Politics

Red Leg said:

First of all, let me say that I do not claim to be an expert on comparative religion. But I am a product of the Walsh School of Contemporary Arab Studies and the Foreign Service Institute. I also spent most of my career in and around the Middle East. I'll offer a few thoughts.

A major "problem" with Islam is that while it has schisms, it has never gone through a reformation. Christianity went through a fairly violent one over a couple of hundred years as political, national, and cultural groups fueled sides. Judaism experienced a very quiet one.

To be a "good Christian," a believer has numerous options. He or she can choose the comfort of the rituals of Catholicism or the Episcopal church; or opt for the strict social conventions and guidance of the Southern Baptists; or perhaps the intellectual approach to God of the Presbyterians; and the emotional release of Evangelicalism. While these groups may disagree among themselves as to the "correct" way to properly worship God and lead a righteous life, there are no shortage of fellow believers to offer a community of shared belief among any of these.

Judaism is divided among orthodox and reform communities. Those more comfortable in the cultural traditions of the Jewish faith have orthodox synagogues and communities to support those traditional practices, while reform synagogues offer a far more liberal approach to worship and cultural requirements. While both can, and too often do, disagree vehemently with the practices of the other, the individual, like a Christian, has a number of options where he or she can find a community of like believers to be a "good Jew."

Islam has never had such a social transformation. To put it simply, one is either a "good" or "bad" Muslim. One either adheres to the strict cultural requirements around diet, prayer, fasting etc or one doesn't. Culturally, over the last century strict adherence to the requirements of Islam was often governed by economic and social standing. This is a generalization, but the better educated, traveled, and compensated one was, the less one was likely to strictly adhere to religious requirements. It is why many of us here have "normal" or Western interaction with many Muslims in this country or in Europe.

But there lies a two-fold trap.

First, are the options available to the sons and daughters of worldly families who suddenly decide to become "good" Muslims. Unlike, a rebellious child in a Western agnostic home who has numerous Christian religious options at hand, the Muslim youth is all too often left with only the radical choices that he or she finds on the internet. There have been numerous incidents of self-radicalization in West over the decades that led to violence and death. These individuals remain invisible and unidentifiable potential sleeper agents of terror.

Secondly, because of the impact of class, poorer and less well educated Muslims tends to be far more strict in their adherence to the strictures of Islam and their particular Islamic culture. Regrettably, with respect to the West, the migration of immigrants in recent decades has primarily come from these classes. Not only do these groups too often grimly hold onto traditions we in the West find appalling such honor killings and child brides, but they are also the groups most offended by western traditions and cultural norms. It is only surprising incidents like the horrific Yom Kippur attack in Manchester aren't more common.

Finally, Islam itself is confused with respect to its relationship with Christianity and Judaism. On the one hand all three great monotheistic religions embrace belief in the same God. Cultural norms between Orthodox Jews and Muslims are very similar and both worship what is essentially a common history as found in the Old Testament and Koran. At the same time Islam also embraces many of the traditions of the New Testament. Though Islam does not view Jesus as God or son of God, Islam does proclaim him the next greatest prophet after Mohammed. In Islam, salvation is open to Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike because all three communities are "People of the Book."

Yet, at the same time, there is still a powerful sense of "Jihad" - the desire to spread the new religion. This has both a purely religious context and a social one. Islam has the concept of "Dar el Islam" and "Dar el Harb." This loosely translates as the House or World of Islam, where Muslims are protected by their religion as expressed in Sharia Law, or the House or World of War where Muslims are not protected and Sharia Law is not yet enforced. This sets something of a precedent for behaviors, even resistance, to what Westerners would consider political, social, and governance norms.

Back to our second point these conflicts are most easily stirred among those less well educated classes - the very ones currently being embraced by the West. The chances of true assimilation seem very small to me.

Click to expand...

steve white said:

You've got 1300 years of history to show the constant warring, slaving, subjugation of Islam. It is a consistently depressing story. It had to be stopped in its advance at the time of the Crusades, and it will have to be stopped and set back on its heels today. There will be no peace from Islam's side, unless you consider capitulation peace.
As Teddy Roosevelt said, North Africa was conquered because they weren't militant enough to resist. France and Austria, (in war from separate directions) remained free because they were militant.
You can choose freedom, or militancy--jihadists will not give you a third choice for long. We have jihadists here who are more and more virulent. If we do not deport the bad actors we are in for a heck of a time, sooner than you think. They have figured out that there will be no real physical opposition to their activities unless they are actually attacking your home. Prove me wrong. We TALK big, till it's too late.

Click to expand...

Brent in Az said:

I'm sure the Hamas peace agreement will last about a day......maybe 2.

Click to expand...

CJW said:

The trick is not just deporting the easy to spot, hard core jihadists, but the softer support crew as well. But reminding people of 1300 years of violent history isn't enough. The soft and again nuanced approach of Islam's infiltration into a society and eventual takeover is much harder to spot and call out and convince people that it's actually happening. Islam hasn't always been guys on horses stampeding into town and beheading everyone. Islamic history says and teaches that Muhammad himself used the tactic of being polite and civil until the numbers were great enough. THEN you yake over. Modern day UK, France, etc. are good examples. OK, so what do you do in the meantime when your just living next to civil Islamic neighbors? How do you convince everyone else of what needs to be done in our modern, polite society? Most will just say that things have changed and that they're not like that anymore or everyone who moves to the west just really wants to be westernized and democratic. People learning the entire history and culture and how they intersect is a great way to start IMO.

There's a saying, "Radical Islam is the snake. Moderate Islam is the grass hiding the snake."

But I think we agree on most everything.

Click to expand...

rookhawk said:

@Red Leg I do not dispute much of your statements but I do think you missed a few nuances. Islam is in worse shape than you describe.

Islam DID have a reformation. With the Persian influence in the middle ages, factions did see an enlightened view of the Quran. Jihad became a spiritual war against self. The Sufis pushed a benevolent form of Islam that was able to transform a violent book into a higher, spiritual interpretation. (e.g. just as Jews have done with the Torah and Tanakh)

The problem was these passive, enlightened, scientific, and spiritual Muslims were exterminated. They had the reformation, it failed.

The other problem with Islam is the belief of Abrogation is a doctrinal understanding of 98%+ of all Muslims on the planet. What that means is that half of the Quran is invalid, Allah changed his mind a lot, and the peaceful and inspiring passages were abrogated by the more violent subsequent passages written in the Medina period. The average person reads the Quran and assumes it is all valid where in fact it is not. The anecdote of Mohammad praying for the sick Jewish children adjacent to his home in all directions was replaced by the passage where the trees cry out that a Jew is hiding behind them and must be killed.

For that reason, Islam is in a dire situation and cannot overcome the combined and unified thinking of all four schools of thought in the Sunni Muslim tradition.

How *Could* Islam be fixed? If the majority of Muslims preached with an exegetical lens like Christians and Jews interpret their scriptures, you would find the context in the moment that explains the moral principles in context and that all passages could be true rather than conflicting. It would result in a reformation and the capacity for a benevolent, non-violent religion.

The problem with unravelling this abomination is that there is also a tradition in Islam that we cannot critique the Prophet's companions. The companions did many misdeeds and could arguably have misinterpreted Mohammad's messages in the Quran. The Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence disagrees back to the first century after Mohammad. Literally, you'd have to unravel all of these errant traditions and go to a "sola scriptura" approach to Islam as happened in Protestant Christianity.

It'll never happen, the peaceful and philosophical Muslims have been murdered. Hard line doctrine has infected most of the major schools of thought. The future is bleak.

Click to expand...

rookhawk said:

@Red Leg I do not dispute much of your statements but I do think you missed a few nuances. Islam is in worse shape than you describe.

Islam DID have a reformation. With the Persian influence in the middle ages, factions did see an enlightened view of the Quran. Jihad became a spiritual war against self. The Sufis pushed a benevolent form of Islam that was able to transform a violent book into a higher, spiritual interpretation. (e.g. just as Jews have done with the Torah and Tanakh)

The problem was these passive, enlightened, scientific, and spiritual Muslims were exterminated. They had the reformation, it failed.

The other problem with Islam is the belief of Abrogation is a doctrinal understanding of 98%+ of all Muslims on the planet. What that means is that half of the Quran is invalid, Allah changed his mind a lot, and the peaceful and inspiring passages were abrogated by the more violent subsequent passages written in the Medina period. The average person reads the Quran and assumes it is all valid where in fact it is not. The anecdote of Mohammad praying for the sick Jewish children adjacent to his home in all directions was replaced by the passage where the trees cry out that a Jew is hiding behind them and must be killed.

For that reason, Islam is in a dire situation and cannot overcome the combined and unified thinking of all four schools of thought in the Sunni Muslim tradition.

How *Could* Islam be fixed? If the majority of Muslims preached with an exegetical lens like Christians and Jews interpret their scriptures, you would find the context in the moment that explains the moral principles in context and that all passages could be true rather than conflicting. It would result in a reformation and the capacity for a benevolent, non-violent religion.

The problem with unravelling this abomination is that there is also a tradition in Islam that we cannot critique the Prophet's companions. The companions did many misdeeds and could arguably have misinterpreted Mohammad's messages in the Quran. The Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence disagrees back to the first century after Mohammad. Literally, you'd have to unravel all of these errant traditions and go to a "sola scriptura" approach to Islam as happened in Protestant Christianity.

It'll never happen, the peaceful and philosophical Muslims have been murdered. Hard line doctrine has infected most of the major schools of thought. The future is bleak.

Click to expand...

Red Leg said:

To put it simply, one is either a "good" or "bad" Muslim. One either adheres to the strict cultural requirements around diet, prayer, fasting etc or one doesn't. Culturally, over the last century strict adherence to the requirements of Islam was often governed by economic and social standing. This is a generalization, but the better educated, traveled, and compensated one was, the less one was likely to strictly adhere to religious requirements. It is why many of us here have "normal" or Western interaction with many Muslims in this country or in Europe.

Click to expand...

CJW said:

Long enough to make the entire thing look stupid.

Click to expand...

Newboomer said:

There's always a few rotten apples in every barrel.

Click to expand...

Red Leg said:

I suspect we are just playing with definitions.

Neither I, nor any scholars of the religion of whom I am aware, think of Persian influence as anything resembling the reformation. Yes, Persia did contribute to a flourishing of intellectual and philosophical thought within Islam, but it did not cause an "enlightened" or "reformative" view as we understand the concept in the West. Instead, the cross-pollination of Persian culture with Islamic teachings created a more diverse, dynamic, and expansive intellectual tradition that facilitated the Islamic Golden Age.

Of course, one of the most lasting effects was the creation of the Twelver schism in the religion as a result of disputes over descendent inheritance of the Caliphate. That rift became permanent when Shia Islam became the state religion of Persia in the 16th century by the Safavid dynasty. But none of this was a "reformation" as we understand the concept in the West. The one exception I think could be entertained is the notion of Koranic reinterpretation that is doctrinally essentially closed to the Suni, but open to the Shia through the concept of the Ayatollah. Obviously, to date, those post revolutionary interpretations more closely resemble Suni Wahabi conservatism than enlightened

With respect to an actual reformation, who knows. The European Catholic world was seemingly an unchallengeable monolith up until the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis in October of 1517. It was a movement that gained enormous world-wide momentum when the soon to be history's greatest maritime empire embraced Protestantism in 1534 over the divorce of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. We'll see if some accelerant flames within Islam in the coming years.

Click to expand...

Tanks said:

Turkey is a good example of this. The rural and the poor are a lot more strict, whereas the educated and urban people observe a milder version of Islam. It has become less secular due to Erdogan being in power for 20+ years, but even he cannot bring the Sharia law to Turkey without risking civil war.

My last wife used to call Turks pseudo-Muslims due to all the drinking and nude beaches. At the wedding I was in at Mandarin Hotel in Turkey a month ago more alcohol than water was flowing. Not to mention some of the entertainment would be scandalous in strict Muslim countries.

View attachment 718162

Click to expand...

Pheroze said:

As I am sure everyone knows, Islam came after Zoroastrianism as the dominant religion in Persia and beyond. Persian history prior to that was much more enlightened, especially when one considers Cyrus and Darius (and his role in the Old Testament. However, like all empires, it suffered a decline and has become most famous for the state of affairs as described by Hollywood. The victors do write history.

Your description of things is fascinating as I have always felt that Islamic and Christian thought really diverged in the 17th century. I don’t have your education on these points and my thoughts are more formed by conversations with my father and family about our Parsi heritage. It’s interesting considering the eastern contribution to math, science and art up to that point.

Click to expand...

Tanks said:

Turkey is a good example of this. The rural and the poor are a lot more strict, whereas the educated and urban people observe a milder version of Islam. It has become less secular due to Erdogan being in power for 20+ years, but even he cannot bring the Sharia law to Turkey without risking civil war.

My last wife used to call Turks pseudo-Muslims due to all the drinking and nude beaches. At the wedding I was in at Mandarin Hotel in Turkey a month ago more alcohol than water was flowing. Not to mention some of the entertainment would be scandalous in strict Muslim countries.

View attachment 718162

Click to expand...

Red Leg said:

Absolutely.

Persia, and not the Persian Empire usually portrayed in high school surveys of Western Civilization much less movies like "300," was one of the great civilizing forces of the ancient world. It was role it played through the middle ages and arrival of Islam. Its influences over Islam were particularly lasting during the Abbasid Caliphate.

Beginning in 622, Persia was a major epicenter of the Islamic Golden Age. Persian scholars also were prominent in the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, where they played a pivotal role in the translation movement, bringing Greek, Indian, and Persian texts on science and philosophy into Arabic.

I should digress, and note that most in the West have never heard of the House of Wisdom. Established in the 9th Century, it functioned as a research institution and world library, accumulating and translating works from across the ancient world at a time when the West was busy burning heretics and witches. The House of Wisdom fostered advancements in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, philosophy, and a host of other areas of study.

Sadly, the institution and much of its influence were destroyed by the Mongols in the 13th century - one of the great scourges of civilization East or West. It was an invasion that did much to bring the Golden age to a bloody closure. But even so, much of the ancient literature of Rome and Greece which so influenced the Renaissance in the West came from surviving translations of those texts that made there way back and were then retranslated back into Latin and Greek.

I should have noted in my first post above, that Zoroastrianism was the fourth great monotheistic religion recognized by Islam as being part of the People of the Book or "Ahl al-Kitab." And yes all four recognize the same God - Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Allah, and God. Its tenants included free will, ethical conduct, and the eventual triumph of good over evil. Largely subsumed by Islam, as you note the religion continues to be practiced by the Parsis of India.

Click to expand...

steve white said:

I took it the gentleman meant they are all radicals, all, as in all countries

Click to expand...