beyond this world. But there was nothing dulce et decorum about the Dervish dead. Nothing of the dignity of unconquerable manhood. All was filthy corruption. Yet these were as brave men as ever walked the earth. The conviction was borne in on me that their claim beyond the grave in respect of a valiant death was not less good than that which any of our countrymen could make. —The River War, 1899 (I: 220-21)
A balanced viewpoint, even then
Dr. Larry P. Arnn noted that Churchill, writing then for his imperial audience, need not have been to be so fair and balanced. The River War and the Malakand Field Force might have been only rah-rah tributes to British arms and the Empire. There was that element, of course; but there was more.
Churchill’s early books were thoughtful considerations of both sides, and indeed often censorious about British actions, such as the destruction the tomb of the Mahdi—Sudan’s Muslim leader, already dead at the time of the campaign. The River War was one of the few books at the time to give the Mahdi his due.
1921
Another succinct and relevant comment came in 1921—not about Islam but about the region that spawned it:
In the Middle East you have arid countries. In East Africa you have dripping countries. There is the greatest difficulty to get anything to grow in the one place, and the greatest difficulty to prevent things smothering and choking you by their hurried growth in the other. In the African Colonies you have a docile, tractable population, who only require to be well and wisely treated to develop great economic capacity and utility; whereas the regions of the Middle East are unduly stocked with peppery, pugnacious, proud politicians and theologians, who happen to be at the same time extremely well armed and extremely hard up. —House of Commons, 14 July 1921
In the end, we must read Churchill with all this in mind. We cannot judge him simply by his criticisms, or his Victorian imperialism. It is inappropriate to quote him out of context. He was, remember, confronting Muslim warriors at the reaches of the British Empire over a century ago. And there was more to their culture than Islam: tribalism, for example, played an important role. His broad reflections are nevertheless worth considering, as a commentary on the nature of man, which never changes.
Further Reading
The River War Returns in a Masterful and Scholarly New Edition
Churchill and the Islamic World, by Warren Dockter
Excellent research article. Now, it’s abundantly clear to me why Bro-bama couldn’t have the likeness of Churchill in his presence.
Thank you for the post and research. I am a Churchill fan.
Thank you, Hillsdale. This was most useful. Churchill has always been a hero of mine, and the free world needs his wisdom now more then ever. One of President Obama’s first acts was to remove Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office. I’ve always thought that single act could explain his entire presidency.
I think the perspectives of a man who observed Muslims living in a very different time in history, where colonial rule was in full swing, should now be considered pretty irrelevant. Churchill lived in very different times when he encountered non-white people as colonial subjects or living in desperately poor countries, where people did not have the education, resources and resources and wealth of western countries. This was very much the period in which white Europeans believed they were civilising the non-white peoples. Today there is far more knowledge of people of other cultures and their perspectives, and people do not generally ignorantly use their own observations as the final word on what a people may or may not be. I find it astonishing that this article ends in saying that anyone formulating policies in the Middle East should consider these outdated views. It does seem that some politicians probably do use these sorts of viewpoints in their understanding of the Middle East and Islamic countries which is precisely why no progress is made. Perhaps it would be better to try and understand modern conflicts for their actual causes. No problem in the world will be solved by looking at Churchill’s observations of people who died more than a hundred years ago and lived in a very different time, under a different kind of world order.
–
Those are thoughtful points well worth pondering. To repeat our reply to Mr Singleton, below: “We should keep in mind that those words were written 120 years ago, and circumstances were different, although some of it certainly seems applicable. With his usual magnanimity, Churchill equally praised the Muslim warriors—both those he fought against, and those who fought for the Crown. They were as brave, he said, “as any who ever walked the earth.” As for what we can learn from Churchill, it is that part of his thought that has to do with the unchanging nature of mankind. The characteristics he encountered are still with us.
While these are important resources, they are not effective without page numbers.
In open debate and scholastic writings, if a proponent cannot link the passage to a page number, it undermines the credibility of the argument and give the opposition the last word with the comment that the passage cannot be demonstrated to exist without a supporting page number.
Can we get the page numbers?
I know that The River War quote, “How dreadful are the curses. . .” can be found on pages 248-49. As for the quote, “Two hundred yards further. . .,” this can be found on pages 220-221 of The River War. Hope these help!
Islam was attacking the peaceful Christion world a thousand years before the British Empire came on the scene of Islamic invasion, murder rape, theft and destruction.
I’ve been looking for that quotation, “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!” Where exactly are these quotes? It would be a real help. I’ve read both his books The River War. The Malakand Field Force, Thoughts and Adventures and many of his essays. He’s now one of my heroes and I throw his name and books around like a religious tract, including suggestions to subscribe to Imprimis, watch Hillsdale lectures on Churchill, and praise Larry P. Arnn’s brilliant book Churchill’s Trial.
–
Thanks for the kind words. The quote is i the first edition of Churchill’s The River War (1899), Vol 2, pp 248-50. This edition was abridged in 1902 and that passage was taken out, until the new St. Augustine edition (reviewed here).
We should keep in mind that those words were written almost 120 years ago, and circumstances were different, although some of it certainly seems applicable. With his usual magnanimity, Churchill equally praised the Muslim warriors—both those he fought against, and those who fought for the Crown. They were as brave, he said, as any who had walked the earth.
All that really matters today is what Muslims in Western countries actually think. Their thinking in a broad range of topics are quantified in opinion polls, and disturbingly shows substantial support for Sharia and opposition to Western values. A comprehensive survey of such polls is found at [URL omitted: a URL is not a comment]. A critic of this survey may say that the website has only listed polls which paint Muslims unfavorably, but I have never come across a Muslim opinion poll which contradicts the results of this large survey.
I wonder what Mr. Churchill’s thoughts would be about the ongoing invasion of Western countries by hordes of Mohammedans?
–
That may fall under the Mary Soames Commandment: “Though shalt not proclaim what my Papa would do about any modern situation.” We can, of course, observe his experience in similar circumstances, and derive wisdom from that. He always learned as he went along. We should, too.
The religion of peace? Like the Crusades of the Middle Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the World Wars that took the lives of millions, the colonial Europeans who waged war on every inch of the globe, creators of all mass murdering weapons of mass destruction? Yes, a true religion of peace. What was he critical of, people who were resisting being colonized? What level of hypocrisy this is, and what kind of thieves those are.
–
Churchill begins this passage referring to the “cruelty and injustice” of early Christianity, but he is writing about India’s Northwest Frontier in 1897, not the Middle Ages. The British “Forward Policy” (which many thought hopeless) was meant to protect Punjabi and Northwest Frontier farmers from the rapacity of the Afridi, Talib and other Afghan tribes who came down from the hills every year and took the fruits of the farmers’ harvests. Perhaps it was they who were the colonizers. Try learning more. And signing your name. —R.M. Langworth
The crusades were in response to the Islamic genocides of Christians. As was the Spanish Inquisition. Christian Spain was taken with mass violence. Convert, or die. The British Empire wasn’t built with violence and invasion. A. brainwashed reply.