Why Islam Can't Reform

[luiz]

's
if we take your two (bolded) statements it would seem that there is no reason that we could conclude that there is a reason that they are potentially more problematic as you have shown that both are multinational and multiracial and I would add 'multicultural' too the list
by having ago at SJWs you actually destroy your argument that they are different in any way at all because Christianity is a very good example of competing doctrines and dogmas

What? And since when multinational and multiracial ideologies can't be problematic? Marxism-Leninism is a highly problematic ideology that at some point was the official ideology of countries ruling hundreds of millions of people of all races and cultures. It was still highly problematic.

The problem is that generally people who blame Islam for social problems are misdiagnosing the real causes of those problems.
The idea that there is some problematic essential nature of Islam is as absurd as saying there is some essential problematic nature of Christianity or Judaism or any other religion really.

The first part is true (a lot of problems of Islamic countries are cultural and not religious) but the second does not follow. It is entirely possible that there is something problematic with the essence of a religion. How can this not be possible? Religions are a set of beliefs, and beliefs can be highly problematic. It is damn sad that I need to state the obvious like this.

Additionally, while many problems of Muslim countries are cultural, I would argue that Islam plays the role of a "cultural stagnator". It slows cultural change, and it is inherently a political religion (unlike Christianity*), which makes things all the more complicated.

* Stating the obvious again: of course Christianity can be a political religion, but unlike Islam, it's not inherently so. The fact that Mohammed was both Prophet and Caesar forever blurred the lines between temporal and spiritual power in Islamic countries. To fail to acknowledge this key difference is stupidity at best, and dishonesty in all likelihood.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The first part is true (a lot of problems of Islamic countries are cultural and not religious) but the second does not follow. It is entirely possible that there is something problematic with the essence of a religion. How can this not be possible? Religions are a set of beliefs, and beliefs can be highly problematic. It is damn sad that I need to state the obvious like this.

Additionally, while many problems of Muslim countries are cultural, I would argue that Islam plays the role of a "cultural stagnator". It slows cultural change, and it is inherently a political religion (unlike Christianity), which makes things all the more complicated.

Quite a bit of nuance in this post, and it's appreciated. I'm not agreeing entirely with you, but as a Social Justice Non-PC Warrior, I feel I should focus more on the common ground because I think there's more room to maneuver, so I'm not going to argue about it.

There's also the issue of political hierarchy. For change to occur, you need freedom to change. I don't believe for a second that the powers that be in the most volatile countries believe the brand of religion what they're selling. This is nothing unique, we've seen this throughout history. This is not unlike Western leaders using for instance economical statistics and cherry picking the parts which are most beneficial to gain more political power. Because the information given to the people they rule is controlled and the propaganda is thick and fast, these ideas and ideologies become self-apparent. Those heathen Western countries are a threat and they are an enemy to Islam and they eat quite a few babies.

Mind, above still leaves open the possibility that Islam is more suitable for this type of population control, which we hopefully agree to disagree on.

 

[Lexicus]

cultural and not religious

I don't understand, religion is not part of culture now?

It is entirely possible that there is something problematic with the essence of a religion. How can this not be possible? Religions are a set of beliefs, and beliefs can be highly problematic. It is damn sad that I need to state the obvious like this.

The point is not that the essence of a religion cannot be problematic but that religions don't really have essences.

I would argue that Islam plays the role of a "cultural stagnator"

That's an ambitious claim.

It slows cultural change, and it is inherently a political religion (unlike Christianity*), which makes things all the more complicated.

I don't agree, all religions are inherently political just like everything, literally everything, is political.
What makes Islam different from Christianity is that historically Islam emerged as not only a religion but also a state. But the political unity of Islam didn't last long -the first Caliphate quickly collapsed into rival factions - and in any case it also quickly spread beyond the borders of the territory conquered by the first Caliphate.
The state aspect of Islam has been an issue in modernity due to the political circumstances created by the malaise and collapse of the Ottoman Empire and then the collapse of the British and French colonial empires.

 

[Old Hippy]

What? And since when multinational and multiracial ideologies can't be problematic? Marxism-Leninism is a highly problematic ideology that at some point was the official ideology of countries ruling hundreds of millions of people of all races and cultures. It was still highly problematic.

we have threads for Marxism -Leninism and global free trade too and their problems
here your making arguments about why Islam cannot be changed by saying that it is the same as Christianity... that has clearly changed (women vicars gay marriage)

it's as multinational and multiracial religion just like Christianity

and again would I add Multicultural to the list

a little more political correctness and a few more SJWs and there is no reason that Islam can not change too

 

[JollyRoger]

Why Islam can't reform - it is a branch of the Abrahamic faith and for thousands of years, it has been demonstrated that many such followers of Abrahamic faiths are violent and not reformable.

 

[luiz]

Quite a bit of nuance in this post, and it's appreciated. I'm not agreeing entirely with you, but as a Social Justice Non-PC Warrior, I feel I should focus more on the common ground because I think there's more room to maneuver, so I'm not going to argue about it.

There's also the issue of political hierarchy. For change to occur, you need freedom to change. I don't believe for a second that the powers that be in the most volatile countries believe the brand of religion what they're selling. This is nothing unique, we've seen this throughout history. This is not unlike Western leaders using for instance economical statistics and cherry picking the parts which are most beneficial to gain more political power. Because the information given to the people they rule is controlled and the propaganda is thick and fast, these ideas and ideologies become self-apparent. Those heathen Western countries are a threat and they are an enemy to Islam and they eat quite a few babies.

Mind, above still leaves open the possibility that Islam is more suitable for this type of population control, which we hopefully agree to disagree on.

I don't think Islam is more suited for population control at all. What I think is that in Islam the religious authorities continue to play an outsized political role, because they are supported by the example of Mohammed himself. It is very hard for secular Muslim leaders to argue that religion should stay away from government when, as I said, Mohammed himself was both Prophet and Caesar.

I don't understand, religion is not part of culture now?

I think you understand. Arabia had a culture before Islam, so did Pakistan, Indonesia, Bosnia, the Muslim parts of Africa and etc. Some practices which we abhor and sometimes attribute to Islam are in fact cultural practices of those places that have only tangential links to Islam.

The point is not that the essence of a religion cannot be problematic but that religions don't really have essences.

Of course they do. Again, this is exactly like saying that ideologies don't have essences. We may find contradictions in Marxism-Leninism, we may find groups that interpret it in radically different ways and hate each other, but there's still an essence.

I don't agree, all religions are inherently political just like everything, literally everything, is political.
What makes Islam different from Christianity is that historically Islam emerged as not only a religion but also a state. But the political unity of Islam didn't last long -the first Caliphate quickly collapsed into rival factions - and in any case it also quickly spread beyond the borders of the territory conquered by the first Caliphate.
The state aspect of Islam has been an issue in modernity due to the political circumstances created by the malaise and collapse of the Ottoman Empire and then the collapse of the British and French colonial empires.

Which all happened many decades ago (in the case of the Ottomans one century ago). No, the state aspect of Islam has always been present, because as I said their prophet was also a warlord and conqueror. There's no getting around this fact and its obvious consequences. Who Mohammed was matters to the religion he created. This is self-evident.

we have threads for Marxism -Leninism and global free trade too and their problems
here your making arguments about why Islam cannot be changed by saying that it is the same as Christianity... that has clearly changed (women vicars gay marriage)

and again would I add Multicultural to the list

a little more political correctness and a few more SJWs and there is no reason that Islam can not change too

First, I was not arguing that Islam can't change. I was arguing that before making that point, we unfortunately are forced to argue the entirely obvious point that some religions can be more problematic than others, and that Islam has some unique characteristics that make it fundamentally different from Christianity (for example). As your posts and others show, I was correct in saying we first need to argue about the theoretical possibility, because the PC brigade has placed an interdiction on even discussing it - for them (you) Islam can't be more problematic than Christianity, and end of discussion.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

's
if we take your two (bolded) statements it would seem that there is no reason that we could conclude that there is a reason that they are potentially more problematic as you have shown that both are multinational and multiracial and I would add 'multicultural' too the list
by having ago at SJWs you actually destroy your argument that they are different in any way at all because Christianity is a very good example of competing doctrines and dogmas

Logical fallacy alert!!

These two separate statements:

Statement 1: A has properties X and Y. These particular properties imply a third property, Z.

And

Statement 2: A and B both share properties 1 and 2.

Do not logically lead to:

Statement 3: Therefore B also has property Z.

Cogito ergo propter demonstrandum!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you don't think Islam is better suited for population control, but it is better suited for political control because Mo was political.

Again, disagree but trying to follow your reasoning. Isn't that political power/government used to control the population?

 

[galdre]

The only thing that makes Islam less likely to reform in the short-term is the economic conditions of the countries were it is predominate

 

[Lexicus]

I think you understand. Arabia had a culture before Islam, so did Pakistan, Indonesia, Bosnia, the Muslim parts of Africa and etc. Some practices which we abhor and sometimes attribute to Islam are in fact cultural practices of those places that have only tangential links to Islam.

I confess I wanted you to articulate better This I would agree with completely.

Of course they do. Again, this is exactly like saying that ideologies don't have essences. We may find contradictions in Marxism-Leninism, we may find groups that interpret it in radically different ways and hate each other, but there's still an essence.

Well, I tend to reject essentialism regarding pretty much everything so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Which all happened many decades ago (in the case of the Ottomans one century ago). No, the state aspect of Islam has always been present, because as I said their prophet was also a warlord and conqueror. There's no getting around this fact and its obvious consequences. Who Mohammed was matters to the religion he created. This is self-evident.

Well, Jesus may well be nothing more than a fictional character but that doesn't seem to matter much for Christianity. I don't agree it is self-evident that what kind of person Muhammad was matters to Islam. This is sort of like a Death of the Author point - it's like arguing that the be-all end-all of interpreting literature is authorial intent, which I completely disagree with.
Incidentally, what's the point of saying 'it all happened decades ago'? I'm aware of that, but the past affects the present generally, and the problems posed by/consequences of those events have not been resolved to the present day.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think that religion cannot reform without new prophet.

In Islam you can't have a new prophet, Mohammed was the last one.

 

[luiz]

So you don't think Islam is better suited for population control, but it is better suited for political control because Mo was political.

Again, disagree but trying to follow your reasoning. Isn't that political power/government used to control the population?

My point was that I don't see Islam as a particularly more effective mean of "population control" than other religions, but rather as an inherently political religion, which places no distinction between "Law of God" and "Law of Men". In Christianity it is very straightforward to create a theological argument against theocracy, because Christ himself said "render unto Caesar". In Islam Mohammed was Caesar.

 

[Zardnaar]

It seems silly to isolate Islam when American lead wars and sanctions (with European contributions) have killed 16-20 million since the end of World War II. Especially when hundreds and thousands of American politicians over the decades have made a point to emphasize how vital a role Christianity plays in their lives.

That is just more or less politics once again its not an integral requirement to the USA and it is not in the US constitution for example. If you said US foreign policy and actions is stupid or leaves a lot to be desired I would agree with you.

 

[Bootstoots]

I agree that "can't reform" is an exaggeration. I was not saying I agree entirely (or at all) with the OP, I was saying that much before making a case that Islam can't (or probably won't) reform, it is unfortunately necessary to make the entirely obvious case that it is possible that Islam is harder to reform than Christianity was.

Because you draw the equivalency between Christianity and Islam that simply does no exist. They are different religions, founded in very different contexts by radically different men. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that both are just as easy to reform or just as compatible with modern societies.

I agree with this. There is a fundamental difference between the two: Christianity was founded by a religious mystic who was borderline pacifist and never seeked real political power, while Islam features a religious mystic who managed to take over a state in seventh-century Arabia and from there became a very successful conqueror, taking over most of Arabia by his death and whose immediate successors took over most of the Middle East and North Africa (not to mention Spain) in an absolutely stunning series of military campaigns.

The actual practice of both religions before the 20th century was fairly similar, with nothing really to recommend Christianity-as-it-really-was over Islam. But, as it turns out, one of the consequences of increased literacy is that people simply read their holy text and advocate going back to the fundamentals of their faith. The result is fundamentalism, and the fundamentalisms of Christianity and Islam are very different. Both are problematic, but the merger of religion with statecraft is much stronger in Islam, and the risk of violence in the modern era is greater with Islamic fundamentalism given the relative importance of violence in the Quran vs. the New Testament. Add in the entirely accurate sense of alienation and exploitation, along with Saudi oil money and American military exploits to promote fundamentalism at the expense of secular nationalism, and what we have is an Islamism that is a powerful political as well as religious ideology, now competing fairly successfully with secularism throughout the Muslim world and among Muslim communities (especially second-generation Muslims) in the West.

I have no idea what to do about this. I think that Western-style liberalism is only one of several possible governing ideologies for running a modern state, with Islamism as a strong competitor which shows no sign of losing out to it. And one of the problems with large-scale Muslim immigration into the West is that Islamism is inevitably going to appear whenever Islam does, among some substantial subset of the Islamic minority of the new country. It's an issue that really does need to be at least acknowledged by liberals, not just the authoritarian nationalists who are appearing as another illiberal ideological alternative throughout the West.

edit: Removed unfinished sentence at the top that consisted of "So we have". Not sure where I was going with that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why Islam can't reform - it is a branch of the Abrahamic faith and for thousands of years, it has been demonstrated that many such followers of Abrahamic faiths are violent and not reformable.

Violence is not unique to Abrahamic faiths.

The main reason why Christianity and Islam might be perceived to be more violent is through sheer size as both of them are the largest faiths in the world.

I would argue violence is inherent to beig human. Faith can make that tendency worse.

 

[luiz]

Well, I tend to reject essentialism regarding pretty much everything so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I would agree only to the point that it is silly to argue about what is "true Islam" just like it is silly to argue about what is "true Marxism" or "true Fascism". But we can still criticirze Marxism and Fascism, and consider them more problematic than other ideologies. The same is potentially true for Islam.

Well, Jesus may well be nothing more than a fictional character but that doesn't seem to matter much for Christianity. I don't agree it is self-evident that what kind of person Muhammad was matters to Islam. This is sort of like a Death of the Author point - it's like arguing that the be-all end-all of interpreting literature is authorial intent, which I completely disagree with.
Incidentally, what's the point of saying 'it all happened decades ago'? I'm aware of that, but the past affects the present generally, and the problems posed by/consequences of those events have not been resolved to the present day.

Whether Jesus or Mohammed were real or not is besides the point. There is a Christian tradition of who Jesus was, and that is a peacenik. There is a Muslim tradition of who Mohammed was, and that is a conquering warlord. This is not the slander of enemies of Islam, it's their own interpretation of his life. So of course it matters.

My point about the time frame is that the world changed radically in this period. Some countries overcame extreme backwardness and endemic starvation to become highly developed world leaders. Challenges which seemed insurmountable in 1900 were totally overcome (and I'm talking of social challenges, not technical ones). That Islam continues to struggle with the division of temporal and spiritual power suggests that it is not a matter of time, but of its very essence.

 

[Zardnaar]

So, we have


I agree with this. There is a fundamental difference between the two: Christianity was founded by a religious mystic who was borderline pacifist and never seeked real political power, while Islam features a religious mystic who managed to take over a state in seventh-century Arabia and from there became a very successful conqueror, taking over most of Arabia by his death and whose immediate successors took over most of the Middle East and North Africa (not to mention Spain) in an absolutely stunning series of military campaigns.

The actual practice of both religions before the 20th century was fairly similar, with nothing really to recommend Christianity-as-it-really-was over Islam. But, as it turns out, one of the consequences of increased literacy is that people simply read their holy text and advocate going back to the fundamentals of their faith. The result is fundamentalism, and the fundamentalisms of Christianity and Islam are very different. Both are problematic, but the merger of religion with statecraft is much stronger in Islam, and the risk of violence in the modern era is greater with Islamic fundamentalism given the relative importance of violence in the Quran vs. the New Testament. Add in the entirely accurate sense of alienation and exploitation, along with Saudi oil money and American military exploits to promote fundamentalism at the expense of secular nationalism, and what we have is an Islamism that is a powerful political as well as religious ideology, now competing fairly successfully with secularism throughout the Muslim world and among Muslim communities (especially second-generation Muslims) in the West.

I have no idea what to do about this. I think that Western-style liberalism is only one of several possible governing ideologies for running a modern state, with Islamism as a strong competitor which shows no sign of losing out to it. And one of the problems with large-scale Muslim immigration into the West is that Islamism is inevitably going to appear whenever Islam does, among some substantial subset of the Islamic minority of the new country. It's an issue that really does need to be at least acknowledged by liberals, not just the authoritarian nationalists who are appearing as another illiberal ideological alternative throughout the West.

This early Christians refused to serve in the military (though shalt not kill) and Constantine converted very late in life and a lot of military types did not convert until they left the military.

ISIS is not doing anything that radically different to Mohammed or the 1st 4 Caliphs. The Sunni/Shia split has its origins here and the 4 good caliphs all died violently.

A modern liberal for example would not like it if you targeted a religions specifically with a higher tax for example example (jizya) yet in Islam you have exactly that, Islam was more tolerant (at the time) than Christian nations to people of the book but those rules did not apply once the Islamic armies made it to what is now Iran, Afghanistan and India.

The modern Christian churches are also communicating a lot more and sorting out soe of the problems they have had over the last 1000 odd years (Pope going to UK, Catholic-Orthodox relations etc).

 

[JollyRoger]

There is a Christian tradition of who Jesus was, and that is a peacenik.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/

 

[Bootstoots]

This early Christians refused to serve in the military (though shalt not kill) and Constantine converted very late in life and a lot of military types did not convert until they left the military.

ISIS is not doing anything that radically different to Mohammed or the 1st 4 Caliphs. The Sunni/Shia split has its origins here and the 4 good caliphs all died violently.

A modern liberal for example would not like it if you targeted a religions specifically with a higher tax for example example (jizya) yet in Islam you have exactly that, Islam was more tolerant (at the time) than Christian nations to people of the book but those rules did not apply once the Islamic armies made it to what is now Iran, Afghanistan and India.

The modern Christian churches are also communicating a lot more and sorting out soe of the problems they have had over the last 1000 odd years (Pope going to UK, Catholic-Orthodox relations etc).

ISIS is certainly trying to recreate the Islam of the 7th century in the 21st. Of course it's worth noting that ISIS is an abberation: it has a single-digit approval rating in the Arab world. Most Islamists (to say nothing of Muslims) are self-consciously modern, and the majority (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood) are gradualists who favor working within the political system to bring about a more Islamic society. But the goals they work for are fundamentally illiberal, and Islamism is growing as Western-style liberalism appears increasingly less desirable.

 

[Lexicus]

But, as it turns out, one of the consequences of increased literacy is that people simply read their holy text and advocate going back to the fundamentals of their faith. The result is fundamentalism, and the fundamentalisms of Christianity and Islam are very different.

I think the real cause of fundamentalism is not literacy but modernity. It is often supposed that religious fundamentalism is a sort of holdover from premodern times, as though the rest of the world moved on while some parts of it (the religious fundamentalists) remained stuck where they were. This isn't really true - religious fundamentalism, in the sense of textual literalism, is really a modern phenomenon that could not have arisen in the absence of the structures of modernity, precisely because it is a reaction to the problems or challenges posed by modernity.
I can say this is pretty high degree of confidence for Christianity - Christian fundamentalism largely began in the US in the 19th century. I know less about Islam but what I do know suggests, similarly, that the fundamentalist ideologies plaguing the Islamic world today largely arose or became widespread/entrenched in reaction to the shift into modernity and the problems associated with it.

Whether Jesus or Mohammed were real or not is besides the point. There is a Christian tradition of who Jesus was, and that is a peacenik. There is a Muslim tradition of who Mohammed was, and that is a conquering warlord. This is not the slander of enemies of Islam, it's their own interpretation of his life. So of course it matters.

I don't really see how it matters. Christians have made as much, probably more, war than Muslims.

That Islam continues to struggle with the division of temporal and spiritual power suggests that it is not a matter of time, but of its very essence.

But this bakes a lot of potentially problematic assumptions in. The reason Islam appears to struggle with this is that indigenous political institutions were destroyed and replaced suddenly with political institutions that were largely imported from the West.

Again, carrying on the theme of my response to Boots, to me the issue is really one of modernity, not of Islam per se.