Islam: fear trumps freedom

[Off_White]

One question worth pondering, though, is "what happened?"

 

I'd hazard a guess that it could be what happened for the west that didn't happen for Islam: The Reformation. The fracturing of the Catholic Church and the plethora of Protestant sects that sprung up led to a diversity that slowly diluted the power of any one church, and led to both the flowering of Liberalism and encouraged the development of rational science.

 

I'm weak on my middle eastern history. When did Wahabbism come about? Wasn't that essentially a fundamentalist reformation within Islam, something that put the blinders on and hit the brakes? I know it's what my step grandmother would have liked to see happen here, she used to complain that God didn't want people to know so much, and that too much education was a bad thing. Seems like I recall it was WWI that really put the nail in the Ottoman Empire's coffin, but things must have been slipping for quite awhile before that.

[mattp]

there was a time when Islam rule was relatively tolerant

 

You, KK, apparently could not accept such blasphemy.

 

Christians have always been intolerant and Muslims should be their role model

 

Is this what you thought I wrote?

[JayB]

I actually agree with you on this point. I would not consider the practices of those who ruled the Islamic Caliphates from the 8th to the 14th century "liberal" in any modern sense of the word, but the term may have been apt if you consider the alternatives available at the time.

 

Jay, I've read that the Romans were "tolerant" of religion too. Tolerant as long as you stayed in your place. And of course, there was no doubt as to who was a first class citizen - and who was not. To be in a position of power you had less room to deviate from the norm. And of course, there was always an undercurrent of brutality and the cheapness of life, even during Pax Romana.

 

So, when someone tries to claim that the Golden Age of Islam was marked by religious "tolerance", you'll have to excuse me for challenging just exactly what that means. Judging from the course of history, including the rise and spread of Islam, I have a pretty damn good idea.

 

I think what most people mean is that they were generally spared death, allowed to practice their faiths, and administer their own affairs in exchange for acknowledging their status as second-class citizens and paying an additional set of taxes. This was all after the conquest was final and absolute.

 

I'd personally put the Caliphs generally on par with the Romans on this front, or perhaps somewhere between the Romans and the Mongols (I seem to recall that Ghengis, Hulagu, at all could be surprisingly accommodating to those who gave no resistance). Certainly no higher. In comparison to Europe from the 8th-12th century, I'd even give them the edge when it comes to the general level of superstition, backwardness, and barbarism that prevailed within their societies.

 

At some point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, however, the balance started to shift pretty decisively in favor of the West - and the disparity has only grown over time, IMO.

 

 

[olyclimber]

here is phunny comix

 

http://www.viruscomix.com/page392.html

[Off_White]

That has NOT been posited. What has been stated is that there are ample examples of intolerance from Islam throughout its history. A little "balance" for the constant barrage of examples of Christian "intolerance" that we get here.

 

Oh, perhaps we can agree: Christianity AND Islam generally suck and have ample examples of intolerance. I don't want either of them in charge of my government. Better now?

[JayB]

One question worth pondering, though, is "what happened?"

 

I'd hazard a guess that it could be what happened for the west that didn't happen for Islam: The Reformation. The fracturing of the Catholic Church and the plethora of Protestant sects that sprung up led to a diversity that slowly diluted the power of any one church, and led to both the flowering of Liberalism and encouraged the development of rational science.

 

I'm weak on my middle eastern history. When did Wahabbism come about? Wasn't that essentially a fundamentalist reformation within Islam, something that put the blinders on and hit the brakes? I know it's what my step grandmother would have liked to see happen here, she used to complain that God didn't want people to know so much, and that too much education was a bad thing. Seems like I recall it was WWI that really put the nail in the Ottoman Empire's coffin, but things must have been slipping for quite awhile before that.

 

Albert Hourani's "A History of the Arab Peoples" is a good summary if you have the time.

 

The basic narrative that seems to resurface over-and-over is Muslim societies pondering the rise of the West and their own relative decline and deciding to follow one of two paths in order to restore their civilization(s) to its rightful path in the world - that of Attaturk or the Taliban. Adopt the the technology and other practices of the infidels and use them for our own ends or...conclude that corruption by the same is the source of all woes, restore society to the perfection it had in the golden past and "voila," - the Great Caliphate will rise again.

 

Cartoonish shorthand, but that's pretty much the gist of most of what I've read. Doesn't address how the West rose, or precisely why they stagnated - but there's plenty of discussion about both out there.

 

Pretty much agree with your thinking vis-a-vis the reformation, but there's plenty of chicken-vs-egg questions to ponder when you consider what got the ball rolling and what kept the momentum going. The efforts by the church to integrate the classical heritage (preserved and expanded upon by the Muslims) with the biblical picture of the world seemed to play a fairly significant role in catalyzing quite a few of the changes that brought about the reformation. Then there's the fact that the church - while not a disinterested friend of natural philoshophy, reason, and scholarship - was just about the only friend that any of the above had in the Middle Ages and things start to get good and muddy.

 

Spent quite a few hours in college reading about all of the above, and hope to revisit the material during the upcoming mini-sabbatical...

[Hugh Conway]

At some point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, however, the balance started to shift pretty decisively in favor of the West - and the disparity has only grown over time, IMO.

 

Given the rather splendid rain of the Mughals which produced a dramatic flourishing of arts, architecture and even science (the only life-link drawing of the dodo is thanks to them) the link between type of government, personal liberty and religious ineractions therein.

 

Or, as OffWhite said above, why hasn't Islam had a reformation? It's had schisms.

[STP]

If I recall correctly, the beginnings of the Renaissance in places like Florence were fostered by the reintroduction of ideas from pagan times, Neoplatonism for instance. Even machiavelli owes a debt to the Romans.

 

Christianity alone would have stifled some of the new developments in technology and science. Take a look at the advancements in human anatomy gained by dissecting corpses, something forbidden by the Church. What about Galileo's telescope used to see the moons of Jupiter, etc?

 

The saracens studies the greeks. then the europeans like Albertus Magnus and by extension Thomas Aquinas carried on the development of ideas by the cross fertilization of cultures, maybe the good thing to come out of the crusades.

 

I suppose if countries acted as japan did during its closing to the outside world then yeah stagnation but once it opens up then development.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'd hazard a guess that it could be what happened for the west that didn't happen for Islam: The Reformation. The fracturing of the Catholic Church and the plethora of Protestant sects that sprung up led to a diversity that slowly diluted the power of any one church, and led to both the flowering of Liberalism and encouraged the development of rational science.

 

Not to be contrarian here but the power of the catholic church peaked in the 11-12th centuries and began waning immediately - well before the Reformation.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I actually agree with you on this point. I would not consider the practices of those who ruled the Islamic Caliphates from the 8th to the 14th century "liberal" in any modern sense of the word, but the term may have been apt if you consider the alternatives available at the time.

 

Jay, I've read that the Romans were "tolerant" of religion too. Tolerant as long as you stayed in your place. And of course, there was no doubt as to who was a first class citizen - and who was not. To be in a position of power you had less room to deviate from the norm. And of course, there was always an undercurrent of brutality and the cheapness of life, even during Pax Romana.

 

So, when someone tries to claim that the Golden Age of Islam was marked by religious "tolerance", you'll have to excuse me for challenging just exactly what that means. Judging from the course of history, including the rise and spread of Islam, I have a pretty damn good idea.

 

I think what most people mean is that they were generally spared death, allowed to practice their faiths, and administer their own affairs in exchange for acknowledging their status as second-class citizens and paying an additional set of taxes. This was all after the conquest was final and absolute.

 

I'd personally put the Caliphs generally on par with the Romans on this front, or perhaps somewhere between the Romans and the Mongols (I seem to recall that Ghengis, Hulagu, at all could be surprisingly accommodating to those who gave no resistance). Certainly no higher. In comparison to Europe from the 8th-12th century, I'd even give them the edge when it comes to the general level of superstition, backwardness, and barbarism that prevailed within their societies.

 

At some point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, however, the balance started to shift pretty decisively in favor of the West - and the disparity has only grown over time, IMO.

 

 

That's about what I thought. Thanks, Jay.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That has NOT been posited. What has been stated is that there are ample examples of intolerance from Islam throughout its history. A little "balance" for the constant barrage of examples of Christian "intolerance" that we get here.

 

Oh, perhaps we can agree: Christianity AND Islam generally suck and have ample examples of intolerance. I don't want either of them in charge of my government. Better now?

 

Generally suck? No.

 

Want either of them ruling my government? No.

 

So we are in 50% agreement.

[Hugh Conway]

Not to be contrarian here but the power of the catholic church peaked in the 11-12th centuries and began waning immediately - well before the Reformation.

 

Is this the same Catholic church that split the Americas between Spain and Portugal?

[mattp]

That's about what I thought. Thanks, Jay.

 

What? You aren't going to "call bullshit" on him and accuse him of hating America? He's agreed with what I argued back on page two and you found offensive or alarming or whatever your exact reaction was.

[Dechristo]

"The Islamist threat itself may be crude, but this is an intricate cultural and political challenge that will absorb all of our energies for the rest of our lives: we are all responsible for doing our utmost as citizens as well as for demanding more imagination from our leaders."

 

Facing the Islamist Menace - Christopher Hitchens

[kevbone]

Yo big D….what you doing up at 4 am?

[kevbone]

Man has this thread really taken a dive. Like most threads about religion and politics. I would like to end by saying that all organized religions suck. Bunch of hypocritical bible thumping minions.

[Doug]

You'll be smokin' a turd in purgatory for that one sonny!

[Off_White]

Thanks DeChristo, agree or disagree, Hitchens is almost always worth reading. It's funny how what is billed as a book review is much more about Hitchens, he even goes so far as to write the summary points he'd put in the book if he wrote it! It's worth taking the time to read the article.

 

This quote from an article Sam Harris wrote in the Los Angeles Times alarmed Hitchens, perhaps because it's quite possibly true.

 

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists. To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization

 

It seems to me that a defense of Liberalism that isn't fascist is a part of what we're talking around here.

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

It seems to me that a defense of Liberalism that isn't fascist is a part of what we're talking around here.

 

I'm curious what the proposed solutions are. Most of the people who "realize the problem" are xenophobic isolationsts - not terribly liberal in the classic sense.

[Off_White]

Oh, perhaps I meant we're coming around to the question, I haven't seen much in the way of solutions.

[JayB]

It seems to me that a defense of Liberalism that isn't fascist is a part of what we're talking around here.

 

I'm curious what the proposed solutions are. Most of the people who "realize the problem" are xenophobic isolationsts - not terribly liberal in the classic sense.

 

Seems accurate in the Euro context.

 

Liberalizing their labor markets and reforming their welfare policies so that immigrants have the incentive and the means to participate more extensively in society, instead of being locked out of the job market and warehoused in housing projects is where I'd start.

 

I think that workforce participation is a much more potent driver of social harmony and integration than most people realize - and is often at least as potent in shaping the attitudes of native citizens as it is immigrants.

[JayB]

It seems to me that a defense of Liberalism that isn't fascist is a part of what we're talking around here.

 

I'm curious what the proposed solutions are. Most of the people who "realize the problem" are xenophobic isolationsts - not terribly liberal in the classic sense.

 

I also think that Canada, Brazil, Australia, the US, etc enjoy a huge advantage in terms of immigrants since all feature an open identity that immigrants can adopt simply by choosing to do so.

 

Much tougher when the identity in question is composed of a state, an ethnicity, and a language.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Not to be contrarian here but the power of the catholic church peaked in the 11-12th centuries and began waning immediately - well before the Reformation.

 

Is this the same Catholic church that split the Americas between Spain and Portugal?

 

Yes it is.

[JayB]

What won't help:

 

"But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others."

 

-Karen Armstrong.

 

I don't often find myself strongly disagreeing with her when I come across something she's written, but she's just flat out wrong on this point.

[glassgowkiss]

 

 

Seems accurate in the Euro context.

 

Liberalizing their labor markets and reforming their welfare policies so that immigrants have the incentive and the means to participate more extensively in society, instead of being locked out of the job market and warehoused in housing projects is where I'd start.

 

I think that workforce participation is a much more potent driver of social harmony and integration than most people realize - and is often at least as potent in shaping the attitudes of native citizens as it is immigrants.

 

i wonder why is it that immigrants from former soviet block move to england ireland, france or other countries and they don't lock themselves in a ghettos? and why is it that they can find jobs and immigrants from north africa can't?