Talk:Charles de Foucauld
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Olorin3k, However the language developed in the article on the Senussi movement in Wikipedia (which is a different discussion altogether) it does not belong here describing the immediate attackers of Br. Charles. You are missing the point. You are intent on changing an accurate description of the killer of Brother Charles into one loaded with religious overtones of Muslim against Christian. The killer of Br. Charles was a teenager in a panic assisting what we would refer to as a "bandit" maybe even looking for ransom. The backdrop, as the article states, was World War and North African Colonialism. Famine in that region at the time had another part in the tensions. Never was it as simple and black and white as a Holy War of "religio-political" or "insurgents" or your first edit of "jihad". No, they were marauders by all accounts who were connected to a tribal faction aligned against the French with soldiers and adherents of Senussi from Libya. You bring up the recent assassination of Christian workers in Afghanistan as an example of your religio-political jihadists at work throughout history against the Christian. The interesting thing about that example is that it reveals your bias right there of the prism of how you see these events. The only edits, the only contributions you've seen fit to offer this article - that you are obsessed with reverting to - is the language of jihad and holy war to fit your world view which I challenge you is the opposite of the spirit and example of Charles de Foucauld. It is not mistaken that "jihad" and all the misconceptions of how Islam and the Koran view the term was manifestly NOT developed or an acceptable description of the justifications of the indigenous uprisings against the colonial French. There were by far other motives of the Senussi and Bedouin for driving out the western European and if they were bound and organized through viewing the European as an "infidel", that is hardly surprising considering a history that stretches back through the Crusades. What the Senussi purported as a sect of Islam on the call for "jihad" is not consistent with its own alignment with Germany - a Christian colonial power. So I wouldn't seriously consider their movement driven by it whatever the founders revelry in the term - undeveloped as it had to be if it allowed for collusion with "infidels". "Aboriginal Islam"? I don't know how to begin to approach the disdain you have for this topic right there.
- "It seems that your eyes subjectively perceive inflammatorily where no inflammation is to be found objectively. I suggest you do not insist that everything conform to your own apparent agenda to force the times of Frere Charles into a mold of your own making."
The only thing I insist on is that this article retain it's integrity as a Wikipedia entry with as close to the spirit of the subject as possible without outside geopolitical/religious overtones injected into it. Your original edit of "jihad" in your first foray to the description tipped my "subjective" perception that your purposes here are to inflame whether conscious or not and you have shown little interest in the subject matter for it's own sake. Edsdet (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please calm down Edsdet. It is evident that the only inflammatory speech is present in your denunciations of me filled with ungrammatical usage, misspellings, etc. As for the terminology I used in this article re one of the great influences on me from my time in S. Algeria, if you knew as much as you claim, then you would not object to my enriching phraseology that reflects the very first sentence of the Wiki article describing the Senussi Order: "The Senussi or Sanussi refers to a Muslim political-religious order . . . ." It seems that your eyes subjectively perceive inflammatorily where no inflammation is to be found objectively. I suggest you do not insist that everything conform to your own apparent agenda to force the times of Frere Charles into a mold of your own making.
And your unhistorical insistence that "The formulation of jihad as a form of insurgency against the infidel was nowhere developed in that period" is manifestly mistaken. The very founder of the Senussi was recruited as the 4th Khalifa jihad leader under the Mahdi of the Sudan back in the 1880s, who envisioned an international jihad to both cleanse Islam, purge out ifidels from Islamic lands, and spread Islam throughout the world. Senussi named his own son the "Mahdi" in apparent competition with Mohammed Ahmed, the Mahdi of the Sudan. At the time Brother Charles was assassinated, the Senussi Order was engaged in multinational military insurgency against the infidels. The recent assassination of the Christian aid-workers in Afghanistan can help one to see a mindset that has existed within aboriginal Islam ever since Muhammad ordered the assassination of the Jewish poetess whom he perceived was deleteriously drawing believers away from Islam, a charge that could be held against Brother Charles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olorin3k (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Olorin3k, Again you've attempted to insert an inflammatory description of the Bedouin as "Muslim religio-political insurgents". That cannot stand in this article as anything but labeling a nomadic culture against the spirit of what Charles de Foulcauld stood for. You obviously are not aware that it was the devotion of the adherents to Islam and the contact that the young french lieutenant had with them that sparked his conversion back to his familial roots as a christian. You might as well use the popular "Islamofascists" to better inject your worldview into the article against Br. Charles example to the Church. These Bedouin, the burglar and his young assistant, were connected to the Senussi movement and the movement did fight against French and British colonialism in North Africa and aligned themselves with the German's and Ottoman's during WWI. But however you need to label adherents of a strain of Islam and inject it into the spirit of the article, these two marauders (and that is a strong description right there) were first and foremost Bedouin looking for food, and valuable items and maybe even weapons without knowing the true nature of the man they held then killed in panic. You're last attempt at this mentioned "jihad" (see below). You might as well describe Br. Charles as a "crusader" if we are going to take it to that level and overlay the point of his witness, the thrust of his relationship to Islam with historical/political name calling.
Mistico attempted to change the encyclopedic title with the word "blessed". See my response below to Tazmaniacs confirming his view of what is appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia. We've used "blessed" as the image title and I believe that's more than sufficient. "Blessed" as a title is only within the Catholic frame and only a recent development in the long history of Charles' legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edsdet (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
126.96.36.199 , The revision for August 5, 2010 was done to pare down the non-encyclopedic nature of much of what you added on February 16, 2010. I only kept a few biographical additions you made that were consistent with Wikipedia guidelines on encyclopedic entries. Though the quotes are interesting and do add context to the story of Charles de Foucauld, Wikipedia is in the end an encyclopedia and not biography. I also took the reference of "teacher" out of the topic's description and especially the erroneous use as a secondary title. "Religious" stands alone as the apt title and station for our man Charles within the Catholic structure.
Now as far as 188.8.131.52 and the injection into the primary topic of his/her Old Catholic Church association, please lets keep the topic clear from confusion. I removed the links to the "Old Catholic Church" and any association of that organization with the Catholic legacy of Charles de Foulcauld as its own. And after following the link directly to my dismay, found the Wikipedia entry on Charles de Foulcauld reprinted entirely without attribution at that site. I have run into this before and user "184.108.40.206" on the Little Brothers of Jesus page promoting the "Old Catholic Church" and their "Little Brothers of Jesus Caritas" as one and the same with the de Foucauld Catholic orders. This ongoing attempt to conflate this "Old Catholic Church" with the primary topic of no association to the point of even reprinting contributed material on Wikipedia as their own history can only be seen as deliberate at this point to mislead and against the guidelines of Wikipedia. I might add that all of these attempts are being made by no one with a user page or history at Wikipedia or willing to sign in. Edsdet (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Olorin3k I changed BACK the description of the Sennusi from your loose and irresponsible "jihadists" to the original "marauders". Lets keep it that way please. The formulation of jihad as a form of insurgency against the infidel was nowhere developed in that period to warrant and label this passing group as in anyway connected to anything but an alliance against the colonial French. I can only believe that you would wish to insert the present day explosive nature of the word into this text only to provoke but not lend anything to the article. This is the second time another has had to assert against your insistence that we use the inflammatory word inappropriately especially considering the deep respect for Islam the person who fell martyred and this article is about. Ironic you would attempt to insult his memory by lambasting those he lived among and those who took his life as "jihadists". They were certainly not. Edsdet (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Tazmaniacs I've noticed you've had a problem with the word "blessed" in your last edit. That it's "not an encyclopedical name". I initially did not agree and explained my reservations but then I realized it was used in the heading which I now agree is not appropriate for use in the naming of the entry.
I do have alternative information that doesn't square with the location of his death in the introduction. As far as I'm aware, Charles died not at his retreat in the hills of the Assekrem in the Hoggar but immediately outside a small compound he built as a keep near Tamanghasset miles from the Hoggar Mts. He built this keep - a somewhat small fort - for the Toureg to use as a sanctuary from roving Bedouin sweeping into the region who allied themselves with German interests during the war. Because the location became known, and because French army officers who remained in contact with Charles from his army days would infrequently visit him, it was suspected that caches of light arms might be found inside along with other useful information and materials. Added to this the compound gave the appearance of a fort and thus a target and he being French and a high profile christian did not help matters much.
I have my own theory based on these circumstances that as much as Charles motives to help these people, in whatever way his training and abilities could help, was authentic and based on his idea of mission, he unfortunately placed himself in the middle of the growing conflict spilling into the region between competing tribes.
He himself took retreat within the compound leaving his regular dorme anticipating more would join for shelter. His death was basically a botched break-in as a tribesman and his teenage accomplice held him outside while the tribesman ransacked for arms and provisions. They found none. In a panic, while a postman was making his way toward the compound, the young teenager shot Charles as he stood kneeling, and made off. Subsequent investigation found no motive to execute Charles and that the bandits knew not much about him. He's considered a martyr of the church more for placing himself in such dangerous circumstances in the middle of the Islamic Sahara to reach out to a culture he identified with, learned from, and felt called to live among as a brother. Edsdet 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)