An important point, however, is [...] that the interplay of society, politics, and religion has a completely difference structure in Islam as a whole. Today's discussion in the West about the possibility of Islamic theological faculties, or about the idea of Islam as a legal entity, presupposes that all religions have basically the same structure, that they all fit into a democratic system with its regulations and the possibilities provided by these regulations. In itself, however, this necessarily contradicts the essence of Islam, which simply does not have the separation of the political and religious sphere which Christianity has had from the beginning. The Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Sharia shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such partial freedoms as our constitution gives, but it can't be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, it would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself.
Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything. There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society. One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society. When one represents the situation in those terms, as often happens today, Islam is defined according to the Christian model and is not seen as it really is in itself. In this sense, the question of dialogue with Islam is naturally much more complicated than, for example, an internal dialogue among Christians.
If Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, is right, then we have a serious problem on our hands trying to assimilate Islam into states and cultures derived from Christianity. Islam cannot be swallowed by Western-style pluralist democracy. It can't happen without the Muslims becoming untrue to their faith.
What do you think, is he right? And if he's wrong, why is he wrong? I wish G.W. Bush & Co. had talked to Cardinal Ratzinger before running off to unleash the spirit of Jeffersonian democracy in the Middle East. Ahem.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
At other times in history -- especially the Middle Ages -- things looked quite different.
Things may have looked different, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they really were different.
Even in periods when the Church and the state were most closely allied, they were generally recognized as two separate entities, with separate spheres of responsibility and separate claims on people's allegiance. The Gospel story of the tribute denarius -- when Jesus says, "Render unto Caesar", etc., shows that Christianity has always thought of religious and secular authority as being two different things. Even in periods when they were closely intertwined, religious and secular authority seldom resided completely in the same individual. In fact, much of medieval history can be seen as a constant struggle between Church and state for dominance (e.g., the Investiture controvery). Indeed, one can argue that one of the causes of the Reformation and the subsequent religious wars in Europe was the desire of the state to take over control of the religious sphere. (I'm not ignoring or denigrating the religious/theological causes of the Reformation, but I don't think anyone can deny that culture and politics also played a large role.)
Jesus explicitly rejected any attempt to make him a secular ruler. On the other hand, Mohammed was a political/military leader as well as a religious leader.>
You hit the nail on the head Rod.
Given the history of Islam, the example of Muhammed, the theological precedent for jihad (through violent and non-violent means) spoken of in the Qur'an and the Hadith, I think we know the answer to the question of whether or not Islam can reform itself. The kind of reform needed would mean a change in the essential nature of the religion itself.
Moderate Muslims? Sure. Moderate Islam? I don't think so.>
Maybe we're overlooking part of the development of Christian thought in this debate.
Yes, there are references to distinction between religion & politics (Render unto Caesar, etc.) However, this distinction was given clarification by Augustine's work on the "City of God" and the "City of Man."
As it applies to Islam, I would like to ask 2 questions-
1. Are there references within the Koran to build a similar distinction within Islamic faith? (This is one central question addressed by B16, Rod, etc.)
2. If such references exist, is there an "Augustine" figure within the Muslim world to move toward moderation?
As to the history of Islam, this poses a challenge different from the origins of Christianity. Having said that, the Jewish background of the Christian faith does have some commonalities with Islam in the sense that Israel's conquest of Canaan could be viewed as a "holy war" in some respects.>
Maybe we're overlooking part of the development of Christian thought in this debate.
Yes, there are references to distinction between religion & politics (Render unto Caesar, etc.) However, this distinction was given clarification by Augustine's work on the "City of God" and the "City of Man."
Sure, but the clarification was possible because the distinction was there from the beginning, even if it wasn't expressed or even thought of quite so explicitly until Augustine's formulation of it.>
The heart of the matter: Can a Muslim be a moderate and a Musli? Or, is a Muslim a bad Muslim insofar as he/she is moderate?>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.