It's the theology, stupid

Reinterpreting doesn't mean rewriting. It means rethinking words and practices that already exist, removing them from a 7th-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a 21st-century pluralistic context. -- Irshad Manji

To which Rod appends: It can be done. But it can't be done by non-Muslims, any more than that Christianity can be reformed by non-Christians.

The only semantic change I desire there, Rod, is to change "that Christianity can be reformed" to "that Christianity was reformed".

The parallels between Christian and Muslim political histories is instructive, particularly that -- besides the general similarities -- that Muslim theological interfacing with contemporary social and political realities is a few centuries behind.

I don't mean to insist on a direct analog here. I know that it breaks down. I do mean to point out that we (the heirs and successors to Christian civilization) can offer understanding and the benefits of the lessons our forbearers learned to our Muslim cousins.

When a Muslim (or other) cites Christian behaviors in comparison to what some Muslims are doing today, rather than dismiss it as a strawman, embrace it as an opportunity.

"Yeah, they did that. And see, for decades/centuries after, how they suffered for their mistakes? See, too, how later leaders took those lessons to heart, and made such behaviors antithetical to their beliefs and goals?"

Far be it from this well-read Pagan to instruct Christians on their political history. But I ask you: what is better, creating a new defeated class scattered as refugees around the world, or partnering with a religious group with a vast potential for good in the world... just like the Christians were, in both senses, at some point in their history?

Rod,

I think your last point about how Islam cannot be reformed by non-Muslims is absolutely true. That's important to remember, because those who talk about instigating a reformation within Islam from without are probably doing more to increase anger among Muslims than anyone. In fact, I sometimes wonder if Bush getting up and talking about his perception of Islam also fans the flames.

Franklin, there is some truth in what you say, though I would certainly take issue with equivocating absolute stages of history between Muslim and Christian civilizations. I'm not above admitting mistakes, but I'll also speak out when I see one sided or even hair brained documentaries on television about Christian history. Along those same lines, I think there is a chance that the context and thinking within Islam is so different that a "lesson from historical stages" from a western context may not ring a bell to Muslims.

Then again, they have certainly co-opted the modern idea of victimhood into their everyday language and discourse.

Don, I have already conceded the equivocation (is that right? equivalencing? grin) part, but I also insist on the benefits of examining the general case. One doesn't need to see or find theological parallels to point out practical, experiential similarities, if only in the consequences of violent actions.

As an outsider, I find a strong correlation between the Christian concept of martyrdom and the Muslim use of it. Peel away the violent facade; underneath, I believe, you will find the same sense of connection with God. I'm not asking Christians to agree with Islam; I am challenging them to understand, at least with a bit of sympatico.

Franklin, point taken.

Rod, I am painfully aware of that difference, in like manner to your awareness. At no point did I intend to ignore that difference.

I do see a need to clarify, so here goes:

Justifications are just that. They offer no chance to bridge differences, and often serve to obscure similarities.

At some point, someone somewhere has to break the ice of response in kind. Hassan Butt is trying to do it. He and others not yet named are or will be prime candidates for that other Christian concept, sainthood. Unfortunately, their qualification for sainthood will include being "martyred" by one of their co-religionists; and, it is very unlikely that Christianity will try to canonize them. Just food for thought...

Alicia,

Taha (may God have mercy on his soul) wasn't killed because of his Islamic reform ideas. It was political, having to do with the governance of the Sudan and consolidation of power.

Salaam,

ME

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Irshad Manji lesbian? I would think that might have something to do with her views not being eagerly supported. This is not to say that her views are wrong or that being a lesbian is right or wrong, but I have not heard of Islamic lesbian support groups in the Middle East.

"The difference is that the Christian martyr gives his or her own life in the service of God. The contemporary Islamic martyr also gives his or her own life in the service of Allah -- and takes as many innocent people with him as he can."

How many innocent people died in Shock and Awe? How many innocent people died in Afghanistan in 'accidental' bombings?

suicide bombers are not martyrs. This is sick and twisted murder of innocents. Christian martyrs never murdered anyone.

If you consider this an act of war, however, perhaps we should blame Sherman's march on the South as an example of war on the populace. That's on us.

Bill, how many civilians died in WWII? Korea? Viet Nam?

Guerilla tactics were used in every single one of those conflicts. And how many German or Italian soldiers were killed in terroristic attacks, or UN soldiers in Korea? I presume I don't have to mention Viet Nam in this light.

Martyrdom by self-initiated violence is completely subjective. Completely. Terrorism tactics make heros of the perpetrators and generate hate amongst the victims' survivors. A nation's leadership who fails to understand that, or in understanding fails to implement policy based on that understanding, is not a leadership I care to support. The first mistake Bush made was in taking advantage of the soft statistical support he enjoyed immediately after 9/11/01. He made good decisions initially with Afghanistan. He went on to make mistake after mistake thereafter.

And with much respect to those who feel bad about supporting the invasion of Iraq because of hindsight, I regret to inform you that the mistake of invasion was clear without knowing about the WMD snafu. All that's needed is to compare the international reaction to the invasion of Afghanistan to the reaction after Iraq. I think the US got off much easier than we deserved for violation of treaty and unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation.

Bill, where should American (or any) Christians draw the line?

Should they have opposed invading Afghanistan? Plenty of innocent lives were lost there.

The invasion of Iraq should have been prevented for several reasons in addition to the innocent lives part. I know full well (and though not intending to speak for Rod, he sees alot more than you are willing to credit him for) where Islamic violence comes from, and American policies are handy excuses, not primary motivators.

It comes from the same place as Christian violence, Hindu violence and atheistic violence. Humans are violent. If you want to continue along the vein of one or more of those philosophies failing to prevent violence in certain populations, I suggest you be ready to look at about 5,000 years of human history along the way.

Happy Monday, everyone.

Anonymous said:

"If I'm not mistaken, isn't Irshad Manji lesbian? I would think that might have something to do with her views not being eagerly supported. This is not to say that her views are wrong or that being a lesbian is right or wrong, but I have not heard of Islamic lesbian support groups in the Middle East."

Yes, Manji is lesbian, but that hasn't prevented her book from being translated into many languages and read by Muslims all over the world. The main criticism I've read of her is that her understanding of Islam lacks depth, and, in particular, that her reformist ideas are insufficiently grounded in Islam. For instance, people say she misunderstands the concept of "Ijtihad" (independent reason) and that it doesn't allow us much leeway to ordinary Muslims to think for themselves as she thinks it does.

My view is that her purpose is to be a gadfly and get people to think and talk, and I think that she does a pretty good job of that. Not everyone can be a deep thinker or a theoretician.

I appreciate Manji for what she does well, which is to articulate questions which many people (like me) have about violence in the name of Islam.

Mr. Evans
I am sorry you want to reduce differences between world religions on a question as significant as martydom to mere subjectivity. Given the impact religion has had on human behavior, I'd want to be more discerning about my analysis of any belief structure, religious or otherwise. There are enormous prima facia differences between how Christianity and Islam view martyrdom. To ignore them is simply to be ignorant in public.

To clarify: my comments are about the fundamental, ancient teaching and practice of Christianity, prior to 325 AD. My views are based on 25 years of study in early Christian writings, at least the Greek writings; for the Latin fathers my rusty, inadequate Latin sends me to English translations since my teaching specialization is Ancient Near Eastern Languages, Archaeology, and Hebrew Scriptures.

Rome indeed needed scapegoats, but they had many candidates. Why subject Christians in particular to such extremes of barbarism? While other groups were in fact treated in a barbaric manner, the Christians were the only group that had an ideological opposition to using violence. There were Jewish revolutionaries, ethnic revolutionaries, and all sorts of political opponents who resorted to violence. The Christians insisted on complete non-violence toward civil authority. Other groups could pass the political correctness test and burn incense to Caesar, or they offered an opening to violent response by being violent themselves. Christians adamantly claimed only "one Lord," and imperial Rome understood the very real "threat" posed by a large and growing segment of the population that claimed a higher loyalty than Rome. At the same time, they knew the Christians to be non-violent.

The Romans knew well that St. Paul instructed Christians to be obedient to the state and emphasized that Christians were to be decent persons of good reputation, not figures of contention or controversy. Even "evangelism" prior to 325 occurred mainly in private. Christian worship services were closed to all but baptised believers. Christians patterned their (low) public profile on the teaching of Jesus about being salt and light, and on Paul's instruction to live a quiet life.

The practice of emperor worship was more than a pretense; Rome understood the ultimate danger posed by a loyalty transcending the state. Imperialism needs its metaphysical appeals, and a vibrantly growing early Christianity, posing no military threat, clearly aimed a spiritual sword at the throat of roman imperialism.

Many early Christian leaders had to restrain Christians from martyrdom. Some would not only refuse the offering to Caesar, they would do so in a public fashion in hopes of martyrdom. Thus the main early Christian leaders emphasized that martyrdom was not to be sought. The killing of persons subscribing to such a belief system seems to me materially and factually a different matter than the death of someone during an act of violence.

You say I make an appeal to emotion. Just because something is warmly felt does not make it "an emotional appeal." An emotional appeal is one that, absent any facts, only attempts to persuade by producing feelings. It is a form of manipulation. I don't really need to manipulate you or Rod or anyone else. This is only my second comment ever on this blog. So I really don't care whether you accept what I say or not. But if you can speak of martyrdom without emotion, not only are you lacking emotion, you are lacking reason as well. Voluntary death for an idea is something about which any rational person should feel strongly, whether positively or negatively.

On the whole, though, if you cannot discern the difference between martyrs for a religion that gave and still gives profound impetus to pacifism (rightly or wrongly) and whose first rule of conduct was "live in love," over against "martyrs" who die in acts of random terror, then we likely can't have a very helpful conversation and it doesn't matter much what you think of my point of view.

Sorry for the long post.

"It [Islamic violence] comes from the same place as Christian violence, Hindu violence and atheistic violence. Humans are violent. If you want to continue along the vein of one or more of those philosophies failing to prevent violence in certain populations, I suggest you be ready to look at about 5,000 years of human history along the way."

Yes, humans are violent, no surprise there. Jesus taught us to reject the 'eye for an eye' revenge mentality and turn the other cheek. Easier said than done, I admit. But knowing full well what Jesus taught, Rod Dreher and tens of thousands of American Christians rejected the overtures of the pope, the Methodist bishops and other Christian and called for war.

Humans are indeed violent. Someone has to accept the blow, turn the other cheek to end the cycle of violence. If you're going to profess Christianity, walk the walk. Muslims' failure to follow their own laws do not excuse Christians for killing tens of thousands in a pre-emptive attack.

"Bill, where should American (or any) Christians draw the line?"

It seems to me they should draw it where Jesus drew it. Would Jesus counsel war, much less a hostile, pre-emptive war? Or extraordinary rendition?

Harvey,

I find it difficult to accept that you don't see what I can see: de facto segregation in houses of worship is a social phenomenon, having nothing to do with the differences or similarities in faith. It has it's direct parallel in geographies: the ethnic/racial make up of a house of worship is a nearly 100% correlation to the ethnic/racial make up of the surrounding neighborhoods or, in the case of suburbs, the surrounding square miles.

Good morning, Harvey.

We don't disagree. I think you are pushing too hard in the wrong direction... that being another way of saying you are being too narrowly focused. Naturally, I am the Grand Poobah of All Wisdom. You may call me Grand PAW... ;-)

I also think you are getting alot of help with that pushing. My objection and premise is this: religion for too long has been looked to as a foundational structure, something that drives society, informs culture and governs behavioral patterns. As an atheist, I think you will find this exceedingly ironic coming from a devout religionist: religion is an expression of human endeavor, a result of those processes, not vice versa.

For those reading, do not jump to conclusions. I am not minimizing religion and its part in human civilization. No, I am positing (actually, I am asserting, but today is a rare day where my less polite thoughts are not necessarily going to come forth) religion is a development of civilization. Cart before the horse, that sort of thing. I will skip the anthropology lecture, that being my way of acknowledging the many questions my statements raise. I will say this: civilizations all exist in a paradox of positive feedback; engineers know that the best and fastest way to destroy a machine is to feed it its own output. The best civilizations, the ones that last the longest and are most constructively positive to its generations, find and maintain ways to control and mitigate the negative results of feedback. Sorry, I did say I'd skip the lecture... :-D

Harvey, I've walked through houses that were part of the Underground Railway. Some of them were still occupied by the same families since that time. Almost without exception, they were devoutly religious people in those houses, and the unifying aspect, the common ground they shared with the escaping slaves, was their Christian faith.

That's just one example. It was a time of great social upheaval, of shifting pressures and expectations. We live in a similar time, today, and our societal reactions are pretty much the same as they were then: alot of fear, alot of behaviors stemming from fear, and a subtle but strong undercurrent of wanting to do the right thing. It's not just an American thing. Some can, arguably, call it a Christian thing. I know, as in it takes one to know one, that it is undoubtedly a human thing.

Do the many living in fear define the rest? Do we focus on one subset and call the other one invalid? I can't and won't impose my own conclusions on you, Harvey, but I will pressure you a bit by writing that you are one of the deepest feeling men I've ever met. You articulate your feelings clearly, and without ever having met you I feel certain that you have both eyes open, and you do not flinch at the truth.

The truth I see is a human truth. It applies no matter what faith group is the identity du jour, or of the place. Xenophobia is a species affliction. Generosity, compassion, charity, sacrifice and (true) patriotism are the species' balance to that fear. There will always be local imbalances. Overall, I think I like where the species is going, and I just wish I could be around for the next 1,000 years to see which set of impulses are prevalent, and whether the species has learned any of the lessons of the last few centuries.

Unsuprisingly, I disagree with Paul there. Faith is the repository of acceptance, of both the good and the bad, while our evolved trait of control of our environment catches up to our desires for stability, safety, and satisfaction. God is the anthropomorphic image of the human in ultimate control. Is it any wonder that Human worships it, strives to be like it, blames it for all things including the ones we have no one else to rightly blame for but ourselves? From my never humble perspective, atheists are no different from theists. They have found the same balance between knowable and unknowable. They just have outgrown the need to put a human face on the unknowable, or even give it an independent identity of any sort.

Mr. Lacey
I limited my comments to formative Christianity, as it appeared in the first 2-3 centuries after Christ.

Any religion, however fine, can be hi-jacked by evil persons, whackos, and misguided persons. Your diatribe about Christianity simply documents a commonplace: there are no pearls so precious that swine will not trample them and corrupt them.

But these abuses you describe can easily be shown to be contrary to the explicit teaching and practice of formative Christianity and condemned as corruption and aberration. I am not so sure that is possible with Islam. In part this has to do with the fact that Christianity always understood itself to be a parallel culture, the city of God co-existing with the City of Man, as it were. Islam has a very profound, but very grave linkage of the two: to the extent that Muslims are obedient, the "umma" or Islamic community will be independent, unified, and the dominant culture in the world. As far as I can discern, muslims do not have a concept of being a minority culture and still somehow being pleasing to God.

The Christian church has certainly had its flirtation with the idea of merging the City of God and City of Man, but even a person with only a rudimentary knowledge of, say, the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Actcs could see that as a distortion.

I certainly understand your anger at the Christian church for its failures, and I share it. But that failure, and that anger, does not change the facts of history, and the facts of what essential Christianity teaches.

Why thank you, Mr. Evans.
It is always a pleasure to disagree with someone who is so agreeable in the disagreement. Thanks for your comments overall, which reminded me that imprecision is the seed of outright error.