Here’s a simple and decent summary about a group of early Muslims I’m increasingly fascinated by.
The Mutazilites belonged to very early school of thought (9th century CE) in Islam which stressed human free will and the justice of God. They attempted to find a “middle path” between the heretical Kharijites and more orothodox beliefs by asserting a “rationalist” method of interpretation.
This rationalist method was, in turn, derived from the philosophical writings inherited from ancient Greece. The Mutazilites urged Muslims to turn away from a strict, legalistic faith and instead transform Islam into a more humanistic religion. The Mutazilites were supported and encouraged by the leaders of the Abbasid Caliphate, but they also threatened the position and traditions of many religious leaders. These in turn eventually succeeding in suppressing the Mutazilite ideas, leaving Greek humanistic philosophy to European Christians to later develop and learn from - leading first to the Renaissance and later to the Enlightenment.
I believe we desperately need more Muslim Neo-Mu’tazilites. Personally, many of their ideas resonate well with me as do those of Muslim philosophers like Ibn Rushd, affectionately known as Averroes in the West, where he actually ended up having more influence than in the Islamic world.
So why do we need more Neo-Mu’tazilites you ask? Well, one of the main problems I see with Islamic theology today is the dominance of dogmatic literalism and the inadequate emphasis placed on reason. For that you can go ahead and thank the Traditionalists. As for the crazed, puritanical Wahhabis, give them a big hug for their role in all of this. They so deserve it.
Meanwhile, allow me to end this post with a favorite and very pertinent quote.
“If I don’t have the freedom to disbelieve, I cannot believe” — An-Na’im
Related:
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Maomonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed”, has a long critical discussion of the views of the Mutakallemim, which I presume are the same people.
He has the same aim, of trying to reconcile the teachings of Aristotle with faith in a single God. His book, from the 12th century, is available in English as a Dover paperback. There are probably Arabic versions in print too (it was written in Arabic).
Ah, yes, Maomonides, the Jewish philosopher. He’s got some pretty cool ideas too.
Drima-
Don beat me too it. Maimonides was saying much of the same stuff about middle path etc. I started reading guide to the perplexed…but I immediately got bored as it sounded pretty much like Greek/Aristotlian philosophy.
The Greeks had a big influence in the intellectual sphere for a long time (where have they been for the past 1,000+ years? That I can’t tell you, but they do break a lot of plates)and I guess intellectual types were drawn to them.
It seems to me that now everybody has jumped on the band wagon of rescue mission to save Islam from its obscurantist tendencies and maniacal cultutaly unproductive literal readings it found itself in. What about this Neo-Mu’tazilit? I think it is a bunch of hot air that amount to nothing but a bunch of rubbish wishful thinking for the muslim apologists to do not want to wake up to the fact that it is senseless to try to save this religion because it is based on deception and fear. It is too late to save Islam. One cannot hope to inject local medicine to tame the beast so to speak and feel sort of grand interventionist and pragmatist to please the Western world so the so called pre-conception of the western world have of islam will be gone.
The Mu’tazalite movement emerges in an area of contending forces trying to lead this religion into their ideological ground and transparent society. Unfortunately they lost badly in the same way the Kharijit lost afterward. Granted that I like their appoach to reconcile reason and religious faith, but its renewal nowadays is a joke. Before it will emerge it will meet its end by the maniacial and delusional forces of both hardline and apologist muslims. It is a wishful thinking, that’s all what it is. It is like one say that Russian revolution could have worked if Stalin did not take power and created a prison society of fear, tyranny and genocidal policies.
I do not have to remind the readers of the many people who died for trying to reconcile reason and islam, one recent one of them is Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. It is no use to try to name all the other who came before who were exiled, tortured, killed, burn and annalilated.The works of great Arab and non-Arab philosophers, scientists, poets and writers who were murdered, jailed, burned or died in exile. Names like Abul’aala El-Ma’ari, Al Ghazali, Ibn Bajja, Abdul Qadir Jilani, Ibn Jobayr, Ibn Sina (Averroes), Al Suhrawardi to name only few. These individuals preceeded Taha by centuries.
I really do not know what to say about this new trend of trying to save islam. When are the dreamers apologists, who cannot let go of this Arabian fable religion, going to wake up from their intoxicated state of mythic elation of bull? IT IS TOO LATE. The train has already pass by many centuries. By way to analogy, the muslims need to create a fast moving space ship in order to account for lost ground in science and philosophy.
There is a misconception here that Christianity was somehow saved by reformers (theologians)to were able to reconcile the faith and reason. ANd all is needed is the same to save Islam. What a stupid copy-cat saving device model. Apologist liberal muslism cannot even come up with one of their own. It is laughable. It was not philosophy or reason that saved anything. Christianity was not saved, IT TOOK SECOND STAGE IN INTERNAL AND WORLD AFFAIRS, PERIOD. The advances in science and technology and the faith in progress and humanity helped that’s for sure, but they were not targeting to undermine christianity. In fact there were moments were the evil side of religion could have undone all the positive things that evolved out of the secularisation of society. We came that close to losing everything with fascisim which had an extremely very close ties with the catholic religion. The present day president of the US can provide a good example of this counter-reason and pro-religious stance. Of course, the US is a democratic, he cannot undo things like teaching religious garbage against the theory of evolution.
To make things short, apologists muslims have a distordef idea that if only people write things about reconciling reason and faith (like the Mu’tazalits) then every body will read those passages and began a new dawn of second Islamic revival similar to the golden age of islam in Spain, Balylon and Persia of yesterdays. This must be a joke. Most people in the muslism world nowadays cannot read, and those who read and write are already under the “docile” grip of the religion that the only thing that think about is a savior or saviors (neo-mutazalit) who can shake things up for them so the attitude toward islam will change in the west.
In other blogs I have always stressed that Ben Ladden and its cronies have done one positive thing that the west could not have done, which is to spur a readership about the Koran and the Hadiths that no one could have done. Before it was the muslims who dictated what Islam was (of course a religion of peace) that lie have shattered by the events of 9/11. People are going to the sources the Koran and the Hadiths, they are not waiting for the muslims to tell them or “it is only these crazy people leaving in caves” that are messing thnigs up. Many normal Muslims in London, Paris and Hamburg have not been living in caves.
Anyway, I urge the dreamers to come to grip with reality and wake from the childish wishful thinking about saving Islam. There is nothing to save, the only thing to do is to put this religion aside or shelve it somewhere to rot away. And to live as humanly as possible with the fellow humans around instead to trying to prove something or save something inherently negative.
I will leave you with this quotation by Robert M. Persig
“When one person suffers from delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion it is called religion.”
In fact there were moments were the evil side of religion could have undone all the positive things that evolved out of the secularisation of society. We came that close to losing everything with fascisim which had an extremely very close ties with the catholic religion.
*smiles a feline smile*
Oh, dearest Atheists, can you not at least leave us religious folk with our delusions of perfection and messianic complexes? I mean, you do them so well, really, but surely we have trademarked these already.
Fascism, dear Zaki, had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Nothing. At. All. Mussolini was a declared Atheist himself, and was staunchly opposed to any influence on the hearts and minds of the populace that wasn’t his own, only compromising when the Church was deemed to strong for him to push aside entirely - more often than not, he was simply dictating the terms of surrender, so to speak. Hitler renounced his Catholic faith when he was 12, and the Nazi party had noticeable pagan elements, rather than anything religious. Hitler, as the public face of the Nazi Party had at times *pretended* to hold fast to “religious values” to attract votes, but both he and pretty much all the officials of the Nazi Party held the clergy in scorn.
In Mexico, the fascist Red Shirts weren’t just secular - they were Atheist and their prime target for persecution was clerics and anything openly religious.
Belgium’s Rexists *did* hold a connection to the Catholic Church… before the Church denounced them openly, that is.
Actual connection to the religious establishment could be found in Spain’s Falangists, the Slovak Republic’s People’s Party, and Romania’s Iron Guard, where the population was decidedly more religious - and the political parties reflected just that.
Fascism, by and large, was an ideology of strength and centralization around an iron-clad central ethos. Unity in strength, strength in unity. I’ve yet to see how a fist has religious overtures to it, but if you would care to prove me otherwise…
I will leave you with this quotation by Robert M. Persig
“When one person suffers from delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from delusion it is called religion.”
Allow me to leave *you* with a quote of my own.
“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability.”
-Voltaire
And that, amusingly enough, was from a text that was more against the religious establishment in the form of the Catholic Church than it was against Atheism. Say this for Voltaire - he critical of everyone.
Kalam seems like an interesting philosophy. Especially the bit about acquisition of knowledge being a divine command of sorts. Sweet
Zaki - your post is irrelevant. Islam will not go away. It is ingrained into many large cultures. It’s there and it’s (currently) violent, reactionary, misogynistic and barbaric.
Then again, so are (to a lesser extent, admittedly) Judaism and Christianity. It’s the God that commanded the genocide of Amalek and the people who’ve done the deed. Not to mention Inquisition and the Crusades. Islam has no monopoly on religiously ordained monstrosity.
For Islam to become secondary to secular concerns (as happened with Judaism and Christianity to a large extent) it’ll have to first mellow down. The Islamic versions of the Sicarii and Teutonic Knights - and boy, they have plenty of both - will have to be cut off from the population base, as has happened in Judaism and Christianity.
So you can have either Ijtihad or Jihad. Drima pushes for the former and you for the latter.
I can’t see how Jihad would benefit me or you. And I can definitely see how Ijtihad could benefit me and you.
So why the obstinacy?
An interesting linkie about the philosophy of continuity came up when I Googled Kalam, btw.
LOL, RK to the defense of theism!
*appropriately heroic theme music*
LOL you guys are freaking hilarious.
Zaki, I’ll reply to that rant of yours as soon as I leave the office and get back home.
Sorry for not participating much nowadays guys, been busy working on the book during my free time.
Talk later!
Mmmm, book! How’s it going?
When are we going to review the draft?
Roman,
I am surprised that you do not aware about the extent to which the Catholic Church was involved with fascism and its despicable link with the major Nazis flights from Europe to South America. You should google it. I am afraid my known bibliograpgy of this matter is very extentive. I will try to send you one reference that you can read soon.
Reducing Italian fascism to only one person of Mussolini is reductionist at best.
Raccoon, ah, I’ll certainly be releasing a sneak preview in the form of a PDF ebook. I cannot really say when but it could be in about 2 or 3 months. How much of the book I can give away online for free will also depend on the publisher.
I’ll keep you guys updated.
Zaki, forgive me, as I won’t be able to reply back extensively. However I believe the following will suffice.
You say
The Mu’tazalite movement emerges in an area of contending forces trying to lead this religion into their ideological ground and transparent society. Unfortunately they lost badly in the same way the Kharijit lost afterward. Granted that I like their appoach to reconcile reason and religious faith, but its renewal nowadays is a joke.
Great, so you like the Mu’tazalite approach. At least that’s something we have in common, but where we do differ is in the level of optimism placed in terms of reconciling reason with religious faith.
You say its renewal is a joke in the context of the Muslim world, and I say in the short-term it is indeed, but then again I am an optimist because I do believe things will get better in the long term.
Plus, just look at how far Germany and Japan have come in the last 60 years.
Anyway, I urge the dreamers to come to grip with reality and wake from the childish wishful thinking about saving Islam. There is nothing to save, the only thing to do is to put this religion aside or shelve it somewhere to rot away.
Shelve it somewhere to rot away? Oh please. And THAT is not supposed to be childish wishful thinking?
Take it easy dude, I think you’ve got too much rage and contempt at religion, and it’s making you a little blind to your own contradictions.
Islam and religion in general are not going anywhere. They’ll always exist in one form or another. What CAN be done is reforming the way Islam is practiced into something more compatible with modernity, something which will inevitably involve defeating the bearded loonies.
Look Drima, I am not trying to profess righteousness in the face of extreme naive pretensions that somehow one can reform Islam. I think there are two issues here that need to be separated.
One of the Mutazalita movement itself. I do not have anything against it at all. I, for one, wish very much that such a movement be prevalent in some form or another in a country so we can see if this country would evolve institutions that are more adapted to the modern area or modernity as you call it. For one thing, all muslim countries have evolved into this sort of similar tyranical literal reading theocracies (of course some are republics, but excuse my pun) no matter what the predominant islamic tradition they have emerged from, be it Hannafi, Hanbali, Ashkabandi or Rashidi or whatever.
What we differ is in the second point, which is the possibility of the movement to reform Islam. I am a pessimist about reforming Islam. You are more of an optimist. I do not beleive that one can reform it by simply aiding, financing schooling or by any other mean possible helping the Mutazalita school of thought. I have already told discuss the reasons. In the present time, this eventual movement has no chance of reforming the muslim society. The Mutazalita premise is that people need to be educated, open to interpretation of sources and the critical looks at the Hadiths and the Koran- I mean CRITICAL examination and interpretation. However I do not think that it one can do that now. Go and put a proposal like that to the mighty Imams at Al-Azhar university or Quom theological schools. Let’s be real here.
Now that’s different from saying that the Mutazalita school of thought is not good enough. I am not saying this. I am just saying the time has already passed for it to be an effective mean to reform the MINDS of people. You and other reform minded (eduacated) people are in a different category. I am talking about the mass of people- THE MASSES- who almost stone to death the English teacher in Soudan after she allow the name of Mohamed to be use on a ppuppet. Poeple who go on burning churches and cultural center just because a danish guy draw something resembling the prophete.
One of the mutazalita movement major claim is that the Koran cannot be written by Allah, because Allah cannot have attribute of humans. God is not like humans, He does not have hands to write with….. a classic Epicurian Greek argument. You know very well what would happen to anyone who utter such words.in ANY muslim country…. I rest my case.
LOL, RK to the defense of theism!
*appropriately heroic theme music*
*hums a merry super-hero tune*
Roman,
I am surprised that you do not aware about the extent to which the Catholic Church was involved with fascism and its despicable link with the major Nazis flights from Europe to South America. You should google it. I am afraid my known bibliograpgy of this matter is very extentive. I will try to send you one reference that you can read soon.
Reducing Italian fascism to only one person of Mussolini is reductionist at best.
*widens the mocking grin*
Zaki, please don’t assume that I have read any less than you have. And while Italian Fascism was more than just Mussolini, ignoring the magnitude of the effect that single person - the heart and mind of the Fascist party, who built it up from the ground up, set its ideology and crowned himself its Emperor…
…well, that’d be a little silly, now wouldn’t it?
Would you care to read up on the Italian Fascist movement from its birth and rise in the post-WWI reality? Would you further like to analyze it up to, and including, 1929? Let me tell you what you will find.
You will find that until 1929, the prevalent view in the Fascist Party was the same view Mussolini and the higher-ranking officials held - the secular Empire, a return to the Roman imperial glory of old once the Party had proven its worth in governing the state. The Church was held in open scorn, and the goal was to reign it in and limit its influence so as to avoid anything that would oppose the influence of Fascist ideology. Fascism didn’t see the Church as an *enemy*, per se, just as something to keep at bay. This was the view that resolved the question of the Papal State, resolving a long-standing conflict between the Papacy and unified Italy.
Post 1930 saw the Fascists using the Church as simply another political tool. Mussolini had realized that the Church was a potential medium to influence many in Italy - for or against the Fascists. Thus, he and others in the Grand Council of Fascism began courting and placating the Church, using small concessions and making a public face of incredibly… sudden piety. All too sudden, in fact. But some in the Church, those who noted that Fascism and the Church shared at least one major enemy (Communism), saw these changes in the policy as reasons to back the Fascist regime.
So, were there members of the Catholic Church who supported the Italian Fascist Party? Yes. But was there anything Catholic in the basis of Fascism and the Italian Fascist Party? Nope.
The Italian Fascist Party was about strength. Perpetual warfare that elevated and advanced Man to become stronger. The restoration of the glory of the ancient Roman Empire. Every individual becoming a part of the Fascist Ideal, working together to strengthen society, and bringing power to the central government.
It was an ideology of the iron fist, of building stability and strength through expansion and weeding out weakness.
So, is this where you bring me books to read? Allow me to prevent that with a small quote from The Doctrine of Fascism:
” The Fascist State is not indifferent to religious phenomena in general nor does it maintain an attitude of indifference to Roman Catholicism, the special, positive religion of Italians. The State has not got a theology but it has a moral code. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a “god” of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. Fascism respects the God of ascetics, saints, and heroes, and it also respects God as conceived by the ingenuous and primitive heart of the people, the God to whom their prayers are raised.
The Fascist State expresses the will to exercise power and to command. Here the Roman tradition is embodied in a conception of strength. Imperial power, as understood by the Fascist doctrine, is not only territorial, or military, or commercial; it is also spiritual and ethical. An imperial nation, that is to say a nation a which directly or indirectly is a leader of others, can exist without the need of conquering a single square mile of territory. Fascism sees in the imperialistic spirit — i.e. in the tendency of nations to expand - a manifestation of their vitality. In the opposite tendency, which would limit their interests to the home country, it sees a symptom of decadence. Peoples who rise or rearise are imperialistic; renunciation is characteristic of dying peoples. The Fascist doctrine is that best suited to the tendencies and feelings of a people which, like the Italian, after lying fallow during centuries of foreign servitude, are now reasserting itself in the world.”
And that was the closest Fascism ever got to religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. A huge collection of rants about might, glory, conquest, and a strong central government, followed by one line that gave the Church a little pat on its head… followed by yet more rants about power, glory, and suchlike.
Roman,
YOu are such an uptight person. There is no need to google me what fascism means whether be it Italian, germanic, Japanese or Spanish or Portugese may I include the Pan-Arabism one too.
Here is your quote that prompt me to respond to your half-baked rambling:
“Fascism, dear Zaki, had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Nothing.”
NOTHING, wait a minute, What is this? Am I talking with a fascist or jesuit priest? LOL
Wake up from your ignorant slumber my friend, you are delusional. Do not argue with me about a topic that you do not know shit about. Perhaps this does not have anything to do with the topic at all but because you have a problem with atheism because you happen to be a religious person. If this is the case, than say something about atheism and stop rabblimg about fascism and religion, because you are trully ignorant of the subject.
There is no need to provide a pseudo-lecture on the history of how Italian fascism emerge. You are probably every well read in history, I am not doubting that at all, but some of your statements are ridiculously false like: “..Fascism wanted the catholic church at bay”…Where did you cook up a claim like that. The topic of the debate is whether there is a link between fascism and the catholic church, here are some of the easy read for you, maybe you would consider your erroneous claim.
http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/blog/2006/12/blog_12_12_2006.html
http://www.newyouth.com/archives/historicalanalysis/catholicism_and_fascism.html
http://www.mcn.org/e/iii/politics/franco.htm
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm
And if by any chance you question the reliability of these links and you REALLY want to really read a BOOK I suggest this one, it is a classic:
The Vatican and Italian Fascism, 1929-32
by John F Pollard
If you need more please ask.
“Fascism, dear Zaki, had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Nothing.”
NOTHING, wait a minute, What is this? Am I talking with a fascist or jesuit priest? LOL
Wake up from your ignorant slumber my friend, you are delusional. Do not argue with me about a topic that you do not know shit about. Perhaps this does not have anything to do with the topic at all but because you have a problem with atheism because you happen to be a religious person. If this is the case, than say something about atheism and stop rabblimg about fascism and religion, because you are trully ignorant of the subject.
*keeps on smiling*
You look rather sooty today, Mr. Pot. More than anything, your claims of my bias are most amusing, considering two out of every three of your replies bash religion in general, religious people in general, or one chosen religion in its entirety. We’re all delusional, are we not? So why bother with us in the first place? Are you trying to teach us the error of our ways, to “save us from ourselves”? Or is it simply that you view us all as a risk to the rest of mankind?
It’s your particular type of Atheism that I dislike, Zaki. The kind that is so self-righteous in its certainty and scorn for those who hold other beliefs that you don’t actually hold debates, as such. You have wars. And few of us out there have a patience for that.
Now, back to the topic at hand, allow me to return to your original claim:
The advances in science and technology and the faith in progress and humanity helped that’s for sure, but they were not targeting to undermine christianity. In fact there were moments were the evil side of religion could have undone all the positive things that evolved out of the secularisation of society. We came that close to losing everything with fascisim which had an extremely very close ties with the catholic religion.
So please, run by again just what the *ideology of Fascism* has to do with the *religious beliefs and institution of Catholicism*. Please do.
You are probably every well read in history, I am not doubting that at all, but some of your statements are ridiculously false like: “..Fascism wanted the catholic church at bay”…Where did you cook up a claim like that. The topic of the debate is whether there is a link between fascism and the catholic church, here are some of the easy read for you, maybe you would consider your erroneous claim.
The sites you have brought, in their given order, have claimed the following claims with little to no backing:
MCN: That the Catholic Church is an inherently evil authoritarian organization bent on killing anyone who doesn’t submit to it, using as evidence the facts that *some* Fascists were Catholic, that *some* Catholic priests cooperated with the Fascist regimes, and trying (rather unsuccessfully) to make connections between Fascist core leaders and members and the Catholic Church. Do I really need to bring up Hitler’s own words about the Catholic Church to
NewYouth: The same rather amusing claims about Hitler’s religious beliefs, followed by a small and rather lacking discussion of Croatian fascism, in which the author claims that the Vatican supported them entirely, but still somehow didn’t notice that he himself brought evidence of conflicting stances among the highest-ranking clergy when he mentioned Cardinal Eugene Tiserant.
Fantompowa I hadn’t the patience to read, truth to be told.
As for my “claims”… I specifically discussing Italian Fascism, and unlike you, it would seem that I actually bothered to read all the historic context of the time, its political realities, and not just the bits that suited me. Benito Mussolini and the Fascists weren’t exactly at good terms with the Church until 1929 - the Lateran Treaty. Until then, the Church treated the Fascists as just another blackmailing secular government that had stolen the lands of the Church.
Post-1929 saw Mussolini continuing his attempt to win over Catholic hearts and minds - devout Catholics still made up a fairly large percentage of Italy, after all. Between the anti-Communist views of the Fascist regime, the rather deft maneuvering by Mussolini that finally brought the Roman Question to an end, and further public statements and public laws to attempt and bring the Church to their side.
Yet by and large, the *Vatican* chose a policy of strict neutrality, even if segments of the clergy did not. Other segments of the clergy assisted in smuggling away or hiding those persecuted under Nazism, and they themselves claimed to have done so with the full (if secret) support of the Papacy.
Much can be said about the actions (or inaction) of the Vatican during WWII and the period that led to it, but to link Fascism to the Vatican as proof of “the dark side of religion” is, in my opinion, an unsupportable claim.
@ Zaki
You seem to be on a ”crusade” against religion. May I suggest a more constructive approach: Focus on the dimension liberal vs. authoritarian. If you want liberal values to win it´s better to allign yourself with liberal minded people. And that includes both theists and atheists (authoritarian people also come in both theist and atheist flavours). The smart thing to do is to ally with reformers of religion, who agree with you on the important things.
You and I probably agree, it´s silly to believe old books are Divine. But people get their inspiration from lots of different places. I read the Koran and the short version goes like “kill, rape, plunder”. If people can read it in the “right context” / arabic and conclude the essense is “peace, love and understanding” it’s just fine with me.
Woah, Im seeing Voltaire defensers here
Roman, I had liked that you comment on that site :
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/bruce_walkers_the_swastika_aga.html
I’ll give it a look after work, Nomad.
As for Voltaire, I personally have mixed views about him, though they’re still generally favorable. He’s certainly worthy of respect as a prominent thinker and philosopher of his era.
Peter,
I am not sure about this idea of allying myself with the reformers of religion as you said : “..The smart thing to do is to ally with reformers of religion, who agree with you on the important things…”
This idea of reforming a religion is absurd. I understand that some religions are more prone to alternative changes in attitude and viewpoints, but in the case of Islam, it is pointless. I do not care about what other people relative view of the contents of their “good book” are, in terms of war, plunder, murder or the good things like peace,love, empathy.
To me one bad thing spoil the whole thing, it does not matter how you look at it. I know it is extreme, but that’s how I see things. Here is a saying that sums up my position on this issue. I believe it goes like this:
“If you put a teaspoonful of wine in a barrel of sewage, you get sewage, and if you put a teaspoonful of sewage in barrel full of wine, you get sewage.”
Zaki
You dramatize the situation too much. While, I have little idea about Islam, reading the blogs has convinced me that Koran is widely open to interpretation. Much of the more nasty stuff is coming from the Hadith but this too can be reinterpreted and in the more extreme cases the authenticity of individuals Hadiths can be questioned.
In practical terms, I don’t see this region ridding itself of its religions any time soon. In fact, just the opposite seems to be happening. Our best hope is that moderate versions of Islam will become dominant. But the expectation people of the region will start switching to atheism or Buddhism has no basis in the reality
I think reason and religion and subordination is happening because of the inevitable globalization and rapid development in the muslim world.
Nobody,
Your quote: “..Our best hope is that moderate versions of Islam will become dominant. But the expectation people of the region will start switching to atheism or Buddhism has no basis in the reality.”
I never mentioned nor do I wish poeple of the region turning to atheism. My atheism is mine only and I do not wish to push it on anyone. I am aware of the impossibility to shelve islam or any other religions for that matter.
I was only trying to make the point the impossibility of reforming islam. The reason is simple. By reformation the apologists muslims want the “whole of islam” to be reformed (interpreted into new light). This in effect is not changing it at all. The problem resides with the “whole Islam”. One cannot have it both way.
They would be better off and successfull is they create a outshoot of the religion, a new “mosque” (if I can use the word as analogous to “Church”) with its different school of thought, practices and interpretation, similar to Reform Judaism or Humanist Judaism.
I think they would be successful that way instead of trying to reform the whole thing. By the way, come to think of it nobody is going to let them do it anyway, even if they can. It will be bloody that’s for sure.
The question that we have to ask ourselves is why the other monotheistic religions have lend themseves to such breaks and dogmatic splits without much bloodshed (with the exception of the lutheran reformation). Let’s us not confuse that with the sunni/shia split. This split was political and remain so, but it is not a dogmatic split. Which is to say that the slip was due the religio-political legitimacy. Shia still beleive that all the political successions to lead the Umma after the death of the prophete were illigetimate because rulers were descendent of the prophete. That’s the reason why they prefered Ali his cousin. Sunni tradition disregards this idea of succession. Thus there is not real dogmatic split between the two when it comes to the authority of the Prophete and the Koran whose author is Allah himself…
At the end of my entry, I missed the word “NOT”.
I mean to say: “Shia still beleive that all the political successions to lead the Umma after the death of the prophete were illigetimate because rulers were “NOT” descendent of the prophete. That’s the reason why they prefered Ali his cousin
Zaki
The question of why Muslims have it so violent is probably very easy to answer - Muslims live in a very different historical phase that Europe and others left behind long time ago. In fact Arabs seem to have a particular knack for permanently living in their glorious past which I find quite understandable. After all, the only good thing about the Arabs these days is their glorious past. I would avoid any discussion of Judaism in this respect as in my view Jews owe a big big thank you for anything good that happened to them to the Romans who kicked their asses out of the region centuries ago
Finally, when it comes to Islamic reformation (and this is probably not a good word as I largely agree with Eteraz that it has already happened and it’s Salafism and Saudi Wahabbism), I do think that what will eventually emerge is something Drima is talking about. That’s why I advise you to listen carefully to Drima, because here you may be seeing the face of the future Islam.
If you think Salafism and Wahabbism are type of “reformed” (poor word I know) movements, than it is your call not mine. I may agree that they are emerging as strong movements, but they certainly they are not reformed in a sense of how we undertand it generally.
I would certainly hope that what your advise listening to Drima would come true in terms of seeing the face of the future islam. I will keep an eye to any change in the horizon.
Zaki
Eteraz makes much more sense when he says that Islamic reformation has already happened than many people are ready to admit. And I am saying this not because I like Eteraz (in fact I don’t like most of his writing at all as I am a hardcore right winger and he is just the opposite of it). I think there is some general idealization of Christian reformation that does not allow many people to fully appreciate what Eteraz is saying. Of course I am no authority on either Islam or Christianity, but as far as I can see, Christian reformation was pretty much based on very literalist interpretation of the texts and it repeatedly excelled in intolerance. Basically it appears that it was a kind of a very literalist Christian fundamentalism. I think that some people confuse protestantism with what followed later but what followed later at the best case was a very indirect result of reformation.
Wahhabism has failed to set off a comparable surge in capitalist ethics and economic development but you should have no doubt - the early protestants viewed themselves as a kinda Christian salafis, they were no reformers at all. The breakdown of the scholarly authority encouraged by the Wahhabis and their likes is indeed very similar to what was going in Europe in various protestant movements and these were no vegetarians at all.
Thanks for the interesting post. I will not even touch the ridiculous commentary going on down here, because the great debate over God is above me. Nonetheless, I am fascinated by them too. When I first read about them in my history courses, I knew they are the group I would most quickly agree with. The complexity of their argument, and their suprisingly moderate tone, would spell their downfall. I was always shocked by the irony of that, and those arguing like little kids should be too.
Mutazalita or not it does not matter. One can praise the Mutazalita mouvement or any reformed or moderate type of islam. Who in his/her right mind is going to be against that? We can go on and on praising this movements or moderate islamic undercurrents, BUT it does not change a thing at the ground level. I agree more with Zaki. He is right in suggesting that islam is not reformable. The situation everywhere points to this fact. The fault rests also on the moderate themselves for not speaking out. They fear for their lives and livelihood. So we can all praise moderation in our little insulated ivory towers or little comfortable life style, but the fact is more to be aware of the dilemma that moderate muslims find themselves in. Let them come out and say that the Koran is not literally the word of ALLAH or that the prophete did not beheaded himself all of the men and young boys of the tribe of Banu Quanuka and taken their women as slaves. If they did they would ultimately stand outside of their insular muslim identity. What would they be labelled than? Muslims despite the facts of killing, hatred and racism found in their religion.
Sometimes they need to realized that one cannot have it both way.
Hamidoush,
You are partially wrong when you claim that the moderate are at fault for not speaking out. You are correct a little bit. Think the real problem is that these moderate and among them some well known scholars in the west totallu ignore the reality of their muslim societies. Their agendas is only targeted to change how the West perceives Islam. They try all they can to undo the damage done by their brothers, because they do not understand that the West has awaken from its ignorance about the true nature of Islam. In others words these moderate fall short of advocating peace and reconciliation TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE AND THE MASSES OF MUSLIM ILLETERATE. What they are spending their time to the western audiences is DAMAGE CONTROL. It is a loosing battle, it may work because there are westerners who still think that Islam is a religion of peace, and there are those who have awaken up from this pack of lies.
Now there is a difference between Muslims as individuals and the religion as an institutions. People are not talking to individuals, they are reading and studying avidly the texts (koran and Hadiths) and what they learned is a totally different pictures of islam that the moderates are trying to paint to the west. Nobody with an educated orientation in the west is going to fall for it anymore.
Saving something like the killing of infidels is hard. What part of KILLING does the moderate do not understand? Islam is the only religion that has a specific order on how to deal with the other religions. Quite frankly there is nothing to save unless one totally REJECTS the orders. Trying to say that they are relative to the time, will put the moderates outside the faith and thus infidels worthy of killing as christains and Jews and the other unbelivers.
Leave a Comment