Why Islam Can't Reform

[Lexicus]

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.

Muhammad was pretty clear about his followers not killing non-combatants or keeping other Muslims as slaves, AFAIK.

 

[Bootstoots]

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.

I said literacy rather than modernity because the antecedents of Christian fundamentalism appeared with the Reformation, which was a direct consequence of the printing press and the way it led to Bibles being widely distributed in local languages. Textual literalism pops up as people discover that the religion as it is practiced differs markedly from what is written, and the move to cut out the interpreters and read the text in a more literal way is a pretty natural outgrowth of that.

But yes, Islamism is absolutely a reaction to modernity and a fundamentally modern ideology, as is Christian fundamentalism. For the most part, Islamism doesn't go further back than the late 19th century; before that, Islam was simply how people lived their lives and few people thought any differently. The exposure of people to every other competing ideology and the lack of a spiritual or moral center in modernity is profoundly disorienting, and this has brought about a variety of illiberal but very much modern ideologies ranging from fascism to Marxism-Leninism to religious fundamentalism.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

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.

I'm uncomfortable making it that big a distinction. A majority of Americans are driven by Christian values and a vast majority of politicians are, too. That they don't yell "God is Great" when they drone a family in Yemen doesn't make a lot of meaningful difference.

 

[Lexicus]

Textual literalism pops up as people discover that the religion as it is practiced differs markedly from what is written, and the move to cut out the interpreters and read the text in a more literal way is a pretty natural outgrowth of that.

Eh. I'm not sure you start to get the same kind of textual literalism until well after the Reformation. But I don't know the history in enough detail to make a good argument. At any rate,

But yes, Islamism is absolutely a reaction to modernity and a fundamentally modern ideology, as is Christian fundamentalism. For the most part, Islamism doesn't go further back than the late 19th century; before that, Islam was simply how people lived their lives and few people thought any differently. The exposure of people to every other competing ideology and the lack of a spiritual or moral center in modernity is profoundly disorienting, and this has brought about a variety of illiberal but very much modern ideologies ranging from fascism to Marxism-Leninism to religious fundamentalism.

This is essentially also my position, though I would emphasize the role of capitalism in, like, actually doing this in the real world, whereas 'modernity' is more of a history-of-thought/philosophical concept.

 

[Zardnaar]

Muhammad was pretty clear about his followers not killing non-combatants or keeping other Muslims as slaves, AFAIK.

Non combatant got killed under Mohammed (see the Jews) and after he died inter Muslim violence was fairly common. As I said the Koran calls for the death penalty for blasphemers so if you need to kill another Muslim just declare they are a blasphemer, its exactly what ISIS is doing and in various Muslim countries you can get the death penalty or jail time for attempting to reform the faith.

In some Muslim countries its illegal to convert from Islam.

Also the why Mohammed set it up leaves it very open for buse. He is the last prophet period and he laid the rules down to include things like the death penalty for blasphemy. Christianity lacks concepts like jihad and the ghazi. There is nothing in the bible about requiring non believers to pay more in tax. There is somehting about goving to Caesar what is Caesars which means pay your tax to the secular authorities.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm uncomfortable making it that big a distinction. A majority of Americans are driven by Christian values and a vast majority of politicians are, too. That they don't yell "God is Great" when they drone a family in Yemen doesn't make a lot of meaningful difference.

Most of the founders were deists though and they made a clear separation between church and state. You can also amend the constitution of the USA.

 

[luiz]

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.

Actually (and sorry for the tautology), but reality is modern fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon. Throughout history there was struggle, both in Christianity and Islam, between fundamentalists and reformers, between radicals and moderates, between tolerance and persecution, and so on and so forth. The key difference is that in Christianity reform and tolerance won the theological debate, not only the political struggle. In the Muslim world in some cases reform won the political struggle, but because it never won the theological debate at some point Islamic radicalism comes back to bite them in the butt. Case in point: Turkey.

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

It's not about war, it's about separation of temporal and spiritual power. Clearly, the fact that Mohammed had both matters.

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.

Islam was not doing that great with "indigenous" institutions either. As I said, reform never really won the theological debate in Islam.

 

[Lexicus]

Actually (and sorry for the tautology), but reality is modern fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon. Throughout history there was struggle, both in Christianity and Islam, between fundamentalists and reformers, between radicals and moderates, between tolerance and persecution, and so on and so forth. The key difference is that in Christianity reform and tolerance won the theological debate, not only the political struggle. In the Muslim world in some cases reform won the political struggle, but because it never won the theological debate at some point Islamic radicalism comes back to bite them in the butt. Case in point: Turkey.

I disagree so ...fundamentally (awwwww yeah unintentional pun) with this perspective that I don't think much further debate is possible.
I'll just note you missed what I view as a key phrase, 'in the sense of textual literalism.'

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Most of the founders were deists though and they made a clear separation between church and state. You can also amend the constitution of the USA.

Right, and they wouldn't have said "God bless America," but the current common morality of America, both eschewed by those in power and common citizens, is driven in no small part by Christian values and beliefs. It's not the only value, but it's a bedrock of one of the main political parties and an important pillar of the other.

I guess my point is that the distinction between a terrorist from Syria and a military escapade from America is largely a matter of dressings and trappings. And in terms of raw body count, one side is clearly ahead of the other. That the same side doesn't quite profess to wanting a theocratic state doesn't invalidate the reality that much of western society is still Christian in nature, for a lot of people, from the influence of the 10 Commandments, to church attendance, to common and shared values driven by interpretation of church doctrine.

 

[Zardnaar]

Right, and they wouldn't have said "God bless America," but the current common morality of America, both eschewed by those in power and common citizens, is driven in no small part by Christian values and beliefs. It's not the only value, but it's a bedrock of one of the main political parties and an important pillar of the other.

I guess my point is that the distinction between a terrorist from Syria and a military escapade from America is largely a matter of dressings and trappings. And in terms of raw body count, one side is clearly ahead of the other. That the same side doesn't quite profess to wanting a theocratic state doesn't invalidate the reality that much of western society is still Christian in nature, for a lot of people, from the influence of the 10 Commandments, to church attendance, to common and shared values driven by interpretation of church doctrine.

America is kind of out of step with the rest of the liberal world now (Europe, Canada, NZ, Australia etc). Over here the the religious right is a very small and the Christians for example are more left wing and immigrants for example tend to vote right wing.

 

[REDY]

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

Thank you for factual note. It directed me to study something about Islam first

I think that in Christanity Jesus returned, cannot Mohammed return?

 

[Zardnaar]

Thank you for factual note. It directed me to study something about Islam first

I think that in Christanity Jesus returned, cannot Mohammed return?

No. Jesus is the son of god in Christian belief and his resurrection was a miracle. In Islamic teaching there are 6 prophets and Mohammed is the last one period. To claim you are a prophet in Islam is blasphemy, to contradict Mohammed is blasphemy and the penalty for blasphemy is death.

Its why there are a lot less branches of Islam than Christianity. Shia, Sunni make up the big Islamic denomination, the smaller sects are usually derivative of Sunni and Shia.

 

[JollyRoger]

Islam is just a branch of Christianity that believes in Jesus, but at a diminished role in the big scheme of things.

 

[Zkribbler]

Stating the obvious again: of course Christianity can be a political religion, but unlike Islam, it's not inherently so.

To the contrary, Romans 13 makes clear that earthly princes are the annotated ministers of God, and they must be obey without question. This gave rise to the "divine right 8of kings," which went unchallenged until the English forced King John to sign Magna Carta. Throughout the rest of Christendom, Kings ruled by the will of God until the 18th Century Enlightenment advanced the proposition that power is derived from the governed.

13 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.

2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.

3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

The only reason today that Christianity is not a political religion is that today's Christians ignore many of their founding principles.

 

[Lexicus]

The only reason today that Christianity is not a political religion is that today's Christians ignore many of their founding principles.

And this is why I said it doesn't really make sense to speak of religions as having an 'essence.'

 

[Zardnaar]

To the contrary, Romans 13 makes clear that earthly princes are the annotated ministers of God, and they must be obey without question. This gave rise to the "divine right 8of kings," which went unchallenged until the English forced King John to sign Magna Carta. Throughout the rest of Christendom, Kings ruled by the will of God until the 18th Century Enlightenment advanced the proposition that power is derived from the governed.



The only reason today that Christianity is not a political religion is that today's Christians ignore many of their founding principles.

Its more of a recommendation and it doesn't seem to imply that kings are the only viable government form. It would not apply in a Democracy/Republic nor would it apply to non Christians. The Koran is also a law book and tax code and it is very explicit on the instructions. And even if you do obey there is a huge gulf in early Christianity and early Islam in terms of how you treat others. As I said early Christians refused to serve in the military. The divine right of kings concept came long after Christianity was established and its not integral to the faith as such.

 

[Leonel]

So Christianity reformed and there are no longer things like Crusades or the Spanish inquisition. Those things however were not integral to the Christian faith and you can make some good arguments they were in fact violating the Christian faith with their actions.

Probably because they were too busy killing each other off. And even then they didn't start to settle down until fairly recently, mid 20th century I'd say.

In fact, I kind of wonder if the reformation only made Christianity even more violent, sparking some sort of twisted competition on who can convert how many native peoples to their particular brand of Christianity.

 

[sophie]

To declare Islam an inherently violent religion based solely off the Crusades and the Unification of Arabia is rather like declaring Christianity is an inherently violent religion based solely off the Baltic campaigns and the 30 Years War.

Yes those are undoubtedly things that happened. But you're sort of skipping over a full milennium of other history.

 

[Zardnaar]

To declare Islam an inherently violent religion based solely off the Crusades and the Unification of Arabia is rather like declaring Christianity is an inherently violent religion based solely off the Baltic campaigns and the 30 Years War.

Yes those are undoubtedly things that happened. But you're sort of skipping over a full milennium of other history.

Those wars happened long after Jesus died though.

The unification of Arabia and the ensuing Islamic expansion was the birth of the Islamic religion. Early Christians had no secular power for 200 years. The 1st 100 years of Islam was military expansion and that continued to some extent for the 1st 1000 years of Islam and there are instructions on it in the Koran and how to administer people not of the faith (pay more tax AKA jizya). There is no equivalent to jihad or ghazi as concepts in the Christian religion or most other religions.

Even once the majority of the Islamic expansion was finished the Ghazi still raided the Byzantines, this lead to the 1st Crusade, Crete was briefly a sultanate, and later on the Ottomans expanded into Europe from the 14th century to the 17th. Its more or less 1000 years of expansion by the sword and it was established that way by Mohammed who was Caesar, Pope and prophet rolled into one.

Al Andalus was not established peacefully, the Christian faith spread peacefully for the 1st few hundred years. ISIS for the most part is not doing anything drastically different than what happened in the 7th and 8th century. Neither are the Wahhabi of Saudi Arabia.

There is no Christian state or organisation with tens of thousands of armed members advocating that people should live their life as laid down by Justinian.

 

[Arwon]

For half a century we in the west helped autocrats kill everyone in the Middle East to the left of Genghis Khan. That um probably didn't help matters.