Islam alienated from itself?

Spend some time among the Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem or B'nei Brak, Israel, and you will find that what Ratzinger says of Muslims is equally true of the most religious Jews today.

As for "the separation of the political and religious spheres which Christianity has had from the beginning" --- well, in the beginning Christianity had that separation because it was an upstart minority splinter of a minority religion under the Roman empire. At other times in history -- especially the Middle Ages -- things looked quite different.

And what was the Peace of Westphalia (not to mention the wars that it ended) about, if not the fairly tight connection between political and religious spheres?

And why was Muslim Andalusia a haven of relative religious tolerance that had to be reconquered by Catholics, who then expelled or forced the conversion of Jews and Muslims?

And, forget history, why is "separation of church and state" fightin' words for so many conservative Christians in the United States today?>

His point was that the possibility has existed within the West, for some time, because of the way Judaism and Christianity (and I will add, even the heresies) have wrestled with Greek thought and sought to integrate it with faith.

Sure Christians are not always in accord with Logos, but Christianity does emphasize Logos, at its core.

Sure Christians are not always about freedom or civil/human rights, but there is the potential to discuss it on the basis of reasonabilitly and not lording over others and servant leadership and distinguishing between God's Kingdom and this world, etc., and these things are very much interwoven in the NT and early Christian texts/teachings.

I don't know what is truly crucial or inconsistent to the Qu'ran or Islam, it's a bit of a complicated subject to say so with sweeping generalizations, especially for me, I just don't know enough about it. But it is clear to me that the fact that Islam has its distinct historical context, Mohammad's militancy, the comments about believers fighting unbelievers as part of their struggle, the inter-wovenness of the laws of the Qu'ran with the community, politics, etc., these things do make it more difficult to approach the subject of faith and reason in the way the West has, so there are differences at the core that can't be overlooked.

If it is true that a Western Muslim is contradicting Islam, then that's a serious problem. It is possible.

If it is not true, then we couldn't expect that what would integrate a good Muslim into Western society would be the same sort of thing that has integrated people of various Christian sects or movements of Judaism into the culture as citizens of Western countries. The way such Muslims might work out what it means to be Muslim AND part of a Western nation, is likely to be distinct and unique in certain ways, if it is possible at all, or else they will become 'bad muslims' and good westerners, or bad westerners and 'good muslims'.

But is it necessary for a citizen to be a 'good westerner'? I think it is more a matter of being a decent, responsible citizen. Is it possible to do that as a good muslim, if the country is not Islamic? Maybe not.>

I think SW is right: the states of Christendom have certainly had serious church-state problems over the centuries. No one can deny that. But Ratzinger is saying that the structure of Christianity allows for democracy and pluralism in a way that Islam simply doesn't. It's not that Christianity implies democracy and pluralism (after all, one could be a good Christian and live under a variety of governments), but rather that it can be adapted to democracy and pluralism without having its essential character altered. Not so with Islam, which is a total way of life, and was conceived from the beginning as a theocracy. The shariah isn't just a set of rules under which observant Muslims should live; it is the law Allah handed down to be established on earth.

The question upon which everything hangs is: can Islam reform to accomodate itself to democracy and pluralism, which is to say, modernity? I think it's unquestionable that individual Muslims can and do, all the time. What intrigues me is the question of whether or not doing so marks them as fallen-away Muslims.

I can see too why this question would be a lot more acute for Ratzinger and other Europeans than for us Americans, given the demographic situation there and the ghettoization of so many Muslims.>

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.>

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.>

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?>