A Reader Takes Issue with Me
One of our members sent me a great response to a comment I made in the burqa debate. I'm not sure whether he meant me to use his name, so I won't. (But I will, Mr. X, if you'd like me to.) Readers very familiar with my oeuvre may even be able to guess who he is.
Here's the background:
| EJHill: Claire speaks of both religious and political Islam. Do we ever speak of any other religion in that way? Even the "Jewish State" has a secular government. Islam stands alone as a major faith whose stated goal is world theocracy and has special laws for those who practice another (or no) religion. We wish to treat them as our equals. They wish for us to treat them as our superiors. Can there ever be a compromise? · Jul 17 at 10:40am |
I replied:
| Claire Berlinski: We certainly did speak of Christianity that way until the 18th century. · Jul 17 at 10:49am |
Mr. X responds:
I don't have time to draft a Ricochet-worthy rebuttal, but the idea that until the Enlightenment Christianity represented the kind of theocratic order envisioned under Sunnī Islamic utopianism (utopian because who's going to be a legitimate caliph?) is black propaganda. The entire history of Christendom's highest-level politics is the Church and the secular authorities fighting it out either to gain an upper hand or to free themselves from impositions they didn't like. The idea of a unified ecclesial and secular authority always proved unstable and untenable, with the exception of the Eastern Church, which the Byzantines managed to subdue (more or less) from 500–1000-ish ("Caesaropapism" is the term usually applied). (And indeed, the Russian Church has never really escaped the state.)
Until the early modern period—that is, the dawn of Protestantism and its ability to allow the establishment of national churches under kings (the C of E) being the paramount example—there was neither the desire (other than in odd places) nor the ability of anyone in Latin Christendom to articulate a unified religio-political order. Because even in the Byzantine and Russian cases, what you see is the state running the church as an arm of policy and clothing itself in religious ideals. It's not really a fusion, it's the state winning the battle for institutional liberty and subjugating the church. The Roman Catholic Church was (mostly) able to avoid these kind of entanglements—though periodically popes got held hostage or Rome would be occupied by a giant army, there wasn't a formal fusion of the two—the closest might be the Holy Roman Empire in which the Pope formally crowned the emperor but, crucially, the Pope had neither say in the selection of the emperor nor his policies. The Pope is always held up as the evil, cackling mastermind of theocracy, but really the only things close were the Protestant national churches, and perhaps the French monarchy's ability to meddle significantly within ecclesiastical affairs.
The ideal Sunnī Islamic political order, on the other hand, involves a single point of authority (the caliph) who is the successor to the Prophet as the amīr al-mu’minīn, Commander of the Faithful, and holds supreme, unified political authority. The caliph can call for a jihād, and it'll mean something, because he's got an army. Most popes' attempts to call for crusades were pitiful failures, because there was no interest on the part of European kings in spending blood and treasure. The Sharī‘a assumes the role of regulating religious life, and there's some slight room for jurisprudential creativity or prudential judgment, but Sunnī jurisprudents are a lot more like rabbis than judges, and in terms of criminal law and so forth, there's a lot of ‘urf, or sovereign prerogative.But because of the importance of tawhīd, or unity, not just as a theological principle, but as a metaphor for the ideal state of the umma, the idea of competing spheres of authority is foreign to Sunnī idealism. (Shī‘ites, on the other hand, have a long tradition of the religious authorities steering clear of the state—which is why, to some degree, the Islamic Revolution in Iran and it's Vilāyet-e Fāqih was a historical oddity, irony, innovation, and in some ways, the first sign that what you were really dealing with was an Islamically-camouflaged Leninism or fascism.)
Oh, and just by the way, the last time there was a caliph (legitimate or not), in the Ottoman Empire, the entire religious authority was basically run as an arm of the state—the forerunner of the Diyanet, if you will, was the Ottoman bureaucratization of the ‘ulamā’ (in the so-called ‘ilmiye, to use the Ottoman neologism). This is a lot more like Caesaropapism than traditional (or ideal) Islamic practice.
Anyway, the idea of spheres of life that are free from one or the other type of authority stems from this millennia-long wrestling match between Church and King. If you want to argue that there was no idea of non-Christians as full participants in the political order, well, sure. But the Enlightenment really didn't fix that either. Indeed, the first real principled declaration of freedom of religion in the modern sense (expressed in Christian terms, but apparently de facto extended to Jews as well*) was in the colony palatine of Maryland in 1649. (Effectively ended by the "Glorious" Revolution of 1688, not to resurface until the U.S. Constitution.)
Mr. X
*It technically decreed the death penalty for denying the divinity of Christ, but the single time it was tested (a not-so-bright Jewish guy was baited by some Christian CENSORED TO CONFORM TO RICOCHET'S CODE OF CONDUCT, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING, MR. X, MAY I REMIND YOU THAT THERE ARE LADIES PRESENT?), the authorities sat on the case, then pardoned the accused at the first opportunity (and the guy stayed in Maryland and became relatively prosperous).
Now, I could respond to this at some length, but I'll wait first to see if anyone's read this far. If you have and you want me to, say the word.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
I can't offer the same level of erudition as Mr. X, but I'll chime in anyway. I can't remember where I read it, maybe David Landes or VDH, but the gist of the thesis is that the classical civilizations of the ancient world all suffered from a flaw that retarded social, scientific, and political progress. Each was ruled by a god-king. Thus from Egypt to Mesopotamia to India and China, all powers both secular and religious were invested in a single individual. Only the classical Greeks were able to break the mold by establishing a system of independent and autonomous city-states. This allowed for pockets of freedom where ideas could be discussed and debated freely. Notice how many of our words in English have Greek roots: democracy, philosophy and geometry to name a few.
It was no accident that the European Renaissance began in northern Italy. Once again you see a system of independent city-states able to provide sanctuary from theocratic despotism for writers, thinkers, and artists. The friction between ecclesiastical authority and secular rulers was a constant in Europe from the fall of Rome well into the modern period. More . . .
Jun '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Europe was theocratic when it suited the purposes of kings, and secular when it didn't. Even during the Crusades (that were funded by monarchs, foreign trade, and looting,) the Catholic Church was busy spending its money on land, cathedrals, religious orders, and art--not building armies or commanding armies. The Crusaders sought the blessing of the Church, of course, but it was various political leaders that were in control of what they did, good and bad. Without the counterweight of the Crusades, Islam was ready to flow through Europe till they ran out of cities to take over. Foreign invaders always get the rapt attention of kings.
Jun '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
It's precisely the separation of church and state that allowed Europeans the freedom to explore the disciplines necessary to bring about modernity. There were always pockets of liberty where a secular ruler in defiance of church authority could give sanctuary to philosophers, scientists, and heretics. Think the Netherlands for example. It's no accident that modernity was born in western Europe. And with it came all the ideologies and technologies that would allow Europeans to conquer the world. Innovations like capitalism, banking, navigation, and the science of ballistics to name a few.
Ask yourself why a minor power like Portugal was able to force its way into Chinese markets and not the Chinese, given all the power of their demographics and resources, demanding entrance into European ports (credit: David Landes on this one).
The concentration of secular and religious authority in one body, which is so characteristic of sharia, might very well be the single factor that has retarded Islamic culture. Arabs today enjoy modernity only because they are able to import it (VDH). Nothing of modernity is actually produced in the Islamic world because they lack the requisite freedoms to pursue knowledge. Over to you, Claire.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Umm. More please. And Mr. X please claim the credit due for fascinating and erudite exegesis.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
I wonder why he didn't even refer to Calvin in Geneva. Calvin was certainly devoutly attempting to effect the will of God in his governance- as opposed to the corruptions of some of the medieval monarchs and popes (the first Pope John XXIII and the Great Schism springs to mind)- but he did get theocratic in his conduct of daily affairs, e.g., Servetus.
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Guys, I have got to stop this and get back to work. I mean, the work I don't want to do. I'll take this up again, I promise.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
I'd love to hear more from Mr. X.
All I can add is that a lot of power was forced onto the early Church when the Roman Empire collapsed. Then, as now, the Church viewed charity as a core principle and part of its purpose. Churches provided food and shelter for the poor, care for the sick, etc. Thus, when the government collapsed and society fell apart, people naturally turned to the Church with expectations of aid.
~Paules, I agree that government and innovation is improved when government officials do not claim divine authority. On the other hand, I believe the histories I was taught in public schools grossly distort the real causes behind the West's rapid advancement following the 16th century. The "Enlightenment" and so forth is a bad joke. Much of that progress is seems due to economic advancements. Most of our most important scientific advances were made without "the" scientific method. And the Renaissance was kickstarted by a renewed interest in old -- dare I say, traditional and conservative -- ideals. The greatest failure of modern histories is how often they shrug off the brilliance of pre-Enlightenment science, art and politics.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
This is why I LOVE Ricochet. I knew bits of what Mr. X, Paules, etd and others shared, through my own reading and interest, but not all of it. Ricochet helps me intelligently communicate my thoughts and knowledge. I am not good at spontaneous comment, I really need to think and research.
Thanks everyone.
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
I'll just leap back in to say that I'm rather proud of you all for being more interested in this than in the dope and the zombies.
I'm going back to work now. On the stuff I don't want to do.
Edited on Jul 21, 2010 at 8:57amJun '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Aaron,
I agree. There's more to it than I stated, but in a short exegesis one can only cover so much turf. James Burke has a wonderful episode in his "Connections: an Alternative View of Change" series which examines the advancements made in western Europe due almost entirely to the waterwheel. Wonderful stuff!
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Question: Is the point of this thread to get a better understanding of history, or to try to appraise the world as it is today? If the former, then carry on; if the latter, then it seems a diversion. Re Earth, 2010, EJHill is unarguably on the money, no? If we're willing to pull out the 18th century card to make cultural judgments of the present, we invite a lot of faulty lines of argument, particularly for our enemies: "Islamists treat entire segments of their population like animals." "Ya, well so did the U.S. in the 18th century....."
Don't understand why we're going here, unless it's just for an interesting historical examination (in which case, nevermind).
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Scott, I think its relevance is in trying to discern whether Islam's present relationships to government, in comparison with other religions, are inherent or a passing phase. We're exploring, in a roundabout way, the very un-multicultural idea that religions are not all alike. Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Aaron, thanks, and that makes some sense. But if we conclude that it's a passing phase, it sure as heck better pass quick, otherwise this is kinda moot.
Jul '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
EJHill: Islam stands alone as a major faith whose stated goal is world theocracy and has special laws for those who practice another (or no) religion. We wish to treat them as our equals. They wish for us to treat them as our superiors. Can there ever be a compromise? · Jul 17 at 10:40am
I should have addressed this when EJHill first posted it. At the risk of sounding too PC, that is a generality in the extreme and is simply false except when you're talking to the handful of extremists that are waging what they think is a holy war against the US. I'm surprised that the premise of his argument, that Islam (meaning the religion itself, its people, and all institutions related to it) is bent on world theocracy, is as yet unchallenged, or perhaps has gone unnoticed, by both contributors and commenters.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
As an evangelical, I object when I am treated as an adherent to everything Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson, or James Dobson, or Tony Perkins, or Tim LaHaye, etc. ever said. I may agree with them on many or most non-political theological issues. But the way I practice my faith is nothing like the way they present themselves in the public sphere.
My question is, why wouldn't we afford the same reservation of judgment to Muslims, especially given that we see good people talking out there- maybe not enough yet, but that is a tough environment- about the need to fit into modern society? Possibly my best friend in my office is quite devout, an immigrant from Gambia. He is also a solid citizen, hard worker, always taking grad courses at night (for insurance underwriting; he also borrows my old contracts lectures from bar prep), and listens to Rush Limbaugh.
He thinks the jihadists are nuts. Why can't we reinforce good people such as LibForAll and not assume a Salafist monolith? Is Stephen Schwartz dangerous?
I fear that in our correct and proper war on jihad we can broaden the brush too much.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Humza - Here's the real problem. It is not that this premise goes unchallenged by Christians and Jews, it's that this premise does not go vigorously challenged among Muslims. We are constantly throwing in the disclaimer, "While carefully pointing out that not all Muslims are extremists..." I have a Word macro that automatically types it out!
What we're dealing with is the "Good German Syndrome." After WWII it was used to describe everyday Germans who stood by while Hitler and his thugs dragged 12 million to the camps. Oh, he didn't know what was going on. No, he didn't do anything to stop it, but what could he do? He was really a good German...
I am tired of waiting for the good Muslim. Where are the Islamic moderate organizations? Which moderate Islamic country has sent Muslim soldiers or operatives in country to arrest bin Laden?
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Turkey's got troops in Afghanistan. We can argue about whether Turkey's moderate (you kind of know my position on that), but they've definitely sent troops. I reckon they'd arrest bin Laden if they could find him, but as we've all noted, that's apparently not so easy.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
Humza, so challenge that premise, or guide us to some writer or community that can.
The defenses of Islam that I have read and heard relied heavily on generalities. They did not directly address opposing arguments, but rather dismissed opposing claims with their own claims unaccompanied by careful explanation.
That doesn't mean there can be no strong logical defense of Islam. I don't know enough to have a definite view on Islam itself, but I'm inclined to agree with the more specific, thorough and logical arguments I've encountered. If I am ignorant of strong arguments which support the claim that Islam does not include the goals of a worldwide caliphate or subjugation of infidels by force, then please guide me to these arguments. I would genuinely appreciate it... as would many other Ricochet members, I'm sure.
In any case, the problem is certainly not just "a handful of extremists". The member nations of the OIC (there's quite a lot of them) are not known for protection of human rights or tolerance of other religions.
These conversations would benefit greatly from Steyn's head full of research, if he would ever join the Ricochet forum.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
I've seen all kinds of numbers, ranging from 700 to 1,200 and I can't pinpoint an accurate number. But according to Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul those that are there are not allowed to take part in offensive operations. They've sustained just two casualties - from an non-combatant auto accident.
As a force they're as about as effective as the eight guys from Singapore or the seven from Ireland.
May '10
Re: A Reader Takes Issue with Me
In 1100 CE, a current news report would have had trouble determining whether Christianity or Islam was more appallingly violent and corrupt. Happily, Christianity reformed and stopped justifying un-Christian behaviors in the name of God.
We need the "silent majority" of Muslims to start thinking that way. I am not convinced that the effective way to communicate and persuade of the need to do that is to stand on the soapbox and scream that they all need to STOP THIS EVIL JIHADIST KILLING NOW!
Aaron, did you read the linked story I provided? It shows how a smart campaign in Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, completely turned around. Why can't we even try those kinds of things before we determine, based on (much beloved, including by me) Mark Steyn's views, that all is hopeless, so we might as well declare war to the death?
The piece at the link explains how Obama's current policy is terrible and counter-productive (so what else is new? Name the subject...) but there are strategies that may be helpful. We know the troublesome views of the Islamic radicals now. That doesn't mean nothing can ever change.