| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
A good reminder that, with Jesus' "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's," Christianity can survive, thrive even, in a secular society; whereas in the Islamic world, where there is absolutely no separation between mosque and state, modernity and globalization, both practically synonymous with secularism, are always going to be on hostile territory.
"Secularlism foreign to Islam," by Peter Johnston for Yale Daily News, September 26:
The distinction between the City of God and the City of Man laid the foundation for the Catholic Church’s cession of temporal power to the emerging European state, which in turn placed limits upon the Church’s temporal response to the Reformation...Now it may be true, from the point of view of Christianity, that the modern understanding of secularism has taken the distinction between the City of God and the City of Man too far. Thus the continuous debate in America on the proper role of religion in the public sphere. But at the very least, Christians have a history that requires them to grapple with secularism as something of their own kin. Secularism cannot be completely rejected as “other,” as an imposition of a rival faith.
The situation is much different for Muslims. Islamic theory describes a proper ordering of the civil community. Secularism is as foreign to Islamic theory as is Sharia law to Americans. Thus it was surprising when Prime Minister Blair, at his talk last weekend, suggested a parallel between tensions relating to Ireland in Great Britain and the tensions in the Middle East. Tensions in the Middle East are only partially caused by internal sectarian conflict. They are also caused, and perhaps to a much larger extent, by the prospect of globalization.
Globalization does not simply mean the development of third-world countries, the spread of efficient communication and transportation systems, or the increasing mobility of capital. Rather, globalization also entails the progress of Western ideals, secularism foremost among them. While it is possible, therefore, that globalization will strengthen Christian faith, it is not possible for it to strengthen Muslim faith.
Because Muslim "faith" is simply the first, and only, "pillar" of Islam -- simply saying the shehada (no god but Allah, Muhammad his prophet), whereas the other four, including the whole of sharia law, revolve around works, deeds, what a person does in the now, and which often contradict "Western ideals."
Posted by Raymond at October 1, 2008 2:08 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
So is kabuki foreign, but one is far less dangerous than the other. Say NO to sharia.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 1, 2008 2:48 PM
A good reminder that, with Jesus' "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unto God what is God's," Christianity can survive, thrive even, in a secular society; whereas in the Islamic world, where there is absolutely no separation between mosque and state...
Yes, I have seen Muslims cite Jesus' saying this as an argument that Christianity is inferior to Islam.
Posted by: AnneCrockett at October 1, 2008 2:53 PM
Secularism is as foreign to Islamic theory as is Sharia law to Americans.
This means globalization can never succeed, since globalization is about a lot more than the progress of Western ideals. One facet is the removal of barriers between people and nations. If we bring our ideals into Muslim societies they also bring theirs into ours.
Secularism and Islam are like oil and vinegar. They can never blend. We might force them together with a good shake now and then but in the end they separate. It's the ultimate reason that Islamic immigration must be stopped. One side or the other has to win. The two cannot coexist.
Do we value human freedom, or don't we? Islam doesn't value our heritage of freedom. It despises it. The principles of Islam are incompatible with Western civilization. This doesn't mean those who currently practice Islam don't want freedom. It does mean that they are the ones who must make a choice. Thus far, their choice has been Islam.
at October 1, 2008 3:02 PM
Islam does not even have a concept of the state (something that took Europe a while to conceive as well).
Their concept is the law of force: "We are more", "This is our place now" are typical phrases of muslim groups when they think they can take over a street, a town, or a country.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at October 1, 2008 3:02 PM
.. and, yes, Islam is only a sett of rules, no values, no concept, apart from this: Submission to the concept of submission.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at October 1, 2008 3:05 PM
Warning to the ulemma - Modernity is coming!
Posted by: tanstaafl at October 1, 2008 3:20 PM
Islam was set up as a nation-state long before they became established.
"Secularism is as foreign to Islamic theory as is Sharia law to Americans"
Not only is this true, but this applies on the cultural level as well. Many from this culture find our openness not only repulsive, but a sign of weakness.
Note how Islam is 'superior'.
I have a tendency to parallel this with Japanese culture and it's way of looking at the U.S. in the 1930's and 40's. Lot's of differences, I know. However, the similarities are too close to discount altogether.
at October 1, 2008 3:24 PM
.. and, yes, Islam is only a sett of rules, no values, no concept, apart from this: Submission to the concept of submission. - Posted by: FreeSpeech
No set of principles, no articulated reason, no agreed upon values except ‘submission’ is exactly what makes Islam so barbarically primitive. A simple primitive desert people trying to assert their enslaving mentality on others to aggrandize themselves into masters, when they are nothing but slaves. Thus, they are primitives with “no values, no concepts” except groveling submission to their masters who demand from them submission, like good little slaves, too ignorant to understand that their groveling is laughable. And they think themselves “the best of people?” Ha ha ha!!
Watch out little Arabs, because the "secularists" are going to getcha.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 1, 2008 4:32 PM
Greetings:
If I remember correctly, Samuel Huntington makes a distinction between Westernization and Modernization in his book "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order." Of the seven, or so, civilizations he identified, several seemed to be intent on modernizing without westernizing, e.g.' China and India.
As to Islam, Philip Carl Salzman, in his "Culture and Conflict in the Middle East," posits that Islam is actually the socio-political culture of the Arab nomadic tribes globalized, that is, expanded to involve that whole world under the guise of "religion." This submit or suffer paradigm is not just anti-secular but also anti- anything that is not Islamic.
Posted by: 11B40 at October 1, 2008 5:43 PM
"Secularism" is implicitly the view that religions, with their holy books and abject faith, should give way to reality and reason in human affairs. I can think of little worse than living under "submission" to some pathetic mindless holymen with thier endless quoting of the arbitrary dogma they've sponged into their heads. It's reason itself that's the target of anti-secularism.
Posted by: MelM at October 1, 2008 6:07 PM
I was in the Palisades Mall in Nyack, New York, today. Never before have I seen so many women in head scarfs -- on every floor of the mall there were groups of Muslim women milling around, sometimes with a Muslim male escort. Most of the women's head scarfs were white or pastel, though two Muslim women were dressed in black head- and body coverings. Perhaps all these little groups all over the mall were a single tourist group that had split up for a mall visit. I hope they are not to be a regular presence. I see them as heralds of social oppression on the way, eventually, for non-Muslims and for those who don't want to live under Islamic law, though that outcome is approaching much more rapidly in Europe than it is here in the U.S.
I don't think Sharia can dominate the world, but the threat it poses, in the form of these people with their Koranically supported medieval approach to women and Koranic push to be ruled by a hubris-filled, blasphemous, tyrannical theocratic state, is incredibly disturbing.
Over the long term, winning against evil may depend more on creating the good than on opposing evil directly, though direct opposition is sometimes necessary too.
Posted by: traeh at October 2, 2008 12:26 AM
It's not a coincidence that the word 'govern,' is rooted, in all Indo-European languages, in a Greek word meaning 'to guide, to steer,' while its Arabic non-equivalent means 'to suppress, to subdue.'
Modernity and submission to a 7th-century Bedouin culture are completely antithetical. Every culture Islam has conquered has been been rocketed back centuries, if not millenia, in time. Indigenous cultures that the first anthropologists studied were lightyears ahead of 'modern' Sharia states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, and even Albania. If the Aboriginies were conquered by it today this would still hold true, and according to AIM they're trying to conquer it.
I have a tendency to parallel this with Japanese culture and it's way of looking at the U.S. in the 1930's and 40's. Lot's of differences, I know. However, the similarities are too close to discount altogether.
Here's where the similarities end: the Japanese had principles. They weren't against modernization, so it wasn't hypocritical of them to use modern warfare to conquer lands, unlike Al Qaeda, who, as we saw in Iraq, used modern warfare and then proceeded to outlaw everything that did not exist in 7th-century Arabia, which includes everything that isn't alive with the exception of rags and fire. The Shinto were hard-working, well-educated, brave, and they placed a huge value on personal responsibility and individual accomplishment, if not the individual itself. And of course, they didn't have a rabid hatred for women. But they believed in an evil god who didn't exist, they sought to eradicate and conquer everyone else, they believed in their own superiority despite evidence to the contrary (although with infinitely less evidence than the Muslims), and all it took to undo their sick cult was nuking two of their cities, thereby cutting that Achilles heel, which, at the end of the day, were of zero historical importance anyway.
I've gotta hand it to the Yale Daily News. I've never read anything remotely revelant or insightful in the Indiana Daily Student.
Posted by: jdamn at October 2, 2008 8:36 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)