« A Cardinal around Rome | Main | Gulp »
September 25, 2006
Protestant Muslims
Jonah Goldberg might take some heat for this one...
This quest for a Muslim Luther centered on the understandable hope that such a person could reform Islam toward liberalization and modernization, just as Luther supposedly did in Europe. The problem is he did no such thing. His gripe with Roman Catholicism wasn't that it was too reactionary and rigid, but just the opposite. He thought the church had become too worldly and licentious, selling “indulgences” — or divine do-overs — to the highest bidder and the like.
The early Protestants were hardly “moderates” and, normally, secular liberals are keen to make this point. When was the last time you heard a Western liberal pine for a return of Puritanism? Luther and his immediate successors were true believers. And, while enormous theological and historical differences shouldn't be overlooked, today's Islamic fundamentalists have quite a bit in common with these religious crusaders.
Many Protestant sects were as austere as bin Laden's Wahhabi faith. The doctrines that birthed the Amish were hardly “modernizing.” Other faiths were more violent. Mobs of Protestant iconoclasts rampaged through European capitals smashing “Catholic” sculptures and burning paintings that violated biblical injunctions against graven images.
In the early 20th century, Muslim zealots launched a remarkably similar project. For example, in 1925 Ibn Saud, a patriarch of the Saudi dynasty and a follower of the puritanical Wahhabi sect of Islam, ordered the destruction of the sacred tombs and mosques of Mohammed and his early followers. They razed Mohammed's home and the graves of the prophet's mother and first wife. The prophet's tomb was barely spared thanks to popular opposition. Today, Saudi authorities are in the process of destroying ancient art and architecture of Mecca and Medina out of the same puritanical zeal. A similar fanaticism inspired the Taliban to blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas, to ban music and even kite flying.
The West is surely indebted to Protestantism. But the idea that liberal secularism was born from it steals a few bases. Protestantism lent itself to being a state religion even more than Catholicism did. And while Christianity has long recognized the distinction between secular and religious authority, the reality is that secularism rests on a foundation of blood, not theology. The Reformation inaugurated an era of relentless religious wars. French Catholics slaughtered Protestant French Huguenots. Calvinists and Lutherans beat the stuffing out of each other. The bloodshed continued until, as British historian Herbert Butterfield put it, religious tolerance became “the last policy that remained when it had proved impossible to go on fighting any longer.” Secular tolerance, in other words, defined the terms of cease-fire.
What might be called the Muslim Protestant Reformation began with the demise of the closest thing the Muslim world had to a Catholic Church: the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, unlike the church, which was strong enough to fight back, the “Sick Man of Europe” just up and died, ceding the battlefield to zealots. Without the push-and-pull that birthed Western social compromise, Islam simply replaced religious authoritarianism with religious totalitarianism. Tellingly, Lebanon, which endured years of religious civil war, is an exception to this dynamic in the Arab world.
Today, Islam is chockablock with Muslim Luthers claiming to have a monopoly on the Quran's true meaning. Murderers can shop around for a fatwa endorsing the most horrific — and technically un-Islamic — barbarism like junkies searching for a corrupt doctor with a prescription pad for hire.
No, what the Muslim world needs is a pope. Large, old institutions such as the Catholic Church have the “worldliness” to value flexibility and tolerance, and the moral and theological authority to clamp down on those who see compromise as heresy. Pope Clement XIV's famous, or infamous, suppression of Jesuits in 1773 might be an example of both qualities. The Ottoman Empire played a similar, if imperfect, role before its demise. In its absence, Islamic Lilliputians run amok. Ironically, Muslims don't want this divisiveness. The jihadists strive to restore the caliphate as an Islamist thousand-year Reich. But even the moderates long for unity among the Islamic nations. They might one day forge the sort of compromise we in the West reached, but the road map there isn't well illuminated by our past.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Actually, bin Laden is more like Carlstadt, but why quibble? It's good to find somebody who actually understands history for a change. The Ottoman Empire, where the sultan was also Caliph, was the best friend Christians in the Muslim world had: not a real pal, of course, but a slightly benevolent enemy. In fact, the situation that led the Crusades was similar, only in that case the Turks were the problem. Since they had destroyed the previously existing power structure in the Near East, the local Christians, and particularly Western pilgrims to the Holy Land, were more exposed to the dangers inherent in disorder. Alexius Comnenus asked for help defending Constantinople, but capturing Jerusalem would not do much for that. If the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad (who had been destroyed by the Turks) or the Fatimid caliphs in Cairo (whose control of the Levant had been diminished and weakened by them) had been able to assure order in the Holy Land and the routes to it, the focus might have been on saving Constantinople rather than retaking Jerusalem. Having some kind of central authority in the Muslim world has always been a benefit to the dhimmi.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Sep 25, 2006 10:32:02 AM
Well, this is a nice corrective to the Whig version of history, but it doesn't go far enough. The problem is, we've got secularists who think all religions are false, but they're willing to put up with religions as harmless, or even useful, provided the religions don't interfere with their programs.
We need to start asking ourselves, not "What is harmless or useful?", but, ""What is true?" If Islam is true (it isn't), it should not be reformed, but, rather, accepted by all. And if Islam is false (it is), no one should accept and practice it, no matter how tolerant and non-interfering with secular ways it may become.
It is a sin against charity (under most circumstances) to kill people who are in error, but it is also a sin against charity to allow them to remain in error without a(n intellectual and prayerful) fight.
Both Mr. Goldberg and those who argue for the need of an Islamic "Reformation" are gnostics: they think they've got the hidden truth (the glories of secularism), but the rest of us may be allowed to wallow in the useful fictions of religion.
We Catholics need to beware that, in seeking to de-fang Islam, our own teeth aren't removed as well. The Truth must be accepted whole, even if it has some bite to it (which it does).
Posted by: Boko at Sep 25, 2006 10:46:33 AM
This is not bad, but Goldberg only skirts with the key issue: the nature of revelation. First, the reformation in western Europe was a reformation of doctrine, not a reformation of behavior. This is key. Because Luther and Calvin rejected the authority of the Bishop of Rome, they needed something else to underpin their version of Christianity. What they came up was sola scriptura-- the bible alone. And of course, sola scriptura is the essence of Islam: it's entire revelation is a text "dictated" to the prophet.
This notion of revelation is dangerous. After all, if we believed that the word of God was first and foremost a written text, then how would be explain such things as the herem, the curse of destruction in the Old Testamant? But if the word of God is a person, Jesus the Christ, who is also the wisdom and reason of God, then we look at everything in a new light. The church preserves the memory of Christ, not an unchanged text.
There's another way to look at this. We believe that God is reasonable and that, because in a pathetically small but real way, we too are reasonable, how we think bears sufficient resemblance to how God thinks for us to assert that God is an infinite and eternal Intellect and have a truthful idea of what the assertion means. Voluntarists deny this, asserting instead that God is pure power or pure will. Islam, during its golden age, took the intellectual position, allowing for a fruitful dialogue between Muslim theologians and Aquinas (and others). But somewhere along the line, Islam embraced voluntarism and it was all downhill after that. The pope, talking about Duns Scotus, mentions the problem with voluntarism: by denying reason, it could easily lead to a capricious God.
I think that voluntarism and "sola scriptura" gel naturally together, but it doesn't have to be that way. It wasn't always that way. Islam's notion of revelation was compatible with a God of reason in its early years. The problem with Islam is that it has already had its "reformation" and we are still paying the price. What Islam needs is a counter-reformation.
Posted by: Morning's Minion at Sep 25, 2006 11:09:32 AM
I think that Mr. Goldberg is making a historical, not a theological point. I don't think that by comparing historical developments in the history of Christianity and Islam he is passing judgement on the truth or falsity of either or both. Of course, as Christians we believe that in the general scheme of things, the question of truth or falsity is of the greatest, indeed ultimate, importance. Nevertheless, it is possible to judge, given that there are a vast number of people who are deceived into believing in Islam, which arrangement within the Islamic world could be most beneficial, or least harmful, to Christians. It may be the case that Mr. Goldberg is a Gnostic--but he doesn't manifest it here. It's the Whigs, with whom Mr. Goldberg (following Herbert Butterfield) is arguing, who are the real Gnostics, since they pretend to a hidden knowledge of some perfect future state toward which history is headed, and by which standard all history must be judged.
Mr. Goldberg may be avoiding a discussion of the nature of revelation--but that's not what his article is about. One can discuss what people believe about revelation without evaluating the accuracy of their belief. Clearly one cannot believe what Christians of any kind believe about revelation and be a Muslim, but it is possible to reflect on the similarities in the approach to the question by various kinds of Muslims and Christians.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Sep 25, 2006 11:41:51 AM
I think that Mr. Goldberg is making a historical, not a theological point. I don't think that by comparing historical developments in the history of Christianity and Islam he is passing judgement on the truth or falsity of either or both. Of course, as Christians we believe that in the general scheme of things, the question of truth or falsity is of the greatest, indeed ultimate, importance. Nevertheless, it is possible to judge, given that there are a vast number of people who are deceived into believing in Islam, which arrangement within the Islamic world could be most beneficial, or least harmful, to Christians. It may be the case that Mr. Goldberg is a Gnostic--but he doesn't manifest it here. It's the Whigs, with whom Mr. Goldberg (following Herbert Butterfield) is arguing, who are the real Gnostics, since they pretend to a hidden knowledge of some perfect future state toward which history is headed, and by which standard all history must be judged.
Mr. Goldberg may be avoiding a discussion of the nature of revelation--but that's not what his article is about. One can discuss what people believe about revelation without evaluating the accuracy of their belief. Clearly one cannot believe what Christians of any kind believe about revelation and be a Muslim, but it is possible to reflect on the similarities in the approach to the question by various kinds of Muslims and Christians.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Sep 25, 2006 11:41:53 AM
A "Muslim Aquinas" would be much more beneficial than a "Muslim Luther".
Posted by: Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. at Sep 25, 2006 11:44:19 AM
The Reformation did not make churches more liberal - it made them more autonomous. The priesthood of the believer and all that. A Bible in everyone's hands, and public education so that everyone can read it.
It's true that Protestants were just as morally strict, and in some cases even stricter, than their Catholic peers. But that's not the point. The Protestants were more educated and more inclined to think for themselves as opposed to accepting whatever the authorities told them. It would be an unequivocal good thing if such a movement appeared among Muslims.
Posted by: Joel at Sep 25, 2006 11:45:56 AM
Autonomous? Littler, and easier for states to control, I'd have said...When the body of Christ develops autonomously-growing parts, might they be called tumors?
Posted by: coco at Sep 25, 2006 11:55:40 AM
I don't wish to be offensive, but it occurs to me to add that the masses on either side of the divide weren't highly educated. The reformers certainly thought they were highly educated...does that mean we would nowadays agree with their conclusions? Think of St. Paul in the areopagus...
Posted by: coco at Sep 25, 2006 12:09:19 PM
Fr. Stephanos, I think you're on to something. I think, in combination with, or perhaps in the place of, a "Muslim Aquinas" they really need a "Muslim Council of Trent" where their greatest minds come together to provide a vision of what Islam is and teaches. At least with a commonly accepted set of definitions a discussion can begin.
Given the autonomy of the various mosques and their various leaders I'm not sure that a singular "Aquinas" would be followed by the greater number of Muslims, who may be swayed by a Council of a number of their theologians speaking in unity. I believe it is that type of introspective criticality the Pope was suggesting as a necessary predecessor to positive discussion. But if they'll take it from an Aquinas I'm more than happy to see this discussion begin. Perhaps in time they will see the Truth and this will all be a footnote in history...
Posted by: Peter at Sep 25, 2006 12:21:37 PM
The difficult thing in comparing Islam with Christological development is having to rehash the prejudices already established. The muddling of the Reformation with the Enlightenment doesn't help matters. Half the time when I see people say Islam needs a Reformation, I think they actually believe Islam needs an Englightenment. In a sense Islam already had a Reformation shortly after the death of Muhammad. But even this kind of talk somewhat muddles the waters.
If I were to make a comparison, I would probably compare Muslims to Baptists. Each mosque enjoys some autonomy; there are conventions that unite various mosques as there are conventions that unite various Baptist churches, e.g. Southern Baptist Convention. The 5 pillars of Islam are very Baptistic in tone, if not letter. (The Testimony of Faith, Ritual Prayer, Obligatory almsgiving, Fasting, The Pilgrimage to Mecca) Other beliefs coincide as well including prohibitions on alcohol and tobacco. There are admittedly areas where the comparison breaks down.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Sep 25, 2006 12:22:37 PM
Islam had a Muslim Aquinas - or at least a period of amazing Aristotelianism - and the body of scholars (ulema - it's not a 'clergy,' per se, but is sure is a professoriate) rejected it and philosophical speculation in general - the real continuators of Averroes are all Christian in part because Islam slammed shut that door.
I'm reading a very good survey text history of Arabic literature in preparation for teaching Islamic art and architecture next semester and noticed once again the elision of the end of that history. The author discusses the high point of philosophy in the Arabic-speaking and writing world (several of the important authors were actually Persian), hits period and two carriage returns and starts in about poetry. They have no successors. He doesn't mention that part.
His sections on specific genres of poetry, however, often bring us up to authors of the 20th century.
The difference is inconspicuous unless you're watching for it.
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Sep 25, 2006 12:30:31 PM
Here's what Diogenes has to say about Averroes:
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3818
Sobering...
Posted by: coco at Sep 25, 2006 12:40:31 PM
Woops. Not Diogenes, Leila. If the link is broken just copy as far as "offtherecord" and scrollm down.
Posted by: coco at Sep 25, 2006 12:44:37 PM
Only a non-Christian, who happens to know little of Christianity and less of Islam as well, could come up with such a stupid analogy. The folks running the Muslim show now are to a large extent "Protestant Muslims" (to borrow his analogy). Islam was more open to Reason and a more profound cultural force between the time of the end of its big conquests and the dawn of our Western Middle ages.
Goldberg is a Whig, as is evident from his imagined history.
Posted by: Mark R at Sep 25, 2006 1:26:48 PM
My issue is far less historical or theological.
The kite-flying complaint ("oh, those mean Talibs!") is just western propaganda.
In Pakistan and Afghanistan, kids line their kites with razor blades and "fight" with the kites, trying to cut each others kites or strings. The winner is the last one standing.
Naturally, once kites are "cut down", their debris comes back down and flys through neighborhoods, not infrequently with tragic results - ie. completely uninvolved people getting slashed by debris.
The media really went after the "kite issue" to make the Taliban look "mean-spirited". But the ban on kites was totally reasonable. Frankly, why even bring it up?
Watching a woman get shot in the head more than does the job of convincing me of the barbarity of the Taliban. I don't need to hear about kites.
Posted by: Ian at Sep 25, 2006 1:51:57 PM
"Only a non-Christian, who happens to know little of Christianity and less of Islam as well, could come up with such a stupid analogy. "
Did you read Goldberg's essay? He's saying the problem is precisely too many Protestants and no Popes within House of Islam.
PVO
Posted by: mulopwepaul at Sep 25, 2006 3:45:17 PM
I think, in combination with, or perhaps in the place of, a "Muslim Aquinas" they really need a "Muslim Council of Trent" where their greatest minds come together to provide a vision of what Islam is and teaches.
I'm not so sure that would be an unmitigated good. What if they decide it is and teaches exactly what Mohammed did and taught?
Posted by: c amtt at Sep 25, 2006 3:54:00 PM
From the quibble department: What is it with Goldberg and the metaphor "that steals a base," which he uses to imply illegitimacy or deceitfulness in an argument? He used it during the Crunchy Con debate too. It makes no sense from a baseball point of view and I've never heard it used by anyone else.
Posted by: James Kabala at Sep 25, 2006 9:16:56 PM
I've heard the metaphor "steal a base" before from others, although Goldberg seems to use it a lot. It seems to me a glib way of referring to an unproven assertion being advanced as fact, which in the specific use of the phrase in the article is correct (liberal secularism was, in fact, not born of Protestantism despite what some people seem to believe).
Posted by: Jonathan Sadow at Sep 25, 2006 10:49:05 PM
"The West is surely indebted to Protestantism. But the idea that liberal secularism was born from it steals a few bases." Alas, the West is in hock to the Reformer's - protestantism gave credence to the principle that a precise creed is a true creed, as false a premise as
"Secular tolerance, in other words, defined the terms of cease-fire."
... in terms so imprecise that the tyranny of relativism took hold!
May I suggest certain members of the press and many members of the Islamic polity exhibit a cognative dissonance in terms such as accuracy, precision and blunders? Truth is accurate and precise (upper right of figure) yet lax accuracy with blunders (lower right) is preferable for most of us (excluding Luther/Calvin and their ilk) to the alternatives:
Rigid precision (upper left) - mean is offcenter i.e. incorrect but faithful, e.g. sola scriptura or sola korana monotheism (imagine the rings as Dante's Bolgia the further away, the deeper the error)
Lax precision (lower left) - mean drifts further offcenter ie incorrect and unfaithful, e.g. polytheism, gnosticism, atheism, agnosticism, hedonism.
Now, as in the past, we Catholics express our faith in the truth with varying degrees of imprecision to the annoyance of our critics. Yet our lax accuracy with blunders preserves the centerpoint, Logos, reason and faith. Even when some pernicous individuals fail to render the Divine Harmony in hi-fidelity stereophonics we trust the Church's symphony with Peter conducting will hit the right notes. Since Mohammed banned music, perhaps Paul's "Resounding Gong" is the best simile for the rigid precision of puritanical Islam (Faith without Logos/Love) while "Clashing Cymbal" perhaps could be used to describe the materialistic chaos of secularism (false irenicism of illogical reason).
N.B. Google Image Result found at Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.
(Alternative Google Image Result found atWorld Health Org where A is truth, B is best of the alternatives, C is rigid error and D is lax error.
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Sep 26, 2006 1:08:48 AM
"No, what the Muslim world needs is a pope."
No, what the Muslim world needs is THE pope. Tapping into the courage of his convictions, he's applying the Balm of Gilead to all sin-sick souls. Pray that the worldly-wise come to recognize his prophetic vision.
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Sep 26, 2006 1:24:24 AM



















