jedidia
shoemaker without legs
Since it was wished for in the other thread, I'm opening a new one to continue the discussion on the topic. Majorly because I was working towards a central point of my thinking which I wasn't able to make so far. I'll just pick it up at Gregs last posts:
The real question is, who is representative for Islam? common lifestyle of the multitude of believers or orthodox doctrine?
We're getting to the central point here. For a first, It is without a doubt that some religions are more prone to violence. Some scriptures leave more room for it than others, and some might even command it. However, there is violence inherant in every structure of power. Especially looking at the History of Islam (or christianity), one thing becomes quite clear to me:
contemporary doctrine is influenced, but not dictated by scripture. This shows quite nicely in the history of christianity. I'm not refering to the crusades here (they're a good example too, but are overloaded with cliche thinking nowadays). What I'm refering to is the union of state and church (or Umma, in the case of the muslims). 12th century christian doctrine would not have allowed the church to be completely seperated from the state the way it is now. It was an unthinkable concept in the early middle ages, and through most parts of the later. The difference here is that after the fall of rome and especially after the schism, there was not one state anymore, and the church was wildly trying to regain control over different national affairs. The aforementioned crusades have to be seen in this context: They were more than just warmongering, they were a (not very succesfull) tool in the attempt to get more control over the european nations by providing a common goal (apart from the economical factors that led to the crusades).
Anyways, christianity is today considered a rather peacefull religion, at least in the west. One should think the teachings of Jesus would have made it quite clear, and it is from a todays perspective difficult to understand how it could have been interpreted otherwise. And that's exactly were my point's comming in: That the orthodox doctrine usually is MORE influenced by the customs of its time than by actual scripture.
The customs of the time however, as stated in the other thread, are not the same everywere.
The Islamic world is currently pretty much in the same situation christianity was after the fall of the roman empire. They even have a schism, allthough it is not quite so significant as was the one in the church.
As Abdel Wahab Meddeb expressed it so nicely in his book "the disease of Islam", they are currently in "resentiment", kind of a twisted inferiority complex because they have fallen from a world power to some underdeveloped states hardly noticed by the great powers. In theology (and islamic theology especially) this can be easily interpreted as a "fall from grace". They want to turn things back "the way they were in the beginning", as most people do in this situation. The problem is, their image of the beginning is ideology, not history. They want to turn things back to a state that never was, destroying their own culture in the process.
Another problem is that the whole process is encouraged from a center with currently unslimited financial resources: Saudi Arabia. I'm sure I must not point out that the Arabian Islam (Wahabism) is by now linked with Arabian nationalism. Their doctrin is one that never existed in Islam before. It was born on the basis of doctrines that existed in Islam before but never reached much meaning (e.g. Hanbalism). And this doctrine is what we know as "the Islam". It is a very contemporary doctrine, fueled by the current state of the islamic world and the urge to get "back to the roots". It's predecessors never had the chance to rise to real thological and doctrinal meaning during the golden ages of the islamic empire, even less in the reduced "empire" that was turkey after the first world war and was caught up by the enlightenment (and was the first Islamic state to prove that even in Islam, a seperation of state and religion IS possible).
So, I wrote a lot and didn't say too much. What was I getting at anyways?
I guess my central points are:
1. Yes, todays islamic doctrine is a problem. A huge one.
2. I believe that these doctrines are more influenced by contemporary circumstances then by scripture (This might seem paradox since the essence of Wahabism is the literal understanding of scripture. It does in this desperate attempt deny that interpretation of the scripture is possible AND it refuses the relevance of context the scripture was written in. The result is an outright rape of the scriptures).
3. I believe that these doctrines will change eventually, when the circumstances change. Provided the Islamic world doesn't destroy itself before that can happen.
4. I think Islam is more in danger of refering to violence than e.g. christianity. But history proves that you can attempt genocide and justify it biblicaly if you really want to.
The real question is, who is representative for Islam? common lifestyle of the multitude of believers or orthodox doctrine?
We're getting to the central point here. For a first, It is without a doubt that some religions are more prone to violence. Some scriptures leave more room for it than others, and some might even command it. However, there is violence inherant in every structure of power. Especially looking at the History of Islam (or christianity), one thing becomes quite clear to me:
contemporary doctrine is influenced, but not dictated by scripture. This shows quite nicely in the history of christianity. I'm not refering to the crusades here (they're a good example too, but are overloaded with cliche thinking nowadays). What I'm refering to is the union of state and church (or Umma, in the case of the muslims). 12th century christian doctrine would not have allowed the church to be completely seperated from the state the way it is now. It was an unthinkable concept in the early middle ages, and through most parts of the later. The difference here is that after the fall of rome and especially after the schism, there was not one state anymore, and the church was wildly trying to regain control over different national affairs. The aforementioned crusades have to be seen in this context: They were more than just warmongering, they were a (not very succesfull) tool in the attempt to get more control over the european nations by providing a common goal (apart from the economical factors that led to the crusades).
Anyways, christianity is today considered a rather peacefull religion, at least in the west. One should think the teachings of Jesus would have made it quite clear, and it is from a todays perspective difficult to understand how it could have been interpreted otherwise. And that's exactly were my point's comming in: That the orthodox doctrine usually is MORE influenced by the customs of its time than by actual scripture.
The customs of the time however, as stated in the other thread, are not the same everywere.
The Islamic world is currently pretty much in the same situation christianity was after the fall of the roman empire. They even have a schism, allthough it is not quite so significant as was the one in the church.
As Abdel Wahab Meddeb expressed it so nicely in his book "the disease of Islam", they are currently in "resentiment", kind of a twisted inferiority complex because they have fallen from a world power to some underdeveloped states hardly noticed by the great powers. In theology (and islamic theology especially) this can be easily interpreted as a "fall from grace". They want to turn things back "the way they were in the beginning", as most people do in this situation. The problem is, their image of the beginning is ideology, not history. They want to turn things back to a state that never was, destroying their own culture in the process.
Another problem is that the whole process is encouraged from a center with currently unslimited financial resources: Saudi Arabia. I'm sure I must not point out that the Arabian Islam (Wahabism) is by now linked with Arabian nationalism. Their doctrin is one that never existed in Islam before. It was born on the basis of doctrines that existed in Islam before but never reached much meaning (e.g. Hanbalism). And this doctrine is what we know as "the Islam". It is a very contemporary doctrine, fueled by the current state of the islamic world and the urge to get "back to the roots". It's predecessors never had the chance to rise to real thological and doctrinal meaning during the golden ages of the islamic empire, even less in the reduced "empire" that was turkey after the first world war and was caught up by the enlightenment (and was the first Islamic state to prove that even in Islam, a seperation of state and religion IS possible).
So, I wrote a lot and didn't say too much. What was I getting at anyways?
I guess my central points are:
1. Yes, todays islamic doctrine is a problem. A huge one.
2. I believe that these doctrines are more influenced by contemporary circumstances then by scripture (This might seem paradox since the essence of Wahabism is the literal understanding of scripture. It does in this desperate attempt deny that interpretation of the scripture is possible AND it refuses the relevance of context the scripture was written in. The result is an outright rape of the scriptures).
3. I believe that these doctrines will change eventually, when the circumstances change. Provided the Islamic world doesn't destroy itself before that can happen.
4. I think Islam is more in danger of refering to violence than e.g. christianity. But history proves that you can attempt genocide and justify it biblicaly if you really want to.
