Islam and the West, fundamentally incompatible?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

I think his point is that the corruption of the Roman Catholic heirarchy provided a focal point for the reformation to build around.  The difuse nature of Muslim clergy (if the ulema can be called clergy) and theology make such a focus more difficult.

[Darzin]

Well it's already "reforming" just in the wrong way the Saudis are doing a pretty good job spreading Wahhabism to every corner of the globe. Also some Islamic denominations do have a hierarchy the Ismaili have an Imam which who has duties similar to the Pope. Of course they don't really need it as far as I am aware there has never been an Ismaili terrorist attack and their leader has stated families should educate girls over boys if they can only educate one of their children.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Darzin,

But the Ismaili are a subset of the Shi'i, as such they are a minority of minority of Muslims.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Ormond,

I think his point is that the corruption of the Roman Catholic heirarchy provided a focal point for the reformation to build around.  The difuse nature of Muslim clergy (if the ulema can be called clergy) and theology make such a focus more difficult.

Right. You can attempt to reform one centralized, hierarchical organization. You try the same on a flatter, more diffuse organization, and you just get schisms, schisms, and more schisms.

That said, I don't think something like the Protestant Reformation would actually help the Islamic faith. The Protestant reformation didn't make Christianity any more peaceful or liberal. The Enlightenment made Christianity more liberal. The Protestants were even more into following the literal word of scripture than the Catholics and Orthodox. As for peace, the only thing you can say the Protestant Reformation did for peace was cause so many religious wars that Christians decided not to have religious wars afterwards.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

WWTR,

Yeah the 30 years war completely depopulated portions of central Europe via deaths and emigtation to flee the fighting.  It made a lasting impression.

[The Marquis de Leech]

That said, I don't think something like the Protestant Reformation would actually help the Islamic faith. The Protestant reformation didn't make Christianity any more peaceful or liberal. The Enlightenment made Christianity more liberal. The Protestants were even more into following the literal word of scripture than the Catholics and Orthodox. As for peace, the only thing you can say the Protestant Reformation did for peace was cause so many religious wars that Christians decided not to have religious wars afterwards.

Depends. The Catholic Church's reaction to the Enlightenment was, well, full-scale reaction. It's no accident that formal Papal Infallibility doctrine only dates from 1870 - as the Church lost its grip on secular power (bye bye Papal States) it became ever more authoritarian in the spiritual sphere.

Ultimately, what de-fanged Christianity wasn't even the Enlightenment. It was the Second World War - which made it really hard to push right-wing authoritarian ideas in mainstream public discourse.  Before that, you had plenty of old-school religious reactionaries who wanted to turn the clock back to pre-1789. 

[Biglose]

Depends. The Catholic Church's reaction to the Enlightenment was, well, full-scale reaction. It's no accident that formal Papal Infallibility doctrine only dates from 1870 - as the Church lost its grip on secular power (bye bye Papal States) it became ever more authoritarian in the spiritual sphere.

Ultimately, what de-fanged Christianity wasn't even the Enlightenment. It was the Second World War - which made it really hard to push right-wing authoritarian ideas in mainstream public discourse.  Before that, you had plenty of old-school religious reactionaries who wanted to turn the clock back to pre-1789. 

Actually it was the first world war which killed more or less the last political power the church held. If you look at the pope during WW2 pushover is putting it too kindly.

True authoritarian ideas got a real pumper after WW2, but also not as completly as one might be inclined to think... I would actually say it to a few years for that to happen...This also affected the clergy but not any more than any other part of society.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Actually it was the first world war which killed more or less the last political power the church held. If you look at the pope during WW2 pushover is putting it too kindly.

True authoritarian ideas got a real pumper after WW2, but also not as completly as one might be inclined to think... I would actually say it to a few years for that to happen...This also affected the clergy but not any more than any other part of society.

The Church in the inter-war period rejoiced at the Fall of Liberalism. Never mind the Pope, only a very small (and brave) number of Catholics cheered for the Spanish Republic against Franco. And then there's Salazar's Portugal, which was (even more than Franco's Spain) the poster-child for traditionalist Catholic authoritarianism. Vichy France too. 

Catholic Christian Democracy did not come out of the shadows until after WWII, when the old authoritarians were discredited. And the Church itself only got around to purging some of the truly obnoxious stuff (the traditional prayer for conversion of the Jews) during Vatican II in the early 1960s.

[Jo498]

Right. You can attempt to reform one centralized, hierarchical organization. You try the same on a flatter, more diffuse organization, and you just get schisms, schisms, and more schisms.

That said, I don't think something like the Protestant Reformation would actually help the Islamic faith. The Protestant reformation didn't make Christianity any more peaceful or liberal. The Enlightenment made Christianity more liberal. The Protestants were even more into following the literal word of scripture than the Catholics and Orthodox. As for peace, the only thing you can say the Protestant Reformation did for peace was cause so many religious wars that Christians decided not to have religious wars afterwards.

It's a myth that the enlightenment was independent of Christianity. (How could it have been in a thoroughly Christian culture?) They are enmeshed and the protestant ideas of a more personal, subjective faith and everyone with the bible for himself against authorities is a fairly important factor.

What can be learned from this, is that "enlightened Islam" probably has to be achieved within Islam, not from the outside. Of course, the big difference to 16th-18th century Christendom is that today there is a relevant outside for Islam.

[Biglose]

The Church in the inter-war period rejoiced at the Fall of Liberalism. Never mind the Pope, only a very small (and brave) number of Catholics cheered for the Spanish Republic against Franco. And then there's Salazar's Portugal, which was (even more than Franco's Spain) the poster-child for traditionalist Catholic authoritarianism. Vichy France too. 

Catholic Christian Democracy did not come out of the shadows until after WWII, when the old authoritarians were discredited. And the Church itself only got around to purging some of the truly obnoxious stuff (the traditional prayer for conversion of the Jews) during Vatican II in the early 1960s.

You misstake people with organisations. We have today some priests and clergyman who are ideological in any kind of way. Hell, there are some in germany where I truly get the impression that they would like to see radical muslims taking care of this "gay-problem" for them just to get rid of them afterwards.  Believe me, people (also those dressing black) are as ugly as ever. Hell, some hardly coud  hold their rejoice after Charly Hebdo got shot up.

To get to more specific stuff: The christian church in germany also tries to sneak back into government one step at a time. They are not connected to the right but rather take a multilateral approach. If you rememer back at the planned parenthood scandal with fetal organs, that would be outright illigal in germany and the doctor would go to jail. Granted there were ethincal issues (care of the patient vS harvesting organs and of course their is the Nazi-past but one part of it is quite strong political influence of the church. Or you remember the ban on stem cell research under Bush? Germany has that too (merkel more or less toned it down, but still). There is a reason people do not like to talk about abortion in germany.  There is a reason the laws on abortion in germany are quite strict. And there is a reason there is close to no debate about it (again NS past might play a role in that,too and there are certainly examples for that). The churches in germany are not that hatefull and not as bigot as the loudmouths in the US but they are not as powerless as one might think and they are not as ok with secularism as one might think. They are just on both sides of the political spektrum.

Europe is very interesting and difficult in that way. There are major differances in the general attitude of people based on history.  The german left (and right and middle) is far more comfortable with religion in general than for example the french. You can see that in a lot of aspects. As I talked before about women rights here goes one example: Feminists like alice schwarzer who have been very active in those french circles are very critical about religion in general and islam in particular. (Sure you always here the bashing of the catholic church, but thats not real intellectual discurs or opinion since you get the same from a lot self important twats all over the place, because it is a save target...)

Secularism as a strong fundament in french society and a value on its own. Not freedom of religion, freedom from religion. (You have to consider that one gladfully remembered historic event by the frensh is the revolution, which kind of included burning down churches and cutting of the heads of clergymen as an integral part. Within the french society there is still a real, materalistic left left. Not the pathetic political correct excuse we see all over the place like in germany or the US, but the one with real ideals and a real will. And securalism is one integral part of it, which could reach to the middle and even beyond...Thats what makes those terror attacks in france such a dangerous thing in my mind. A good part of France does not like religion at all. It could stroke the rise of a secular, rationalist humanist "revolution". The problem with those is, that they tend to be bloody as well.

[Stalker]

Does he have a point is Islamic culture fundamentally incompatible with modernity as it is seen in the West?

Some notions are basic to a discourse, and therefore taken for granted, but when looked at outside their  discourse can clearly be seen to be erroneous, often bizarre. I would say this is one of them. A secret unified Islamic culture where everyone has the same view of history and where there is a fundamental way all muslims are? How would one explain the observable world, where muslims live vastly different lives in a wide array of cultures?

 

Secularism as a strong fundament in french society and a value on its own. Not freedom of religion, freedom from religion.

Presumably you mean Laïcité, which is not secularism, and indeed at odds with freedom of religion. It has its roots in the anticlericalism of the French enlightenment.

 

[Marcus Agrippa]

The problem with our species is exactly this- all cultures are human. All of them have underlying themes of subservience to a person, person, or to an idea. Islam is just another idea based on subservience to an entity. Where you could argue that the humanisn depending on the strand is subservience to the self or to the species. TBH it's why I never understood why humanity is in charge of anything in any universe. We're just a bunch of followers following one carrot or another- they might represent different things, but they are all the end goal and all unreachable.

[Ramsay Gimp]

 

Secularism as a strong fundament in french society and a value on its own. Not freedom of religion, freedom from religion. (You have to consider that one gladfully remembered historic event by the frensh is the revolution, which kind of included burning down churches and cutting of the heads of clergymen as an integral part. Within the french society there is still a real, materalistic left left. Not the pathetic political correct excuse we see all over the place like in germany or the US, but the one with real ideals and a real will. And securalism is one integral part of it, which could reach to the middle and even beyond...Thats what makes those terror attacks in france such a dangerous thing in my mind. A good part of France does not like religion at all. It could stroke the rise of a secular, rationalist humanist "revolution". The problem with those is, that they tend to be bloody as well.

At least such a "rationalist" movement would have some good ideas, unlike political Islam which is just across-the-board awful

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Biglose,

You have to consider that one gladfully remembered historic event by the frensh is the revolution, which kind of included burning down churches and cutting of the heads of clergymen as an integral part. Within the french society there is still a real, materalistic left left. Not the pathetic political correct excuse we see all over the place like in germany or the US, but the one with real ideals and a real will.

Are you saying that burning churchs, beheading clergy, and using force to impose pure materialism on society was "good" thing?

[Biglose]

Biglose,

 

Are you saying that burning churchs, beheading clergy, and using force to impose pure materialism on society was "good" thing?

Not for the once that got burned. For us today, well there is a good chance we live a better live because of it. Difficult to tell. If you ask morally at the moment? Then no, murder is never a good thing.

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot,

The French revolution was a very mixed bag in terms of how it was accomplished, but it's hard not to see it as the start of a genuine movement towards democracy and human rights in Europe. Had it failed (or at least failed more decisively than it did), Europe might well be governed by absolutist monarchs still.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TGFTV,

I distrust "revolutions" that start from mob actions.  They tend to get out of control or be suborned by others who manipulate and control the mob to very dark ends (see the Reign of Terror).  That said they don't start from bad places and their sense of justice is certainly not false, they just have a really difficult time with a sense of perspective when they demand justice.  

Mobs are scary.

[Grimbold]

TGFTV,

I distrust "revolutions" that start from mob actions.  They tend to get out of control or be suborned by others who manipulate and control the mob to very dark ends (see the Reign of Terror).  That said they don't start from bad places and their sense of justice is certainly not false, they just have a really difficult time with a sense of perspective when they demand justice.  

Mobs are scary.

One can make an equally credible argument for revolutions that start from the top.

[The guy from the Vale]

TGFTV,

I distrust "revolutions" that start from mob actions.  They tend to get out of control or be suborned by others who manipulate and control the mob to very dark ends (see the Reign of Terror).  That said they don't start from bad places and their sense of justice is certainly not false, they just have a really difficult time with a sense of perspective when they demand justice.  

Mobs are scary.

But the French Revolution didn't start with the Bastille. It started three weeks earlier with the Tennis Court Oath: The representatives of the commoners, the clergy, and even some nobles demanding the drafting of a constitution. The people arguing for that revolution were very well-educated people - in fact, they were the intellectual and political spearhead of their time, famous figures of the enlightenment. It was, in the true sense of the word, a top-down revolution, not a bottom-up revolution.

As I said, the French revolution went down a very dark path. There's no denying that. But it was still a very good thing as it was the first (moderately...) successful democratic and republican movement in modern Europe, inspired by the American Revolution of a decade earlier. In many ways, it defined the framework of a modern Western democracy which respects human rights and considers all citizen equal before the law just as much as the American Revolution did.

[Shryke]

Ormond,

I think his point is that the corruption of the Roman Catholic heirarchy provided a focal point for the reformation to build around.  The difuse nature of Muslim clergy (if the ulema can be called clergy) and theology make such a focus more difficult.

But all the reformation did in Christianity was breakup parts of that formal hierarchy and create new religions with either separate hierarchies or none at all. And this still persists to this day. 

The Reformation didn't make Christianity less central to european life and it's silly to link the two.

It's probably the horrible wars that sprung from the Reformation (and various other similar incidents) that lead to more religious toleration.