Dialoge on Islamic Reformation
I found this deeply interesting and exceedingly intellectual dialogue by following a link to me. I thought I would share. Enjoy.
Evanl:
And by doing that, they are merely reinforcing the stereotype that they are bad people. Counter productive and dangerous.
Noocyte:
Yes, but then there's THIS.
More of this, please. Much more. And faster.
Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Like Judeism and Christianity, it posits an exclusive relationship between the Divine and Absolute Principle of Creation and a "chosen" (essentially tribal) group. At higher levels of abstraction, that chosen group can be extended to include all of humanity, creating the potential beneficial conception of a brotherhood of man (wording intentional; they tend to be rather patriarchal, arising as they did out of primarily nomadic herding groups, and morphing into more agrarian civilizations with a strong emphasis on animal husbandry. Fatherhood/male potency images predominate). On the darker side of things, they can tend to be expansionist/exclusionary...often brutally so (our group has a direct line to the Creator, so all others need to get on board or suffer righteous retribution for their willful ignorance. That sort of thing). ....
Each of these religions has had its period of warlike, "imperialistic" activity. The Jews during biblical times were very tough customers, and woe to their neighbors with different god(s). The Christians have perpetrated some especially unsavory activities, ranging from Crusades to Inquisitions, and some less-than-gentle missionary work abroad. Right now, it is Islam's turn.
This whole question of whether the problem lies within Islam itself, or with an extremist element of the religion is an oversimplified and therefore misleading formulation of the question. At a given level of analysis, the "problem" lies within the monotheistic paradigm itself. And anyone who reads this and thinks "Noocyte is advocating for the elimination of monotheism" needs to reflect on their excessive readiness to view issues in a conflictual/confrontational manner.
As I see it, Islam stands at the threshold of the kind of "reformation" which has allowed Judaism and Christianity to exist alongside (and indeed to be constitutive of) materialistic, mercantile, 'humanist' societies. Christianity (the example with which I am most familiar) collapsed the arena of action inward from the Church's manipulation of the earthly realm as the representative of Christ on earth, down to the soul of the individual worshipper, in direct communion with the Divine. As such, it rendered itself more amenable to the dictates of individualism and thus of democracy. Monotheism became a moral compass, rather than a "political" system. Similar 'liberalizing' trends within Judaism have been afoot for centuries (differently, though, since, like Islam, Judaism is a "nuclear" religion, one which does not make a fundamental distinction between the sacred and profane levels of experience, as the divine is seen as suffusing even the mundane, workaday activities of the world).
As it perceives itself approaching such a watershed moment in its history, Islam experiences pressure. Those who perceive the integrity of the religion as being inextricably intertwined with the most traditional interpretations of the Q'ran and Hadith see the impending corruption and destruction of the faith. Since the monotheistic paradigm puts such extreme pressure on traditionalists (slip but a fraction and you have fallen out of favor with The Absolute Creator and Ruler of EVERYTHING), one can hardly blame them for fighting tooth and nail (and knife and nuke) against even the slightest encroachment on their vision of the True Faith. They cannot be cajoled or wooed or appeased. Sadly, they must be defeated. Utterly. Humiliatingly. The large majority of Muslims who (understandably) do not want to see their faith erased from the face of the earth must see that: A) the Traditionalist vision of Islam is a meme with low/no survivability; and B) an alternative exists whereby their religion does not wither and die, but instead launches itself into a new era of prosperity and viability and vibrancy. The Jihadis must be shamed.
Far from being poised on the brink of destruction, Islam has at last reached its moment to transmute itself into an equal partner with its Abrahamic brethren, to leave behind centuries of stagnation and decline, purge itself of collective bitterness and rage. Those who say that Islam is intrinsically incompatible with modern civilization do Islam a grave disservice and reveal their own ignorance. Those who say that Islam is fine the way it is, that the "West" is the only problem, and that it should leave Islam alone reveal (IMHO) a fundamental misunderstanding of the forces at play, and a serious underestimation of the dangerousness of monotheism gone mad.
SHINYJOHN:
Good post. Your historical summary is invaluable , since the Middle East seems determined to relive the past over and over again. Your analysis of the poltical dynamics perpetuated by the Abrahamic religions was also interesting, since they have , over the centuries led to aggressive expansionism and propped up absolutist governments. But if we look at the Jewish conquest of Cannan and the Crusades as the Jewish and Christian opportunities at expansion and regard the latest wave as jihads as Islam's turn at playing bully, I think that it may be a bit misleading and actually veer's away from the historical perspective, that I believe you are advocating. Islam spread itself, often through military means, from the Pyrennes to the Hindu Kush in just a couple of hundred years. The Crusades were a Christian reaction to aggressive Islam. From the Reconquista in Spain to the more familiar campaigns in the Holy Land, Christians believed that they were taking back what Islam had stolen from them ( Im not making a judgement on those perceptions, merely observing that they were a motivating force). Now, Wahabbi Islam still encourages it's adherants to refer to Westerner's present in the Arab homelands as "crusaders" and some fundamentalist Christians have adopted the same mindset and refer to the present military adventures in Iraq as "crusades". It seems both sides seek to prove the legitimacy of their claims based on a perception ( or misconception) of history. What makes this debate so difficult is the tendency for both sides to retreat into the past to reinforce prejudices and perpetuate grudges to justify today's misdeeds. If the two cannot look to the future with an honest desire to establish a lasting peace, they will both be doomed to recycle past violence and conquests.
I believe that you are correct in your assessment, that Islam stands on the threshold of a watershed event. I only wish that I could be as hopeful as you, that it will be a reformation and not a revival. In the West the former led to the Inquisition, witch hunts and the devastating wars of religion in the 17th century. Revivalist movements led to events as diverse as the Crusades and Prohibition. Both reformation and revival carry the potential for fanaticism and epic carnage. Whichever scenario plays out in the Middle East, it may not be pretty and may take a helluva long time to determine the future of Islam and it's relationship to the rest of the world. Reformation should be an internal process that could lead to a humanist movement and an Enlightenment, revival - one that will only continue bloody confrontation with the West and it's secular culture. This is a time to be looking at writing the history of tomorrow rather than repeating the hate-filled cycles of past violence. I hope the leaders of both the West and Islam can reconcile their differences and resolve to follow the road to peace... or they may have to resign themselves to the fact that neither Christian, Muslim or Jew seem capable of following the mandates of their faiths and that their God is a mere excuse for the failures of mankind.
This whole question of whether the problem lies within Islam itself, or with an extremist element of the religion is an oversimplified and therefore misleading formulation of the question. At a given level of analysis, the "problem" lies within the monotheistic paradigm itself. And anyone who reads this and thinks "Noocyte is advocating for the elimination of monotheism" needs to reflect on their excessive readiness to view issues in a conflictual/confrontational manner.
As I see it, Islam stands at the threshold of the kind of "reformation" which has allowed Judaism and Christianity to exist alongside (and indeed to be constitutive of) materialistic, mercantile, 'humanist' societies. Christianity (the example with which I am most familiar) collapsed the arena of action inward from the Church's manipulation of the earthly realm as the representative of Christ on earth, down to the soul of the individual worshipper, in direct communion with the Divine. As such, it rendered itself more amenable to the dictates of individualism and thus of democracy. Monotheism became a moral compass, rather than a "political" system. Similar 'liberalizing' trends within Judaism have been afoot for centuries (differently, though, since, like Islam, Judaism is a "nuclear" religion, one which does not make a fundamental distinction between the sacred and profane levels of experience, as the divine is seen as suffusing even the mundane, workaday activities of the world).
As it perceives itself approaching such a watershed moment in its history, Islam experiences pressure. Those who perceive the integrity of the religion as being inextricably intertwined with the most traditional interpretations of the Q'ran and Hadith see the impending corruption and destruction of the faith. Since the monotheistic paradigm puts such extreme pressure on traditionalists (slip but a fraction and you have fallen out of favor with The Absolute Creator and Ruler of EVERYTHING), one can hardly blame them for fighting tooth and nail (and knife and nuke) against even the slightest encroachment on their vision of the True Faith. They cannot be cajoled or wooed or appeased. Sadly, they must be defeated. Utterly. Humiliatingly. The large majority of Muslims who (understandably) do not want to see their faith erased from the face of the earth must see that: A) the Traditionalist vision of Islam is a meme with low/no survivability; and B) an alternative exists whereby their religion does not wither and die, but instead launches itself into a new era of prosperity and viability and vibrancy. The Jihadis must be shamed.
Far from being poised on the brink of destruction, Islam has at last reached its moment to transmute itself into an equal partner with its Abrahamic brethren, to leave behind centuries of stagnation and decline, purge itself of collective bitterness and rage. Those who say that Islam is intrinsically incompatible with modern civilization do Islam a grave disservice and reveal their own ignorance. Those who say that Islam is fine the way it is, that the "West" is the only problem, and that it should leave Islam alone reveal (IMHO) a fundamental misunderstanding of the forces at play, and a serious underestimation of the dangerousness of monotheism gone mad.
SHINYJOHN:
Good post. Your historical summary is invaluable , since the Middle East seems determined to relive the past over and over again. Your analysis of the poltical dynamics perpetuated by the Abrahamic religions was also interesting, since they have , over the centuries led to aggressive expansionism and propped up absolutist governments. But if we look at the Jewish conquest of Cannan and the Crusades as the Jewish and Christian opportunities at expansion and regard the latest wave as jihads as Islam's turn at playing bully, I think that it may be a bit misleading and actually veer's away from the historical perspective, that I believe you are advocating. Islam spread itself, often through military means, from the Pyrennes to the Hindu Kush in just a couple of hundred years. The Crusades were a Christian reaction to aggressive Islam. From the Reconquista in Spain to the more familiar campaigns in the Holy Land, Christians believed that they were taking back what Islam had stolen from them ( Im not making a judgement on those perceptions, merely observing that they were a motivating force). Now, Wahabbi Islam still encourages it's adherants to refer to Westerner's present in the Arab homelands as "crusaders" and some fundamentalist Christians have adopted the same mindset and refer to the present military adventures in Iraq as "crusades". It seems both sides seek to prove the legitimacy of their claims based on a perception ( or misconception) of history. What makes this debate so difficult is the tendency for both sides to retreat into the past to reinforce prejudices and perpetuate grudges to justify today's misdeeds. If the two cannot look to the future with an honest desire to establish a lasting peace, they will both be doomed to recycle past violence and conquests.
I believe that you are correct in your assessment, that Islam stands on the threshold of a watershed event. I only wish that I could be as hopeful as you, that it will be a reformation and not a revival. In the West the former led to the Inquisition, witch hunts and the devastating wars of religion in the 17th century. Revivalist movements led to events as diverse as the Crusades and Prohibition. Both reformation and revival carry the potential for fanaticism and epic carnage. Whichever scenario plays out in the Middle East, it may not be pretty and may take a helluva long time to determine the future of Islam and it's relationship to the rest of the world. Reformation should be an internal process that could lead to a humanist movement and an Enlightenment, revival - one that will only continue bloody confrontation with the West and it's secular culture. This is a time to be looking at writing the history of tomorrow rather than repeating the hate-filled cycles of past violence. I hope the leaders of both the West and Islam can reconcile their differences and resolve to follow the road to peace... or they may have to resign themselves to the fact that neither Christian, Muslim or Jew seem capable of following the mandates of their faiths and that their God is a mere excuse for the failures of mankind.
