Islam

[dan2100]

The politics of any particular Islamic country are highly complex. Much of what's going on is not a direct reflection of religious issues or commitments. On those points, I think we can agree.

I think so, though I believe much of the same happens in non-Islamic countries that share some of the same structural and cultural features, such as whether the society in question is contract-rich or contract-poor (along the lines of Michael Mousseau's "Economic Norms" theory).

What I was trying to say, and wasn't clear enough about, is that nukes in Pakistan (and their imminence in Iran) can be taken as inspiration by Islamic imperialists, even though the government of Pakistan didn't acquire nukes for the reasons that, say, Osama bin Laden, would want them, and for the present government of Iran Islamic imperialism is just one of the projects (of some of its players and factions) to be advanced by getting nukes.

Actually, it's not as though the government of Pakistan has no interest in Islamic imperialism. Asif Ali Zardari's wife was assassinated by Islamic imperialists, yet he can't stop powerful individuals in the army and the spy services from helping the Taliban, in order to keep Afghanistan subservient to Pakistan (and block the influence of the dreaded Indians). He can't even get them to stop aiding Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is a danger inside Pakistan as well as in India. Still, he and his party and their coalition partners obviously don't share the imperialists' agenda. Now what happens if one of the Islamic imperialist groups seizes control of the central government in Pakistan, and puts those nukes in the service of its agenda?

This really depends on it happening and what their agenda is once they seize control -- and, of course, on their ability, once they seize control to keep it.

And, regardless of speculating over this, the fact remains: a nuclear-armed Pakistan has, so far, been locked in a nuclear stalemate with India. Yes, this hasn't stopped conflict between the two nation states, though it's probably made a large scale war between them more unlikely. It seems to fit the pattern of nuclear proliferation tending to lower the levels of large-scale conflict -- most likely because it changes the cost-calculus of potential and actual belligerents.

Iran has stopped being a theocracy and become a military dictatorship using religion as a legitimizing pretext (a little like Poland after General Jaruzelski seized power). But the government's support for Hezbollah, circulation of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and repeated proclamations about annihilating Israel are all rhetorically backed with religious appeals; in that respect, they don't look very different from its imposition of chadors on women or its persecution of Baha'is.

I'll try to pick up again tomorrow with other issues that you and Adonis have raised.

I'm not sure where this is going or what you're suggesting. Iran's elite seems, despite its rhetoric and ties to terrorists, very interested in staying alive and in power. (A test of this is the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War. Iran could've kept slugging it out against Iraq and losing. Actually, the Iranians showed, compared with the Europeans in WW1, a much lower tolerance for casualties than expected. Reading some of the news stories and talking to people who were following the war at that time, I get the impression everyone thought the Iranians would send wave after wave of martydom brigades to wear down the Iraqis. One might argue that that was the 1980s and might not apply to the current elite, but I think people in the 1980s made some of the same assumptions that later proved to be wrong as some are making today.) So, in my view, a nuclear-armed Iran might follow the same pattern -- that is, no using nuclear weapons as offensive weapons, but as defensive ones. (Of course, should the Iranian elite change and actually follow the path of using them, then my guess is there would be retaliatory strikes in short order leading to that elite's downfall if not outright elimination plus many innocents dying in the process.)

[bmacwilliam]

The politics of any particular Islamic country are highly complex. Much of what's going on is not a direct reflection of religious issues or commitments. On those points, I think we can agree.

I think so, though I believe much of the same happens in non-Islamic countries that share some of the same structural and cultural features, such as whether the society in question is contract-rich or contract-poor (along the lines of Michael Mousseau's "Economic Norms" theory).

However, on the other hand, I think it's more than just a little naive not to recognize that Islam and law/politics have a tighter connection because of a prevalent attitude that no separate legal system is necessary because everything that's needed is already in the Quran. This is why Islam is fundamentally more dangerous in my opinion.

Even when western societies were much more mired in Christianity, we began keeping separate "law" books early on.

Bob

[dan2100]

The politics of any particular Islamic country are highly complex. Much of what's going on is not a direct reflection of religious issues or commitments. On those points, I think we can agree.

I think so, though I believe much of the same happens in non-Islamic countries that share some of the same structural and cultural features, such as whether the society in question is contract-rich or contract-poor (along the lines of Michael Mousseau's "Economic Norms" theory).

However, on the other hand, I think it's more than just a little naive not to recognize that Islam and law/politics have a tighter connection because of a prevalent attitude that no separate legal system is necessary because everything that's needed is already in the Quran. This is why Islam is fundamentally more dangerous in my opinion.

Even when western societies were much more mired in Christianity, we began keeping separate "law" books early on.

Bob

Some Christian societies did and others didn't. The record is mixed. One need only think of Russia of old. (I wasn't aware you were around and participating in this. I certainly wasn't, so who are part of the "we" you're referring to?) And the same is still somewhat true today, though, to be sure, most predominantly Christian societies have been secularized and liberalized -- though this seems to be something apart from them being Christian.

[bmacwilliam]

The politics of any particular Islamic country are highly complex. Much of what's going on is not a direct reflection of religious issues or commitments. On those points, I think we can agree.

I think so, though I believe much of the same happens in non-Islamic countries that share some of the same structural and cultural features, such as whether the society in question is contract-rich or contract-poor (along the lines of Michael Mousseau's "Economic Norms" theory).

However, on the other hand, I think it's more than just a little naive not to recognize that Islam and law/politics have a tighter connection because of a prevalent attitude that no separate legal system is necessary because everything that's needed is already in the Quran. This is why Islam is fundamentally more dangerous in my opinion.

Even when western societies were much more mired in Christianity, we began keeping separate "law" books early on.

Bob

Some Christian societies did and others didn't. The record is mixed. One need only think of Russia of old. (I wasn't aware you were around and participating in this. I certainly wasn't, so who are part of the "we" you're referring to?) And the same is still somewhat true today, though, to be sure, most predominantly Christian societies have been secularized and liberalized -- though this seems to be something apart from them being Christian.

By "we" I mean ancestors - I'm gene-centric remember :-)

But the right thing to do, as history has proven, is to minimize the influence of religion. How inherently dangerous one is compared to another is debatable. I just think Islam is considerably worse, significantly more dangerous, for a number of reasons.

Bob

[dan2100]

However, on the other hand, I think it's more than just a little naive not to recognize that Islam and law/politics have a tighter connection because of a prevalent attitude that no separate legal system is necessary because everything that's needed is already in the Quran. This is why Islam is fundamentally more dangerous in my opinion.

Even when western societies were much more mired in Christianity, we began keeping separate "law" books early on.

Bob

Some Christian societies did and others didn't. The record is mixed. One need only think of Russia of old. (I wasn't aware you were around and participating in this. I certainly wasn't, so who are part of the "we" you're referring to?) And the same is still somewhat true today, though, to be sure, most predominantly Christian societies have been secularized and liberalized -- though this seems to be something apart from them being Christian.

By "we" I mean ancestors - I'm gene-centric remember :-)

Funny, but are you sure you're talking about your ancestors then? How do you know? Why not just avoid imprecise language here? "We" and "they" makes it sound like a rugby match.

Kidding aside, too, don't you realize big chunks of the Middle East were Christian before they became Islamic... Doesn't that throw some water on your view here?

But the right thing to do, as history has proven, is to minimize the influence of religion. How inherently dangerous one is compared to another is debatable. I just think Islam is considerably worse, significantly more dangerous, for a number of reasons.

But how do you propose to do that? I think one way is to just stop adding wood to the fire -- in other words, get the stationary bandits (governments) from the West to leave that region alone and soon any dangerous religious or ideological unity there will, as it did before, fall apart. Add to this, the far more dangerous stationary bandits will lose part of the raison d'etre. The rather miniscule threat from the Islamic world is mainly used to stoke the flames of statism in the West. This isn't to say all's well and fine with the Isalmic world, but, in my eyes, the far bigger problem is and remains statism.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Dan Ust

[Robert Campbell]

Kidding aside, too, don't you realize big chunks of the Middle East were Christian before they became Islamic...

Including today's Palestinian areas.

The distribution of Islamic believers in the world today is, to a significant degree, a consequence of past wars of conquest.

Islam is hardly the only religion that was spread by conquest.

But any talk of how many Muslims there are in the world today (e.g., some of Adonis's rhetoric on the subject) needs to come to terms with the role of past imperialism. It wasn't all missionary activity or producing large families.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

But how do you propose to do that? I think one way is to just stop adding wood to the fire -- in other words, get the stationary bandits (governments) from the West to leave that region alone and soon any dangerous religious or ideological unity there will, as it did before, fall apart. Add to this, the far more dangerous stationary bandits will lose part of the raison d'etre. The rather miniscule threat from the Islamic world is mainly used to stoke the flames of statism in the West. This isn't to say all's well and fine with the Isalmic world, but, in my eyes, the far bigger problem is and remains statism.

Dan,

If you're talking about the government of the United States, which projects its military power nearly worldwide, your remarks carry some plausibility.

But think about Norway or the Netherlands; in both countries, members of Islamic immigrant groups are frequently at odds with everyone else.

Are these clashes happening on account of Norway invading Iraq, or the Netherlands maintaining forces in Sa'udi Arabia, or either country's government propping up a widely hated regime in Egypt?

Robert Campbell

[dan2100]

But how do you propose to do that? I think one way is to just stop adding wood to the fire -- in other words, get the stationary bandits (governments) from the West to leave that region alone and soon any dangerous religious or ideological unity there will, as it did before, fall apart. Add to this, the far more dangerous stationary bandits will lose part of the raison d'etre. The rather miniscule threat from the Islamic world is mainly used to stoke the flames of statism in the West. This isn't to say all's well and fine with the Isalmic world, but, in my eyes, the far bigger problem is and remains statism.

Dan,

If you're talking about the government of the United States, which projects its military power nearly worldwide, your remarks carry some plausibility.

But think about Norway or the Netherlands; in both countries, members of Islamic immigrant groups are frequently at odds with everyone else.

Are these clashes happening on account of Norway invading Iraq, or the Netherlands maintaining forces in Sa'udi Arabia, or either country's government propping up a widely hated regime in Egypt?

Robert Campbell

I'm not as familiar with the cases of Norway or the Netherlands, but the problem there seems to be individuals in those immigrant groups and maybe the social context there -- not the worldwide clash of Islam and the West and not the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and the likely future acquisition of the same by Iran. In other words, this is a problem with local people clashing with each other and global Islamic or Western imperialism.

However, perhaps you meant this in the context of Adonis's statement about Muslims being a force to be reckoned with and certainly there is the demographic possibility of descendants of Muslim immigrants becoming the majority in those countries. (Though there's no genetic determinism here that either this must be so or that such descendants will remain Muslims or even Muslims of the kind that would be threatening to everyone else.)

[anonrobt]

But how do you propose to do that? I think one way is to just stop adding wood to the fire -- in other words, get the stationary bandits (governments) from the West to leave that region alone and soon any dangerous religious or ideological unity there will, as it did before, fall apart. Add to this, the far more dangerous stationary bandits will lose part of the raison d'etre. The rather miniscule threat from the Islamic world is mainly used to stoke the flames of statism in the West. This isn't to say all's well and fine with the Isalmic world, but, in my eyes, the far bigger problem is and remains statism.

Dan,

If you're talking about the government of the United States, which projects its military power nearly worldwide, your remarks carry some plausibility.

But think about Norway or the Netherlands; in both countries, members of Islamic immigrant groups are frequently at odds with everyone else.

Are these clashes happening on account of Norway invading Iraq, or the Netherlands maintaining forces in Sa'udi Arabia, or either country's government propping up a widely hated regime in Egypt?

Robert Campbell

I'm not as familiar with the cases of Norway or the Netherlands, but the problem there seems to be individuals in those immigrant groups and maybe the social context there -- not the worldwide clash of Islam and the West and not the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and the likely future acquisition of the same by Iran. In other words, this is a problem with local people clashing with each other and global Islamic or Western imperialism.

However, perhaps you meant this in the context of Adonis's statement about Muslims being a force to be reckoned with and certainly there is the demographic possibility of descendants of Muslim immigrants becoming the majority in those countries. (Though there's no genetic determinism here that either this must be so or that such descendants will remain Muslims or even Muslims of the kind that would be threatening to everyone else.)

Tho there may be 'philosophical determinism' by the nature of what Islam is...

[dan2100]

However, perhaps you meant this in the context of Adonis's statement about Muslims being a force to be reckoned with and certainly there is the demographic possibility of descendants of Muslim immigrants becoming the majority in those countries. (Though there's no genetic determinism here that either this must be so or that such descendants will remain Muslims or even Muslims of the kind that would be threatening to everyone else.)

Tho there may be 'philosophical determinism' by the nature of what Islam is...

I disagree. People are no more philosophically determined than they are otherwise determined. Yes, holding certain beliefs might make certain behaviors much more likely, but there's no tight link here and also the people one might classify as Muslims seem to hold a variety of views. On the former, people can still do other than their beliefs might lead you to think. On the latter, such a large grouping of people is unlikely to be like a small cadre of highly motivated intellectuals trying to consistently put into practice their views.

Surely, just looking at people in general -- not just Muslims -- should persuade you the above is so.

[dan2100]

Kidding aside, too, don't you realize big chunks of the Middle East were Christian before they became Islamic...

Including today's Palestinian areas.

Yes. And you're right to bring up Christians and others living in predominantly Islamic areas today. There's also a large Christian population in Egypt and sizeable Christian groups in Syria and Iraq. An interesting thing about these groups is how they arose in ancient times: other Christians were persecuting them in an organized fashion and this seems to have made them (the Copts, etc.) welcome Islamic invaders as the the latter basically tolerated them while the rival Christians did not.

The distribution of Islamic believers in the world today is, to a significant degree, a consequence of past wars of conquest.

Islam is hardly the only religion that was spread by conquest.

But any talk of how many Muslims there are in the world today (e.g., some of Adonis's rhetoric on the subject) needs to come to terms with the role of past imperialism. It wasn't all missionary activity or producing large families.

I don't disagree that if we're looking at how so many Muslims came to be, yes, past imperialism played a role.

The same applies to Christians. And Christians also benefited from taking over and getting to use the power of the Roman State. Often, as I pointed out above, Christians used this power to persecute other Christians and members of other religions -- something they did much more successfully than pagans did to them. (Christians also benefited from just having a basically tolerant Roman empire around in the first place. This allowed them to travel far and wide. Had this not been the case, it's hard to imagine a sect of Judaism spreading all over the Mediterranean and the Middle East and farther into Asia at that time.) And Christian states after Rome did much the same leading up to the conquest of the New World and the Philippines. Yes, some missionaries were involved, but there were legal penalties for not embracing Christianity, ranging on up to death.

[bmacwilliam]

I disagree. People are no more philosophically determined than they are otherwise determined. Yes, holding certain beliefs might make certain behaviors much more likely, but there's no tight link here and also the people one might classify as Muslims seem to hold a variety of views. On the former, people can still do other than their beliefs might lead you to think. On the latter, such a large grouping of people is unlikely to be like a small cadre of highly motivated intellectuals trying to consistently put into practice their views.

Surely, just looking at people in general -- not just Muslims -- should persuade you the above is so.

A small group of " highly motivated intellectuals " is enough to wreak incredible havoc if they are in power. I don't have to cite examples of this, it's everywhere - past and present.

Just like Naziism + power = big trouble, Islam + power = big trouble too.

So, you only have two choices really. Eliminate Islam (not possible), or make damn sure it never touches the power sphere in any country that hopes to remain "civilized".

Bob

Edited March 25, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[dan2100]

I disagree. People are no more philosophically determined than they are otherwise determined. Yes, holding certain beliefs might make certain behaviors much more likely, but there's no tight link here and also the people one might classify as Muslims seem to hold a variety of views. On the former, people can still do other than their beliefs might lead you to think. On the latter, such a large grouping of people is unlikely to be like a small cadre of highly motivated intellectuals trying to consistently put into practice their views.

Surely, just looking at people in general -- not just Muslims -- should persuade you the above is so.

A small group of " highly motivated intellectuals " is enough to wreak incredible havoc if they are in power. I don't have to cite examples of this, it's everywhere - past and present.

Just like Naziism + power = big trouble, Islam + power = big trouble too.

I think this depends on the context. The Nazis, since you bring them up, were not in a really healthy, basically libertarian culture.

So, you only have two choices really. Eliminate Islam (not possible), or make damn sure it never touches the power sphere in any country that hopes to remain "civilized".

In terms of the latter choice, I would just try to reduce the "power sphere" everywhere. This reminds me of a discussion I once had with faux libertarian (he was actually a neocon in my view) over McCarthyism. The neocon took the position that McCarthy really should've weeded out infilitrators in government. My view is just eliminate those positions of power and there's nothing to infilitrate. This is kind of like, "An enemy might sabotage our five year plan, so we need to have strong secret police force to make sure that doesn't happen" vs. "Let's have a free market so there is no five year plan for any enemy, real or imagined, to sabotage and then we don't have to worry about having a secret police." (Or George H. Smith might call this a Confucian vs. a Taoist approach.)

[Leonid]

Dan:” An enemy might sabotage our five year plan, so we need to have strong secret police force to make sure that doesn't happen" vs. "Let's have a free market so there is no five year plan for any enemy, real or imagined, to sabotage and then we don't have to worry about having a secret police."

History shows that elimination of "five-year planers" could at least as difficult as elimination of radical militant power hungry Islamists.

[dan2100]

Dan:" An enemy might sabotage our five year plan, so we need to have strong secret police force to make sure that doesn't happen" vs. "Let's have a free market so there is no five year plan for any enemy, real or imagined, to sabotage and then we don't have to worry about having a secret police."

History shows that elimination of "five-year planers" could at least as difficult as elimination of radical militant power hungry Islamists.

So then are you arguing for creating a strong secret police force to help the five-year planners out here? My analogy was meant, of course, in the context of McCarthyism -- where Americans, I believe, had the difficult yet not impossible option of actually stepping back from their rampant welfare-warfare statism and moving toward a free society rather than trying to make sure that welfare-warfare state wasn't co-opted by enemy agents. Sadly, fear won the day.

(The actual history of that era, too, now seems to show Soviet infiltration was at a nadir -- mainly because the deepest penetration was during the 1930s, but then Stalin, in all his paranoia, destroyed his network of infiltrators. That actually should be a lesson in totalitarian politics: totalitarian regimes are much more brittle if not downright weaker than they appear to be. Their elites tend to self-destruct because of paranoia -- partly, too, because they can never really trust their supporters for reasons illustrated by Natan Sharansky and Ron Dermer in their The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. Aside from this, central planning doesn't work -- as many have shown and history seem to reveal.)

[Leonid]

Dan: “So then are you arguing for creating a strong secret police force to help the five-year planners out here?”

Out where? The only five-year planners left in Cuba and North-Korea. I don’t think that strong secret police force is going to help them for a long. For other hand militant Islam is thriving exactly because it has strong connection with the structures of political power which supplies it with money, ammunition, tools of propaganda, diplomatic back-up etc…Separation between Mosque and State is desirable solution, however unforeseeable in the near future. In the West a divorce between Church and State was an end-result of hundreds years of development–from Renaissance to Enlightenment to French and American Revolution.In the world of Islam such a process hasn’t started yet. To import it would be a futile exercise, as American invasion to Iraq and Afghanistan proved. Moreover,reduction of State's powers is not going to happen even in the West in our life's time. All indications that it's going to grow.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Leonid

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just like Naziism + power = big trouble, Islam + power = big trouble too.

So, you only have two choices really. Eliminate Islam (not possible), or make damn sure it never touches the power sphere in any country that hopes to remain "civilized".

Bob,

I'm curious. Do you know the difference between Islam and Islamism?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Just like Naziism + power = big trouble, Islam + power = big trouble too.

So, you only have two choices really. Eliminate Islam (not possible), or make damn sure it never touches the power sphere in any country that hopes to remain "civilized".

Bob,

I'm curious. Do you know the difference between Islam and Islamism?

Michael

Islam is the religion specified in the Q'ran and the Hadiths. What is Islamism?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 28, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Leonid]

•

Islamism (Islam+-ism; Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎ al-Islam al-Siyāsiyy, lit., "Political Islam") is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically.( Wikipedia)

Islamism

Arabic: 'islāmiyya

"Group of ideologies in Islam that want to use the Sharia, Muslim Law, to its full extent, meaning that secular forms of governments and institutions are considered foreign to a true Muslim society.Islamists are strongly concerned about social differences, between the rich and the poor world, as well as inside the Muslim communities. As responsibility for the poor and the needing is central to Islam, any situation with unevenly divided wealth and many poor people are unacceptable to a zealous Muslim."(Looklex encyclopedia)

Since any holy scripture is a mixture of contradictory and often cryptic messages, everybody can interpret it according to expediency of the of given political situation. One can find support in Qur'an for everything-for war and peace, for hatred to infidel and kaffir and for peaceful co-existence with them and so far and so on. This is the basis for Islamism which applies Qur'an and Hadit in order to solve current political and social problems. Obviously the question is how the mere mortal with his limited understanding can see and let alone interpret unlimited divine wisdom?

Islam is submission to the Will of Allah. But what is His Will? Who can tell what exact meaning of each and every sura is? Different people interpret Qur’an differently. As Dr. El Fadl put it:” When we often speak about Islam, simply saying “Islam” is grossly insufficient. What we are presented with when we say, “Islam,” is various attempts by various human beings acting within a variety of contexts subject to a variety of contingencies and attempting to represent or assert something on behalf of the divine."(“Speaking, Killing and Loving in God's Name" The Levinson Lectures, November 7, 2003.)-and that applicable to any religion. Wahhabist version of Islam promotes indiscriminate killing while classical Islamic law explicitly prohibits murdering people without differentiating between the aggressor (muhârib) and the non-aggressor ('ghaira muharib). Fikh (Islamic jurisprudence) has prohibited this kind of random killing ('qatlul ghîlah). Qatlul ghîlah is a form of murder, where the object does not have any chance to defend himself or herself. (Islam and the Theology of Power by Khaled Abou El Fadl) { I don’t know whether these rules also applicable to non-Muslims-Leonid}

As I mentioned before, different people use different part of Holy Scriptures and adjust them to suit their current agendas. For example, Ten Commandments are pillars of Christian faith. However Christians conveniently ignore “You shall not make for yourself a graven image”-and for the proof visit any Catholic or Orthodox church. Jesus said “It easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law" (Luke 16). And here is another example from Holy Scripture: Greek woman begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. Jesus responded “First let the children eat all they want for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."(Mark 27).Does that mean that Jesus was teaching racism by comparing non-Jews to dogs? Or consider that: “I have come to bring fire on earth and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." (Luke 49). Is this also mainstream Christianity? Or this? "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalm 137).

The bottom line is that religion, any religion is a kind of delusion based on arbitrary premises and no amount of social or political spinning can change that. One cannot argue with religionist on the rational ground, even if such a religionist is self-proclaimed libertarian which is contradiction in terms. If one wants to oppose religion one has to do it on philosophical, not social, political or emotional grounds.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Leonid

[bmacwilliam]

Just like Naziism + power = big trouble, Islam + power = big trouble too.

So, you only have two choices really. Eliminate Islam (not possible), or make damn sure it never touches the power sphere in any country that hopes to remain "civilized".

Bob,

I'm curious. Do you know the difference between Islam and Islamism?

Michael

The fact that there we rarely, if ever even discuss any other religion vs religionism should be pause for reflection.

Bob

[dan2100]

Dan: “So then are you arguing for creating a strong secret police force to help the five-year planners out here?”

Out where? The only five-year planners left in Cuba and North-Korea. I don’t think that strong secret police force is going to help them for a long.

You left out the rest of my post -- the part where I tried to explain my use of that analogy. Why did you do that?

For other hand militant Islam is thriving exactly because it has strong connection with the structures of political power which supplies it with money, ammunition, tools of propaganda, diplomatic back-up etc…Separation between Mosque and State is desirable solution, however unforeseeable in the near future.

I don't know. Why? Well, think of those sleppy years before World War 1 when "militant Islam," if such existed, had little impact on the wider world. Why was that? I'm not trying to blame it all on blowback, but was there much of a separation between "Mosque and State"?

Also, my guess is, without an outside force to unite them, various militant Islamic groups would be at each other's throats. This does fit the history of the region rather well -- and also of ideological groups in general. Cf. Stephen M. Walt's The Origins of Alliances on both the Middle East and on ideological similarity as a force for disunity.

In the West a divorce between Church and State was an end-result of hundreds years of development–from Renaissance to Enlightenment to French and American Revolution.In the world of Islam such a process hasn’t started yet.

You do realize that the Renaissance didn't result from a separation of Church and State. In fact, that separation really only came about in any practical way after the Thirty Years' War -- and that was an extremely bloody conflict. (And even then there were still state churches/religions. Heck, this is partly why there was an English Civil War and why some English left for British North America -- at least, in my understanding.) Also, the result was mixed in some ways. States got much more power. (Granted, I'm not trying to promote Church power here, but there was a balance during the Middle Ages, especially in the Late Middle Ages that allowed people to repair to one or the other. In other words, almost like market capitalism, there were competing legal authorities. In my view, this is partly responsible for the growth of freedom and of markets in the Late Middle Ages. The Renaissance was, in some ways, a turning back politically because it's legacy is statist ideologies leading eventually to absolutism.)

To import it would be a futile exercise, as American invasion to Iraq and Afghanistan proved. Moreover,reduction of State's powers is not going to happen even in the West in our life's time. All indications that it's going to grow.

I don't know the future, but I think there's some hope to shrink if not abolish the state. I also think states and empires can collapse relatively quickly. Anyhow who's looked back on the last two or three decades should see that. Where is the Soviet state now? What about the Somali one? How about Yugoslavia? How about the Soviet empire? These all seem to be gone -- and gone in very short order.

[Leonid]

Dan "Well, think of those sleppy years before World War 1 when "militant Islam," if such existed, had little impact on the wider world"

And how many really independend Muslim countries existed before WW1? Remeber, that was the age of "gunboats's diplomacy"

Dan "You do realize that the Renaissance didn't result from a separation of Church and State."-No,but that was a beginnig of the process which eventually leaded to the French and American Revolution.

Dan "How about the Soviet empire?"

It became Russia, opressive and totalitarian as always.

[dan2100]

Dan "Well, think of those sleppy years before World War 1 when "militant Islam," if such existed, had little impact on the wider world"

And how many really independend Muslim countries existed before WW1? Remeber, that was the age of "gunboats's diplomacy"

Depends on which period before World War 1. Also, for long stretches of time -- going back to the Middle Ages -- there were multiple Muslim states and they often enough fought each other. (In fact, the Crusaders might have taken advantage of this, but they actually did much the opposite: help to unify the various Muslim bands and states they ran into. Granted, at this time, there weren't really modern nation states.)

Dan "You do realize that the Renaissance didn't result from a separation of Church and State."-No,but that was a beginnig of the process which eventually leaded to the French and American Revolution.

I'm not so sure about that. If one were to characterize the philosophy of the Renaissance politically, how would one best characterize it? I think it was, with some exceptions, basically statist and it seems to have paved the way for the absolutist monarchies. This doesn't mean I see it as totally retrograde, but I don't think there's a simple, linear path from Renaissance to Enlightenment. Also, this is forgetting all the progress in living standards, science, philosophy, and letters made during the Late Middle Ages. In fact, if you're looking for where much modern libertarian philosophy got started, you'd do better looking at that period.

Dan "How about the Soviet empire?"

It became Russia, opressive and totalitarian as always.

The empire -- consisting not just of Russia, but many former Soviet Republics as well as Eastern European nations -- though, is gone. Another example is how the British Empire fell apart after World War 2, though the process seems to have started with the Boer War.

[Leonid]

Dan: "This doesn't mean I see it as totally retrograde, but I don't think there's a simple, linear path from Renaissance to Enlightenment."

Obviously not. Between Renaissance and Enlightenment was a period of about 500 years. The path is not linear. Nevertheless, the philosophical basis of Renaissance was an idea that man and his mind could be as valuable at least as God. Philosophy of Aristotle was re-discovered via works of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the only saint who truly deserved his sainthood.

"He adopted Aristotle's analysis of physical objects, his view of place, time and motion, his proof of the prime mover, his cosmology. He made his own Aristotle's account of sense perception and intellectual knowledge. His moral philosophy is closely based on what he learned from Aristotle and in his commentary on the Metaphysics he provides a cogent and coherent account of what is going on in those difficult pages." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Eventually that leaded to theology of deism, which created some space for man alongside god, French encyclopedists’ movement (Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire,) and French Revolution which finally separated State and Church. Muslim world also traveled this path in 10th-13th centuries A.C., but abandoned it just about the time when Christian World made its first steps toward freedom. That was the time when Muslims moved toward Greek philosophy. Aristotle was meticulously translated into Arabic. Science, poetry, music, philosophy were flourishing. All this ended in 1298 when the Mughals defeated Arabs. (24 years after Thomas Aquinas' death).

Edited March 30, 2010 by Leonid

[dan2100]

Dan: "This doesn't mean I see it as totally retrograde, but I don't think there's a simple, linear path from Renaissance to Enlightenment."

Obviously not. Between Renaissance and Enlightenment was a period of about 500 years. The path is not linear. Nevertheless, the philosophical basis of Renaissance was an idea that man and his mind could be as valuable at least as God. Philosophy of Aristotle was re-discovered via works of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the only saint who truly deserved his sainthood.

"He adopted Aristotle's analysis of physical objects, his view of place, time and motion, his proof of the prime mover, his cosmology. He made his own Aristotle's account of sense perception and intellectual knowledge. His moral philosophy is closely based on what he learned from Aristotle and in his commentary on the Metaphysics he provides a cogent and coherent account of what is going on in those difficult pages." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Eventually that leaded to theology of deism, which created some space for man alongside god, French encyclopedists’ movement (Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire,) and French Revolution which finally separated State and Church. Muslim world also traveled this path in 10th-13th centuries A.C., but abandoned it just about the time when Christian World made its first steps toward freedom. That was the time when Muslims moved toward Greek philosophy. Aristotle was meticulously translated into Arabic. Science, poetry, music, philosophy were flourishing. All this ended in 1298 when the Mughals defeated Arabs. (24 years after Thomas Aquinas' death).

I think you're ignoring much of the context I provided along with much of history. My point was not that in the years between the Renaissance and Enlightenment -- not easily demarcated times, but they were five hundred years apart by most historians I've read -- the West veered off course a few times and then got back on the path. I actually believe some things in the Renaissance itself -- if one can think of it as a unified period, which is perhaps the danger here -- were pretty bad, especially in terms of politics and perhaps ethics. Remember, Jean Bodin is considered part of the Renaissance -- and his politics are about as statist as one can get at that time. (Bodin was a theorist of the Divine Right of Kings.)

Also, you're bringing up a pre-Renaissance -- "pre-" by about 200 years -- thinker in Thomas Aquinas. As I mentioned earlier, it seems there was much progress during the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance seems in light of that to be a mixed bad if not a regression.

And separation of Church and State, in my readings, predates the French Revolution, both as a matter of theory and as a matter of law. America already had this in practice before the French Revolution and religious tolerance -- though not complete Church and State separation -- seems more an aftermath of the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War among many other pre-French Revolutionary things. (I don't think I'd pin it on one event or movement though.) The Dutch, don't you agree, were practicing long before 1789?

Stepping back for a moment, the Renaissance -- at least as usually considered -- actually saw more the rise of Platonism again. Of course, talking about the Renaissance runs into the problem of looking at a very complicate period with many different thinkers, ideas, and products. (The same applies to the Enlightenment, the Middle Ages, and just about anything else in history.) I'm only asking that you don't oversimplify too much here -- in the sense of seeing a simple progression from Renaissance to Enlightenment to the things most of us seem to like about Western culture and philosophy.