
Islamic Exceptionalism, and Why It Matters - zhengiszen
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/07/19/4503354.htm
======
dforrestwilson
Yes it is true that Islam ties politics to religion, and that is a weakness
not a strength.

I struggle to listen with open ears to someone who defends the Muslim
Brotherhood. I know some kind, good Arab Americans who support them, and I
also know a refugee who was forced to flee Sudan after the MB publicly
executed her local cleric for advocating equal rights for women.

That's fascism at work. The Muslim Brotherhood encourages the view that some
sects of Islam are superior to other creeds, and it is not OK.

~~~
mkaziz
I think the author's point is that it WAS working, up until 1924 and the
deposition of the Caliphate. Then in the modern era, it suddenly became
hopelessly outdated - and unfortunately since, so-called "Islamists" have
defined themselves on the opposition to other principles (secularism,
nationalism and the like) instead of defining themselves in terms of their own
ideas.

------
joesmo
"We just assume that all cultures and societies will follow a certain
trajectory: from reformation, to enlightenment, to secularization, then on to
the end of history. There this almost patronizing tone I often hear, which is,
well, you know, Muslims will get there."

Then where is a Muslim plan for getting out of this current quagmire and into
a 'there' that's appropriate for Muslims? The reason most thinking western
people assume that is because they look at the current state of affairs, see
its unmanageable, and assume that the smart will triumph over the stupid: in
other words, religion will be relegated to the realm of myth like it has in
the west. Many of us do indeed assume that a modern nation state cannot be run
by religion and its illusions. So far, Islam has not proven us wrong. Quite
the opposite, the many Islamic nation states currently existing have shown us
that Islam, and also based on previous experience, religion in general cannot
be combined with a successful nation state.

------
personomas
> "So my hope, as I lay out in my book, is a fairly modest one. I think people
> will continue to hate each other for the foreseeable future in the Middle
> East, and for understandable reasons. But my hope is that they can learn to
> hate each other through peaceful, political processes, without resorting to
> violence. From the standpoint of American or Western observers, part of what
> we need to do is to come to terms with the fact that Islam is going to
> continue to play a prominent - even central - role in public life in much of
> the Middle East and beyond. And that entails challenging our own
> assumptions."

This will never happen, here on Earth. You'll never have hate without
violence.

"For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one
another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his
brother.... Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know
that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."

\-- 1 John 3:11-15

Our only hope is that people will turn to the truth and love thy brothers.

~~~
maxharris
_You 'll never have hate without violence._

What about America, with its commitment to the rights of the individual
(including the right to worship any deities or none at all)? In this era,
Protestants hated Catholics (and vice versa) all the same, but for the most
part, they didn't kill each other over it. Compared to the sectarian violence
in England in the century preceding the founding of the United States, how can
you look at it as anything less than an unqualified success at solving the
problem of warring religious factions?

~~~
meira
> In this era, Protestants hated Catholics (and vice versa) all the same, but
> for the most part, they didn't kill each other over it

It is because both pointed their hatred and violence against a common "enemy".
And today we have Black Lives Matter, and the same hatred and violence against
them. I would not call this prospectoprospect a success.

~~~
dragonwriter
> > In this era, Protestants hated Catholics (and vice versa) all the same,
> but for the most part, they didn't kill each other over it

> It is because both pointed their hatred and violence against a common
> "enemy".

I think its more because America had strong cultural traditions about avoiding
that drawn from fairly recent experience of several centuries of Protestants
and Catholics killing each other all the time over religion. The religious
test clause in the base Constitution and the free exercise and establishment
clauses in the First Amendment were not added based on _abstract_ concern for
freedom of religion, they were there because the wars of religion within
Christian Europe weren't as distant and fuzzy a memory then as they are to
Americans now.

~~~
personomas
No, no, no. It's just that the level of hate between Protestants and Catholics
is obviously much less than it is from crazy Muslims onto "infidels". The
crazy Muslims hate "infidels" and don't repent.

Repenting is another important factor. Repenting stops hate from overflowing.
When Muslims start killing, is when they're convicted in their hatred and stop
repenting.

When Americans or someone goes too far, yeah, maybe they throw a fist or
something, but then they realize they're out of line and repent.

------
JPKab
"One of the main arguments I make in the book - and perhaps the most
controversial argument, which has gotten me attacked from both left and right
- is that Islam is, in fact, exceptional in how it relates to politics, law
and governance. In both theory and practice, Islam has been, is and will
continue to be resistant to secularization. In other words, Islam is
different. It is fundamentally different than other major religions."

I 100% agree with this, and I think it is for the same reasons that Islam was
such a tremendously empowering force for its followers prosperity in the
Middle Ages.

~~~
maxharris
_I think it is for the same reasons that Islam was such a tremendously
empowering force for its followers prosperity in the Middle Ages._

But what about Avicenna and others who translated and propagated Aristotelian
and other Greek ideas? This was done in a period before a religious
consolidation of sorts, wherein these ideas faded in the Islamic world.
(Incidentally, Avicenna's work was the route through which Thomas Aquinas was
exposed to Aristotle, which set off a chain of philosophical progress that
spanned several centuries, eventually culminating in the Enlightenment.)

------
exodust
> _it 's possible to like sandwiches and still believe in the implementation
> of Islamic law_

If that implementation of Islamic law disrespects human rights, then excuse me
if I choose not to sit and share sandwiches with you. I'll sit somewhere else.

------
elgabogringo
Good article and a point I often make myself. Islam isn't just a religion.
It's a political ideology and political system as well.

------
maxharris
Can someone explain why this story should be in a flagged state? The story and
most of the comments so far look reasonable to me.

~~~
greenyoda
It looks like it was previously flag-killed, and then someone revived it by
"vouching" for it. This story is clearly alive at this point, since it can be
upvoted and new comments can be added. I don't know why the HN software keeps
the "[flagged]" indication after it's been reversed - it could be a bug.

------
wangii
at the beginning, religions were developed to solve problems, then they became
the problem.

