October 6, 2004
YET IT IS DEFICIENT:
Subjugation in the name of 'reform' (Mohamed Elmasry, October 04, 2004, National Post)
In the process of conquering Iraq and Afghanistan and taking an aggressive posture toward other Muslim countries -- including Iran, Sudan, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- the United States is now trying hard to weaken its enemy by calling for the separation of Mosque and state, even as American-style Christianity is stamped all over Washington's own domestic politics.As the 21st century's conquering superpower, America fully endorses an aggressive divide-and-conquer policy. In U.S. politics, official media and partisan academia, there are only two kinds of Muslims worth knowing about. There are the so-called "moderate," "modern," "liberal" and "secular" Muslims who could (hypothetically) be co-opted. And then there are the "radical," "militant," "extremist," "anti-American," "anti-Semitic," "anti-Western," "terrorist," "rebel," "insurgent" Muslims, who believe only in shouting "death to America."
And if the two -- both mythical constructs -- could be provoked into subduing one another, America could stand back and let others do its dirty work.
Using an impressive array of theological and psychological jargon, many Americans have sought to correlate the lack of human development in parts of the Muslim world with supposed deficiencies in Islam. Promoters of this racist ideology can sound very convincing to the uninformed. But it is far more informative to compare the teachings of Islam on any given subject with the teachings of other world religions. And if we must compare the status of one people or culture to that of another, we must do so using an appropriate historical framework. It would be wrong, for example, to compare democracy in developing Muslim countries today with its manifestation in the West. Go back a century, to a time when the West was at a comparable stage of political development, and you then have the basis for a fair analysis.
That's absurd. You can't go back to a point where American political development was as totalitarian as it is in much of the Islamic world because it never was. Indeed, you can't go back to a similar point in the history of Christendom, because, as a religion of the oppressed, Christianity begins from the premise that the Church need not control the State--render unto Caesar and all. It is this feature more than any other that links Judaism, Christianity, and Shi'ism and offers reason to believe that the Shi'ites will make a relatively easy transition to democracy.
The open question, which Mr. Elmasry prefers to avoid, is how difficult it will be to Reform Sunni Islam--now tainted by Wahhabism and other radical doctrines--so that it too is compatible with modern government.
Posted by Orrin Judd at October 6, 2004 8:25 PMThe Taliban and the current Iranian gov't seem to make a pretty poor case for NOT separating Mosque and state.
Arab societies have done so poorly over the past 300 years that one would think that they'd be better off trying anything different.
They could hardly do worse than the current situation.
Israel, a puny country of now six million, was officially founded a mere 56 years ago, and has been under near-constant attack since then.
Yet, despite having no oil, Israel is more prosperous than most Arab nations, and since they don't rely on a depleting asset, have much better future prospects than the richer oil states.
One would think that Arabs might get a clue.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 6, 2004 10:21 PMOppressed until 313 AD.
It is absurd to claim it remained oppressed after that.
About 99.99999% of all Christians who ever lived came in after the oppressed period
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 7, 2004 2:02 AMUh the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Byzantine empire?
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at October 7, 2004 5:31 AMThe Catholic Church, as distinguished from Christianity has a history of oppression, slaughter and brutality, that rivals the most vicious forms of other faiths. If it were not hemmed in by secular governments today, I have little doubt it would still be engaged in predations which would make an Iranian mullah squeamish.
Orthodoxy sees its role as supporting whatever the given established government at the time is. Thus, in Russia, under the Communists, it was not the focus of revolt but was instead thoroughly infiltrated by the KGB. In the Byzantine and Tsarist periods, it supported brutal rulers because it automatically supports whoever is in charge.
Posted by: Bart at October 7, 2004 6:59 AMBart:
It's easily rivaled by America's record. Nothing wrong with slaughter as long as your cause is just.
Posted by: oj at October 7, 2004 7:32 AMHarry:
Yes, Judeo-Christianity was fully Revealed by then. Being Universal it is compatible with power as well as oppression.
Posted by: oj at October 7, 2004 8:43 AMFascinating. What the Canadian article amount to is a plaint against the operation of military Spencerianism. One cannot speak of it as a critique, for that would like a critique of gravity. Cultural efficiency pushes the weaker plants out of the places in the sun.
For example, a society that subjugates women is losing the productive capacity of half of its mentally gifted individuals, and is less able to produce unmanned aerial vehicles.
Too bad, Mr. camel jockey, if you don't like it, you know what to do about it.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 7, 2004 9:57 AMMr. Eager;
But beginnings are very important. Those first three centuries set the tone for what followed. In particular, the exemplary lives of the two founders are quite different because of the situation during their lives and this has had no small effect on the subsequent history of the religions.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 7, 2004 10:48 AMI'll go along with that, Guy, to the extent that Christianity differs from Islam in that its evangelism is assumed to be based on persuasion rather than force; whereas in Islam, the assumption is persuasion and, if that doesn't work, force.
As a practical matter, the distinction has not meant much.
Orrin, you're fantasizing again. In 313, nothing was 'revealed' to the 97% of the inhabitant of the Empire who woke up one morning to learn they were Christians now, whatever that meant.
As we know, if we read ethnology, a thousand years later, most of them still were pretty fuzzy on the concept.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 7, 2004 3:53 PMHarry:
They didn't matter. Judeo-Christianity was complete by then. It's still in the process of conquering the species. That some aboriginal doesn't know its tenets doesn't mean anything.
Posted by: oj at October 7, 2004 4:02 PMSo much for free will and liberty,
I'd be careful, also, of the implications of your belief, because logically it requires the dehumanization and therefore destruction -- this is your argument I'm using -- of apostates.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at October 7, 2004 11:36 PMYou don't need to dehumanize apostates to kill them. Indeed, if they weren't human their apostasy wouldn't matter. You dehumanize to kill for biological reasons--like the Nazis' Darwinism.
Posted by: oj at October 7, 2004 11:42 PM