Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Islam And The West
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:59 AM (164 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Bernard Lewis "is one of the most widely read scholars of the Middle East, whose advice is frequently sought by policymakers. The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing has written that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East."

In Islam and the West: A Conversation with Bernard Lewis he provides a couple points into understanding this topic that I think are insightful and should inform any discussion of Islam or, for that matter, Christianity.

I'll try to focus in on the two points, but first an introduction:
Quote:
 
Let me begin with the name, which has been given — not by me — to our discussion today: the West and Islam, sometimes also Islam and the West, depending on your perspective. You will surely be struck by a certain asymmetry in this formulation. On the one side, a compass point; on the other, a religion. Now, of course, we use "the West" in a number of different senses, but primarily, they are political, strategic, cultural, even civilizational, but not normally religious. The one religious term I have heard used for the West is the post-Christian world. I needn't develop the implications of that term. Islam, on the other hand, is the name of a religion. And it is a part of human society identified by itself, and therefore also by others; not the other way around, in terms of religion.


Point one, Christendom and Islamdom:
Quote:
 
But having said that, I think one needs to be more specific. In talking of the Christian world, in English — and, I suppose, in all the other languages of the Christian world — we use two terms: Christianity and Christendom. Christianity means a religion, in the strict sense of that word, a system of belief and worship and some clerical or ecclesiastical organization to go with it. If we say Christendom, we mean the entire civilization that grew up under the aegis of that religion, but also contains many elements that are not part of that religion, many elements that are even hostile to that religion. Let me give one simple example. No one could seriously assert that Hitler and the Nazis came out of Christianity. No one could seriously dispute that they came out of Christendom. In talking of Islam, we use the same word in both senses, and this gives rise to considerable confusion and misunderstanding. There are many things that are described as part of Islam, which are indeed part of Islam, if we take the word as the equivalent of Christendom, but are very much not part of Islam — are even alien or hostile to Islam — if we take the word Islam as the equivalent of Christianity. I think this is a very important point, which one should bear in mind.

The late Marshall Hodgson, of the University of Chicago, in discussing this issue, suggested that we use the word Islamdom to describe the civilization. A good idea, but it didn't catch on, probably because it's so difficult to pronounce.


Point two, church and state:
Quote:
 
In that world, religion embraces far more than it does in the Christian or post-Christian world. We are accustomed to talking of church and state, and a whole series of pairs of words that go with them — lay and ecclesiastical, secular and religious, spiritual and temporal, and so on. These pairs of words simply do not exist in classical Islamic terminology, because the dichotomy that these words express is unknown. They are used in the modern languages....

...We think of a nation subdivided into religions. They think, rather, of a religion subdivided into nations....

Religion is the primary identity, and that is quite unrelated to belief and worship. An Egyptian scholar even wrote a book with the odd title — odd, that is, to the Western reader — the odd title of Atheism in Islam. It seems a rather absurd title on the face of it. But it isn't at all. He was talking about Islam as a culture, as a civilization, and there, as elsewhere, there were atheists and atheist movements, a perfectly legitimate title of a perfectly valid study. It is very difficult for us in the West to understand and appreciate this and all its implications. Separation of church and state was derided in the past by Muslims when they said this is a Christian remedy for a Christian disease. It doesn't apply to us or to our world. Lately, I think some of them are beginning to reconsider that, and to concede that perhaps they may have caught a Christian disease and would therefore be well advised to try a Christian remedy.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lon Frank
Member
Chris, this was a good article, but I'm afraid he was talking over my head most of the time. The one thing I got, I already knew in a way: "They think, rather, of a religion subdivided into nations...."

I tend to think of the Islam world as a big tar baby. There may be many nations, but should you poke your finger into one, you are mired in all the rest as well. (Afganistan...Iraq...Iran...) Even though, if Iraq (big big 'if') should become a mini America with democracy, liberty and justice for all, they would still be an Islamic nation, with an inherently Islamic government, based on Islamic principals. We, on the other hand, are irretrievably tied to Israel, and we are both simply 'infidels' in Islamic theology.

So, to tie this to the other thread, where we are offering to help Iran with nukes and their 'aging' air force, is it really plausible to expect an Islamic ally? Will a newly Americanized Iraq, for example, help us in the face of a future threat from Iran? Did the Saudis help us post 9/11, or did they just cash our checks (praise Allah) and retire aboard their yachts?

Which all boils down to the primary question: are we in the Mideast to make friends and influence the introduction of democracy, or are we there for short-term oil profits, and screw the future?

I would love to think that our help and example is the cure-all for the Mideast and it's centuries-long religious wars, but sometimes I'm so cynical I depress myself. For instance, if we truly want to help Iran, and alleviate their 'need' for nuke weapons, why not give them tractor parts, instead of airplane parts? Geeze, am I the only one who sees this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I think the other important point was the disction between a religion and a civilization or culture "independent of religious belief". The spread of Islam is more one of civilization or culture.

So it's not a nation we're fighting, as you know. And it's not a religion we're fighting.

So whether we're helping or fighting, we need to know the enemy.

Islamic fundamentalism comes from Islamdom as Hitler came from Christendom.

Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
So, it is not a nation that we are fighting. Did I read that correctly? We are fighting selected citizens of that nation. So, when we drop bombs on neiborhoods, the children that we kill are Islamic activists? How does this work, exactly? These are "smart bombs", right? How do they know which children to kill?

Yes, I am being ugly. The whole situation is ugly. Some smug moron sits in his office and decides to bomb children. How would you expect me to react?
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
Sorry. My previous posting was inappropriate and in poor taste.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Emotional, but we do have to fight terrorism.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lon Frank
Member
I don't think your post was inappropriate at all, Doc. You usually have the knack to cut to the bone of discussion, and I see this the same. Like Cris, I would hope we are fighting terrorism, but being my cynical, doubting, self, I often imagine we are just playing politics on a global board with expendable children (theirs and ours) as the pawns.

Did we fight terrorism is Afganistan, or did we simply make the drug lords and their terrorist friends richer and more powerful? Did we fight terrorism in Iraq, or did we just decide they needed a McDonalds lifestyle, and an oil trading partner? Are we doing anything about the genocide in Darfur; the diamond mining in Africa, which is often so berift of human rights as to be slavery or worse? It seems that our terrorists must be in a country that we have a financial interest in, and not be supported by international big business.

I forget who, but there is a famous person, a writer perhaps, who has a legacy award, and contends that the end of human morals was when airplanes dropped the first bombs.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I don't think it's possible to eliminate politics or, worse, personalities, only minimize their influence with better understanding. The picture painted of Islam by politicians and pundits laacks the insight someone like Lewis offers, some perhaps obvious, some not. I think it import not to apologize for Islam, but to know the enemy we do fight, as Sun Tzu long ago advised, and to disguish that enemy from people like you and I whom we do not fight but need to fight together with to defeat terrorism.

Lack of understanding has the same demoralizing effect as airplanes dropping bombs.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member
cmoehle
Jun 7 2006, 07:27 PM
Islamic fundamentalism comes from Islamdom as Hitler came from Christendom.

Disagree!

Islamic Fundamentalism is driven by religion, or at least a perverse interpretation of it, and fueled by frustration and disatisfaction of outcomes.

Hitler's conquest were primarily just that. An attempt at empire building. Religion was not the motivator, although it was occassional used as justification for acts that had economic and social motives (ie; the holocaust).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Your argument, Tom, paints them the same. Recall that Germany has lost WWI and was impoverished at the time Hitler came along. Hitler based his ideas in Christianity, er, Christendom, distorting those ideas most Christians argue.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pentax
Member Avatar
Kamloops - BC Interior
cmoehle
Jun 8 2006, 03:08 AM
Hitler based his ideas in Christianity, er, Christendom, distorting those ideas most Christians argue.

Nothing more than a cloak, sufficient to be in a StarTrek movie about Klingons.

(sarcasm intentional)
Posted Image
(thumbnail)

Posted Image

"Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pentax
Member Avatar
Kamloops - BC Interior
DocInBird
Jun 7 2006, 04:13 PM
Sorry. My previous posting was inappropriate and in poor taste.

I'm not so sure about that, Doc..... tragically sad, yes. Would I like to deal with it and my kids, or someone I know? Damn, NO. But is there a better way, technologically?

War sucks - there's just no getting around it. It just sucks.....
Posted Image
(thumbnail)

Posted Image

"Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
pentax
Jun 8 2006, 05:27 AM
cmoehle
Jun 8 2006, 03:08 AM
Hitler based his ideas in Christianity, er, Christendom, distorting those ideas most Christians argue.

Nothing more than a cloak, sufficient to be in a StarTrek movie about Klingons.

(sarcasm intentional)

But Hitler was sincere in Mein Kampf about these things, just as Southern Baptists were in their biblical justification of slavery or the Westboro Baptists demonstrating at military funeral against gay tolerance.

All that can be dismissed as lunacy, but some people believe that crap. It is the stuff of populism. It's brought about wars in the past and will again in the future.

That is the important of the Lewis talk about the West and Islam, to gain some insight into what we're dealing with, who the real lunatic enemy is, separate from the ordinary family that just wants to grow some crops or run a little shop.

War is hell.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
I think the largest disconnect is the difference in the view, which is extremely difficult to understand for us, is the state/religion view most in the "West" hold as compared to the religion/state view that most Islamics seem to express.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply