Suchergebnisse

Der Autor behandelt nach dem dahinter stehenden Staatsbegriff und mit Blick auf das Verhältnis von Staat und Gesellschaft nacheinander repräsentative Demokratie, Theokratie und die Totalitarismen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Diese sämtlichen, von ihm abgelehnten Staatsformen sieht der Autor durch Wurzeln im christlichen Mittelalter und durch den ihnen gemeinsamen in die Gesellschaft expandierten modernen Staat verbunden. In seiner fundamentalen Systemkritik hält er dem das Bild von einem islamischen politischen System entgegen, das auf der Autonomie der Religionsgemeinschaften - darunter zählt er u.a. auch Atheisten - im weltlichen Bereich aufbaut und auf einer Art direkter Teilhabe des einzelnen ohne Parteienpluralismus. So werde die Gesellschaft (bezeichnet mit dem Koranbegriff der "umma") gestärkt gegen den im nichtislamischen Bereich zum Selbstzweck gewordenen modernen Staat. Eine Staatsreligion soll es nicht geben. Unklar bleiben Mechanismen zur Lösung möglicher Konflikte zwischen den Religions- und Rechtsgemeinschaften und die Frage nach der Umsetzung der (S. 138) postulierten Überlassung von Gesetzgebung, Erziehung, Wirtschaft, Gesundheitswesen und Wissenschaft an eine nicht näher definierte Zivilgesellschaft. Die hier formulierte islamische politische Philosophie und Staatstheorie haben bei dem mit der vorliegenden Übersetzung anvisierten Zielpublikum der muslimisch-bosniakischen Volksgruppe in Bosnien-Herzegowina bis dato kaum Widerhall gefunden, wie das Vorwort bedauernd hervorhebt. (SOI-Clw)

While the author is impressed by Cornwell's style and presentation, he is appaled by the lack of seriousness exhibited by the author who writes about an imprtant subject (not broached for the first time, by any means) and by demonstrated inability to supress his preconceived notions and even prejudices. Cornwell relies heavily on Owen Chadwick, which assures that he mentions most important facts about the involvement of the Cardinal and Pope Pius XII (whom Cornwell systematicaly entitles by his family name. Pacelli) in contemporary politics, but he bends and ignores Chadwick's research when he makes his judgment about the Pope. Cornwell's treatment of the Catholic Church in the Independent State of Croatia (he gives it an entrie chapter) is a traversy of research and objective writing. His main source. if not the only, for the presentation of the Church in Croatia during the World War II is the 35 years old book by Carlo Falconi. Cornwell perhaps did not know , but he could have and must have been informed, that Falconi wrote his piece on the basis of the propagandistic material given to him by the Yugos]av secrete service and propagandists, which served the purpose of anti-Chatolic propaganda in Yugoslavia. A well intended reader could excuse Cornwell (he does not read Croatian and could not know what some authors wrote about Falconi's sources at the time his book appeared), if he did not point those "Croatian materials" as essential not only for the condemnation of the Croatian Catholic episcopate, but for Pius XII as well. (SOI : CSP: S. 190)

Contrary to the presuppositions of historiography in former Yugoslavia, the author argues that one of the greatest problems in the relationship between Church and State in the NDH was the issue of conversions. The Catholic Church stood firmly on the principle that no one can be admitted into the Church unless he or she demands admittance free of all pressures and interferences. Likewise, the Church disagreed with the government that it can meddle in the area of conversions, the terrain the Church considered exclusively its own. Bishop Jerome Mileta of Sibenik Diocese is one of the most illustrative examples of that attitude of the Church. The author brings forth for the first time documents which shed new light on the issue of "conversions" in that diocese. (SOI : CSP: S. 248) + The question of religious conversions has always been a thorny issue in the Balkan territory, because it is often confused with the issue of nationality. The problem of religious conversions in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) (1941-1945) was no exception. Soon after its foundation, the newly established government issued laws, which abolished existing ones pertaining to religious conversions and allowed conversions to one of the "legally recognized religions". Even though it is not explicitely mentioned, the aim of the law was to allow "conversions" of the Orthodox to Protestantism, Islam or Catholicism, since the government believed that the traditionally strong opposition to the Croatian state of that segment of the population greatly depended on the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church on it